June 20, 2009, Curriculum Continues Evolving
Posted on 6/29/2009
Reporting from Rwanda
Dispatch #8
June 20, 2009
By Samuel Totten
Rafiki Ubaldo, my assistant, and I spent five hours revising the curriculum of the master's degree in genocide studies and prevention so that it, once again, had a global focus versus a Rwanda-centric focus (and one that was largely bereft of the prevention/intervention component so essential to a solid curriculum on genocide studies). This was after numerous discussions with a host of individuals affiliated with organizations interested in the development and implementation of the master's degree and a massive number of hours involved in undoing the revision of the curriculum I had originally developed (see previous dispatches for a discussion of this matter).
We were specifically asked to do this by Dr. Alfred Ndahiro, an adviser to Rwandan President Paul Kagame, and by Dr. Paul Rutayisire, director of the Centre for Conflict Management at the National University of Rwanda.
Justifying Changes
The next day, Rafiki and I met for three hours with the staff from the Centre for Conflict Management to discuss each and every change we made. For each and every change, I presented a rationale for such. Generally, the meeting was smooth, with the director of CCM and the coordinator of the genocide studies program on board with the changes and expressing their appreciation regarding the critical need vis-à-vis the changes.
The exception was the junior researcher who simply did not see the need to remove the Rwandan focus from each of the courses. He felt that, since the course of study was being offered in Rwanda, it only made sense that each course should have a Rwandan focus. However, I explained to him that the master's degree was not a degree program on the Rwandan genocide but on the whole gamut of issues that encompass genocide and the prevention and intervention of genocide. The director and coordinator were intent on focusing the curriculum on providing more than a parochial view into the subject of genocide.
During the process of revising the curriculum, Rafiki and I made a concerted effort to address the needs and wants of the CCM staff, particularly some courses on the Rwandan genocide. In doing so, we added an entire course on the 1994 Rwandan genocide and one on the post-genocide period in Rwanda. We placed both courses in a separate module but Dr. Rutayisire asked us if we could include the course on the genocide with the other history courses and the course on the post-genocide period within the post-genocide module, and we readily agreed to do so. In making this request, he implied that he wished to have the curriculum retain its global focus versus one that was or could be perceived as Rwanda-centric.
Capstone Activities
When we reached the very last section of the revised curriculum, we all ended up in another heated discussion. Based upon my students' interests and suggestions (see Dispatch # 7), I chose to revise the curriculum so that students had the option of two vastly different capstone activities: writing a master's thesis or completing a rigorous project according to set criteria.
Such options, for example, might be developing a national radio show about genocide to broadcast in Kinyarwanda to the far reaches of the country, the development of a dictionary of genocide in Kinyarwanda or the creation and submission of a petition by scholars from countries that have suffered genocide. The petition would call on the United Nations to revise the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment for the Crime of Genocide so that it is more inclusive in regard to those who are protected under its covenant.
Dr. Rutayisire feared that the powers that be (rector, vice rector of academic affairs, deans, departments heads) at NUR might look askance at such an option. I agreed that, indeed, they might, but I also said that we would never know if we didn't at least broach the idea. He added that he supported the idea of the option, but felt that there needed to be a stronger rationale for offering such. I readily agreed and said that I would add such.
Justine Mbabazi, the coordinator of the master's degree in genocide studies program, praised the idea and said that she believed that it made ultimate sense to allow for such an option within this program as it provided students to do something truly meaningful and possibly extremely worthwhile for the entire country, if not beyond. The junior researcher was adamantly against the idea of offering an option, arguing that he believed that, since the master's degree in genocide studies was an academic degree, it should require a thesis. Ultimately, we all agreed to put forth the curriculum as it stood and let the rector, vice rector, deans and chairs ascertain whether they were comfortable supporting such an option.*
Electives Built In
At the end of the meeting, we counted up all the modules and discovered that somehow we were short one required module. Dr. Rutayisire asked me to develop a new module. That evening, Rafiki and created a new module, and in doing so we also met Dr. Rutayisire's desire that at least one module allow for student choice (in other words, a choice among a series of electives). In order to offer professors and students a wealth of choices, Rafiki and I came up with three different options: Literature and Media on Genocide, Denial and Genocide, and Religion and Genocide. For each option, we designed three specific courses that students could select from.
The next day, the director, Dr. Rutayisire, the coordinator, Justine Mbabazi, Rafiki and caucused and we all agreed that what we had come up with was a solid compromise and that the program should hold its own alongside any master's degree program in genocide studies offered anywhere in the world. It was a great feeling to have finalized the curriculum and to have all actors on board.
We all agreed that the program now had to go back through the validation process at NUR and that it should also be sent out to at least three renowned scholars across the globe. In order to accomplish the latter, Dr. Rutayisire asked me to come up with the names of a half dozen scholars who I thought would provide a rigorous evaluation of the curriculum. I agreed to do so, and that afternoon I drew up a list of 10 scholars on four continents (Europe, North America, South America and Australia) who I thought would conduct a fair but tough evaluation of the curriculum.
* The next day I drew up a petition calling on the powers that be at NUR to seriously consider allowing for the aforementioned option. I wrote it in the voice of the students, and then explained to the students that evening that no one was obligated to sign the petition but that if they thought the option idea was sound then they might want to sign it. I asked Justine Mbabzi to read the petition, which was written in English, out loud in Kinyarwanda and then I fielded questions regarding the petition. After assuring everyone that, if they signed it, it did not mean that they were personally required to undertake a project but rather that they were simply endorsing the idea of allowing for an option, we passed the petitions around. Twenty out of the 28 students in class that evening signed the petition. As the saying goes, time will tell.
We want to hear from you. Please e-mail comments and feedback to Heidi Stambuck at stambuck@uark.edu.