Are Masters degrees valid qualifications for humanitarian workers?

The question is what value a specific qualification in humanitarian assistance gives to those who already have practical experience. The core value seems to be obvious - giving people the time to systematize and improve their theoretical knowledge - but it's not clear that this will make them more effective in their work (as opposed to taking extension courses for their professional skills).

I'm in the middle of a Masters course now, but one that is only tangentially related to humanitarian work. I resisted for a long time because a masters degree has become a "tick the box" requirement for middle to senior aid positions, and I think it's a worrying trend. One of the things that attracted me to the aid world in the first place was the variety of backgrounds that people brought to it, and therefore the variety of knowledge. While I don't have an objection to the MAHA per se, I do question whether the trend towards professionalisation will level out that variety of backgrounds and replace with something far less valuable.

Of course this goes hand in hand with the debate on accreditation, which is going in completely the wrong direction....

The availability of good masters targeted to humanitarian professional is of course an important asset for these who want to consolidate their skills and deepen their knowledge of humanitarian issues. However I would be worried if such masters became a requirement for professionals. I also share the worries expressed above about the current trends on professionalisation.

In addition to the comments so far, about the need to bring in a variety of expertise in humanitarian response (which are NOT necessarily derived from formal high education), I would also add the following points:

* the role of deepening the theoretical knowledge on humanitarianism / humanitarian assistance is not something that should be "subcontracted" to academic institutions, and there is a risk that reliance on masters might encourage this view. Each organization needs to share its own stance with its personnel, also because the interpretation of what is a good humanitarian response - and how humanitarian principles plays in the practice - differs across organizations. It should be the duty of each organization to ensure that their staff have a "good working knowledge" of key humanitarian principles and issues, gained by absorbing a living organizational culture rather then by only studying it at school.

* I see a worrying top-down trend in organizations, which is to devise or refine methodologies, guidelines and the like in HQs (or in research centers), and then roll them out in the field hoping to find the Holy Graal of the perfect methodology of response. In most cases such knowledge remain abstract, and it is little operationalized in the practice. People might use the new jargon of the month, but new practices trickle down slowly. I would rather see the opposite: increasing the capacity of organizations and academic institutions to learn from what is happening in the field, from the interesting innovations, and truly value and share effectively them.

* linking competencies to academic titles rather then practice risks to further broaden the gap between local personnel and the international one (and - furthermore - with the local institutions and actors). This might create a culture of imposing modalities of response as defined in the academia rather than an openness to cross fertilize practices and adapt them to the local context.

The bottom line is that - whilst valuing opportunities for training and education - I strongly feel that good personnel should not be asked (of feel compelled!) to leave the field for one year and do a master to see their expertise recognized (which is, increasingly, the trend) I would rather see more investment going into valuing excellency and innovation emerging from the field, and mechanisms for sharing learning and valuing competencies more imaginative than masters only.

I have not done a degree on humanitarian assistance specifically but a full degree Political Sciences International Relations and International Public Law. I have over 15 years of practical humanitarian experience as field worker and manager. What advantage did I find in my studies? Perhaps mostly understanding political, economic and legal issues. But I would not regard a humanitarian degree as essential to provide humanitarian aid - for which one needs firstly practical skills (medical, sanitation, logistics). Having said that, in the contexts of crisis political, social, economic and anthropological dimensions are important to understand the ways in which aid should be provided or conversely - can distort futures, undermine restoration of normalcy or even ignite more problems. So for some people in the field this may be helpful.

This matter of paper qualifications - degrees and certificates of various sorts - for jobs out in the Developmental field has excercised me greatly over the past 30 years. I have a relevant degree (from UCLA) but my partner does not yet she is far and away more experienced on the ground in post-conflict reconstruction that I am. When I notice job vacancies with entities like the World Bank, DfID, the UN, the OSCE, the OECD, the CoE, etc. they almost always call for 'at least a first and preferably an advanced degree' yet I know they would get a much more appropriate person if they simply added 'or equivalent experience on the ground'. Additionally, this would then not stop the thousands of women throughout the Developing World from applying whose societies gave overwhelming preference to the boys in getting a formal education. These women do not apply because they face a degree barrier as formidable as a 2-metre high brick wall. This is a serious loss to the entire world's efforts to get things right and is especially serious in post-conflict reconstruction where UNSCR1325 is very much the Security Council resolution more honoured in the breach than any other SC resolution ever passed.

The new Master's degree in Humanitarian Studies at Tuft's Feinstein Center is a model for others to follow. Under Peter Walker's tutelage, the topics and teachers look superb. This new program is but one star in the constellation of evidenced-based approaches to preparing and upgrading the accountability and quality of people involved with humanitarian assistance. There is a common base of knowledge and experience that can be captured in core competencies that should be the basis for curricular development at all levels, including Masters degrees. Peter Walker's leadership in producing the recent ELRHA report ( Scoping Study released in Spring of 2010) lays the groundwork for a set of core competencies that will hopefully be agreed upon as the basis for certification of individuals (rather than organizations) thereby enhancing the freedom of workers to be able to move from one organization and/ or setting to another with skill and experience that can be universally recognized. It's a propitious time to bring together what's known in the field to professionalize humanitarian assistance by promoting what we know to inform what we do.

Are Masters degrees valid qualifications for humanitarian workers? My reply: It depends. While I'm not sure if Masters degrees are valid qualifications, the Masters degree experience can be valuable. Like many qualifications, the Masters degree depends on the quality of the degree program and how much (or little) effort a student puts into the experience.

Personally, I believe that having some experience in humanitarian work in the field or headquarters prior to getting a Masters degree in an applied field such as humanitarian assistance or development is important. Without field experience students often seem lost. Even when students gain some field experience during the course of a program, it helps if they have previous work to compare their field work in their Masters. Though many instructors are skilled in helping students gain insight into what humanitarian assistance is like, the lived experience helps. This helps to orient students as to real life issues in humanitarian work.

Experience aside, Masters degree programs are valuable if they help students to ask good questions and use frameworks for future work. Methodological skills also help in evaluation and research efforts, which are often crucial for large scale humanitarian programs. I, for one, remember emailing a professor from my Masters degree at Clark University thanking her for teaching me about logframes because the first assignment as a newly graduated UNV working for WFP in 1990 was to do a logframe and evaluation plan. So combing research and practical skills are core competencies that help good humanitarian workers to share their knowledge and experience with others. But sharing skills requires having a good foundation.

I believe a Masters degree can be helpful, but not all Masters degrees are good. So in the end, I think focusing on skills sets that could have been gained as a part of a degree program or elsewhere is what humanitarian workers need. Getting a Masters degree is a luxury that can be quite helpful to understand how to approach humanitarian work by asking good questions, learning to listen and sharing skills and working collaboratively. Though similar skills can be learned by doing humanitarian work, the critical (both positive and negative) reflection about humanitarian work helps Masters holders better see and interpret patterns.

Hi,

I'm an experienced field worker who has done a master in humanitarian related studies within a programme supported by the NOHA network after 5 years of field work. I believe that a lot of comments already provided are very valid and that the concern over the fact that now it is necessary to have a master to enter the aid world becomes more and more a pre-condition for employment. This may prevent people with good common sense which is often the most needed especially in emergency operation, to get a job.
However, when I did my master, I did it within a group which was a balanced mixture of experienced field workers, people with other professional background looking for reconversion and standard students. The diversity of the age group which ranged from 22 years old till 55 years as well as background provided some realism to the study each group providing a particular added value to the other. Student can often questioned you on your previous work in a way that you have to look back and seriously ask yourself if that was the right thing to do, as often when operating in an emergency you tend to do and think after because of the pressing demand. The other group with a different professional background who often comes from the private sector can bring to you another perspective that we tend to forget when working in the aid sector and finally the experienced field worker can illustrate the studies with lively examples that translate the theory to practice.
So ultimately I would say that if you want to get a senior management position, a master specialised in humanitarian study is definitely a plus especially for the area of IHL, geopolitics, high level negotiation and the provision of a more academic approach to the work, while for beginner and middle management it should not be a requirement.

My experience of working in communities affected by disaster in Somalia and Kenya has shown me that people are hungry for education at every level - from basic training to advanced degrees. For many, education is the key to helping communities protect themselves from future shocks - reducing people's vulnerability in times of crisis, whether natural or man-made.

With the increasing incidence of natural disasters globally, totalling some 950 'catastrophes' last year, I believe we need to develop a community of professional humanitarians and establish systems that enable national staff to respond to emergencies when they happen. In this way, we can help communities to mitigate the impact of emergencies - and ensure that the skills for dealing with disasters remain in-country, where they are needed most.

In 2009-10, RedR UK trained more than 4000 humanitarian workers to help them respond more effectively to disasters. Following the earthquake in Haiti, our in-country programme trained more than 1400 people, 91% of whom were Haitian nationals.

Meanwhile, we are also pushing forward with credit-rating as many of our UK training courses as possible. That means an increasing number of the humanitarians we train will have the opportunity to gain Masters level credits from a recognised British University (Oxford Brookes).

The impact of professionalising training in this way is far-reaching. Not only are our trainees learning how to respond more effectively in times of emergency, but they will gain recognised qualifications which will stand them in good stead when it comes to operating in a disaster situation. Often UN agencies and INGOs, who have considerable influence and a greater share of resources when responding to emergencies on the ground, require advanced degrees as a condition of employment not to mention strong language skills.

We at RedR believe that offering informal routes into professional humanitarian qualifications - such as credit rated modular courses - is one of the best ways to level the playing field and ensure effective response to international emergencies. Taken together, these measures should help ensure more lives are ultimately saved when disaster strikes.

A Masters Degree may seem an obvious choice as the basic qualification, the "licence to practice", as a professional in humanitarian action but this approach has major weaknesses and may, as a result, be unfit for purpose.

There is no doubt that a "licence to practice" needs an academic component, academic recognition and needs to be linked to academic institutions. However the qualification also needs to have a requirement for a period of supervised and mentored practical experience similar to a medical internship. The "licence" must be accessible to aspiring humanitarian workers from all parts of the world, especially beneficiary communities, member of which provide some of the richest experience and knowledge in existing operations and on whom the future of humanitarian action will be largely based.

The question is, how to bring all these elements together in a single, internationally recognised qualification?

Firstly let us look at the academic part of the qualification. Typically Masters Degree courses take a whole academic year of full time study, carry high tuition fees, require a first degree as an entrance qualification and necessitate the student leaving their work and being self sustaining for this period. The academic portion of the "licence to practice" is more suited to the diploma level, requiring some 200 hours of tuition which can be compressed into an intense programme lasting from 4 to 6 weeks. The teaching on such courses can be highly practical while retaining a substantial theoretical basis and can cover technical topics as they are applied in real situations with an understanding of the challenges and limitations that are encountered. The academic diploma forming part of the licensing procedure could be offered either as the foundation or as an option in longer Masters Degree programmes, an approach already adopted by the Institute of International Humanitarian Affairs at Fordham University in New York.

Supervised practical experience should form the second part of the licence. To facilitate this, a "licensed practitioner" should be allowed to directly supervise up to 5 unlicensed staff who are actively pursuing the "licence to practice" and are as a result working in supervisory positions themselves. The internship should be for a minimum of one year and should be paid by the organisation employing the intern. A period of the internship may be undertaken before the academic part of the procedure but this should be limited to a maximum of, say, 6 months. This provision would allow senior national staff to count a period of suitable employment already undertaken towards the internship requirement. The granting of the "licence" would be dependant on a satisfactory performance report from the supervisor and the submission of a paper by the intern describing the work undertaken and the lessons learned.

Universal access to the licensing procedure, minimising as far as possible the limitations of lack or financial resources of the aspiring licensee, will require some creative thinking. Diploma courses run close to the place of origin or employment of the students, in a variety of languages, where possible paid for by employers and with funding for scholarships where necessary are all basic requirements. The use of distance learning, with suitable measures to safeguard academic standards, should be implemented wherever and as rapidly as possible.

Courses should be available in a variety of internationally used languages and may be developed in the local languages of disaster prone countries and regions. Such linguistic diversity may result in a range of "licences" depending on language proficiency, National, International Anglophone, Francophone and Spanish may be some initial categories.

What is most important is that, to be successful and readily accepted, the basic qualification, the "licence to practice", needs to be tailor made to fit the peculiar nature of the humanitarian profession. Simply taking an existing academic qualification will not meet our, or our profession's, requirements. Resources are needed in the immediate future to develop and initiate a suitable instrument and a professional body to oversee the process.

May I add my own 'last word' on the subject of formal qualifcations for field work: when I was at UCLA I took a degree in politics ('Poli Sci'). UCLA can and does draw on the world's best professors. About 10 years after graduating I was back in the UK and decided to stand for Parliament, entering the fray at a by-election, then, subsequently at a General Election. Not one thing did I learn from taking a degree came in useful when getting out there and standing for Parliament. The principal use of a degree is to help recruiters cover their backsides in parcelling out the job. Nothing beats being out in the field yet more and more when I'm right out on the front line in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia (most recently Nepal) with my partner, the gender-post-conflict specialist Lesley Abdela, we find people who are there in interface positions because they have spent some years in a classroom while we do not find in those same paid jobs people who have learnt literally at the ground level and know exactly what needs to be done - but have no money or authority to get to work. Good luck with your degrees but then get to work quickly to get your tootsies on the ground.