In this thesis I explore the relationships between post-secondary education in the field of international development, and the maintenance and practices of white settler-colonialism at home and abroad. My method is to search for recurring present and absent themes found in French and English course syllabi of the Canadian Master’s Program in Globalization and International Development of the University of Ottawa. Through search strings in 81 syllabi of four mandatory courses taught over an 8-year period, 2007-2015, I find that colonialism is little mentioned, and when it is, it is usually either as something of the past or something geographically distant. I conclude that, for students, academics and others to address settler-colonialism as an obstacle to decolonization, requires (1) acknowledging their current role in naturalizing settler-colonialism, (2) denaturalizing the logics of settler-colonialism, and (3) working to deliberately give up on white settler futures, while other futures (Indigenous futures) are flourishing through the process of decolonization. While this content analysis is only a small and possibly ungeneralizable example of higher education and its simultaneous potential for colonization and decolonization, it nevertheless represents an addition to the few applications of the theoretical field of settler-colonial studies and of its material implications.

This dissertation explores why and how political advocacy emerged as a dominant organizational strategy for NGOs in the international development education field. In order to answer this central question, I adopt a comparative case-study approach, examining the evolution of policy advocacy positions at two leading NGOs in the field: ActionAid International and the Asia South Pacific Association for Basic and Adult Education (ASPBAE). Although these organizations differ in significant ways, both place political advocacy at the centre of their mandates, and both have secured prominent positions in global educational governance. Through comparative analysis, I shed light on why these organizations have assumed leadership roles in a global advocacy movement. I focus on how the shift to policy advocacy reflects the internal environment of each organization as well as broader trends in the international development field. Ideas of structure and agency are thus central to my analysis. I test the applicability of two structural theories of social change: world polity theory and political opportunity theory; as well as two constructivist approaches: strategic issue framing and international norm dynamics. I offer some thoughts on establishing a more dynamic relationship between structure and agency, drawing on Fligstein and McAdam’s concept of strategic action fields. In order to test the utility of these theoretical frameworks, the study begins with a historical account of how ActionAid and ASPBAE have shifted from service- and practice- oriented organizations into political advocates. These histories are woven into a broader story of normative change in the international development field. I then examine the development of a number of key advocacy strategies at each organization, tracing how decisions are made and implemented as well as how they are influenced by the broader environment. I find that while it is essential to understand how global trends and norms enable and constrain organizational strategy, the internal decision-making processes of each organization largely shape how strategies are crafted and implemented. These findings offer insight into the pursuit of advocacy as a political strategy and the role of NGOs in global social change.

This dissertation explores why and how political advocacy emerged as a dominant organizational strategy for NGOs in the international development education field. In order to answer this central question, I adopt a comparative case-study approach, examining the evolution of policy advocacy positions at two leading NGOs in the field: ActionAid International and the Asia South Pacific Association for Basic and Adult Education (ASPBAE). Although these organizations differ in significant ways, both place political advocacy at the centre of their mandates, and both have secured prominent positions in global educational governance. Through comparative analysis, I shed light on why these organizations have assumed leadership roles in a global advocacy movement. I focus on how the shift to policy advocacy reflects the internal environment of each organization as well as broader trends in the international development field. Ideas of structure and agency are thus central to my analysis. I test the applicability of two structural theories of social change: world polity theory and political opportunity theory; as well as two constructivist approaches: strategic issue framing and international norm dynamics. I offer some thoughts on establishing a more dynamic relationship between structure and agency, drawing on Fligstein and McAdam’s concept of strategic action fields. In order to test the utility of these theoretical frameworks, the study begins with a historical account of how ActionAid and ASPBAE have shifted from service- and practice- oriented organizations into political advocates. These histories are woven into a broader story of normative change in the international development field. I then examine the development of a number of key advocacy strategies at each organization, tracing how decisions are made and implemented as well as how they are influenced by the broader environment. I find that while it is essential to understand how global trends and norms enable and constrain organizational strategy, the internal decision-making processes of each organization largely shape how strategies are crafted and implemented. These findings offer insight into the pursuit of advocacy as a political strategy and the role of NGOs in global social change.