North to south mobility : study abroad in Ecuador : towards an understanding of decolonial education

!

!

!

!

!

!

North to South Mobility:

!

Study Abroad in Ecuador

Towards an understanding of decolonial education

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Submitted in Fulfillment of the

Joint European Master in International Migration and Social Cohesion (MISOCO)

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Dr. Alice Feldman, University College Dublin Dr. Gunther Dietz, Universidad Veracruzana Dr. Martha Montero, University of Amsterdam

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and not the work of someone else. Furthermore, I acknowledge that I have been informed of the completion and assessment rules of the MISOCO Programme.

!

!

Name: Emma Wright

!

!

!

!

Declaration by Candidate 2

Abbreviations 5

Preface 6

1. Introduction 8

2. Research Context: Study Abroad 13

2.1. What is Study Abroad? 13

2.2. North to South Student Mobility 17

2.3. Survey of the Field 19

2.4. Conclusion: Research Relevance 22

3. Theoretical Considerations: Decolonial Education 23

3.1. The MCD Research Group and Decoloniality 24

3.2. Epistemological Equality 27

3.3. Decolonial Pedagogy 31

3.4. Conclusion 35

4. Research Design and Methodology 37

4.1. Access to the Field 37

4.2. Pachaysana and Rehearsing Change 38

4.3. Participant Observation 43

4.4. Semi-structured Interviews 45

4.5. Data Analysis 46

4.6. Decolonial Considerations 48

5. Decolonial Education and ‘Rehearsing Change’ 52

5.1. The People, the Place, and the Philosophies 52

5.2. The Lkaktayuk Workshop 59

5.3. Workshop reflections and ‘Decolonial’ Transformations? 69

5.4. Conclusion 71

6. The Opportunities and the Challenges: A Bad Marriage? 73

6.1. The Program 74

6.2. The Learning Environment 78

6.3 Conclusion 85

References 91

Annex 1: Program Actors and Categories 98

Annex 2: Calendar of Activities and Classes 100

Annex 3: Course Outlines 102

Annex 4: Examples of Promotional Materials - Newsletters 123

Abbreviations

!

!

AACU Association of American Colleges and Universities

FTL Fair Trade Learning

FTSA Fair Trade Study Abroad

HEI Higher Education Institution

MCD Modernity/Coloniality/Decoloniality

N-N North to North

N-S North to South

NAFSA Association of International Educators and the Institute of International

Education

Preface

!

Having been both a student and practitioner within the field of international

education in Ecuador, I have often questioned the practice of Global North to South (N-S)

short-term student mobility for its internal contradictions and inherent inequalities. As a

student, I not only contributed to this reality, but I was also transformed on a personal level,

as the experience profoundly altered my perceptions of power, privilege and inequality in a

world shaped by imperial and colonial legacies. But was I perpetuating relationships of

privilege and the dominance of Western (Anglo-European) values and epistemologies?

Were their redeemable or valuable qualities within Study Abroad in spite of its negative

aspects? and how could it be imagined in different, potentially decolonial, ways?

Taking the opportunity to explore some of these questions, I focused my attention

on this topic for my Masters thesis project, eventually interning with a program that was

attempting to address some of these same concerns. As such, I am intrinsically part of the

communities in which I work and share in their hopes and visions for a different and

decolonial future. My research is explicitly part of that project, while attempting to

analytically and empirically contribute to the ways in which it can be better understood,

critically challenged and openly discussed.

I have a profound sense of gratitude for all of those who have provided me with

guidance, encouragement and a space to learn, both within the formal institutions who have

granted me this opportunity, as well as all of those from without. I have received

fellow students and my thesis supervisors, the later of whom played an integral part in the

outcome of this project.

Above all, I must express my profound gratitude to all of those who opened their

minds and arms during the fieldwork portion of my project in Ecuador. The Pachaysana

Institute and the educators that I worked with welcomed me in a way that speaks

profoundly to their underlying philosophies and vision. The ‘local participants’ from

communities of all shapes and sizes and the ‘U.S. students’, of which I speak of throughout

this paper, are friends who have truly inspired me. To say the very least, I have learned so

much from each of you, not only in the context of my research, but also about life, learning

and praxis.

!

!

!

!

!

1. Introduction

!

Although the number of international students has been growing on a global scale

four times faster than that of total international migration (which is common to almost all

countries where data is available), they remain the least studied of the major categories of

migrants (King & Raghuram, 2013, p.127). According to OECD (2012), from 2000 to

2010, the number of foreign students enrolled in higher education worldwide has increased

by 99%, with an average annual growth rate of 7.1% (p.361). Only in the last decade have

more specialized texts regarding this phenomenon begun to emerge and there is still much

room for growth in terms of the field’s theorization and empirical research (King &

Raghuram, 2013, p.129).

The U.S. in particular is one of the top receivers of international students worldwide

(OECD, 2012, p.363), and according to the Institute of International Education (2014b), a

record high of 886,052 international students studied in the U.S. in the 2013/14 academic

year. Of this total, 79% are degree seeking students, while only 9% are non-degree seeking

students. But this pattern is not a reciprocal phenomenon, as the trend for U.S. students

reflects an entirely different dynamic. Of the 350,587 U.S. students studying abroad in the

2012/13 academic year, a participation rate which has tripled over the past two decades,

83% of those students are enrolled in short-term, credit-bearing, study programs (a

phenomenon that will be referred to throughout this study as ‘Study Abroad’) , while only 1

Study Abroad is most frequently associated with undergraduate students, but unfortunately the statistics 1

available do not provide a a clear understanding as to whether these numbers (83%) include graduate students who participate in Study Abroad programs as well. On the other hand, the Institute of International Education does statistically demonstrated that of the 79% of degree seeking students in the U.S., 53% do so at the undergraduate level and 47% at the graduate level, while of the 16% of U.S. students abroad who are degree seeking, 42% do so at the undergraduate level and 58% at the graduate level.

13% are degree seeking, with an additional 4% pursuing non-credit internships and

volunteering (Institute of International Education, 2014b; 2014c). Although representing a

proportionally smaller percentage of international student mobility worldwide, the

phenomenon of short-term educational programs is a trend unique in its scope, representing

the majority of outbound student mobility from the U.S. In addition, there is strong public

and private support for an increase in student numbers, demonstrable by the 2014 initiative

Generation Study Abroad, launched by the Institute of International Education with the goal of doubling the number of U.S. students studying abroad by the end of the decade (2014a).

While North to North (N-N) student mobility remains dominant within this U.S.

trend, as Europe still receives the majority of U.S. Study Abroad students (53% in

2012/13), the second highest receiving region is Latin America, where Mexico, Costa Rica,

Ecuador , Brazil and Argentina all received between 3,000 and 6,000 students this past 2

academic year (Institute for International Education, 2014c). In addition, the expansion of

programs operating in ‘developing’ country contexts has been identified as a priority by

both public and private educational institutions (Woolf, 2006, p.135; Foronda & Belknap,

2012, p.1), while the Americas has been highlighted as a key region of interest for increased

student mobility (100,000 Strong in the Americas Initiative, Partners of America, 2015).

This research project constitutes an exploratory and critical case study analysis of

the phenomenon so described. It analyzes the Rehearsing Change program created by the

Pachaysana Institute and designed for U.S. students studying abroad in Ecuador on a

Ecuador is currently ranked #17 in the list of the top 25 destinations for U.S. students studying abroad of a 2

total of 219 destinations. The list is greater than the list of official countries of the world as the Institute includes destinations that are not officially considered countries, e.g. the Palestinian Territories and Gibraltar (Institute of International Education, 2014c).

term basis. The theoretical framework that has been developed for this study regarding

decolonial education points to areas within the literature specific to international student

mobility that have been identified as lacking. This refers specifically to the reluctance of

this body of work to engage systematically with questions of knowledge and pedagogy

(King & Raghuram, 2013, p.136), an element that is also visible within the literature

specific to Study Abroad itself (as will be demonstrated in the proceeding chapter).

My analysis is based on two primary research questions: (1) How does this

particular Study Abroad program manifest elements of decolonial education, including

decolonial praxis, epistemological equality, and decolonial pedagogy? and (2) What are the

challenges and opportunities, for the both the program and the learning environment that

arise, within the nexus of Study Abroad and decolonial education? It seeks to address an

empirical lack of analysis within the field of Study Abroad itself regarding the possibilities

of decolonial education, as well as explore the theoretical implications that this particular

case study may provide for decolonial thought. The analysis is based on participant

observation and semi-structured interviews that were conducted with the program in

various regions of Ecuador during a 10-week period as part of the fieldwork component for

my Masters thesis.

An understanding of decolonial education is developed through the use of Latin

American decolonial perspectives that engage with the geopolitics of knowledge production

and the existence of cultural and epistemological hierarchies due to the contemporary

effects of imperial/colonial legacies. In addition, my theoretical framework is shaped by

perspective. This conceptual framework, in conversation with my data, led me to develop

three conceptual pillars that are essential for understanding decolonial education in the

subsequent analysis: decolonial praxis, epistemological equality, and decolonial pedagogy.

In relation to my first research question regarding the particular manifestations of

decolonial education in the program, a discussion of the program’s organizational structure

and underlying philosophies is developed. This includes the people who are incorporated

into the program and the location (place) of the majority of classes, addressing the ways in

which the program manifests decolonial praxis through participant diversity, local

involvement and the creation of off-campus learning communities. An analysis of one

particular educational component, the llaktayuk workshop, leads to a detailed depiction and

critical exploration of elements of epistemological equality and decolonial pedagogy in

practice, as the workshop utilizes a combination of Andean cosmology, arts-based

methodologies and the construction of non-dominative relationships amongst participants.

In response to my second research question, I explore the potentials within Study

Abroad regarding operational elements of the program, including resource generation and

institutional distance, followed by a discussion of the challenges that relate to these aspects,

including market constraints and a lack of institutional support, both of which shape how

the program is able to reach its ‘public’. In relation to the learning environment, I explore

the uniqueness of the learning community itself, the potentials to develop understanding

and solidarity amongst participants from North and South America, and the possibility of

decolonial learning due to the specific local context at hand. But these elements do not exist

across difference (including language) and the mediation of power and privilege

differentials amongst local and U.S. participants.

Thus, through the analysis of the Rehearsing Change program, I will highlight some

of the particularities and complexities present within the context of N-S student mobility.

Furthermore, I will demonstrate the ways that this phenomenon may be conducive to the

creation of alternative spaces of learning, and furthermore, how its interaction with

decolonial education may lead to the reconciliation of some of Study Abroad’s more

neocolonial tendencies. In the Chapter that follows I begin by discussing in greater detail 3

the research context of Study Abroad before moving on to Chapter 3, where I develop my

theoretical framework. In Chapter 4 I discuss my research design and methodology, which

includes a description of the Pachaysana Institute and the Rehearsing Change program, as

well as decolonial considerations in relation to my methodology. In Chapter 5 I present my

data analysis and findings in relation to my first research question and in Chapter 6 in

relation to my second research question. In the final Chapter I discuss the key findings of

the project, its limitations, and implications for future dialogue.

!

I use the term neocolonial throughout in order to refer to the imperial/colonial legacies present within the 3

Anglo-European educational project that have led to the contemporary maintenance of structural inequalities and hierarchizations of cultures and knowledge systems. Furthermore, its use occurs in concert with ideas of global coloniality and coloinality of power, concepts that will be introduced in my theoretical framework.

2. Research Context: Study Abroad

!

In this chapter I will discuss my operational definition of Study Abroad and explore

in further detail its context, followed by a particular focus on the growing area of N-S

student mobility. I will end by discussing the state of current research in the field, in the

process positioning my own research project within the literature.

2.1. What is Study Abroad?

!

The recent trend of Study Abroad, as identified in the introduction, needs to first be

contextualized within the broader experiences of marketization and commodification of

education present within the neoliberal agenda in the U.S. (Biles & Lindley, 2009, p.149).

These processes relate to the introduction of market mechanisms and policies to regulate

various aspects of the sector (Burbules & Torres, 2000, p.15) and the heightened influence

of market interests within the educational sphere more generally. Within the span of a few

decades there has been a massive privatization and commodification of educational

activities (Morrow & Torres, 2000, p.40). Alongside this process is that of the

internationalization of education as a key element within the contemporary educational

landscape (Hartmann, 2010). The experiences of commodification, marketization and

internationalization are all interrelated, often acting in concert with one another as distinct

yet mutually reinforcing processes.

The push for internationalization typically consists of increased mobility for

students and faculty, partnerships and projects with foreign institutions, and the

incorporation of global and ‘intercultural’ dimensions into the curriculum. These types of

remains predominantly in the Global North (Altbach & Knight, 2007). An increasingly

important aspect of this process is the growth in student mobility, most often directly

related to its connection with profitability. One of the largest segments of this market is that

of undergraduate students seeking short-term academic experiences abroad, an aspect

which remains predominately an ‘American’/U.S. phenomenon (p.295). Biles & Lindley 4

(2009) identify Study Abroad programs as “perhaps the most visible manifestation of the

internationalization of U.S. higher education” (p.149), while Lewin (2009) has recognized

that their increase has attracted financial interests and enterprise to the international

education sector. Others identify Study Abroad as a specific example of the

commercialization of higher education more generally and the extension of consumerism

into the field of international education (Zemach-Bersin, 2009, p.305; Bolen, 2001).

Study Abroad as a term or concept referring to a particular type of program,

although lacking a coherent or singular definition, typically entails the completion of

educational experiences for academic credit in a different country in which the home

campus is located (Nolan, 2009, p.279). This occurs most commonly either through direct

enrolment, where students take courses at a university alongside host country students, or in

the form of an island program, where U.S. students complete courses that are specially

designed for the study trip without any local student participation. While other types of

programs include hybrid programs (a mix of direct enrolment and island), as well as

internship and Service-Learning programs that involve students in community service

Throughout I refer to U.S. rather than ‘American’ in order to avoid confusion (as operating in an overall 4

‘American’ context including both the U.S. and Ecuador) and to distance myself from ‘American’/U.S. centric narratives.

projects (the latter of which are most common in the Global South). In addition, Study

Abroad programs often act similarly to tourist packages, with an all-inclusive design

including food, lodging, orientation and excursions organized on top of the educational

components. This also entails the provision of assistance for students in a wide range of

areas (ranging from visa procurement to mentorship programs), although the services

offered vary dramatically in correlation with the cost of the program (Bolen, 2001, p.186).

In the 2012/13 academic year, the majority (60.3%) of Study Abroad programs in the U.S.

were short-term in nature (defined as summer programs or those that are eight weeks or

less), while mid-length programs (referring to one or two quarters, or one semester)

represented 36.5% (Institute of International Education, 2014b).

While the majority of Study Abroad programs are operated by U.S. universities,

third party providers (TPP), either private sector or non-profit organizations, have come to

play key roles in the industry, especially for universities that don’t have the internal

capacity to invest in the creation of their own Study Abroad programs. In addition,

universities are increasingly turning to TPPs for programs in less-traditional destinations

(i.e. the Global South), as many U.S. HEIs have limited contact with local universities (in

comparison to Europe for example), and furthermore identify direct enrolment as a less

feasible option when considering infrastructure, safety, language and cultural understanding

The purported benefits of Study Abroad programs include the development of

‘global awareness and knowledge’, ‘intercultural competencies’ and ‘global citizenship’ , 5

as a means to improve students’ employability and prepare them for the demands placed on

today’s global workforce. Examples of this type of rhetoric can be found throughout the

dominant discursive configurations within the field, including promotional and marketing

materials, as well as within the reports published by the federal government and the key

organizations that shape the industry (i.e. AACU and NAFSA) (Biles & Lindley, 2009, p.

49).

Within federal government policy, a call for increased Study Abroad is associated

with U.S. geopolitical interests and ‘American’ nationalism, as the supposed ability of the

U.S. to maintain its role as a global economy and world leader depends on the capacity of

its citizens to develop ‘international skills’ (Bolen, 2001, 187; Zemach-Bersin, 2007) and to

stem the rise of anti-Americanism abroad (Breen, 2012, 86). An initiative that highlights the

convergence of these various interests is President Obama’s 100,000 Strong in the Americas

Initiative, which is managed in alliance with Partners of the Americas and NAFSA. It is

designed to “foster region-wide prosperity through increased higher education

collaboration,” and pushes for an increase in student mobility between the U.S. and other

countries in the Americas (Partners in the Americas, 2015).

!

!

Terms that are often undefined or ambiguous, often representing ideas or concepts that students themselves 5

do not have a clear grasp or understanding of, as seen in Zemach-Bersin’s 2009 study, Selling the World: Study Abroad Marketing and the Privatization of Global Citizenship.

2.2. North to South Student Mobility

!

As discussed in the introduction, although N-N study remains dominant, N-S study

is on the rise, especially between North and South America, as U.S. students are

increasingly travelling to the south of the continent (Institute for International Education,

2014c). The strategic nature and interest in this region is furthermore highlighted by the

100,000 Strong in the Americas program mentioned above. In addition, the Lincoln

Commission report (2005) has listed diversity of destinations as a major objective for Study

Abroad and NAFSA has continued their push for a movement away from Eurocentrism and

an increase in study locations in ‘developing’ countries (Che et al, 2009, p.114).

Related to student mobility is the youth travel and tourism sector, an industry that

has recognized higher education and volunteering as its largest growth areas, which in

addition estimates that ‘emerging markets’ will overtake ‘advanced economies’ in

international arrivals (Hartman et al, 2014, p.108). Particularly in the sector of volunteer

tourism, programs are usually marketed to youth in the Global North who are looking for

“unique experiences that combine learning, travel, and volunteering” (p.109) in the Global

South. The most popular programs tend to be short-term of no more than 4 weeks, ranging

from volunteer vacations to study and Service-Learning programs. Although the Rehearsing

Change Study Abroad program under analysis is a semester-long, credit-bearing program, it

is important to recognize the fact that it exists as a particular type of student educational

experience within these more dominant trends relating to N-S youth volunteer and student

As an emerging dynamic, backed by both public and private interests and supported

by the increasing trend of youth travel and volunteerism, N-S student mobility through

Study Abroad provides a novel opportunity to explore manifestations of decolonial

education. Fundamentally linked to questions of power, privilege and the operation of

‘global coloniality' today (that which will be explored in the theoretical chapter to follow),

many of the inequalities present within the field are so stark, that they often go unnoticed.

As Breen (2012) describes, “students become part of new populations of ‘migrants’ -

privileged temporary travellers whose localized experience and knowledge are valued for

their global utility: an educational calling card advancing their employability” (p.99). In

addition, this entails a “privileging of travel that incorporates and sustains the excesses of

First-World affluence within the academy” (p.84), an aspect that is particularly relevant to

the U.S. case as private wealth and privilege in education are strongly articulated (p.89).

Although many of the processes identified that shape the context of Study Abroad

within the U.S. often act to reduce the critical potential of education (Morrow & Torres,

2000, p.52), the creation of new spaces that negotiate and potentially challenge these

processes is an analytically important phenomenon to explore. This relates to the ability to

reconcile the inherent contradictions between the ideals espoused by the international

education movement more generally (e.g. intercultural understanding and critical global

awareness) and the market-driven tools and geopolitical interests that have come to

dominant the field (Bolen, 2001, p.196; Hartman, 2013).

!

2.3. Survey of the Field

!

In the past two decades there has been a proliferation of research regarding the

potential benefits of Study Abroad experiences in general and the ways in which learning

outcomes of students can be measured and assessed. Doerr (2013) aptly describes this

trend:

[M]uch research focuses on measuring students’ ‘global knowledge’, ‘global skills’, ‘global awareness’, ‘intercultural sensitivity’ and ‘cross-cultural adaptability’ through performance-based evidence (observation by supervisors, portfolios, research papers and examinations), self-assessment (surveys and interviews) and statistics (retention and job placement data) in hope of finding ways to improve students’ learning outcomes (p.226).

!

These dominant tendencies relate to two key themes prevalent within the literature. On the

one hand, there is the issue of methodological nationalism within higher education research

more generally, as identified by Shahjahan & Kezar (2013). They claim that research often

focuses on the ‘national container’, and as such fails to address the interests of groups who

fall outside of the U.S. context, even when experiences such as Study Abroad imply

international realities. For example, concerns relating to the analysis of the impact of Study

Abroad on host communities, particularly within the Global South, are few and far between

(examples include Schroeder et al, 2009). The second theme relates to the need to de-centre

the student as the object of study (King & Raghuram, 2013, p.134). It is important to

recognize that there are multiple actors involved and their interests and experiences are also

relevant. This concerns, for example, educators and practitioners, as well as the local

organizations and communities that are involved in the creation and implementation of

In spite of the focus of mainstream research imperatives, weighted critiques of the

field as a whole have also begun to emerge, but often from a more normative or descriptive

perspective (i.e. Woolf 2006, 2010; Barbour, 2006). Overall, less work has focused

specifically on N-S student mobility (Che et al., 2009, p.113; Blanco Ramirez, 2013, p.1),

and the focus of those who have, has tended to centre on the negative aspects associated

with this phenomenon. Their work helps to map the neocolonial tendencies often present

within N-S study experiences, although they rely predominantly on discursive and visual

analysis of the field of Study Abroad. Zemach-Bersin’s (2007) discursive analysis of Study

Abroad finds that, while granting students the title of ‘global citizens’, they find themselves

contributing to the perpetuation of “systems of power and imperialist desire under the

rhetoric of universality and innocence” (p.26). Doerr’s (2012, 2013) studies identify an

uneven process where N-S Study Abroad, through uncritical applications of

‘learning-by-doing’, (re)produces power relations and a colonialist discursive hierarchy of exoticism. In

addition, Zemach-Bersin (2009), Caton & Santos (2008, 2009), and Bishop (2013) analyze

the marketization and privatization of Study Abroad, relating it to a lack of concern for

issues regarding privilege and the colonial/imperial histories which affect student travel

experiences. These authors demonstrate that even in situations that “promote complex

thinking, stereotype reduction, global awareness, and a global citizenship ethic,” (Cantos &

Santos, 2009, p.201) colonialist discourses tend to emerge if they are not directly taken into

account and/or challenged.

Others have employed auto-ethnographic methodologies to address some of the

for example, focuses on issues of privilege, experiential learning and the contribution that

cultural studies may provide for the field (p.86). Operating within Australia, a context

which he identifies as the ‘South’, of note is his call for an approach in which

“Aboriginality becomes the central knowledge component around which learning is

manufactured” (p.96), an aspect that relates to the geopolitics of knowledge production

within decolonial perspectives to be explored in the following chapter. Biles & Lindley

(2009) provide a detailed critique of Study Abroad as a whole and suggestions on how the

discipline of Geography in particular can help remake Study Abroad for progressive

purposes. They call for the necessity of long-term commitment and an “integrated model of

equitable overseas engagement” involving reciprocity with local participants and the

importance of collaboration (p.153), ideals that are present within the development of new

progressive guidelines for the field explored below. Lastly, Blanco Ramirez (2013) employs

what he identifies as a ‘decolonizing auto-ethnographic approach’ as a way to critically

analyze his experiences as a student assistant in a U.S.-Mexico Study Abroad program. The

author also presents some suggestions of ways to rectify the negative tendencies found,

calling for the need of reflexive marketing strategies by HEIs and better preparation for

students before they travel abroad including a curriculum that addresses cultural sensitivity

and the “complex power relations that characterize an increasingly globalized world” (p.8).

Finally, others have developed program guidelines that seek to address neocolonial

tendencies and relationships of dependency based on experience and practice from the

field. Although combining the sectors of volunteerism, Service-Learning and Study Abroad,

that “operate at the nexus of global university-community engagement” (2014, p.110)

through what they call Fair Trade Learning (FTL). The framework developed seeks to

balance student learning and community goals, emphasizing the role of collaboration and

the need for local participation and benefits. In earlier work, Hartman et al. (2012) also

critically discussed the opportunities and challenges facing the ongoing implementation of

FTL, an analysis that parallels my own research design as I explore the opportunities and

challenges relating to decolonial education and its manifestations in Study Abroad. The

authors acknowledge the fact that this type of programming is necessarily challenging and

difficult to do well, but that promising results can be achieved when social issues are

maintained as the central concern, rather than those of the market forces that often drive

Study Abroad programs. They invite others to provide critical feedback and discussion, an

area to which this research project intends to contribute.

2.4. Conclusion: Research Relevance

!

As demonstrated, research in the field has identified various issues to be addressed,

particularly in the context of N-S mobility and the risks of contributing to neocolonial

projects and agendas. In addition, others have begun to develop suggestions and guidelines

based on past experiences as a means to potentially mediate some of these concerns. While

valuable work has been conducted in the area, there is still a noticeable lack of empirical

analysis regarding how organizations (either universities or TPPs) are approaching these

concerns today. Furthermore, little to no discussion appears to have occurred regarding the

implementation or existence of decolonial education within Study Abroad, although

3. Theoretical Considerations: Decolonial Education

!

In this chapter I will discuss the theoretical framework that I have developed

centred on decolonial perspectives and their particular relationship to education. Although

there are a variety of interpretations relating to what could be considered decolonial, I have

grounded my use of the term in the work of the modernity/coloniality/decoloniality (MCD)

research group . This is due both to its relevance for the regional context at hand (Latin 6

America), as well as its salience when dealing specifically with questions of knowledge and

understandings of culture, elements that play key roles within spaces of learning. While

choosing to explore the following case study from such a particular frame of reference, I

also recognize the partial and limited perspective that any one theoretical lens offers and

will thus utilize it critically, exploring some of its limitations (Andreotti, 2011b, p.381). As

such, the intention of this research project is not only to address the empirical lack of

decolonial considerations in the field of Study Abroad, but also to explore the practical

implications of some of the MCD research groups theoretical understandings within the

area of education. I will begin my discussion by specifying the MCD’s understanding of

decolonial, or ’decoloniality’, while the next two sections will delineate the areas that I

have identified as essential elements in order to analyze manifestations of decolonial

education: epistemological equality and decolonial pedagogy.

!

The group is loosely made up of Latin American researchers working both inside and outside of the U.S. 6

Some of the key members include Anibal Quijano, Enrique Dussel, Arturo Escobar and Walter Mignolo who work in the areas of philosophy and social sciences. Other key contributors that I have chosen to work with include Nelson Maldonado-Torres, Catherine Walsh and Boaventura de Sousa (who although Portuguese, works in conversation with the MCD group). For a detailed exploration of the group’s work see Escobar (2007) and Andreotti (2011b).

3.1. The MCD Research Group and Decoloniality

!

Although the term decolonial is often associated with the nationalist struggles and

political processes involved in claiming independence from the European colonial and

imperial empires, it has increasingly come to refer to the movements and projects that

challenge the pervasive and contemporary effects of the Western, colonial/imperial project

today . Particularly for the MCD research group, who use the term ‘decoloniality’ in order 7

to differentiate their focus, it addresses the subalternization of the knowledges and cultures

of those who were colonized and their continued devalorization and marginalization today

(Escobar, 2007). This condition, also known as the ‘epistemic violence' of colonization, is

described by Andreotti (2011b) as the way that “non-European epistemologies and

ontologies were translated into universalised European epistemological parameters as

inferior, less evolved, primitive, erroneous or eccentric ‘culturally tainted’ derivatives” (p.

385).

‘Epistemic violence’ produces ‘epistemic blindness’ and ‘epistemic racism’: “the

non-recognition of radically different epistemologies” and “the disregard of the epistemic

capacity of certain groups of people” (Andreotti, 2011b, p.387; Maldonado-Torres, 2004, p.

34). Universalism produces the construction of an epistemically neutral subject who speaks

from a European (or U.S. American/Canadian) privileged epistemic site. This leads to the

production and reproduction of imperial/colonial relationships (also known as ‘coloniality'

As stated by Baker (2012), “The experience of political decolonization during the Cold War, along with the 7

publication of seminal decolonial texts by the 1960s, led to the realization that decolonization had to include the critique of the modern Western system of knowledge and understanding” (p.4). This change occurred in the Global South, where relationships between geopolitics and epistemology became a central theme, while in the U.S. these considerations were centred on the relationship between identity and epistemology (Tlostanova & Mignolo, 2012, pp.193-194).

as explained below) and effects our ways of being and interacting in the world

(Maldonado-Torres, 2004). Furthermore, the universalization of Western epistemology (from Christian

theology to secular philosophy and science) and the subsequent expansion of Eurocentrism,

implied the suppression of ‘sensing and the body’ (primarily through the Cartesian

mind-body split) and the geo-historical location of knowledge as aspects that shape ways of

knowing (Baker, 2012, p.1).

The MCD research group conceptualizes the continuation and contemporary 8

effects of these processes through the terms ‘coloniality of power’ and ‘global coloniality’

as structures and systems that shape peoples, places and ways of knowing today.

Coloniality of power is a term conceptualized by Anibal Quijano referring to “a global

hegemonic model of power in place since the conquest that articulates race and labor, space

and peoples, according to the needs of capital and to the benefit of white European peoples”

(Escobar, 2007, p.185). Global coloniality is a term conceptualized by Walter Mignolo

referring to “the knowledge and cultural dimensions of the subalternization processes

effected by the coloniality of power”. Mignolo states that, “global coloniality [implies] the

reproduction of coloniality at a global scale under neoliberal values and principles of

education” (Mignolo, 2003, p.99). As such, the legacy of formal institutions of education

The use of term modernity in the modernity/coloniality/decoloniality group, relates to Enrique Dussel’s 8

(1998) analysis demonstrating how modernity is in fact a product, rather than the cause, of European expansion. This occurred as the European man was able to identify himself as modern in comparison to his uncivilized ‘Other’ found in the Americas. This was then justified through Eurocentrism, which places Europe as the centre of the world, rather than an independent system that expanded (Andreotti, 2011b, p.383).

within the imperial/colonial enterprise is of important concern, as well as the Western/

Anglo-European model of higher education that dominates globally today . 9

Decoloniality then, refers to the projects and movements that are working and

fighting against the existence and effects of global coloniality and its various contemporary

manifestations. As Catherine Walsh (2012) explains, it implies the ongoing processes to

radically reconstruct knowledge, power, being, and life itself. It calls for “epistemic

interculturality and the need to make visible that which has been made invisible and

subalternized; the histories, memories and experiences from those that have been

marginalized due to coloniality” (p.22). Furthermore, it concerns the formation of new

types of ethical relationships, an aspect that has been explored by Nelson

Maldonado-Torres (2008), who refers to the development of a decolonial attitude that informs ethical

relationships, involving an emphasis on dialogue, solidarity, receptive generosity and love.

All of these elements are deemed essential in the quest to end relationships that have been

constructed based on the logic of empire and imperialism, as well as to begin to imagine

and create new ways of being and interacting in our world. As such, decoloniality involves

both the colonized and the colonizer (or the oppressed and the oppressor) as the

It is important to note here that although Eurocentrism remains central, ‘Americanism’ has risen as one of 9

the key imperial discourses of the 20th Century. They are inextricably linked as two discourses which operate within the same paradigm (i.e. belief in the myth of modernity and the de-valuing of non-European peoples). Whereas one is based on the idea of the universal (Eurocentrism), the other places more emphasis on the particularity of culture (‘Americanism’) (Maldonado-Torres, 2008, p.252; Maldonado-Torres, 2005). In what follows I will refer most commonly to Eurocentrism, while recognizing the salience of ‘Americanism’ as a more recent discursive element within global coloniality.

development of new types of relationships requires the creation of symmetrical power/

knowledge relations between these groups . 10

As demonstrated, two key aspects of decoloniality are, (1) the need to acknowledge

and rectify processes and experiences of epistemological marginalization and oppression,

and (2) the importance of developing new types of human interaction and knowledge

production based on ethical relationships and dialogue that recognizes equality across

difference. These aspects can be translated into the educational realm through an

exploration of what I have identified as epistemological equality and decolonial pedagogy,

elements that I will now turn to.

3.2. Epistemological Equality

!

I have developed the term epistemological equality for my theoretical framework in

order to incorporate the work of various decolonial thinkers that explore the ways in which

the processes and experiences of epistemological marginalization due to global coloniality

can be addressed. Their conceptualizations include that of border thinking/gnosis, ecology

of knowledges and epistemic interculturality, all of which provide important insights for

imagining decolonial education. In particular, they relate to questions regarding course

content and curriculum: the processes involved in the discernment of whose and what

knowledge is valuable and relevant for the learning environment at hand, and furthermore,

how different knowledge systems interact with one another.

Such a division between colonizer and colonized is often challenging to maintain in everyday life or at the 10

individual level, pointing to the complexity and fluidity involved in the development of ethical relationships. Furthermore, it speaks to one of the fundamental challenges and criticisms of the project of decoloniality; the risk of essentializing the differences between said groups and creating binaries that hinder, rather than encourage dialogue.

Walter Mignolo (2011) identifies decolonial thought as a process of delinking

(epistemically and politically) from the web of imperial knowledge and practicing

epistemic disobedience as a refusal to think only from western abstract universals (p.143).

This process leads to the practice of border gnosis or thinking which operates from and acts

with the voices of those who have been silenced and marginalized by moving beyond the

categories created and imposed by Western epistemology. Mignolo (2000) utilizes the

concept of gnosis as a way of incorporating a wide range of forms of knowledge that would

go unrecognized by traditional Anglo-European philosophy and epistemology, in the act of

“absorbing and displacing hegemonic forms of knowledge into the perspective of the

subaltern” (pp.10-12).

It is important to note that Mignolo recognizes that border gnosis can be approached

from different subjective viewpoints and trajectories. For example, individuals formed and

educated in Western cosmology can become decolonial thinkers and actors, an aspect 11

which is important when considering the context of Study Abroad (Mignolo, 2000, p.69).

As an epistemological tool, it requires the effort of learning from the ‘other’, focusing on

dialogue, praxis, existential encounters, and reasoning from the senses (Mignolo, 2011, p.

208), elements which are present within various pedagogical understandings of the

decolonial, those of which will be discussed in the following section.

While unable to enter into philosophical debates regarding the differences, similarities or interactions 11

between epistemology and cosmology, I follow the lead of Mignolo (2011), who for example, refers here to Western cosmology, as well as to ‘modern’ philosophy-science as a cosmology itself (p.125). I thus utilize both epistemology and cosmology throughout, recognizing their differences, but in this case also highlighting the connections between the two as fundamental aspects that relate to ways of knowing and being in the world.

Similar to border gnosis is Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ (2007a, 2007b)

conceptualization of ecology of knowledges. The latter is termed ecology as it “is based on

the recognition of the plurality of heterogeneous knowledges (one of them being modern

science) and on the sustained and dynamic interconnections between them without

compromising their autonomy” (2007a, p.11). This implies the ability to learn other

knowledges without forgetting one’s own, which does not mean the “discrediting of

scientific knowledge” but instead its “counter-hegemonic use” (p.13). Furthermore, it rests

on the “epistemological diversity of the world” and the need to renounce any general

epistemology. Similar to Mignolo’s use of gnosis, Santos states that “not only are there very

diverse forms of knowledge of matter, society, life and spirit, but also many and very

diverse concepts of what counts as knowledge and the criteria that may be used to validate

it” (p.12).

Santos recognizes the fact that cultural diversity is not directly translatable to

epistemological diversity, an aspect that is also present within Catherine Walsh’s (2009;

2012) understanding of epistemic interculturality. The terms multiculturalism and

intercultural (the latter of which is often embodied in the discourse of Study Abroad) often

imply cultural diversity within a mono-epistemic framework (2009, p.11). Similar to

ecology of knowledges, epistemic interculturality,

affords more than an ability to move between worlds or to function in a zone of contact or a border place of relation. Instead, it proposes an articulation of knowledges that takes into account the intercultural co-construction of diverse epistemologies and cosmologies, in which knowledge, as philosophy, is never complete but always in construction (ibid, p.17).

Of note is the fact that Walsh bases her analysis of epistemic interculturality on the work of

two of the Ecuadorian indigenous movement’s more recent educational projects.

What all of these concepts have in common is the centrality of including and giving

priority to those who have been excluded due to experiences of epistemic blindness and

racism. This leads to the possibility of developing a “self-reflexive epistemology of seeing”

that creates knowledge through solidarity (Andreotti, 2011b, p.391, Santos, 2007b). Other

elements that I have included in an understanding of epistemological equality based on the

concepts explored above include: the ability to incorporate a wide range of forms of

knowledge that philosophy and epistemology traditionally doesn’t recognize; the possibility

of approaching/practicing epistemological equality from different subjective viewpoints;

the counter-hegemonic use of Western knowledge; and the continual/constant ‘intercultural

co-constructive’ nature of knowledge itself.

Several of the academics and educators who have begun to shape the discussion

regarding what decolonial education (based on MCD research group) might begin to look

like in practice, emphasize the concerns raised within the discussion on epistemological

equality. Andreotti (2011b) similarly addresses the need to imagine knowledge and learning

beyond Eurocentric paradigms, emphasizing the recognition of the geopolitics of

knowledge production (p.393 & p.395), while Diaz (2010) emphasizes the fostering of a

critical understanding of history and the decentering of the colonial epistemic perspective

(p.222 & p.227). Lastly, Lissovoy (2010), through an approach based on ethics, shares very

similar concerns regarding the need to begin with the exposure and challenging of the

of curriculum and instruction themselves” (p.284). While the potential to foster

epistemological equality within educational spaces exists, it is of utmost importance to

explore the possibility of a decolonial pedagogy that could work to support its

development. This relates to the necessity of fostering certain types of attitudes and

relationships in order to create an environment conducive to learning based on

understandings of epistemological equality. As such it implies a move away from an

emphasis on content towards that of its delivery.

3.3. Decolonial Pedagogy

! !

Catherine Walsh (2009), an important contributor to the MCD research group, has

begun to develop an understanding of decolonial pedagogy from within the groups own

ranks. Her conceptualization is based on the connections between epistemic interculturality

and decoloniality (p.13). Walsh emphasizes the place for decolonial pedagogies not only in

the traditional classroom of the university (for example), but also within organizations,

neighbourhoods, communities and social movements, amongst others. She recognizes the

need for not only learning, but also transformative social action and intervention within

structures of power (p.15). In addition, she explores how the projects of epistemic

interculturality and decoloniality in many cases align with understandings of critical

pedagogy as initiated by Paulo Freire and taken on by many educators and

activist-intellectuals internationally during the nineties (p.14).

Broadly speaking, critical pedagogy seeks to expose how relations of power and

inequality are manifest, as well as challenged, within formal and informal educational

perspective by recognizing the “underlying epistemological and ideological assumptions

that are made about what counts as “official” or legitimate knowledge” (Apple et al. 2009,

p.3), while granting a vantage point to marginalized groups’ experiences of oppression in

the deconstruction of the mystifications of the dominant social order (McLaren, 1992, p.9).

Some of the key elements that can be identified, particularly from the work of Freire

(1997), include the importance of the collective nature of education, an emphasis on

dialogue, the centrality of praxis, the deconstruction of the traditional teacher-student

divide, the development of critical consciousness, the recognition of all actors as agents in

knowledge production, as well as the specificities of the historical-cultural context and

problem-based learning. Some of these aspects appear in the work of contemporary

thinkers who, a part from Walsh, have also begun exploring the possibilities of decolonial

pedagogy (Andreotti, Lissovoy, Baker and Diaz), those of whom make reference to the

legacy of critical pedagogy, while also acknowledging the need to move beyond it in order

to address the necessity and specificity of decoloniality.

As hooks (2010) demonstrates (a contemporary educator that has critically engaged

with Freire’s work), Freire only began to explore and address issues relating to the colonial

experience later in his life (p.25). A key aspect to his work, which relates to the discussion

of solidarity and relationships across difference that is to follow, is the centrality given to

trust. As hooks emphasizes, “we must always be ready to ‘give honest answers’ to questions

that typically prevent mutual understanding across difference from emerging” (p.38).

Honesty is essential to establish and maintain trust, and in the process ensure that dialogue

knowledge and cultural production (equal participants in the dialogue), an aspect that Diaz

(2010) develops further within his understanding of decolonial pedagogy. He explores the

need to emphasize the subjective viewpoint of each participant as a way to de-centre the

colonial epistemic perspective (p.226). This includes the incorporation of experiential,

personal and collective ways of knowing, as well as the re-establishment of all actors as

political and historical beings (again, an aspect that can be connected back to Freire’s

educational project) . 12

Walsh (2009) on the other hand, combines the work of Freire with that of Frantz

Fanon in order to further develop the ideas of critical pedagogy explicitly towards the

decolonial (p.16). She identifies two key elements as part of what could be termed

decolonial pedagogy. The first being her conceptualization of “thinking from” the

ontological-existential-racialized condition of the colonized, that which she develops based

on Fanon. The second she identifies as the notion of “thinking with” from Freire: involving

pedagogies that are constructed in relation to other sectors of the population based on ideas

of solidarity. This speaks to the need for everyone to be conscious of how global coloniality

operates in order to begin to develop both individual and collective ways of being and

knowing that work against and contrary to its logic (p.25).

This is repeated by Lissovoy (2010), who calls for the fostering of dialogue and

relationships based on non-dominative coexistence, or a decolonizing solidarity.

The emphasis on the subjective in knowledge production is not unique to decolonial thought and the MCD 12

research group nor to critical pedagogy, but builds on and must acknowledge and pay tribute to the civil rights movement, as well as critical race theorists and feminists within academia. This refers to those who have pushed the limits as to what counts as knowledge and how one’s positionality (or geo-historical location) shapes what is known, in the process challenging imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy, all of which are systems that are intrinsic to the functioning of global coloniality today.

Furthermore, it echoes back to Maldonado-Torres’ (2008) discussion on ethical

relationships and decolonial attitude, as well as Mignolo’s (2011, 2000) development of

border gnosis as a epistemological tool that requires a focus on dialogue. It is relevant for

the interaction between participants who may be members (to varying degrees) of both

dominant and marginalized cultural/ethno-racial groups and the need to develop a particular

type of learning environment that deals with the differences and hierarchies produced by

global coloniality. The development of “hyper-self-reflexivity” (Andreotti, 2011b, p.395)

and an attitude of listening, respect, and caustiousness, are particularly relevant for those

from dominant cultural/ethno-racial groups (Lissovoy, 2010, p.290).

Finally, it is vital to recognize the emphasis on love found throughout all of the

work discussed. It is a key element within the work of Freire and Fanon, as identified by

Walsh (2009), who further explains:

I do not speak of romantic love, but instead love as a political and existential apparatus, as a central component to a dissident and creatively insurgent consciousness that can intervene (and rise up) both within the interior self as well as in the modern/colonial/neoliberal relations that maintain domination and dehumanization (p.26).

Others that emphasize its importance include, most notably, the work of Chela Sandoval

(2000), who also in conversation with Freire and Fanon and referred to by both Walsh

(2009) and Maldonado-Torres (2008), develops an understanding of decolonial love as “a

political technology, as a body of knowledges, arts, practices, and procedures for

re-forming the self and the world” (p.4) and relating to the development of “alliance and

Similarly Lissovoy (2010) develops an idea of a pedagogy of lovingness, linking it

explicitly to that of “communal solidarity”.

Rather, students can begin to recognize the ontological, anthropological, and historical relationships - both the material facts, and the imaginative possibilities - that tie them to others, and which demand an urgent response when any within this circle are injured or exploited (p.289).

!

Lastly, Andreotti (2011a) identifies unconditional love as a basic negation of systems of

domination (p.180 & p.289), and as such a necessary element to any project based on

decoloniality, while bell hooks reminds us that love is a “combination of care, commitment,

knowledge, responsibility, respect and trust” (p.159). The development and nurturing of

what has been identified as decolonial love also requires an attitude of radical openness,

that which can only occur in safe spaces that incorporate an emphasis on respect and trust

as previously mentioned.

3.4. Conclusion

!

The theoretical framework that I have developed has been constructed with the goal

of exploring the manifestation of decolonial education in the context of Study Abroad. The

key aspects that I have highlighted include the practice of decoloniality, which entails

processes and projects that work against the affects of global coloniality. I have related this

to education through the centrality of the concepts of epistemological equality and

decolonial pedagogy. Combined, these concepts explore how marginalized and subjugated

knowledges can be acknowledged, valued and incorporated into inter-epistemic

conversation and ecological relation, and how an ‘epistemology of seeing’ can be

developed through an emphasis on solidarity, non-dominative relationships across

In addition to these components it is also necessary to identify a third element (or

pillar) for my analysis: decolonial praxis. While the pervious two elements developed

provide much insight in relation to educational content and delivery, a discussion of

decolonial praxis (implying both reflection and action) incorporates the ways in which the

program structure and operational elements present shape the subsequent learning

experiences and outcomes. This relates most directly to the ways in which program

practitioners utilize structural and operational strategies that mediate some of the

neocolonial elements of Study Abroad programming.

Before moving forward it is important to recognize some of the criticisms of the

MCD research group and their theoretical constructs. Firstly, the group has been criticized

for its inaccessibility as a largely academic-intellectual endeavour and its use of

‘disembodied abstract discourse” (Escobar, 2007, p.192). Secondly, for the fact that it is

unclear in the nature and content of its conceptualizations (Noorani, 2014), often leading to

assumptions that they are too idealistic in their appeal. And finally, for not adequately

addressing the risk of romanticizing the voices from the periphery (Andreotti, 2011a, p.60),

as well as a lack of attention given to gender and ecological issues (Escobar, 2007, p.192).

While unable to address all of these concerns here, the case study and research project at

hand presents an opportunity to explore some of the ‘on the ground’ practicalities and

tensions within Study Abroad relating to the implementation of the conceptual ideals found

within the decolonial perspectives explored and furthermore, their application within

4. Research Design and Methodology

!

In order to explore decolonial education in the context of Study Abroad I conducted

a critical case study analysis of the Rehearsing Change program created and run by the

Pachaysana Institute in Ecuador. The use of qualitative research methods, particularly

participant observation and semi-structured interviews, generated insight into my research

questions: (1) How does this particular Study Abroad program manifest elements of

decolonial education, including decolonial praxis, epistemological equality, and decolonial

pedagogy? and (2) What are the challenges and opportunities, for the both the program and

learning environment that arise, within the nexus of Study Abroad and decolonial

education?

I spent 10 weeks working as an intern with the program and participated in the

majority of activities during this time . I begin this chapter by discussing how I gained 13

access to the field, followed by a description of the organization itself, each methodology

utilized and how the data was analyzed. In the last section of the chapter I explore the ways

that I attempted to address decolonial praxis in the context of my own research and

methodology.

4.1. Access to the Field

!

When designing my research project I began looking for a program that was

attempting to address neocolonial concerns within Study Abroad, in the process potentially

Ideally, a framework for collaborative ethnography and/or participant action research (Lassiter, 2005; 13

Rappaport, 2008) would have been implemented. Due to the scope of my research as a pilot study and the limited resources and time frame involved, it was not possible to carry out a research project that could do justice and provide depth to such methods.

contributing to the project of decoloniality. I contacted several Study Abroad programs

located in Ecuador and after identifying the Rehearsing Change program as the most 14

progressive, I travelled to Quito in June 2014 and met with the program director. During

this meeting and the email and Skype conversations that followed, I was welcomed into the

program formally as an intern. My position as a researcher, participant, and intern was

explained to those involved in the program on all levels and it was decided that I would

integrate myself as much as possible into all aspects of the program.

4.2. Pachaysana and Rehearsing Change

!

The Rehearsing Change Study Abroad program was designed and created by the

Pachaysana Institute, a collective of various individuals, both Ecuadorian and U.S.

‘American’, in the fields of education, arts, development and community organization. The

mission of the Institute is to “create new models for sustainable community development

by empowering local Ecuadorian communities to actively participate in the global

development dialogue,” while the vision (where the Study Abroad program comes into

play) is “a balanced global development dialogue, in which local Ecuadorian communities

work together with global actors to identify and transform conflicts that prohibit equitable

and sustainable development” (Pachaysana Institute, 2014). These goals are pursued

through the use of a Fair Trade Study Abroad (FTSA) model, which incorporates the

participation of locals into the educational program , an aspect that will be explored more 15

thoroughly in section 5.1 and that is represented visually on p.42. Although the Rehearsing

My experience working in the field of international education in the region for years prior to beginning my 14

masters provided me with understanding of the local context as well as the social and cultural capital that aided in navigating the possibility of working with and conducting my fieldwork in Ecuador.

Referred to throughout as local participants or ‘counterparts’. 15

Change program is not the Pachaysana Institute’s only project, in the context of Study

Abroad, the organization acts as a TPP that administers international education

programming for U.S. universities. Furthermore, it is important to note that the program

does not fit into any of the traditional categories of Study Abroad programming previously

identified on p.14 (direct enrolment, island, hybrid, or Service-Learning/internship). The

first pilot semester of the Rehearsing Change program was conducted from January to May,

2015 , of which I was present for half, from January to mid-March. 16

The Study Abroad program, which is conducted in Spanish (although the majority

of educators and practitioners are bilingual), is offered and marketed towards U.S. HEIs

and their students. It’s local academic partner is the Universidad San Francisco de Quito,

who provides the academic transcripts for the semester that foreign HEIs require in order to

administer credits to their students. In addition it also receives administrative support from

its institutional partner, Fundación Quito Eterno , a local NGO that was founded by some 17

of Pachaysana’s practitioners. Its initial design entailed a 4-month long (1 semester)

program located in the community of Mariscal, their main counterpart in the Amazon

region. Due to a low number of U.S. student applicants for their pilot semester (three

ultimately participated in the program), the practitioners had to choose between cancelling

the program all together or adapting it to make it financially and logistically feasible.

The date of submission of this thesis coincided with the last day of formal classes for Rehearsing Change 16

participants.

According to their website, Quito Eterno (n.d.) is a cultural and educational project that proposes the re-17

construction/re-imagination of citizenship from a historical and heritage-based process of reflection. The organization uses research and the arts (theatre in particular) as tools in order to achieve this goal, specializing in theatrical tours of the historic centre of Quito. It maintains strong ties with the Pachaysana Institute and one of the program’s practitioners is also a key part of the Quito Eterno team. It is this institutional and personal relationship that allowed for the incorporation of the llaktayuk workshop (to be explored in section 5.2.) into Rehearsing Change programming.