Undergraduate Service Learning in Uganda:

Project Observations and Recommendations

Undergraduate Researcher:

Chris Harlow

Northwestern University

Class of 2016

Faculty Mentor:

Brian Hanson

Director of Programs, Research and Strategic Planning

Buffett Institute for Global Studies

Northwestern University

Community Partner:

Foundation for Sustainable Development – Uganda

June 1, 2016

Harlow 1

Introduction

International service learning programs have become more commonplace in higher

education and in the workforce, serving as complementary to traditional classroom learning. Yet

despite the growing trend, very little research has been conducted on the sustainability of

international service learning projects in the communities that participants aim to help. In the

following paper, I summarize the project design elements and relevant outcomes from eleven

undergraduate-led community development projects in south central Uganda.

‘Sustainability’ of community development is an ambiguous and often debated term. This

paper makes the assumption that a project, such as starting a women’s group to discuss family

planning, is sustainable if the structure (the group) or outcomes (better family planning

knowledge) of that project remain for months or even years after the implementers have left. In

other words, this paper discusses the sustainability outcomes of development projects, not the

merits of the projects to begin with (i.e., Are women’s groups beneficial development

initiatives?). Further research should be done to determine the causation between projects and

positive community outcomes in order to alleviate the need for such assumptions.

Literature review

Service learning programs have become an increasingly popular method of enhancing

education through experiential learning. From web development programs for high school

students to alternative break programs for college students, institutions and organizations have

come to understand more and more of the benefits that service learning programs provide its

participants (Preisder-Houy 2006, 3). Casile et al. (2011) showed that undergraduate students

gained better mastery of course concepts through service learning than through traditional

research projects, while Stewart et al. (2014) showed that domestic and international service

learning programs may also promote moral development and cultural intelligence. Published

research overwhelming supports the many benefits that students gain from service learning and

the process of turning abstract classroom discussions into real life concepts and issues to be

grappled with (Grusky, 2000; Pless and Borecka, 2013).

While a wealth of literature exists on the structural aspects of service learning programs

and how it benefits participants -- such as the duration of the service program and the lessons

that students take away -- little attention has been paid to the sustainability of these programs and

its benefits for communities and organizations. As Grusky (2000) noted, “Much less analysis has

been done on the impact on the collaborating communities, programs, and agencies” (860). This

lack of research may be rooted in the creation of international service learning by combining

traditional community service and study abroad (Bringle et al. 2010). In this way, the

motivations of university faculty and student affairs staff may have prioritized student learning

outcomes more than community outcomes, resulting in a plethora of student-focused educational

workshops on topics like culture shock and homesickness (Culture Shock).

It has now become standard place for universities to have an Alternative Student Break or

similar program that coordinates domestic and international service trips. Compared to the

program’s community participants, student in these programs can more easily take pre- and post-

surveys to assess how the experience has impacted them. Some universities even have large

Centers and Departments to support students and to create the most effective experiential

learning (Eyler, 2010). With the best of intentions, however, these programs may not as easily be

Harlow 2

able to assess the community impact that they have in order determine whether a week painting

houses or building a water well is ultimately sustainable or beneficial*.

In the course of researching for this paper, it quickly became apparent that authors and

program directors often make the assumption that service is helpful to community members and

partner organizations. Pless and Borecka (2013, 540), for example, suggested that organizations

involved with one service learning program benefited from “process improvement, knowledge

transfer and capacity-building” without studying or measuring the short- and long-term

community impact. With further research and a change in the conversation, students engaging in

service learning may do more good by focusing on project longevity and community impact than

on personal outcomes.

Organization overview

Northwestern University founded the Global Engagement Studies Institute (“GESI”) in

2007 as an international service learning program for undergraduate students to “advance

community-driven change” (GESI Overview). GESI students spend eight to ten weeks interning

for non-profit organizations in one of eight countries to address issues such as childhood

development, economic empowerment, and global health. While interning, students work with

their respective organizations to plan and implement a community development project that

typically aligns with the mission of the organization. For example, GESI students interning for a

savings cooperative in Bolivia might work with local community members to teach more

sustainable farming techniques or create an afterschool entrepreneurship program for kids.

To facilitate the GESI program, Northwestern University partners with intermediary

organizations that have international staff, such as the Foundation for Sustainable Development

(FSD), to coordinate internships, homestays, and ensure student safety and security. FSD is

GESI’s primary partner organization, supporting and hosting well over 50% of GESI’s students

each year.

GESI and FSD both emphasize asset-based community development as a framework for

working with communities (GESI History; Our Mission). ABCD promotes utilizing existing

community resources to create bottom-up change, in contrast to top-down programs where

outsiders often decide and complete a project that they believe the community needs (What is

ABCD).

Method

To better understand the success of GESI development projects, I conducted qualitative

research on GESI’s oldest program site in Jinja, Uganda. I spent eight weeks in summer 2015

and ten days in March 2016 in Uganda conducting 37 qualitative interviews. During summer

2015, I researched eight GESI projects dating from 2009 until 2014 through interviews, site

visits, and archival research. I also collected interviews with the GESI 2015 students and real-

*Contrary to many service learning programs, the Northwestern University Buffett Institute and

its GESI Program are actively working to address the lack of community impact research in

international service learning. The Buffett Institute made the research for this paper possible by

creating and financially supporting a Community-Based Research Fellowship as an initiative to

equalize attention to both student learning and community outcomes.

Harlow 1

time observations as they planned and implemented five community development projects. Eight

months later, in March 2016, I returned to Uganda to follow up on three of the five summer 2015

projects.

Throughout my research, I sought to capture a 360-degree view of each of the selected

projects. Rather than focusing on a specific research agenda, I asked a series of general questions

to capture insights on how the project was selected, implemented, and, ultimately, why the

interviewee felt certain elements were sustained. In order to create holistic case studies of

development projects, I collected qualitative interviews from as many perspectives as possible,

including the organization supervisors, community participants, FSD staff, and GESI students. I

also took ethnographic notes from FSD team meetings, weekly status reports submitted by the

students, organization site visits, and casual conversations with everyone involved. These ad-hoc

observations helped to shape future interview questions about student and supervisor perceptions

of the program. Whenever possible, interviews were done separately to ensure that one member

of a group did not speak on behalf of the others.

The organization supervisor interviews were done in-person in Uganda, typically at a

local coffee shop or at an individual’s home. Fourteen of the 21 community participant

interviews were conducted through an interpreter while walking with participants in the field.

I collected student perspectives two ways. For the eight past projects, I distributed an

open-ended online survey via email and received responses from eleven of 31 former GESI

students. For the 2015 projects, I conducted group exit interviews with all fifteen GESI students

at the end of their program and more focused interviews with six of the students in April 2016.

Limitations

GESI students have designed and implemented more than 40 projects in Uganda since

2007, however, there was only enough time and resources to focus on eight past projects

generally and three projects from 2015 more deeply. As a result, the below observations may not

be indicative of the more than 200 GESI and FSD projects that have been implemented in almost

a dozen countries over the last decade.

Additionally, there was a significant amount of qualitative data collected and not

everything could be included. The process of categorizing observations and determining relevant

program elements to discuss inherently introduced subjectivity. As with all research, these

findings should not be considered as rules to follow, but rather as elements for consideration by

future students engaging in international service learning.

Lastly, these observations should be viewed within the context of Ugandan community

and culture. The outcome of project elements in one community may not be the same outcome

experienced elsewhere in Uganda, Africa, or the world.

Observations

Notion of Outsiders

Community members initially had unrealistic expectations when three GESI students

arrived in a new community in June 2015. Several project participants thought that the students

were going to sponsor formal education for the young girls in the community since an NGO from

Europe had done something similar the year before. As one community member said, “When we

see [white people], we have a general expectation that they will bring money.”1

Another summer 2015 group that worked with a saving cooperative faced a similar

challenge. Three project participants later said that the community had gotten excited when they

learned about the students coming because they “thought [the students] were bringing

money.”2,3,4

Another participant, after working with the students to create a communal nursery bed and

learning how to grow new vegetables that would yield higher profits, remarked:

We actually got something better than [cash] because the cash would have been used

within a day. We learned how to work together to grow new things, and that will make all

of us more money.5

Project Selection

The process of selecting a development project was the most common topic brought up by

students, FSD staff, community members, and organization supervisors.

During GESI, students spend about the first week of their internship conducting

informational interviews with community members. In line with FSD and the ABCD model,

students are supposed to suggest a project that the community has expressed interest for during

the interviews -- not what the students believe the community needs -- and then work with their

supervisor to address feasibility and other organizational concerns. The final project proposal

should be a ‘win-win’ for all parties involved, aligning the interests and skills of the students, the

mission of the organization, and the self-reported needs of the community. However, when asked

about the project ideas that their organization supervisor had suggested, a GESI 2015 student

responded, “We just weren’t interested in [those ideas].”6 In reality, this model of community-

driven project selection may not play out as intended.

Of the 36 GESI projects in Uganda since 2009, 32 of them have been new projects across

18 organizations. Seven organizations have hosted GESI students at least twice, and only two of

these organization have had a GESI group follow up on a previous project. As one three-time

GESI supervisor said, “Interns don’t feel content to just add something on to a previous project;

they want to start their own.”7 Two other organization supervisors also said they had observed a

resistance from interns to continue or expand upon existing initiatives.8,9

This resistance is important to consider, especially when the longevity of a project may

rely on an individual community member or staff person to champion the cause. A community

participant that was part of a savings cooperative project in 2009 said that he felt pressured to

champion the students’ idea despite knowing that “some board members weren’t interested.”10

Likewise, a 2014 project about goat rearing ended shortly after the GESI students left when the

community members sold the goats from the project and bought pigs instead. When asked about

this change, one participant told me, “We all wanted pigs in the first place but the [students]

really wanted goats.”11

Project Complexity

Organization supervisors are the ones most often tasked with supporting the development

project after the GESI program. However, several supervisors complained of projects that

attempted to address too many issues or that had several complicated elements that needed

maintained. The supervisor of a 2015 hairdressing education project said that it was difficult for

her to keep track of a membership fee that increased each week as opposed to a constant fee.

Eventually, the participants stopped paying the increase and she stopped asking.12

Similarly, the supervisor of project about family planning and craft making said that it

initially was too complicated for him to explain all of the project elements and to convince the

women’s group to meet without providing each of them meals or a stipend. Despite the

complications, the group of women eventually developed friendships among each other and

consistently met twice weekly for many months.13

Another example of a project complexity that has experienced mixed success is shared

resources, such as a communal vegetable nursery bed. A 2015 agriculture project included a

nursery bed for plants that was not used after the first harvest because it was too much effort for

community members to transport hundreds of seedlings from the central location to their own

homes.14 On the reverse, another community created their own coffee nursery bed after the GESI

students left in 2013 and have used it actively ever since.15

Project Finances

Each group of GESI students is allocated a small grant to help cover the startup costs of

their community development projects. While funding might sometimes be necessary to get a

project going, it might also increase financial dependency and impact future project

sustainability. The GESI projects in Uganda faced two types of financial challenges more than

any other difficulty.

The first challenge was project participation fees. Of the 36 projects researched, more than

half of them required some type of membership fee from community participants. For the 2015

hairdressing education project, participants were required to pay a weekly fee to cover the

teacher stipend and to replenish the grant money so that another cohort of community members

could be taught how to dress hair in the future. The hairdressing teacher felt that it was important

to require a fee because “When people contribute it makes them want to learn. They want to get

what they’re paying for.”16 The family planning and crafting project also required a similar

membership fee to replenish the initial grant and create a reserve fund for future crafting

workshops. In both cases, however, participants stopped paying soon after the GESI students had

left and used the rest of the grant money to cover the project costs. As a result, the grant money

was never replenished and additional community members were not able to participant in the

program.

The second challenge that projects tended to face was what happened with any grant funds

and supplies left behind by the GESI students. In many cases, the remaining grant and supplies

were given to the host organization and earmarked for specific purposes, such as startup

materials to expand the program or as a low-interest loan fund for project participants. Despite

agreements between FSD, the GESI students, and the organization supervisors, remaining grant

funds and supplies were rarely used for the intended purposes. For the 2015 agriculture project,

the GESI students created a low-interest loan fund that would be managed by the host

organization. One month after the students left, almost 100% of the fund was given out as loans

to about 85% of the project participants. In the six months that followed, only one of the 25

members who took out loans had begun to pay it back. Since the funds never belonged to the

organization to begin with, the organization supervisor was not proactive in collecting loan

payments.17 Similarly, leftover vegetable seeds from an agriculture project in 2013 were intended

for members of the group to expand their gardens at a later time but were used instead by the

organization supervisor in her own garden.18

Projects that Foster Community

Seven of the eleven projects researched had a community group aspect, where students

leveraged an existing network or helped to create a new gathering of community members. Of

those seven groups, five still meet regularly. While certain aspects of a project might fail, my

findings show that community groups are likely to weather these challenges. In the success

cases, such as the 2015 women’s group that learned about crafting and family planning, the craft

teacher stopped providing lessons for free but the group of fifteen women still gathered to talk

about daily challenges and share village gossip. Additionally, while a 2009 mushroom project

began as a group initiative and is now done independently, community members still meet

regularly to catch up with each other and problem solve any mushroom challenges that others

might have.

The reason that two of the community groups no longer meet may be because the groups

were formed for project outcome purposes rather than for personal relationships. For example,

the 2015 hairdressing group dissolved after the 3-month program ended and all of the necessary

skills were learned. Likewise, the 2014 goat rearing group originally met to divide profits and

make a rearing schedule, but stopped meeting after the two shared goats were sold and an

individual pig was bought for each person.

Project Ownership & Follow Up

After eight weeks of full-time work on a development project, GESI students are

undoubtedly invested in the success they hope community members will achieve. Yet despite

these hopes, GESI 2015 students had almost universally similar feelings about the future of their

projects as they boarded a plane back to Northwestern:

I was optimistic but uncertain about how well the people understood.19

We were also a little nervous about how committed [our organization] was to the project.

They sounded excited but logistically it was pretty complicated, so we weren’t sure if they

would take ownership of helping [the community members] when they needed support. 20

I felt a little bit apprehensive and a bit guilty. I felt like I didn’t want to look at the project

too closely because I would see the cracks. We had seen a few challenges pop up last

minute and basically we were just putting band aids on the issues.21

According to ABCD principles and FSD’s model, community members are responsible for

the long-term sustainability of development projects.22 Despite students taking great care to

convey this process and instill community ownership over the projects, challenges frequently

arose as soon as students departed for home.

The GESI students for the 2015 hairdressing project suggested at the end of the internship

that their project was sustainable because it was “mainly community driven” and they “relied

heavily on [community] human resources” (Salis et al. 2015). However, the project ended in its

entirety when the participants stopped paying the participation fee and the organization

supervisor decided to use the remaining grant to fund the rest of the classes. For this project, at

least, the organization supervisor’s definition of sustainable differed drastically from the

students’ original intentions.

Likewise, one supervisor from a 2013 project felt it wasn’t her job to ensure the project’s

success after GESI students had left, saying: “Well, it’s a project between FSD and the

community. Let FSD be the one to support follow ups if they want more than just [status]

reports.”23 It was overwhelming clear from interviews that supervisors wanted a project to be

sustainable so that they would not have to spend time and resources on it down the road. If future

support was needed, it appeared that at least some supervisors believed that it should fall on the

shoulders of FSD or GESI. This mindset was more often expressed by supervisors from smaller,

more resource-constrained organizations than by supervisors from more established

organizations with larger staff.

Implications

International community development is a highly contextual and risky undertaking. Each

community and each issue may require a different approach to address community challenges.

Perhaps one of the biggest detriments to positive change is that sustainable projects are necessary

for large-scale change, and yet many projects never make it beyond the first few weeks or

months. While university students on international service learning trips are undoubtedly

interested in experiencing a new culture and gaining new skills, they should also be cognizant to

ensure that their time as a guest in another community is mutually beneficial. Projects that fail to

gain traction are par for the course in development, but students and community members can

take proactive steps to co-design projects that will have the highest chance for sustainable

success.

Project Design Recommendations

Keep it Simple

Simple projects may be more sustainable because they are manageable for an

organization supervisor to support and for a community group to maintain. For example, the

2015 hairdressing project included hairdressing classes, leadership training, financial skills

training, a group for discussing women’s issues, stipends to a teacher and a program coordinator,

and an increasing weekly membership fee. The students created a memorandum of

understanding with all parties involved, but eight months later only a few of the participants

remembered that leadership and finance training were even part of the program.

Benefit the Community and the Individual

When designing a project, consider that the community group or collective action aspect

may fail, and ensure that each person can still benefit from the project as an individual. One

three-time GESI supervisor advised: “If a farmer does something in their home, like rearing a

goat or farming mushrooms … [as part of] a group effort, the project [will become] an individual

project as soon as the students leave.”24 An example of this might be finding several people to

teach a group of community members a skill that they can use individually in the future. This

will limit the risk of relying on a specific individual or on an entirely communal resource.

Follow Their Passion (Not Yours)

Students should prioritize the interests of the community and the organization above their

own when deciding on a project. Without organizational buy-in for a project, a supervisor may

be less willing to support the development initiatives after GESI students have left. One

supervisor shared how she had let a project fall apart after the students had left because she had

never supported the idea in the first place. Rather, she approved the project in the beginning

because the students seemed excited by the idea and she didn’t want to disappoint them.25

Encourage an “Open Field” Policy

While the structure of a project may fade over time, as community members stop meeting

or group leaders move away, the knowledge and skills developed during that time should

continue to impact new people. From the very beginning, students should encourage community

members to teach what they’ve learned through the project to anyone in the community who is

interested. A GESI group in 2013 called this concept their “open papaya field” policy, and within

three years after the project, participants estimated that they had taught at least ten people in the

community how to grow papayas by letting them tour their fields.26

Resist the Need for New Money

Students should consider designing a project that does not require new money to be

sustained. In other words, projects that require a membership fee or another funding source from

the community may be more likely to face sustainability challenges than projects that promote

individual business or increased community connection. The 2015 hairdressing project and the

2015 crafting project both relied on membership fees in order to make the educational aspect

sustainable, and neither lasted for more than three months. One might also consider that while a

membership fee increases an individual’s desire to learn, it decreases the likelihood of an “open

field” policy and the chance that participants will spread their knowledge to others down the

road.

Conclusion

International service learning is a growing trend in higher education that has the potential

to create sustainable change in the world. While more research needs to be done to assess the

actual impact that programs like GESI and its projects make, a positive initial step is to shift the

conversation away from student benefits and more toward community outcomes. Part of this

conversation includes being cognizant to design programs that leave a lasting impact on

participants and the community.

This paper highlighted aspects of project design and real-world outcomes of eleven

undergraduate-led projects in Uganda. It is my hope that it will serve as a starting point for

students who are about to engage in international service learning. Students tend to want to start

their own initiative as opposed to following up on existing programs, and, sometimes, egos and

personal interest may mean that projects align more with the goals of the student than of the

organization or the community. By understanding tendencies like these, students will be more

likely to recognize them while in-country and adjust their actions accordingly.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my faculty advisor, Brian Hanson, and the entire Global

Engagement team at the Buffett Institute for Global Studies for being a constant source of

support (monetary and otherwise) and an always open sounding board. The Buffett Institute is

actively working to change the status quo in international service learning by emphasizing and

investing in community outcomes research. I would also like to thank the Northwestern Office of

Undergraduate Research for providing me an Academic Research Grant to return to Uganda.

Finally, I cannot thank Jonan and Margaret from FSD’s Uganda site team enough. Their passion

for development made me care about this field, and their mentorship made me a better researcher

and person.

References

Bringle, Robert G., Hatcher, Julie A., and Jones, Steven G., eds. 2010. IUPUI Series on Service

Learning Research: International Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and

Research. Sterling, VA, USA: Stylus Publishing.

Casile, Maureen, Kristine F. Hoover, and Deborah O'Neil A. 2011. "Both-and, Not either-Or:

Knowledge and Service-Learning." Education & Training 53 (2): 129-139.

Culture Shock and Homesickness. Accessed October 4, 2016.

http://www.abroad.pitt.edu/cultureshock.

Eyler, Janet. What International Service Learning Research Can Learn From Research on

Service Learning. In IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research : International Service

Learning : Conceptual Frameworks and Research, edited by Bringle G. Robert. Sterling,

VA: Stylus Publishing, 2010

GESI History. Accessed April 30, 2016. http://gesi.northwestern.edu/about/history/.

GESI Overview. Accessed April 30, 2016. http://gesi.northwestern.edu/about/

program-overview/.

Grusky, Sara. 2000. "International Service Learning." The American Behavioral Scientist 43 (5):

858-867.

Our Mission. Our Mission. Accessed April 30, 2016.

http://www.fsdinternational.org/about/mission.

Pless, Nicola M. and Markéta Borecká. 2014. "Comparative Analysis of International Service

Learning Programs." The Journal of Management Development 33 (6): 526-550.

Preiser-Houy, Lara and Carlos J. Navarrete. 2006. "Exploring the Learning in Service-Learning:

A Case of a Community-Based Research Project in Web-Based Systems

Development." Journal of Information Systems Education 17 (3): 273-284.

Salis, Carter, Ruth Rinaolo, and London Edwards. Wandago Hairdressing Program. August

2015. GESI Student Final Report.

Stewart, Alice C., Charles E. Wilson, and Angela K. Miles. 2014. "Developing Ethically &

Culturally-Intelligent Leaders through International Service Experiences." Journal of

Leadership, Accountability and Ethics 11 (2): 115-127.

What Is Asset Based Community Development? Report. Asset Based Community Development

Institute, Northwestern University. http://www.abcdinstitute.org/docs/

WhatisAssetBasedCommunityDevelopment(1)(3).pdf.

1 Beatrice (2015 community participant), interview by author, March 2016, Jinja,

Uganda.

2 Mary (2015 community participant), interview by author, March 2016, Jinja, Uganda.

3 Haawe (2015 community participant), interview by author, March 2016, Jinja, Uganda.

4 Cissy (2015 community participant), interview by author, March 2016, Jinja, Uganda.

5 Beatrice, interview by author, March 2016.

6 Joyce (2015 GESI student), interview by author, May 2016, Evanston, IL.

7 Liz (three-time organization supervisor), interview by author, August 2015, Jinja,

Uganda.

8 Kintu, Michael (2014 organization supervisor), interview by author, August 2015, Jinja,

Uganda.

9 Liz, interview by author, August 2015.

10 Stephen (organization board member), interview by author, July 2015, Jinja, Uganda.

11 Cissy (2014 community participant), interview by author, July 2015, Jinja, Uganda.

12 Sauda (2015 community participant), interview by author, March 2016, Jinja, Uganda.

13 Phillip (2015 organization supervisor), interview author, March 2016, Jinja, Uganda.

14 Beatrice, interview by author, March 2016.

15 Nassim (2013 community participant), interview by author, July 2015, Jinja, Uganda.

16 Florence (2015 hairdressing teacher), interview by author, March 2016, Jinja, Uganda.

17 Stephen (organization board member), interview by author, March 2016, Jinja,

Uganda.

18 Liz, interview by author, August 2015.

19 Jason (2016 GESI student), interview by author, April 2016, Evanston, IL.

20 Ruth (2015 GESI student), interview by author, April 2016, Evanston, IL.

21 Joyce, interview by author, May 2016.

22 Margaret (FSD supervisor), interview by author, June 2016, Evanston, IL.

23 Liz, interview by author, August 2015.

24 Liz, interview by author, August 2015.

25 Liz, interview by author, August 2015.

26 Harriet (2013 community participant), interview by author, August 2015, Jinja,

Uganda.

Undergraduate Journal of Service Learning and Community-Based Research, Volume 5, Fall 2016

Who’s Really Winning?: A Reflection on International Service Learning

Chris Harlow

Northwestern University

This reflection has been almost two years in the making, as I’ve grappled with what it

means to be a participant, a facilitator, and, most recently, a community-based researcher of

service learning. In summer 2014, I participated in an international service-learning trip to South

Africa’s rural Western Cape through Northwestern University. For eight weeks, I learned about

the community where I was staying–its assets and its challenges–and recruited a group of

passionate and engaged community members. By working with the group, my team of fellow

students and I worked to address poverty by reopening and expanding a community garden. As

we were leaving, the community showered us with praise and thanksgiving–we had been the

catalyst necessary to organize and jumpstart their existing potential! I left that summer inspired

and humbled by the power of international service learning.

But just as quick as our sense of accomplishment had come, our tangible effect on the

community was gone. The project failed. Within months, the group of community members had

stopped gardening and returned to fishing for income. Farming, they said, required too much

effort and took months to see a profit, whereas fishing put money in their pockets the same day. I

was confused after my trip to South Africa. I wondered if service learning was even beneficial,

or if I had been a volunteer tourist who took more from a community than I had left behind.

It was from this place of questioning that I traveled to Uganda the following summer and

immersed myself in the same service-learning program once again, this time as a Community-

Based Research Fellow for Northwestern’s Buffett Institute for Global Studies. As a fellow, I

was an extra resource for the local site team in Uganda that coordinated homestays, partner

organizations, and development projects for the students. Half of my time was spent as a member

of the site team, facilitating the program, and the other half was spent as a participatory-

researcher. This split-role gave me a unique perspective of the process. Some days I would

interview community members who had participated in projects years prior, while other days I

would vet partner organizations for future students.

At times I felt like a hypocrite, the embodiment of everything I believed was wrong with

service learning. For example, I had never been to Uganda before and did not know the local

language. Even though I was familiar with the program’s structure from my time in South

Africa, how was I supposed to record observations and make recommendations for improvement

when I was far from being an expert on community development in Uganda?

My first few weeks as a fellow were a whirlwind immersion of getting to know the

community and coming to the realization that one never really figures it all out. Rather, I learned

to become comfortable being uncomfortable; I relied more on others and less on myself. Part of

this process was shifting the way I thought about my role as a researcher. Instead of seeing

myself as an outsider in Uganda with more knowledge or a different perspective, I came to see

myself as just someone with a platform to tell other people’s stories. In this way, I would

approach interviews with organizations and community members as an opportunity to share their

voices to a wider audience: “What do you wish you could have said to the students those many

years ago?” In no time at all, interviews felt less agenda-driven and more personal. I’ve never

laughed more than I did one afternoon in the back of a truck in a sugarcane field when my

interviewee felt comfortable enough to give me dating advice!

Harlow 2

Undergraduate Journal of Service Learning and Community-Based Research, Volume 5, Fall 2016

In the process of going from a service-learning participant to a community-based

researcher, I began to see parallels that I previously had not considered. In South Africa, for

example, I tried to apply Western thought and business principles to rural community farming. I

left that project feeling hopeful because I knew that in the United States a similar project would

likely succeed. But just as in research, development isn’t one-size-fits-all. I had to learn how I fit

into the larger picture of research and service learning.

As a researcher and developer, I shared information, asked questions, and shed light on

previously unconsidered topics, but my involvement stopped there in both realms. My

suggestions for improvement are other people’s ideas that have been collected and published by

me, but it’s ultimately up to the organizations and communities to implement change.

Sustainable development, I’ve come to believe, isn’t quick or easy, but it’s more likely achieved

when done from the bottom-up and by those who know the community and environment best.

I experienced many disappointments while learning about sustainable development. But

for every challenging conversation or piece of conflicting advice, there were moments that

restored my faith in service learning. One woman, who insisted I call her “Granny,” told me how

she had put three of her grandchildren through school from the consistent income she had earned

through a 2009 mushroom growing project. And by week four in Uganda, I had lost count of all

the avocadoes, ears of corn, and sugarcane stalks I had been given as gifts. I gained a sense of

humility and an appreciation for life that might only come from the infectious love that I felt

from my homestay parents, the local site team, and the communities. It wasn’t an “I’m thankful

that I have running water” feeling like I had after returning from South Africa, but rather the kind

one gets when he meets someone genuinely happy and wonders, “What secret does he know that

I don’t?”

I went to Uganda hoping to learn how service learning could be done more sustainably,

and I came away feeling like I had learned more about myself than anything else in the process.

The people I met became my friends and my role models, and I only hope that I was able to give

them just as much as they gave me.

I would like to thank my faculty advisor, Brian Hanson, and the entire Global Engagement team

at the Buffett Institute for Global Studies for being a constant source of support (monetary and

otherwise) and an always open sounding board. The Buffett Institute is actively working to

change the status quo in international service learning by emphasizing and investing in

community outcomes research.

I would also like to thank the Northwestern Office of Undergraduate Research for providing me

an Academic Research Grant to return to Uganda.

Finally, I cannot thank Jonan and Margaret from FSD’s Uganda site team enough. Their passion

for development made me care about this field, and their mentorship made me a better researcher

and person.

Chris Harlow, Northwestern University research
Chris Harlow, Northwestern University reflection