University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An unlikely partnership: engaging diasporas as stakeholders to international development donors

(USC Thesis Other)

An unlikely partnership: engaging diasporas as stakeholders to international development donors

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content An Unlikely Partnership: Engaging Diasporas As Stakeholders to International
Development Donors
Lovesun Parent
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2023

© Copyright by Lovesun Parent 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Lovesun Parent certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Monique Datta
Melanie Brady, Committee Co-Chair
Alan Green, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
This dissertation explored the role diasporas traditionally played in development while assessing
the lack of formal and direct engagement of international development donors like the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID), a donor agency, with nontraditional
partners such as diasporic groups as formal partners to achieve sustainable global development
results. Systemic discrimination in the humanitarian aid and international development industry
perpetuates hierarchical inequalities rooted in racism. This paper explored the gap in the
partnership framework of international development donors like USAID while examining how
diasporas influence development of the Global South. This qualitative study evaluated the
organizational effects of diaspora partnership engagement. The study’s document analysis and
interviews with 10 development workers reveal performance gaps. Using Clark and Estes’s
(2008) gap analytic framework, the study revealed gaps in policy, organizational barriers, and
power dynamics limit engagement between donors and diasporas. The finding also confirmed
diasporas enrich the role of donors in their home countries as direct investors, philanthropists,
and social entrepreneurs. The study also revealed gaps in operationalizing policies,
organizational and workforce barriers, and significant equity and inclusion challenges that
disincentivize USAID employees from successfully implementing new partnership initiatives.
The study offers a comprehensive implementation and evaluation plan based on the new world
Kirkpatrick model and evidence-supported recommendations.
Keywords: diaspora; transnationalism; home identity; international development;
remittances; international development partnerships; localization; decoloniality; racism;
diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility

v
Dedication
Se apre batay ou konte blese.
Haitian Proverb: Only after the battle do we count the wounded.
Meaning: Fight until the very end. #FightOn
To Sky and Avery, I dedicate this work to you as transnational children whose identities are no
longer trapped within borders, who are never too much of anything but represent a new force
mixed with many influences. As the global diaspora struggles to find its place in the
development discourse, I pray this body of work will remind you that you deserve a seat at the
table just as you are in your blended identities. When you are unsure of who you are, I pray you
will remember that you are the bridge, the connector, the transmuter that will foster a new
generation of leaders into an unlikely partnership while addressing some of our world’s most
prominent development challenges.

Love,
Mommy

vi
Acknowledgments
It’s not easy to start over in a new place, he said. Exile is not for everyone. Someone has
to stay behind to receive the letters and greet family members when they come back.
―Edwidge Danticat, Brother, I’m Dying
This dissertation was birthed from my professional and lived experiences. On September
2, 2019, I experienced a traumatic and life-changing event. While managing a young women’s
education and leadership program in Afghanistan, the Taliban attacked my office and residence.
This complex attack included a truck bomb that followed eight suicide bombers that claimed
over 20 people’s lives. In those terrifying hours, I was comforted knowing I had lived this life
fully with no regrets. I had followed my calling, advocating for the most disenfranchised and
marginalized communities. I pushed for equal access to quality education in Liberia, fought to
eradicate violence against women in Haiti, and supported diversity and equity in international
development. I rallied for more representation of Black women in leadership positions in the
sector, all while also advocating for fair wages for local and national staff in the sector.
As a terrorist attack survivor, I returned home more determined than ever to transmute
this tragic experience into something positive, not just another scar collected on this journey
called life. As global policies in development shift, we must celebrate our wins. Still, we must
continue challenging the status quo and influencing work environments by fostering continuous
learning and managing organizational changes in international development. For this reason, I
pursued this degree program at the University of Southern California. I am committed to
transforming and revolutionizing the sector while remaining committed to integrating inclusive
principles. The vision was clear, and the possibilities were endless. The nearly four years of
building this piece of work were transformative. It was born out of seeing partnerships that did

vii
not resemble the people we sought to empower. While working in two of the most challenging
development contexts, Afghanistan and Haiti, my interest was sparked by what success could
look like had development actors incorporated partnerships with various nontraditional allies.
Additionally, those experiences had me questioning what happens when you diversify your
development workforce to include BIPOC people in positions of service but to elevate them into
positions of power and influence. Lastly, it made me question why as a sector, we maintained
outdated colonial systems that created wage disparities based on expatriate hiring mechanisms
rather than merit-based systems that celebrate local experiences and expertise.
Developing this dissertation during COVID-19 was an emotional process with many
curveballs. For this reason, I want to acknowledge those who contributed to its success. I want to
express my deep gratitude to my chair, Professor Alan Green, who helped me narrow my many
ideas of saving the world into a well-thought-out problem of practice. Dr. Green saw the passion,
understood the vision, and gently oriented it in the right direction without watering it down. For
that, I am grateful. I am grateful for my co-chair, Professor Melanie Brady, who successfully
motivated me to conclude this study. Dr. Brady was methodical in her counsel and advice,
setting a standard of excellence while commenting on successive drafts of the text. Dr. Monique
Datta’s framing course sparked the genesis of this problem of practice. I am thankful to her for
her guidance and encouragement.
I could not have succeeded in this initiative without my friends and colleagues at the
Department of Organizational Change and Leadership at Rossier’s School of Education. Over
the years, these colleagues shared their experiences, knowledge, and words of encouragement. I
wish to mention Rossier’s unofficial Sista Circle class of 2023 Christina, Simone, Hayley,
Shante, Myella, and Trevare. I thank the Sista Circle for reminding me that perfection is never

viii
the goal and always checking in with an inspiring note to persevere. I want to express my
gratitude to Edwin Orori for providing me with research assistance over the years. Edwin
demonstrated excellent skills, open mindedness, and forethought. I am indebted to my dear love,
friend, and life partner, Cordell, for not only helping to sort through the document analysis but
also for the many late-night pep talks and bouncing of ideas.
Thank you for that final push and cheering me to the finish line. Lastly, expressing my
deepest gratitude to my family and friends worldwide, who enthusiastically supported my work
over the years, is an absolute must. I especially want to thank my parents, Maryse and Clark,
who planted this seed of diaspora engagement in me as a child. Equally deserving of my
gratitude are my children, Sky and Avery, who inspire me to be the best version of myself daily.
They sacrificed the most during this period in sharing their mom. I thank my blood sister
Sandina for her unending emotional support and my sister from another mother, Ediane, who
sowed a seed in my entrance deposit. I thank the many leaders and mentors who have inspired
me to pursue organizational change and leadership through their actions. Thank you for leading
by example. I also thank all my family, friends, and mentors who played a role, directly or
indirectly, and cheered me along the way, but you are forever in my heart. This research was
possible due to the generosity of my research participants, affectionately renamed from one of
my favorite Octavia Butler novels, Kindred. I am grateful to Franklin, Edana, Jackson, Alice,
Nigel, Kevin, Luke, Carrie, Jude, Sarah, and Butler, who took time out of their busy lives and
chose to share their experiences with me.

ix
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xiv
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Context of the Study ........................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 6
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 7
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 8
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 11
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 15
Historical Context and Impact .......................................................................................... 16
Partnerships and International Development Theories ..................................................... 17
Socioeconomic Development and Migration .................................................................... 19
From Moral Code to Racial Exclusion ............................................................................. 25
Knowledge ........................................................................................................................ 42
Organization ...................................................................................................................... 46
Decoloniality and KMO .................................................................................................... 48
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 32
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 37

x
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 37
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 38
Research Setting ................................................................................................................ 52
The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 53
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 54
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 58
Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................... 58
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 59
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 59
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 64
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 66
Chapter Four (Part 1): Thematic Findings .................................................................................... 69
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 70
Findings ............................................................................................................................ 71
Part 2: Clark and Estes Evaluative Model ...................................................................... 109
Synthesis ......................................................................................................................... 133
Chapter Five: Recommendations ................................................................................................ 136
Solutions to Localize and Decolonize ............................................................................. 136
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ........................................................................................... 139
Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 142
Integration of Organizational and Stakeholder SMART Goals ...................................... 143
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 158
References ................................................................................................................................... 159
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders ..................................................................................... 201
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 202

xi
Appendix C: Qualitative Survey Protocol .................................................................................. 207
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 207
Target Population ............................................................................................................ 207
Appendix D: USG Document Analysis Snapshot ...................................................................... 213
Appendix E: Immediate Evaluation Instrument—Levels 2 and 1 .............................................. 214
Appendix F: Delayed Evaluation Instrument ............................................................................. 216
Appendix G: Data Analysis Chart Illustrating Big Picture View of Gap Closure ...................... 220

xii
List of Tables

Table 1: Data Source 40
Table 2: Inductive and Priori Codes 60
Table 3: Stakeholder Specialty Areas 71
Table 4: Summary of Presumed Knowledge Needs and Evaluation Results 111
Table 5: Summary of Presumed Organizational Needs and Evaluation Results 126
Table 6: Summary of Top USAID Partners 131
Table 7: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 144
Table 8: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Engaging Diasporas as
Stakeholders 147
Table 9: Required Drivers to Support Engaging Diasporas as Stakeholders 148
Table 10: Evaluation of Components of Learning for the Diaspora Engagement Program 153
Table 11: Components to Measure Reactions to the Diaspora Engagement Training Program 155

xiii
List of Figures

Figure 1: Black Diplomats Trend 31
Figure 2: Gap Analysis Process 42
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework: Engaging Diasporas as Stakeholders 35
Figure 4: Culture in the Cycle of Mutual Constitution 85
Figure 5: Theoretical Model of White Identity 105
Figure 6: Expectancy Theory of Motivation 120
Figure 7: Illustration of Cost-Effectiveness Map 140
Figure 8: Illustration of Cost-Effectiveness Inputs, Outputs, and Outcomes 141
Figure 9: Illustration of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 142

xiv
List of Abbreviations
A&A Assistance and acquisition
DEIA Diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility
FSO Foreign service officer
FSN Foreign service national
ISC Institutional support contractor
KM Knowledge management
KMS Knowledge management system
KMO Knowledge, motivation, and organization
OCL Organizational change and learning
LNGO Local non-governmental organization
PASA Participating agency service agreement
PSC Personal service contractor
BIPOC Black, Indigenous, and people of color
RQ Research question
UN United Nations
USG United States government
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USDH United States direct hire
1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Partnerships in international development represent an alliance of organizations that
collaborate transparently, equitably, and mutually beneficial toward sustainable development
goals (Bailey & Dolan, 2011). To address development challenges, international donors
collaborate with a wide range of partners across the public and private sectors, nonprofit
organizations, and academia. Whether international or local, these partners commit resources and
share the risks and rewards. The 2019 International Migration Report conducted by the United
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs revealed 272 million people reside outside
their birth country, an increase from 153 million in 1990. Whether in response to conflict or
global economic pressures, diasporas are defined as the scattering or migratory movements of a
people away from their ancestral lands (Cohen, 2008; Sheffer, 1995; Weinar, 2010). Any given
country or ethnic group can have a diaspora. Beyond sending remittances back to their home
countries, diasporas significantly contribute to their country’s development. The practice of
migrants sending part of one’s earnings back home in cash or goods to support one’s family is
known as remittances. In addition to promoting international trade, these influential groups
attract foreign investment, create businesses and promote entrepreneurship, make charitable
contributions, and export new knowledge (Taslakian et al., 2022). The need for formal and direct
engagement of international donors with diasporic groups as formal partners serves as a barrier
that undermines global development outcomes. This research explored the gap in the partnership
framework of international development donors like the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) while examining the various ways diasporas influence development of
their home country.
2

Background of the Problem
Many international development programs seek to address global challenges, from
agriculture, education, and health to economic growth, democracy, and governance. However,
although international development funding agencies dedicate significant resources to tackle
global development challenges, many programs struggle to meet their goals. Damoah and Kumi
(2018) examined the increasing project failure rate. Many reputable and experienced donors like
the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and USAID have not produced the desired project
outcomes. One independent research conducted by the World Bank discovered 39% of projects
failed (Chauvet et al., 2010). USAID’s Office of Inspector General has conducted numerous
reports identifying several management issues that hinder development.
The World Bank published data in 2020 revealed remittances by the diaspora reached
$702 billion, an increase from $689 billion in 2018 and $633 billion in 2017 (The World Bank,
2019). In addition, the World Bank (2021) anticipated the global health crisis would directly
affect remittances, with recipient countries estimated to receive $553 billion in 2021 and $565
billion in 2022 in diaspora remittances. Global remittances, however, are anticipated to reach
$774 billion in 2022 and climb to $810.79 billion in 2023, far exceeding these estimates.
However, X. Lin (2010) found the contributions of diaspora remittances are short-term-
oriented and fail to address the root causes of development challenges tackled by governments
and international donors. Budabin’s (2014) study determined these diasporic groups separately
represent influential contributors to the development of their home countries. Whether as
investments or remittances, their contributions, not leveraged by governments and international
donors, represent an untapped resource for global development (Budabin, 2014). As the literature
will later showcase, diasporas are an untapped resource in developing economies (Nkongolo-
3

Bakenda & Chrysostome, 2013), and diaspora engagement is limited to remittance and not
leveraged to address key development outcomes (Brinkerhoff, 2011; Nyberg-Sorensen et al.,
2002).
Although diasporas serve as safety nets for many developing countries, there is a missed
opportunity for international development donors to engage with diasporas as stakeholders, with
each actor working in silos. Rajak and Stirrat (2011) argued a small group of influential donors
set the tone for how development is presented as universally applicable, often rejecting
alternatives. Nevertheless, diasporas can serve as a connector in humanitarian relief and longer-
term development because stakeholder involvement is essential for a successful development
project (Ika et al., 2010). Furthermore, with the international development community shifting its
focus from technical and professional aid toward localized aid, diaspora groups have a distinct
advantage in using their transnational identities and close proximity to local communities
(Sundberg, 2019). Sundberg (2019) defined localization in donor discourse as practices that
transfer power, channel donor funds to local partners, recognize local expertise, and support local
initiatives (Christian Aid, n.d.; Parrish & Kattakuzhy, 2018; Wall & Hedlund, 2016). Although
donors explore the different facets of localization, there is historical documentation that
diasporas have long played a fundamental role in localization. For example, diasporas have
engaged in the Russo-Ukrainian War through activism, drawn attention to the Somali
humanitarian crisis, and influenced policy action in the Darfuri conflict (Budabin, 2014;
Nikolko, 2019; Olliff, 2018).
Context of the Study
This organizational study evaluates and recommends solutions to expand partnerships
with diaspora groups. President John F. Kennedy established USAID through the Foreign
4

Assistance Act, assigning the Agency a mandate to administer economic assistance programs.
With the directive to support U.S. foreign policy, USAID leads the U.S. government’s
international development and disaster assistance via partnerships and investments that “save
lives, reduce poverty, strengthen democratic governance, and help people emerge from
humanitarian crises and progress beyond assistance” (USAID, 2021, para. 1). The Agency’s
ultimate objective is to assist partners in achieving self-reliance and building their capacity to
lead their own development journeys.
USAID currently has country offices, referred to as Missions, in 80+ countries and
programs in more than 100 countries. These programs aim to advance health, foster global
stability, deliver humanitarian aid, stimulate innovation and partnerships, and empower women
and girls (USAID, 2021). In addition, the Agency works with over 4,000 partners from various
institutions worldwide, including faith-based and community organizations, private companies,
universities and research institutions, and nongovernmental organizations, to achieve its mission.
The management of most USAID programming takes place within the country. USAID has a
global workforce of over 9,000 employees, including U.S. diplomats, foreign service nationals,
and technical contractors (USAID, 2019).
USAID (2016) recognized more than a fifth of the U.S. population is first– or second–
generation diasporas. Nearly 14% of the U.S. population is diaspora (Budiman et al., 2020). In
2016, the Agency developed research on diaspora engagement, where it also recognized
“diaspora skills, knowledge, market access, and familiarity with local culture and language can
be deployed in different forms to impact development” (USAID, 2016, p. 3). USAID has a track
record of supporting diaspora initiatives in countries that align with its development goals.
However, the majority of such efforts center around economic growth, particularly in
5

entrepreneurship, investment, and the utilization of diaspora capital. The Agency boasted 47% of
its diaspora engagement is concentrated predominantly on investments that support economic
growth in developing countries. In comparison, only 22% have focused on volunteerism, tapping
into the diaspora’s knowledge, skills, and expertise (USAID, 2016).
Across the years, USAID has also developed a variety of resources including (a)
Diaspora Toolkit: Partnering With USAID, (b) Diaspora Infographic, (c) USAID and Diaspora:
Partners in Development Framework, and (d) Diaspora Factsheet: An Overview of the Agency’s
Diaspora Engagement Work. USAID has also designed a few mechanisms, such as the African
Diaspora Marketplace and MicroMentor, focused on providing funding and mentorship to
entrepreneurs. USAID also supports two investment platforms, the India Investment Initiative
(III) and Raíces, which empowers diasporas in India and Latin America. Lastly, Homestrings is a
USAID-funded online investment and social media platform that channels diasporic capital
(USAID, 2020).
Despite these initiatives, USAID has been unable to sustain or expand diaspora
partnerships. Most of the diaspora efforts undertaken by the Agency date back to 2016–2017,
demonstrating USAID’s inability to sustain diasporic engagement. Moreover, most recent
partnership reports indicated the initiative’s launch did not reach its goal. Most investments focus
on the economic growth sector, with little to none in the health, education, and governance
sectors.
Since the 2016–2017 efforts to integrate diasporas within USAID’s programming, there
has not been any push to elevate the diaspora partnerships beyond the traditional landscape
within public, private, nonprofit organizations, and academia. Instead, USAID launched its latest
partnership activities focused on based on three fundamental guiding principles:
6

● Promote local leadership by working through local systems and engaging traditional
partners in strengthening local capacity;
● Foster self-reliance by seeking bold, creative, and innovative approaches that
capitalize on broad ideas and solutions; and
● Sustain and scale partnerships by identifying new sources of funding that can
leverage additional funding to achieve even more significant development outcomes.
Although often framed in terms of remittances, diaspora investments include three other areas:
philanthropy, direct investment, and portfolio investment (Asquith & Opoku-Owusu, 2020). The
goals of diaspora stakeholders would strive to (a) eliminate any obstacles and barriers to these
investment opportunities through information and transparency, (b) advocate for effective and
efficient avenues for diasporic investments by removing complex legal requirements, and (c)
build confidence that their investment will have a lasting social impact.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The interconnectedness of international development and migration requires the elevation
of diaspora engagement beyond remittances, leveraged to address development outcomes
directly. Diaspora investments are not limited to remittances alone. They also encompass three
other crucial areas: philanthropy, direct investment, and portfolio investment (Asquith & Opoku-
Owusu, 2020). However, there is a significant gap in international donors formally engaging
diasporas as partners. As a result, diasporas represent an untapped resource for international
development donors (Budabin, 2014).
USAID relies on its partners worldwide to accomplish its mission of promoting and
demonstrating democratic values and advancing freedom, peace, and prosperity worldwide. With
the support of various public, private, and nonprofit organizations, part of USAID’s mission is to
7

find new and innovative ways to address these global challenges (USAID, 2022). Organizational
priorities for diaspora engagement include entrepreneurship and investment; volunteerism and
disaster response; business networks and market linkages; and mentorship. The four pillars of
partnership engagement seek to leverage diasporans: “(a) influential global thought leaders; (b)
first volunteers in disaster-affected countries; (c) entrepreneurial innovators for creating jobs,
competition, and skills for their communities; and (d) mentors transfer skills and knowledge,
reversing the brain drain” (USAID, 2022, p. 1).
The purpose of this research was not to criticize development diplomacy or to reprimand
foreign aid. Instead, it aimed to serve as a call to action for development practitioners interested
in strengthening donor accountability, maximizing impact, and optimizing resources through
fostering inclusive partnerships. There are many major international development agencies;
however, this research explored the gap in the partnership framework of international
development donors similar to USAID while examining the various ways diasporas influence the
development of their home country. The following questions guided this research on evaluating
and recommending solutions to expanding partnerships with diaspora groups:
1. How do international donors like USAID engage the diaspora?
2. How do diaspora groups, networks, or coalitions enhance the role of international
development donors?
3. How are USAID employees incentivized to implement new partnership strategies and
policies?
Importance of the Study
X. Lin (2010) found the contributions of diaspora remittances are short term oriented and
fail to address the root causes of development challenges tackled by governments and
8

international donors. Budabin’s (2014) study determined these diasporic groups separately
represent influential contributors to the development of their home countries. Whether as
investments or remittances, their contributions, not leveraged by governments and international
donors, represent an untapped resource in international development (Budabin, 2014). This
problem of practice assessed the lack of formal and direct engagement of international donors
with diasporas as partners to achieve sustainable results in international development. The
research explored USAID’s partnership framework and analyzed gaps in their engagement with
diaspora partners.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Tuck and Yang (2013) described a theory of change as a belief or perspective on
adjusting, correcting, or improving a situation. For this problem of practice, the study draws from
interviews and qualitative surveys, using Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis and critical
theories such as critical race theory (CRT; Solórzano et al., 2000) and postcolonial theory
(Fanon, 1968; Said, 1978; Young, 2003). This section provides an overview of the theories
influencing this study’s design.
There have been a number of attempts to explain organizational learning using a
traditional theory of human learning and development. Traditional theories of learning are
insufficient in explaining collective phenomena as they prioritize individual perspectives over
those of groups (Gallucci, 2007; Huber, 1991; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998). In addition to
emphasizing how adults and peers influence individual learners, sociocultural theory focuses on
how cultural values and beliefs affect how learning occurs (Vygotsky, 1978). Sociocultural
theory explores the role organizational culture and context play in learning and building local
partnerships. Organizational learning can also be analyzed using this theory. For this study, the
9

research will lean on the Vygotskian notion of learning and change to explain how people
internalize and transform cultural tools while participating in social practices (Herrenkohl &
Wertsch, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978). Applying this lens is particularly important because the
partnership discourse centers shift to the decolonizing and localizing aid debate.
An effective method for solving performance issues is a gap analysis that identifies and
analyzes gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Although each
of the identified influences is categorized separately, the identified influences and classification
are interconnected, suggesting they may influence each other. Motivational influences may affect
knowledge, for example. In the same way, organizational culture may have an impact on
stakeholders’ motivation and knowledge. As it relates to the problem of practice, development
practitioners may be reluctant to use nontraditional approaches to partnership engagement due to
a lack of knowledge about partnership development approaches and potential benefits. In
addition, due to oppressive systems such as racism and colonialism, the organizational culture
may not embrace nontraditional partnerships, devaluing local and diaspora partners.
Clark and Estes (2008) explored organizational culture as the “way values, goals, beliefs,
emotions, and processes as people develop over time” (p. 108). Failure to align objectives,
regulations, and protocols with organizational culture results in inevitable performance issues
(Clark & Estes, 2008). As a result, the study used this framework to evaluate the organization’s
partnership engagement with diasporas, evaluating organizational factors such as resources,
systems, structures, and culture. To determine how the organization engages with partners,
understanding the organization’s culture of partnership is crucial. An organization’s culture
comprises two components: the cultural model, which encompasses intangible values, beliefs,
10

and attitudes, and the cultural setting, which encompasses visible activities such as policies,
procedures, and practices within the community (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
CRT, as a lens, examines how race and racism shape U.S. society, influencing laws and
public policies that ultimately perpetuate a cycle of systemic racism (Delgado et al., 2017).
Using the CRT theory framework allows an understanding of how historical factors influenced
the management of development aid and the formation of partnerships in international
development policies. Further, the study used CRT as the overarching foundation in exploring
power, privilege, and inequality in international development rooted in the imbalanced
relationship between the developed and underdeveloped, or the giver and the receiver (Kothari,
2006). Postcolonial theory presents an alternative theoretical framework that challenges the
dominant narrative of colonial power (Young, 2003). Founded by a series of influential theorists,
philosophers, and writers, postcolonial theory frames the world in a Eurocentric lens that divides
the world into us and them (Fanon, 1968; Said, 1978). This lens is critical to assessing the
epistemological understanding of international development and how knowledge in that space is
either Eurocentric or ethnocentric (Young, 2003). This study’s theory of change will inform
decision makers in international development about the discriminatory practices upheld by
colonialism that perpetuate a divide between donors and partners, impacting development
outcomes. In addition, it will offer an opportunity to explore a dark side of development that
hinders diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
This study applied a qualitative methodology using (a) interviews, (b) assumed KMO
influences, and (c) document analyses to understand diaspora engagement in international
development. The researcher used a semistructured qualitative study. The researcher carefully
crafted the interviews to explore thoroughly how donors are structured organizationally and their
11

level of partnership involvement. The study reviewed and analyzed relevant reports and
literature, including assessing the policies and strategies of countries with large migration and
diaspora populations, such as the Philippines, Haiti, and Nigeria. Furthermore, the researcher
integrated pertinent literature into Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework to provide a
comprehensive understanding of the organizational influences that drive or hinder diaspora
engagement. Interview data were analyzed to validate or invalidate assumed influences. The
study employed the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), a
comprehensive implementation and evaluation plan.
Definitions of Terms
The following definitions provide clarity for their use throughout this study, giving the
readers a better understanding of the problem of practice and the literature review.
Coloniality: The imposition of Eurocentric worldviews, social hierarchies, and economic
structures that perpetuate unequal power relations and marginalize certain groups based on race,
ethnicity, class, and gender (Maldonado-Torres, 2007; Quijano, 2007)
Decolonization: The process of dismantling colonial structures, gaining independence,
and achieving self-determination for formerly colonized nations (Grosfoguel, 2004).
Decoloniality: An intellectual and theoretical framework that challenges western
epistemologies, disrupts colonial power dynamics, and promotes alternative ways of knowing
and being. It examines colonialism’s ongoing effects across different societies and disciplines,
including postcolonial studies, CRT, feminist theory, and indigenous studies. It is not limited to a
specific historical context or geographical region and examines the ongoing effects of
colonialism across different societies and disciplines (Grosfoguel, 2011; Maldonado-Torres,
2017; Mignolo, 2020; Quijano, 2007).
12

Diaspora: In response to pressure, people moved far from their ancestral homelands; the
scattering or migratory movements of a people away from their ancestral lands (Cohen, 2008;
Sheffer, 1995; Weinar, 2010)
Global North and Global South: The geographic, historical, economic, educational, and
political grouping of countries denoting a world order. The Global North represents the richest,
industrialized nations and the largest donors of development aid. The Global South represents the
poorest, least developed nations, the largest recipient of development aid (Brandt, 1980;
Carbonnier & Kontinen, 2015; M. P. T., 1978). Using quotation marks, the researcher expressed
her discomfort that Europe and North America are perceived as superior to the rest of the world
(Chaudhuri et al., 2021; Opara, 2021).
International development aid: A concept about the sharing of knowledge and resources
to support communities and governments worldwide to end extreme poverty, advance human
rights, and promote resilient, democratic societies.
International development donor: In addition to providing billions of dollars in resources
for building self-reliance in developing countries, bilateral and multilateral donors, like USAID
and others, share decades of development expertise (USAID, 2018a). To capture the power
dynamics between donor and recipient properly, the term funder was used instead of donor to
correct the image of funders selflessly donating money to impoverished countries.
Localization of aid: The process where international actors shift the power and
responsibilities of aid efforts toward local and national actors. This approach empowers local
actors and minimizes the transaction costs of aid (Bonis-Charancle & Vielajus, 2019).
Partnership: An alliance of organizations that collaborate transparently, equitably, and
mutually beneficial toward a sustainable development goal, and partners commit resources and
13

share the risks and rewards involved. USAID defines partnership as an association between
USAID, its partners, and customers based upon mutual respect, complementary strengths, and
shared commitment to achieving mutually agreed-upon objectives (Bailey & Dolan, 2011).
Racism: Any hypothesis, tenet, philosophy, or set of thoughts that state a causal interface
between the phenotypic or genotypic characteristics of people or bunches and their
characteristics, including the false concept of racial predominance. Racism leads to racial
inequalities and the idea that discriminatory relations between groups are morally and
scientifically justified (Organization of American States, 2013)
Organization of the Study
The dissertation follows a traditional structure consisting of five chapters. Chapter 1
provides an overview of the dissertation. It contextualizes the problem of practice on the lack of
formal and direct engagement of international donors with diasporic groups as formal partners in
international development. Chapter 1 also introduces the theoretical frameworks and
methodology. The study draws from interviews, document review, and qualitative surveys, using
Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory, Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis, CRT (Solórzano
et al., 2000), and postcolonial theory (Fanon, 1968; Said, 1978; Young, 2003). Lastly, key terms
are defined. Chapter 2 discusses the pertinent literature underpinning the study, the conceptual
framework, and the limitations and delimitations. The chapter further explores the historical
context of diasporas, the evolution of partnerships and international development theories
throughout history, and contemporary race issues within the sector impacting partnerships.
Chapter 3 details the research methodology, including selecting participants in in-depth
interviews and the logic behind data collection and analysis. This study applied a qualitative
method using interviews, qualitative surveys, and document analysis. Chapter 4 broken into two
14

parts, analyzes the findings from the interviews, qualitative surveys, and document analysis.
Using the study’s data and literature, Chapter 5 offers recommendations for closing the study’s
perceived gaps and suggestions for how to implement and evaluate them.
15

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review examines the research surrounding diasporic communities as
partners in achieving sustainable results in international development. The review begins with
exploring the historical context of diasporas, including understanding the term. The review then
explores the evolution of partnerships and international development theories through time and
the beliefs of the most renowned philosophers. Furthermore, the review compares the parallels
between international development and migration, socioeconomic development and migration,
and brain drain as a consequence of mass migration. The following literature review discusses
the connections. It also explores the adverse effects remittances can have in sustaining
dependency and underdevelopment and the impact of emigration on developing countries. The
first part of this literature review discusses examples of diasporas engaging as stakeholders in the
international development process. The latter part of the literature review examines how the
moral code of international development actors intersects with diversity, equity, inclusion, and,
ultimately, partnerships.
The literature review then assesses how race and racism impact the sector through
various lenses. The literature investigates how systemic discrimination in the humanitarian aid
industry perpetuates hierarchical inequalities that drive assumptions about people’s roles and
responsibilities in society, including who are the givers and the receivers. The review also
explores the contemporary racial issues facing our time, like the lynching of George Floyd and
the emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement. It analyzes how these events have
influenced the global call for greater diversity in traditionally White-dominated spaces, including
the international development sector.
16

Parallels exist between international development and migration. The following literature
review discusses the connections. It also explores the adverse effects remittances can have in
sustaining dependency and underdevelopment and the impact of emigration on developing
countries. First, this literature review discusses examples of diasporas engaging as stakeholders
in the international development process. This literature review concludes with an examination
of how international development actors’ moral codes intersect with equity, inclusion, and
diversity. The review includes a thorough analysis of each of these important areas. In addition
to reviewing the general research literature, the study used Grant and Osanloo’s (2014) lens to
outline the study’s blueprint. Finally, the literature review examines how knowledge, motivation,
and organization affect employees’ understanding and implementation of organizational goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Historical Context and Impact
The term diaspora appears to have evolved through time, with Weinar (2010)
documenting the term’s evolution. Early references to diaspora communities were to the Jewish
and Armenian diasporas. Sheffer (1986) formulated the classic definition that proposed
conditions to meet the standards, including six criteria for being a diaspora. Despite their
dispersal, the group must maintain some sense of collective identity beyond borders, have some
internal organization, and maintain ties to their homeland (Weinar, 2010). Researchers like
Sheffer (1995) and Cohen (2008) have identified six criteria for being a diaspora: “dispersion
under pressure, choice of destination, identity awareness, networked space, duration of
transnational ties, and relative autonomy from host and origin societies” (as cited in Bruneau,
2010, pp. 36–37). Bruneau (2010) offered an alternative to the standard academic definition and
criteria as a hybrid model that encapsulates the Black Afro-descendant diaspora of the Americas.
17

Hughes (2010) supported this alternative definition asserting that African Americans as a
diasporic identity is the result of multiple intersections of politics, economics, cultures, and
interests. This nuanced definition is worth mentioning as African Americans have historically
lobbied for intervention during humanitarian crises. The history of Black American activism
spans several decades, including notable events such as the U.S. occupation of Haiti in 1920, the
Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935, and the South African apartheid in 1977 (Hughes, 2010).
Although diaspora involvement in international development can be well documented,
their contributions are often isolated from the partnership discourse. International donor
organizations like USAID, European Union, World Bank, and Inter-American Development
Bank work through various partnerships to address development challenges (Andersen & Jensen,
2017). The notion of partnerships is a reasonably new phenomenon in international development
introduced and popularized by the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (Foresti et al.,
2006; Winckler Andersen & Therkildsen, 2007). Andersen and Jensen (2017) suggested this led
to the creation of a participatory framework. This participatory approach is a slight shift from the
postcolonial period, where “the donor sees the recipient as an object for improvement within the
rules set up by the donor” (Baaz, 2005, p. 75). Although it may seem like a positive change at
first glance, Andersen and Jensen characterized it as an interpellation of partnerships.
Partnerships and International Development Theories
International development has been defined and conceptualized over time through
various lenses, such as modernization theory, dependency theory, neoliberalism, and critical
theories. The discourses of partnership and participation then attempt to represent us and them as
equal partners in a joint endeavor (Profant, 2019). Modernization theory saw economic
development as a linear process (Rostow, 1960, 1991). An example of a modernization theory is
18

Rostow’s (1960, 1991) five stages to economic development: (a) traditional society, (b)
precondition for takeoff, (c) the takeoff process, (d) the drive to maturity, and (e) high mass
consumption society. Advancements made by Europe and the United States laid the groundwork
for the development of modernization theory. Critics have argued it proposed only one form of
development and ignored barriers that prevent nations from reaching their goals, like foreign
debt, conflict, and humanitarian disasters (Frank, 1989; Wallerstein, 1983). This theoretical
approach to development assumes that countries require external assistance to tackle their
development challenges. Nhema and Zinyama (2016) asserted there was a later shift to
dependency theory, popularized by thought leaders like Prebisch (1959), Frank (1989), and
Amin (1978), who theorized poor states pay for the enrichment of wealthy states, perpetuating
dependence. There is a commonly held belief that the unequal exchange between developed and
underdeveloped countries contribute to poor economic growth. According to the principles of
dependency theory, partnerships cannot deviate from traditional power dynamics. Profant (2019)
argued the partnership and participation discourse in international development attempts to
promote the idea that us and them are equal partners on a joint journey ignoring the traditional
power dynamics.
Neoliberalism emerged in the late 1980s as economic policies that increased
privatization, economic deregulation, and lower taxation (Williamson, 2005). The Structural
Adjustment Programs (SAPs), as neoliberalism policies promoted mainly by the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of Treasury, predicted economic
growth would benefit the developing nations and prevent a global (Kim et al., 2000;
Rajasingham-Senanayake, 2005; Williamson, 2005). The shift in the partnership discourse was
supposed to remedy the problems in the SAPs. However, Noxolo (2006) argued the partnership
19

discourse represents the partners unequally. Kim et al. (2000) argued the actions taken to address
poverty, unfortunately, had the opposite effect and made the situation worse. This failure is due
to a decrease in incomes, greater inequality, and restricted access to necessary social services.
Various branches of critical theories intersected with international development to change the
partnership landscape by deconstructing the development discourse (Ingram, 2017). Critical
theories such as postcolonial theory, postdevelopment, and feminist theory challenged the
unequal power dynamics between the North and South (Escobar, 1988; Foucault, 1988; Gramsci,
1980; Manzo, 2015; Said et al., 1998). These theories focused on human emancipation ushered
in a new age in development from human development to sustainable development goals
(Alonso et al., 2014; Jayasundara, 2013).
Socioeconomic Development and Migration
As two distinct policy fields, socioeconomic development and migration are
interconnected and directly impact each other. Researchers have found migration can positively
affect poorer developing countries of origin. Castles (2009) and de Haas (2012) have argued
socioeconomic development and migration are always interconnected in many historical and
current cases. The authors revealed the connection between development and migration is a
sociopolitical construction. Data available from research do not justify the increased interest
surrounding the relationship between migration and development. Migration alone does not
eliminate underlying development challenges (Oberman, 2015). Although there are clear benefits
to migration, especially its impact on individuals and communities, it cannot be blamed for
underdevelopment or expected to promote international development (de Haas, 2012; Geiger &
Pécoud, 2013). Removing more ingrained development challenges requires further exploring the
impact of remittances.
20

Migration and remittances alone do not spearhead development. When governments and
international donors fail to implement and fund development reform, de Haas (2018) found
migration and remittances could have an adverse effect by sustaining dependency and
underdevelopment. Research showed, under unfavorable development conditions, the lack of
institutionalized domestic reform, internal political struggles, immigration, and remittances alone
are unlikely to contribute to sustainable development (de Haas, 2018). According to the author,
migration, and remittances alone cannot solve development challenges like unsuccessful
macroeconomic policies and socioeconomic inequalities. de Haas explored the degree to which
migration can play a role in social, economic, and political change in origin countries, which
ultimately relies on more general development conditions. Furthermore, de Haas found
dependency on remittance as an indicator of a weak economy rather than a growing,
diversifying, and healthy economy.
Several studies claim that migration alone does not solve underlying development
challenges (Castles, 2009; de Haas, 2012; Geiger & Pécoud, 2013). de Haas (2018) argued
failure to use remittances for development reform can create a dependency. Rather than taking
advantage of the opportunities offered by diasporas to combat socioeconomic disparities,
development actors focus mainly on remittances, which leaves a window of opportunity for
extending diaspora engagement.
Diaspora and Home Country Receptivity
Increasing and leveraging diaspora involvement requires the home country’s government
receptivity (Nkongolo-Bakenda & Chrysostome, 2013). The research illustrated several industry-
standard indicators of government receptivity:
• attitudes of government leaders toward diaspora members
21

• diaspora investment programs
• government agencies for diaspora issues
• streamlining and decreasing administrative bureaucracies related to starting a
business
• tackling usual hassles, such as red tape, customs delays, and bribery
• country image
• effectiveness of the judicial system
• infrastructures (Agunias, 2009; Kapur & McHale, 2007; Newland & Tanaka, 2010;
Newland & Taylor, 2010; Newland et al., 2010; Ratha & Plaza, 2011; Tomas, 2009)
When diasporas are allowed dual nationality by their home countries, they are more likely to
facilitate entrepreneurship in their home countries than those without the same privilege
(Newland & Tanaka, 2010). In addition, when government leaders possess international
experience, it is easier for them to have a favorable attitude regarding the diaspora (Nam Jeon &
Young Ahn, 2004). Nkongolo-Bakenda and Chrysostome (2013) further revealed another
contributing factor affecting the rate at which diasporas contribute to the improvement of their
home countries is the overall business climate in their countries of origin.
Diasporas possess comparative advantages that make them essential stakeholders for
international development (Brinkerhoff, 2011). According to Orozco’s (2008) research,
sustainable development through the engagement of diasporas depends on fundamental reforms
that address inequality in the home countries, including but not limited to the creation of specific
policies on economic liberties and asset accumulation. In addition to the need for policy reform,
Brinkerhoff (2011) found significant reallocation of resources and strategic investments are
imperative to development. Brinkerhoff argued similar to nongovernmental organizations
22

(NGOs), over-relying on diasporas for development outcomes promotes a myth about achieving
progress. Migration and remittances work well for the home countries when they complement
government reform and development initiatives.
Migration and remittances are not without its challenges. Amuedo-Dorantes (2014)
revealed remittances reduced countries’ labor sources, creating a culture of dependence that
hinders global development. Remittances also increase the “consumption of non-tradable goods,
raise their prices, appreciate the real exchange rate, and decrease exports, thus damaging the
receiving country’s competitiveness in world markets” (Amuedo-Dorantes, 2014, p. 4). The
researcher also found, related to poverty reduction, remittances improve the incomes of recipient
households significantly, facilitate economic stability, and attract investments to promote
economic growth. The study further showed the main challenge is to gauge the impacts of
remittances to ultimately influence the design of policies that enable the productive use of
remittances (Amuedo-Dorantes, 2014). These policies could range from easing capital controls
through transaction taxes to reforming immigration policy through dual nationality. Amuedo-
Dorantes (2014) revealed remittances could reduce labor supply, thereby impeding economic
growth while fostering a “culture of dependency.” Additionally, the ever-increasing anti-
immigrant sentiment and more stringent immigration enforcement policies in host countries, like
the United States, can curtail international migration and remittances.
Although remittances and migration contribute positively to the home countries’
economic and social development, they are also associated with a host of challenges that, if not
addressed, can threaten that growth (Amuedo-Dorantes, 2014; Brinkerhoff, 2011; Orozco, 2008).
Therefore, it is essential for development actors, whether public or private, to think through their
23

overall strategy for engaging with diasporas to foster an environment conducive to diaspora
collaboration.
Migration and the Brain Drain
It is impractical to explore immigration and development and ignore a global
phenomenon like the brain drain. Leading experts in the field, Docquier and Rapoport (2012),
found, as a result of globalization, human capital is becoming scarcer. The brain drain and
scarcity of human capital contribute to increasing inequalities across countries (Docquier &
Rapoport, 2012). The authors determined the brain drain side of globalization creates winners
and losers among developing countries, negatively impacting weaker economies while benefiting
rich nations. When examining what works, the researchers explored that the characteristics of a
successful source country included capitalizing on the benefits of having a highly skilled,
educated diaspora. The research categorized the losing countries as those disproportionately
sending their best athletes, artists, scientists, and engineers (Oberman, 2015). Docquier and
Rapoport’s empirical analysis of the migration determinants for highly skilled immigrants
showed failed economic achievements are associated with widespread poverty, corrupt state
institutions, government-sanctioned discrimination, and political repression. Research showed
the leading causes of immigration are poverty, unemployment, and political instability
(Redehegn et al., 2019). A World Bank (Arbache et al., 2010) study explored wage differentials
between Northwest Africa and Europe and discovered wage gaps are not the only reasons behind
the emigration of highly educated individuals. Beyond wage gaps, there are other complexities.
Research found the essential elements affecting the decision to migrate include unemployment,
industry structure, and a lack of career opportunities for highly skilled migrants (Beine et al.,
2008).
24

The Interconnectedness of international development and migration requires the elevation
of diaspora engagement beyond remittances and leveraging to address development outcomes
directly. Although the scholarship on the diaspora and international development is relatively
new, researchers like Koinova (2018), Shain (2002), Budabin (2014), and Godin (2018) have
captured examples of diaspora mobilizations beyond remittances in Haiti, Liberia, Sudan, and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Budabin’s research pointed to an increasing interest in
the relationship between diasporas and other stakeholders in international development. The
author led a case study on the Darfur crisis and examined the relationship between the lead
NGO, Save Darfur Coalition, and the U.S.-based Darfuri diaspora. This study outlined the
different roles the Darfuri diaspora played as stakeholders in resolving the humanitarian crisis.
The researcher’s analysis provided a clear outline of how diaspora groups can be development
partners. In the case study of Haiti, Koinova examined the role of the Haitian diaspora in
mandating the United Nations’ creation of the National Truth and Justice Commission following
the political crisis in 1995 that forced thousands of Haitians to flee the island nation for the
United States. These examples show the power of leveraging diaspora partnerships in addressing
development challenges.
Although the Global North benefit from receiving highly skilled and educated diasporas,
leaving the Global South to send their best athletes, artists, scientists, and engineers (Oberman,
2015). The worsening situation often overlooks struggling young migrants from all over the
world. In addition to youth unemployment, sending economies lose a productive and vibrant
workforce. A review of the research notes several instances where diaspora efforts influenced
substantive changes in their home countries beyond remittances. The research indicates several
isolated instances of diaspora-led actions beyond remittances that influenced substantive changes
25

in their home countries. The success of these efforts may serve as a framework and lessons
learned for engaging the diaspora if scaled up and analyzed further.
From Moral Code to Racial Exclusion
Racism has been a dividing factor in international development, impacting humanitarian
aid. While humanitarian actors tend to focus on their altruistic nature, evolving research
examines how the moral code intersects with diversity, equity, inclusion, and, ultimately,
partnerships. Fechter (2016) argued international development and humanitarian aid contain an
element they defined as “moral labor,” or an innate desire for people to support others. The
author sees this need for people to give back as an integral part of their being and not in conflict
or competition with professional activities. The research showed this concept is crucial to
understanding the disparity between ideals, aspirations, and achievable realities. Vaux (2001)
examined how humanitarian workers’ motives integrate with direct responses to crises. When
trying to connect with program recipients, personal biases and preconceived notions can create
barriers. Overcoming these personal motives is important to establish meaningful connections.
Furthermore, the researchers argued moral labor is insufficient if international aid workers
ultimately operate in paternalistic, racist, and postcolonial paradigms (Fechter, 2016; Vaux,
2001). This forces three questions:
1. How much impact can the industry achieve if the sector is inherently racist and
discriminatory?
2. With moral labor as the primary indicator for development work, how does the
industry reflect on itself while maintaining a critical eye and managing race?
3. If humanitarian workers hold preconceived notions that set barriers, how does this
extend to building partnerships with diasporic communities?
26

Power and Racialization
There is primary research focused on international development and its links to power
and racialization. Bornstein and Redfield’s (2010) theory highlights how caring for strangers has
been elevated in contemporary media as the care of White strangers. The essence of Loftsdóttir’s
(2014) argument is that there is a “larger global imagining of a particular people (for the most
part White) as having a role in helping others, without acknowledging their entangled histories of
colonialism and racism” (p. 454). The literature highlights international development as a
fascinating sector for examining the complexities of the local and global intersections of racism
(Bornstein & Redfield, 2010; Loftsdóttir, 2014).
Loftsdóttir (2014) examined the dynamics between White Islanders and Black recipients.
The analysis was threefold: (a) giving historical context of how international development was
crucial in establishing the lines between White moral actors and Black objects in development,
(b) examining boundaries with a strong emphasis on commercialization and ethical
individualism, and (c) contextualizing interviews with individuals engaged in development
assistance. Loftsdóttir argued a lack of critical engagement on racism forces individuals to
conceptualize poverty and marginalization as racialized. The author also asserted the sector lacks
the preparedness to affirm Whiteness as an indicator of westernization rather than a privilege
ascribed through racism. The literature suggested the international development industry has a
difficult time discussing race in those terms. As a result, the sector often ignores the impacts of
power systems created to benefit White nations, such as colonialism, imperialism, and
capitalism. To isolate these systems from the root cause of poverty and global inequities that
development aid actors are attempting to combat impedes sustainable development initiatives.
27

Crewe and Fernando (2006) posited international development organizations are working
to address gender disparities and other forms of exclusions in the industry. As a result, there has
been a significant shift to ensure development programs target marginalized underrepresented
communities. The authors noted the industry gap when discussing racial inequality and privilege,
arguing organizations often systematize marginalized groups’ oppression by translating deeply
rooted “prejudices into development policies” (Crewe & Fernando, 2006, p. 41). Further, the
study showed these policies impact the communities meant to benefit from the project and other
actors, such as development and humanitarian workers.
The Giver and the Receiver: Understanding Hierarchical Inequalities
Systemic discrimination in the humanitarian aid and international development industry
perpetuates hierarchical inequalities rooted in racism. O’Dowd (2020) defined systemic
discrimination as the way White superiority ultimately dictates assumptions about people’s roles
and responsibilities in society. In connection to partnerships, these hierarchical inequalities
dictate power dynamics around who gets to be a prime or subpartner on USAID contracts and
awards. Crewe and Fernando (2006) argued the development sector does not confront and
challenge racial disparities. On the surface, the humanitarian industry appears to be diverse.
According to Loftsdóttir (2014), the international development sector offers a fascinating
opportunity for examining what she called a “complex landscape of global and local
intersections of racism” (p. 454). Racial discrimination in the industry mimics the history of
racial segregation during colonial rule (Crewe & Fernando, 2006).
Furthermore, the racialized forms of power, privilege, and inequality that manifest in
international development are rooted in the imbalanced relationship between the developed and
underdeveloped, or the giver and the receiver (Kothari, 2006). Kothari (2006) argued these
28

racialized forms of power, privilege, and inequality are particularly prevalent. This problem is
critical to address because these inequalities directly impact recipients and the sustainability of
development outcomes. These discrepancies translate into dual-pay systems between locals and
expatriate staff, recruitment, promotion, and retention policies that primarily benefit White
development workers (Carr et al., 2010; Hug & Jäger, 2013; Ndaguba & Hanyane, 2018).
According to Yosso (2005), one of the dominant manifestations of contemporary racism
in the United States is deficit thinking. Although scholars have applied this observation to
education using a CRT lens, it is also applicable to the partnership discourse in international
development. A traditional conceptualization of cultural capital is the accumulation of cultural
skills and values within a society, inherited and adapted by previous generations and then
continued by the current generation (Bourdieu, 1986). Cultural capital includes ideas,
expressions, and tools associated with social, ethical, intellectual, scientific, artistic, and
technological development that begins with birth and lasts a lifetime (Bourdieu, 1986; Raissa et
al., 2021). Bourdieu’s cultural theory has been used by international development donors for
years to determine and classify which communities are culturally wealthy and which are
culturally poor (Yosso, 2005). As a result, western knowledge and skills have been imported to
the Global South as the standard. Dynamic localization theory explains how norm takers choose,
appropriate, and modify previous frameworks to conform to universal standards (Acharya,
2004). Raissa et al. (2021) identified a gap in the literature concerning the relationship between
cultural capital and the five capitals toward the notion of sustainable development. The five
capitals identified are natural, human, physical, social, and financial capital (Bourdieu, 1986).
That research gap is indicative of the deficit thinking Yosso emphasized in their work. Raissa et
al.’s research findings demonstrated cultural change occurs as a result of cultural capital
29

interventions that encourage behavior change which consequently promotes sustainable
behavior.
Black Lives Matter and Inclusive Development
Immediately following George Floyd’s death and the height of the Black Lives Matter
movement, organizations worldwide were forced to look at their industries and organizations for
gaps in diversity, equity, and inclusion. The international development sector was no different.
Fortunately, there was an existing international framework for combating racial discrimination.
First, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples calls
for an end to colonization regardless of race and color (United Nations General Assembly, 1960).
Second, the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination offers no
justification for racial discrimination in theory or practice (United Nations General Assembly,
1963). Third, the UN’s International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (ICERD) set the groundwork for integrating racial bias into the UN’s principles
for human dignity and equality (United Nations, 1985). Finally, the Declaration on Race and
Racial Prejudice offers a clear definition of race and racism while positioning humans as one
species (United Nations, 1978). While these instruments set the stage for eradicating racism on a
global level, they proved to be difficult to enforce as countries were left to determine their own
strategies to address racial discrimination. According to Lugon Arantes’s (2022) research,
eradicating racial discrimination requires addressing its underlying causes, motivating factors,
and manifestations.
The summer of 2020 confirmed that while the United States serves as a global leader in
the rule of law, its anti-discrimination laws and equal protection rights do little to protect Black,
Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) from racism (Bradley, 2019). This fact has created a
30

paradox between inclusive development programming versus diversity, equity, inclusion, and
accessibility (DEIA) initiatives in recruitment. As USAID seeks to partner differently, it
recognizes the need to address its long-standing racial gap in recruitment and retention. These
gaps are so wide that President Biden recently issued an Executive Order on Diversity, Equity,
Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce, including the foreign service (Exec. Order
No. 14,035, 2021). Some may argue inclusive development is separate from DEIA issues in the
sector, with inclusive development focusing on programming and DEIA on human resource
management. According to the latest statistics from the U.S. Department of State, the percentage
of Black individuals serving as Foreign Service Officers in the United States is only 5.4%. This
data highlights a concerning lack of diversity within the Foreign Service and underscores the
need for continued efforts to promote inclusivity and equity in recruitment and hiring practices.
At the end of 2021, the Association of Black American Ambassadors reported that out of
the 189 U.S. Ambassadors serving abroad, only three were Black (Zeya & Finer, 2020). In the
international affairs sector, there is a notable lack of proportional representation for individuals
of Black descent, resulting in retention and advancement issues. This deficiency has been a cause
for concern among many who strive for a more diverse and inclusive workplace. For example,
the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found, from 2018 to 2020, the proportion of
African Americans working in the U.S. Agency for International Development fell from 26 to
21% (GAO, 2020). Zeya and Finer (2020) argued there is very little diversity in the diplomatic
workforce, especially among the senior ranks. This lack of diversity, according to Zeya and
Finer, undermines its effectiveness and fosters an apprehensive risk-averse culture that kills
creativity and innovation (p. 2). Figure 1 depicts the presidential nominations of Black U.S.
ambassadors from Truman to Trump.
31

Figure 1

Black Diplomats Trend

Note. Adapted from “America’s Ambassadors of African Descent: A Brief History” by C.
McLellan, 2015, The Journal of Pan African Studies, 8(1), p. 66.

The convergence between organizational influences and decoloniality occurs by
reevaluating knowledge production and dissemination processes, challenging the dominance of
Western knowledge systems, and allowing for the inclusion of diverse sources of knowledge. It
is possible for organizations to promote decolonial practices by actively seeking and valuing
alternative knowledge sources, participating in participatory knowledge co-creation, and
promoting knowledge exchange that respects diverse voices and epistemologies (Utter et al.,
2021). Additionally, opportunities for capacity building and professional development are
32

essential in addressing colonial legacies, such as providing training and support to staff members
to examine their biases, assumptions, and practices critically. Finally, by applying Utter et al.’s
(2021) understanding of knowledge co-creation through the facilitation of transformative
learning experiences, organizations can promote cultural sensitivity, critical thinking, and
decolonial approaches to international development.
Taking a decolonial approach challenges the imbalance of power in partnership and
collaboration between organizations from the Global North and the Global South. Decoloniality
and organizational influences require the establishment of partnerships based on principles of
reciprocity, mutual respect, and equitable decision making (Crosschild et al., 2021). It is
imperative organizations actively seek out the knowledge, expertise, and perspectives of local
partners and make sure they are involved in the development, implementation, and evaluation of
programs. Investigating the intersection of organizational influences and decolonization requires
a critical examination of the funding and resource allocation processes within international
development organizations. Funding mechanisms should challenge the perpetuation of colonial
power dynamics by addressing structural inequalities in access to resources. Crosschild et al.
(2021) argued organizations can support initiatives that challenge and dismantle colonialism by
prioritizing funding for locally led initiatives.
Conceptual Framework
Grant and Osanloo (2014) defined the study’s conceptual framework as structured
pictures or visual displays arranged to assist in understanding how ideas in a study relate to one
another. The conceptual framework also assists researchers in identifying and constructing their
worldviews while presenting solutions to the problem (Akintoye, 2015; Grant & Osanloo, 2014;
Liehr & Smith, 1999). This study’s conceptual framework uses the following:
33

• Argumentation to show the importance of the problem of practice, the
appropriateness, and rigor of design and methodology (Ravitch & Riggan, 2016).
• Explanation of the key factors, variables, and the relationship between two entities,
diasporas, and international development donors (Miles et al., 2014).
• Generation produces the study’s problem, research questions, and methodology
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Additionally, using postcolonial theory and CRT, the conceptual framework for this study
positions colonialism and racism as extensive barriers to partnerships between diasporas and
international development donors, prohibiting sustainable global development outcomes while
incorporating two organizational learning concepts. The conceptual framework also applies
comprehensive organizational performance research using Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis,
a methodological approach to evaluating stakeholder performance goals and Identifying gaps.
Examining how knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences may impact these
partnership performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Further, this approach explores partnerships
from the organizational level through Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames: structures,
symbols, people, and power. Examining partnerships through the four lenses (i.e., structural,
human resource, political, symbolic) allows for an understanding of how donor organizations
build and maintain partnerships in international development (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
By using CRT, it becomes possible to examine the systemic discrimination present in
international development policies. This exploration helps uncover the historical factors that
dictate the management of development assistance and the leveraging of partnerships.
Postcolonial theory frames how knowledge in the development partnership space is either
Eurocentric or ethnocentric, developed or underdeveloped, the giver or the receiver (Kothari,
34

2006; Young, 2003). Along with emphasizing the influence adults and peers have on individual
learners, the sociocultural theory shows how cultural values and beliefs influence learning
(Vygotsky, 1978). Sociocultural learning theory examines how organizational culture impacts
learning and local partnership development. According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizational
culture describes how values, goals, beliefs, emotions, and processes develop within a company
over time. In organizations with conflicting goals, policies, or procedures, performance problems
may arise (Clark & Estes, 2008). Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning theory and Clark and Estes’s
gap analysis are tools to determine whether donor organizations can rethink partnerships that do
not fit the traditional power paradigm. The conceptual framework combines different
components to provide a deeper insight into diaspora engagement. It considers the historical,
cultural, and organizational aspects to offer a comprehensive understanding.
The framework illustrated in Figure 2 influenced the study’s approach to exploring
partnerships in international development with diasporas as stakeholders and whether such
partnerships are encouraged or discouraged. Developing this conceptual framework, the
researcher drew upon a variety of theoretical perspectives, empirical studies, and personal
experiences. The data were identified, collected, and analyzed using the conceptual framework.

35

Figure 2

Conceptual Framework: Engaging Diasporas as Stakeholders

Note. Figure created based on information compiled from the following references: Clark &
Estes (2008); Bolman & Deal (2008); Delgado & Stefancic (2013); Fanon (1966); Kothari
(2006); Said (1987); Solorzano & Yosso (2000); Vygotsky (1978); and Young (2003).

Conclusion
In this literature review, we evaluated the research surrounding diasporic communities
that have contributed to sustainable development outcomes. The review explored the historical
context of diasporas, including how the term is understood (Bruneau, 2010; Cohen, 2008;
Sheffer, 1995; Weinar, 2010). Through the reviews of the most renowned philosophers, the
review explores how partnerships and international development theories have evolved over time
36

(Escobar, 1988; Foucault, 1988; Frank, 1989; Gramsci, 1980; Profant, 2019; Rostow, 1960; Said
et al., 1998). In addition, the review discussed parallels between international development and
migration, socioeconomic development and migration, and the brain drain associated with mass
migration. The literature review touched upon the ways in which international development
actors’ moral values intersect with diversity, equity, and inclusion, helping shed light on the
contemporary racial issues people face today. Finally, the literature review examined how
knowledge, motivation, and organization affect employees’ understanding and implementation
of organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).

37

Chapter Three: Methodology
This study applied a qualitative methodology using interviews, qualitative surveys, and
document analysis to better understand diaspora engagement in international development. By
employing Method 2, the researcher comprehensively investigates the organizational structures
of donors and their involvement in partnerships. The study reviewed and analyzed relevant
reports and literature, including assessing the policies and strategies of countries with large
migration and diaspora populations, such as the Philippines, Haiti, and Nigeria.
Based on Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) evaluative criteria, the study’s design must maintain
the following elements, be credible (believable and accurate), transferable (findings apply to
other situations), dependable (consistency & trackability of research), and confirmable (data is
correct and leads back to sources). The chapter starts by introducing the study’s research
questions. The questions frame the approach to collecting and investigating the data necessary
for examining the problem of practice. This section then provides an overview of the design. The
design includes the methodology of the study. Method 1 contains interviews of former and
current donor representatives who worked on advancing partnership initiative programs. Method
2 consists of a document analysis to better understand diaspora engagement in international
development. The study explores the researcher’s positionality. Research participants are donor
representatives between the ages of 18 and 65.
Research Questions
The following questions will guide the research into evaluating and recommending
solutions to expanding partnerships with diaspora groups:
1. How do international donors like USAID engage the diaspora?
38

2. How do diaspora groups, networks, or coalitions enhance the role of international
development donors?
3. How are USAID employees incentivized to implement new partnership strategies and
policies?
Overview of Design
The target population for this study is current or former adult employees who work for
donor agencies under their various partner engagement initiatives. In this case, we will use
USAID as an international multilateral organization. The target population is international
development workers trained to respond to various global development challenges and
humanitarian crises and have supported the mandate to diversify the Agency’s partner base. The
target population has direct experience engaging various partners for USAID, including
nontraditional partners. They have worked under various partnership policy initiatives pushing to
diversify the organization’s partner base while elevating the diaspora partnerships specifically.
This study evaluates and recommends solutions to expanding partnerships with diaspora groups.
In addition, it offers an opportunity to explore a dark side of development that hinders diversity,
equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
Developing an interview protocol goes beyond creating interview questions. A robust
interview protocol is about the procedures required for successful data collection. Merriam and
Tisdell (2015) stated one should use interviews when observation is not possible or when it is
impossible to reproduce past events. Building an interview protocol also involves developing the
structure of the interview. Beyond the structure, we mapped out the steps to receiving informed
consent, developing questions; prompts should the participant struggle to understand the question
or provide answers; or if the interviewee’s responses depart off-topic. It should also include a
39

script to read off to open and close the interview. The researcher ensured robust data with the
number and length of interviews and that all data recordings were appropriately labeled and
stored. Notes, reports, and memos are accurately recorded and stored.
In exploring Merriam and Tisdell’s (2015) sampling techniques, they highlight two
types: probability and nonprobability. Moreover, nonprobability purposive sampling is the ability
to select the study participants based on the researcher’s judgment (Chein, 1981). The study’s
population is unique; participants are a distinct and atypical group. The researcher recruited the
target population by identifying who works under the partnership pillar within the donor
organization. Subsequently, the researcher invited participants with a message asking if they
would like to participate in the interviews. Participants were selected based on who may have
direct diaspora engagement experience. The researcher also ensured to interview those with field
or Mission-level experience. Because Agency POCs tend to move around from country offices
and operating units, the researcher also employed a snowball sampling approach when unable to
reach the initially identified people (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Although the researcher has
identified the population size to be approximately 10 participants, there is an understanding that
in purposeful sampling, the researcher conducts the interviews only to the extent participants
present new information (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
The research involves reviewing and analyzing relevant reports and literature, including
assessing the policies and strategies of countries with large migration and diaspora populations,
such as the Philippines, Haiti, and Nigeria. Additionally, the document analysis includes a
comparative assessment of donor engagement with diasporas. Table 1 outlines the study’s data
source.

40

The recruitment challenge in the U.S. Foreign Service and Civil Service is only part of
the issue. Retention is another issue. The GAO report concluded racial or ethnic minorities’
chances of promotion in mid-career were 31 to 41% lower than Whites (p. 37). Additionally, the
promotion rate for racial and ethnic minorities from the GS-11 to GS-12 government pay scale
compared to Whites was even more significant. The data revealed a promotion rate of 38.9% for
racial or ethnic minorities compared to a 66.9% promotion rate for White employees. The U.S.
Envoy, Ambassador to the United Nations, Thomas-Greenfield, in her speech to the UN on
Black History Month, notes that a lack of diversity deprives government agencies of the talent
needed to effectively advance U.S. foreign policy interests and, ultimately, a national security
crisis (U.S. Mission to the United Nations, 2022).
Historical Challenges of Race and International Development
White (2002) explored the historical challenges encountered when discussing race and
discrimination on the global stage. In Thinking Race, Thinking Development, the researcher uses
the example of the UN-sponsored World Conference Against Racism, held in Durban, South
Africa, back in 2001 (White, 2002). While there was some traction on spotlighting race, the
researcher assesses that the demands for reparations from slavery resulted in the withdrawal of
the United States and Israeli delegates, localizing the discourse. Furthermore, the study indicates
specific prescribed terms that development practitioners have used to substitute for racism. These
terms include tribalism, ethnicity, tradition, religion, and culture (White, 2002). These
discussions usually revolve around the beneficiaries and the programs rather than the industry as
a whole. Due to fear of “accusations that could follow,” White (2002) believes organizations fail
to create a safe space where people can openly discuss race (p. 408).
41

Van De Laar’s (2006) review of Kothari’s (2005) Radical History of Development
Studies highlighted the concerning reality that many development theories propagate
underdevelopment and actively endorse neoliberalism. According to Kothari, colonialism has left
a legacy and has created a dichotomy. Historically, colonialism has been viewed as bad and
development as good when there is considerable continuity between the colonial period over
time (Kothari, 2005). In essence, Kothari argued there is no acknowledgment of the continuity of
these systems of inequality. The international development sector lacks the ability to be self-
critical on issues of racism and discrimination. It falls into the trappings of business as usual
while it seeks to serve the most marginalized.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
This section of the literature review provides an understanding of Clark and Estes’s
(2008) gap analysis (see Figure 2). In the international development sector, knowledge,
motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences play crucial roles in shaping the work and
outcomes of development initiatives. This understanding is crucial to unraveling KMO
performance influencers impacting donor organizations’ diaspora engagement. Three KMO
performance influences affect the achievement of organizational and stakeholder goals. First,
according to Krathwohl (2002), a lack of knowledge is characterized as a lack of factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive information. Second, Rueda (2011) identified the lack
of motivation as the product of attribution, expectancy-value, and self-efficacy. Finally, the
organization lacks policies, processes, resources, and structures (Clark & Estes, 2008).

42

Figure 3

Gap Analysis Process

Note. Adapted from Turning Research Into Results: A Guide to Selecting the Right Performance
Solutions (p. 22) R. E. Clark and F. Estes, 2008, Information Age Publishing. Copyright 2018 by
Information Age Publishing. Adapted with permission.

Knowledge
Factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge are four types of
knowledge associated with learning and performance goals (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda (2011) characterized factual knowledge as made up of the
fundamental facts, terminology, and details underpinning a process, domain, function, or
discipline. Conceptual knowledge includes categories, classifications, principles, generalizations,
43

theories, schemas, and models (Rueda, 2011). Declarative knowledge is the collection of factual
and conceptual knowledge required to complete tasks and processes (Bruning et al., 2011).
Metacognitive knowledge is an awareness of one’s cognitive processes, including self-reflection
on problem context and learning methodologies, self-efficacy, self-regulation, and an awareness
of their knowledge acquisition process (Bruning et al., 2011; Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
International development organizations rely heavily on knowledge to guide development
program planning, implementation, evaluation, and adaptation (Cummings et al., 2019; Lannon
& Walsh, 2020; Mignolo & Walsh, 2018). The expression of knowledge in this sector can take
many forms, including research, best practices, and technical expertise. For development
organizations to understand complex challenges, identify root causes, and develop evidence-
based interventions, rigorous research and data are essential. Sharing best practices and lessons
learned from successful projects and interventions assists development practitioners in efficiently
applying knowledge (Blake et al., 2021; Duffield & Whitty, 2016). Sharing successful project
experiences and lessons prevents them from repeating the same failures but leads to more
successful outcomes and supports continuous learning and improvement. Often, development
professionals possess specialized knowledge and skills in fields such as agriculture, health,
education, governance, or infrastructure that are essential for designing and implementing
programs that address specific challenges (Turner, 2016).
Motivation
Analyzing motivational influences is a crucial part of gap analysis. Motivation is critical
in achieving goals and resolving human capital, operational, and performance issues (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Choice, persistence, and mental effort are the three primary indicators of motivated
behavior (R. E. Mayer, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) defined active choice as whether
44

stakeholders take the first steps toward putting goals or decisions into action. Persistence is an
individual’s ability to persevere in the face of distractions, resource constraints, or other
impediments (Clark & Estes, 2008; R. E. Mayer, 2011). Mental effort is the intensity and rigor
with which they pursue goals, solve problems, and carry out decisions (Clark & Estes, 2008; R.
E. Mayer, 2011). Finally, motivation is the degree to which a task is personal, activates and
serves to prompt behavior, energizes and perpetuates desired behavior, and is directed and
focused on goal attainment (R. E. Mayer, 2011). This study focused on three motivational
influences affecting the organization’s ability to achieve its stakeholder goals: (a) attribution
theory, (b) expectancy-value theory, and (c) self-efficacy theory.
Attribution Theory
Attributions are the internal and external processes of interpreting and understanding our
own and others’ behaviors. Different types of attribution theory focus on the how and what of
how people process information to understand events, judge them, and act on them (Manusov &
Spitzberg, 2008). Rueda (2011) analyzed attributions from three perspectives: stability, locus,
and control. Stability focuses on an attribute’s permanence, a focus on how it relates to internal
versus external factors, and control on the extent to which an individual believes they can
regulate a particular attribution. Motivation will be reduced or increased based on an individual’s
belief that their inherent traits and abilities, rather than uncontrollable external factors, will
predict expected outcomes (Anderman & Anderman, 2020; R. E. Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). R.
E. Mayer (2011) argued when individuals believe they can directly affect outcomes, they are
likely to experience increased levels of motivation.
45

Expectancy-Value Theory
Expectancy-value theory focuses on an individual’s internal processes and cognitive
predictions regarding the likelihood of completing a task successfully, and self-efficacy theory
focuses on a person’s self-perception of competency (Bandura, 2000). To be motivated to
improve diaspora engagement, development practitioners must appreciate the utility value
associated with inclusive partnerships and believe in their ability to improve partnership
development processes and outcomes (Eccles, 2005; Rueda, 2011). Expectancy-value theory
suggests motivation, persistence, and mental effort increase as a function of the value and
importance a person places on tasks and goals, and because of a belief, one can change outcomes
(Eccles, 2005; R. E. Mayer, 2011). Explaining the importance and benefits of an activity to an
individual can inspire them to perform, persist, and complete the task. If they believe the task is
important, valued, and appropriate, they will be more focused on completing it.
Expectancy-value theory suggests motivation depends on whether an individual expects a
positive outcome due to external factors (Eccles, 2005; Rueda, 2011). Improving knowledge of
the benefits associated with diversifying partnerships may thus generate expectancy/utility value
that incentivizes board members to focus on diaspora engagement. Research suggests enhanced
motivation occurs when individuals believe they can effectively accomplish a task and perceive
it to be of significant value; they are motivated. Four primary components to task value affect
motivational beliefs: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost belief (Eccles,
2005). Inclusive partnerships generate expectancy/utility value, incentivizing development
practitioners to focus on diaspora partners (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
46

Self-Efficacy
Bandura (2000) described self-efficacy as an individual’s belief in their ability to
complete a task or accomplish a goal. Self-efficacy and motivation are relational, with
motivation increasing as a function of the value and importance placed on tasks and goals
(Eccles, 2005; R. E. Mayer, 2011). Self-efficacy theory focuses on a person’s self-perception of
competency. Some people have a strong sense of self-efficacy, others have narrow efficacy
beliefs, and some believe they are efficacious even on the most difficult tasks. Therefore, the
degree of effort and persistence depends on the individual’s expectations of a positive outcome.
Bandura (2000) distinguished between two kinds of expectancy beliefs: outcome
expectations and efficacy expectations. Outcome expectations are beliefs that certain behaviors
will lead to certain outcomes, and efficacy expectations are beliefs about whether one can
effectively perform the behaviors necessary to produce the outcome. Bandura proposed efficacy
expectations are the major determinant of goal setting, activity choice, willingness to expend
effort, and persistence.
Organization
Culture is a way to describe goals, beliefs, emotions, processes, and core values learned
in a work environment. It is relational and dynamic (Clark & Estes, 2008). The cultural model
and setting of an organization are relational and dynamic (Rueda, 2011). By examining an
organization’s culture, researchers gain insight into the factors, processes, and procedures that
may contribute to identified performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). In the social
sciences, researchers examine culture in terms of cultural climate, models, and settings. The
working environment manifests the cultural climate through visible characteristics (Schein,
47

2004). Cultural settings and climate reflect organizational priorities and values that affect
members’ perceptions and motivations (Burke, 2018; Schein, 2004; Schneider et al., 1996).
Cultural models and settings provide a utilitarian framework to analyze factors
influencing performance (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). Unfortunately, they are
usually unnoticed by the community, but when misaligned, hypocrisy, malfeasance, and
dishonesty can flourish. Cultural settings are visible manifestations of an organization’s practices
and procedures, visible and tactile, and include policies, procedures, and standard operating
procedures outlining acceptable work protocols (Rueda, 2011).
The literature presented in the review is limited and supports the theory that studies
around diversity, equity, and inclusion ignore race and ethnic discrimination in international
development. With a few peer-reviewed articles scattered here and there, the literature review
supports the notion that the industry has to shed the do-good mentality and become more critical
of the discriminatory systems it upholds. The problem of practice seeks to understand the
underlying factors that hinder diaspora engagement while addressing the systemic discrimination
in the humanitarian aid and international development industry that perpetuates hierarchical
inequalities. These factors shape and determine who is a beneficiary and who is a partner. This
problem is critical to address because the imbalanced relationship between the developed and
underdeveloped is rooted in racialized forms of power, privilege, and inequality that manifest in
international development (Bhattacharyya et al., 2016; Kothari, 2006). Until the sector can
identify and evaluate those problematic and discriminatory elements, it becomes challenging to
dismantle inequality, move forward with equitable partnerships, and engage diasporas from the
world’s most impoverished countries. The study will refer to program beneficiaries as recipients
to denote their participation and agency.
48

Decoloniality and KMO
The conflation of humanitarianism and aid perpetuates a humanitarian industrial complex
that often contributes to harm and violence (Aloudat & Khan, 2022). Knowledge, motivation,
organizational influences (KMO), and decoloniality in international development involve
challenging and transforming dominant knowledge paradigms, power dynamics, and structures
perpetuating colonial legacies that maintain this humanitarian industrial complex. Although the
literature presented in the review is limited, scholars and practitioners are exploring the
intersection of knowledge and decoloniality in international development to foster more
inclusive, equitable, and contextually appropriate approaches to development (Blaser-Mapitsa,
2022; Khoo & Jørgensen, 2021; Mikkonen, 2020). The manifestation of the intersection of
employee motivation and decoloniality in international development is a continuous process.
Through a KMO and decoloniality lens, employees and organizations are encouraged to
challenge oppressive systems and contribute to equitable development outcomes.
Knowledge
The intersection of knowledge and decoloniality in the context of international
development is a complex and evolving field of study. The process involves critically examining
and challenging dominant systems of knowledge production and dissemination rooted in colonial
and western perspectives (Beatty & Kaplan, 2022; Fernández et al., 2021; Nguyen, 2018). The
intersection of knowledge and decoloniality can manifest itself in international development via
knowledge production, power dynamics, knowledge systems and practices, epistemic justice, and
western and Eurocentric development paradigms.
The decolonial perspective challenges the western-centric and Eurocentric nature of
knowledge production in international development (Bhambra & Santos, 2017; Ul Hassan &
49

Sajjad, 2022; Vaditya, 2018). It seeks to include diverse forms of knowledge, including
indigenous knowledge systems, local knowledge, and nonwestern perspectives. It highlights the
power dynamics embedded in knowledge production and dissemination while questioning the
hierarchical relationships between knowledge producers and local communities (Crosschild et
al., 2021; Sabbagh-Khoury, 2022). Decoloniality in international development aims to empower
marginalized groups and involve them as active participants and cocreators of knowledge.
Decoloniality promotes the revitalization and validation of indigenous knowledge
systems and practices that have been historically marginalized or suppressed (Martinez-Vargas,
2020; Trisos et al., 2021). The research conducted by Trisos et al. (2021) regarding ecosystems
can have practical applications in the field of international development. By embracing
decoloniality, organizations acknowledge the importance of local knowledge in the development
process. Integrating it with external knowledge systems enables the creation of more effective
and sustainable interventions specifically tailored to particular contexts. It advocates for
epistemic justice and challenges the dominant western development paradigms and their
underlying assumptions and ideologies, highlighting their limitations and potential negative
consequences (S. B. Banerjee, 2022). It seeks to open up space for alternative visions and
approaches to development that are contextually grounded and sensitive to local realities.
Motivation
Employee motivation and decoloniality are important for international development
organizations to challenge and transform power dynamics, hierarchies, and colonial legacies.
Decoloniality emphasizes the need to empower and value the perspectives, knowledge, and
contributions of local staff within international development organizations (Djohossou et al.,
2023; Kester et al., 2021). It involves recognizing the expertise and agency of employees from
50

marginalized communities and ensuring their meaningful participation in decision-making
processes. By empowering local staff, organizations can foster a sense of ownership, motivation,
and pride in their work, leading to more effective and sustainable development outcomes. For
USAID, FSNs represent nearly half of the workforce.
Employee motivation intersects with decoloniality through collaborative knowledge
production processes. Including indigenous and local knowledge in development projects and
programs is important (Tengö et al., 2017). It recognizes employees from local communities
often possess valuable insights and contextual understanding. Involving them in knowledge
creation can result in more effective interventions. Decoloniality challenges the unequal
distribution of power and resources within organizations and the wider development sector
(Radcliffe & Radhuber, 2020). To ensure more equitable participation and access, hierarchies,
decision-making processes, and resource allocation mechanisms must be examined and
restructured. Actively involving employees in decision-making, providing opportunities for
professional growth, and addressing power imbalances can foster a sense of motivation,
ownership, and commitment among employees.
Employee motivation intersects with decoloniality by promoting cultural sensitivity and
contextual adaptation in international development practices (Mikkonen, 2020). It involves
acknowledging and respecting different cultural contexts, traditions, and work practices.
Organizations can support employee motivation by creating an inclusive work environment that
values diverse perspectives, fosters open dialogue, and allows for the adaptation of development
interventions to local contexts (Theodorakopoulos & Budhwar, 2015). It is also imperative to
critically examine and consider the colonial legacy that may persist within organizations and
their practices at the intersection of employee motivation and decoloniality. As part of this
51

process, it is important to recognize and challenge embedded biases, western-centric approaches,
and paternalistic attitudes that inhibit employee motivation and perpetuate unequal power
dynamics (Kwon & Jang, 2022; Theodorakopoulos & Budhwar, 2015). Organizations can create
a motivating and engaging work environment by promoting decolonial practices.
Organizational Influences
The intersection of organizational influences and decoloniality in international
development involves critically examining and transforming structures, practices, and power
dynamics to challenge colonial legacies and promote more equitable and inclusive approaches
(Amo-Agyemang, 2021; Elliot-Cooper, 2018). This reexamining includes rethinking governance
structures and decision-making processes, diversifying leadership and decision-making bodies,
and incorporating voices from historically marginalized communities (Amo-Agyemang, 2021;
Comaroff & Comaroff, 2012). By doing this, organizations can challenge colonial power
dynamics and promote more inclusive and equitable organizational influences.
Table 1

Data Source
Research questions Method 1
interviews
Method 2 document
analysis
RQ1 How do international donors like USAID engage
the diaspora?
RQ2 How do diaspora groups, networks, or coalitions
enhance the role of international development
donors?
RQ3 How are USAID employees incentivized to
implement new partnership strategies and policies?
X X
X X
X X

52

Research Setting
International donors have had to adjust their operations due to an ever-changing global
pandemic over the last 2 years. Similarly, USAID has modified its programming and switched to
mission-critical travel across its 80 offices. As part of its COVID-19 Workforce Safety Plan and
Workplace Guidelines (Safety Plan), USAID provides guidelines for public health and
organizational conduct aimed at protecting the health and safety of all USAID staff, contractors,
and visitors to USAID’s domestic facilities under the COVID-19 pandemic (USAID, 2022). As a
result, USAID country offices have had to connect with colleagues and collaborate with partners
virtually. The current study analyzes interviews and documents to collect data. The study adheres
to the guidelines and regulations set forth by USAID and has chosen to collect data online using
a virtual setting. As part of Method 1, participants completed an individual interview lasting
approximately 60 minutes.
By employing Method 2, the document analysis provided valuable information on the
status of the partnership framework of international donors like USAID. Among the documents
reviewed by the researcher were official government documents, legislative records, interest
group publications, speech transcripts, budgets, and similar documents used by donor
organizations engaging diaspora partners. The document analysis involved examining news
articles and other published accounts from various press outlets. Additionally, several press
accounts were also thoroughly reviewed.
Method 1 targets development assistance workers trained to respond to international
crises but whose mandate is to widen the funder’s partner base. Among the target populations,
there is direct experience collaborating with various partners, including nontraditional ones like
local partners, civil society, and small businesses. Participants’ experiences ranged from private
53

sector development to diaspora engagement. Participants have actively engaged in multiple
partnership initiatives. The researcher invited 10 participants through their partnership
engagement networks on LinkedIn.
Constructivism adheres to the principle that ‘reality is constructed, multidimensional, and
ever-changing’ and maintains that there is no single, immutable reality waiting to be observed
and measured (Merriam, 1995, p. 54). The researcher created a qualitative questionnaire as an
additional method. The qualitative questionnaire intended to provide crucial data on the
perceptions and needs of the diaspora stakeholders with international, bilateral, and multilateral
donors like USAID. This exercise involved consultations with key stakeholders in the diaspora,
specifically diaspora coalitions, businesses, organizations, and other networks of influence. To
mitigate the risk of selection bias that may arise from solely interviewing donor representatives, I
designed this questionnaire to broaden the reach and include a wider audience. The questionnaire
was conducted online via Qualtrics. The study recruited participants by posting ads on LinkedIn,
Facebook, and other social media platforms, as well as through diaspora listservs or partnership
engagement bulletin boards. The study eliminated this data collection method from the study
because a Qualtrics branching error prevented the display of core questions to respondents.
The Researcher
The researcher’s professional life is deeply tied to her identity and lived experiences.
After all, our worldview develops through our positionality, which impacts our interactions with
others (Tuck & Yang, 2013). As a Black American woman descended from survivors of the
transatlantic slave trade and with deep African Caribbean roots, the researcher understands how
systemic inequalities in international development translate into failed foreign policy that harms
marginalized communities. The researcher has nearly 20 years of experience working in the
54

international development sector, focusing on various issues, including inclusive development,
new partnership development, diaspora engagement, localization, local organizational capacity
development, and DEIA. Under USAID’s New Partnership Initiative, the researcher served as
the external partnerships director. The researcher has also conducted extensive fieldwork in
Haiti, Liberia, and Afghanistan, implementing development programs and enhancing localization
efforts to support their credibility as a researcher on this problem of practice. When those lived
experiences are combined with the researcher’s identity, especially being both female and Black,
intersectionality emerges (Crenshaw, 1989). As a result, in the study, the researcher’s
positionality could not ignore the status of Black women in international development. By being
aware of these experiences in the field, the researcher will be more attentive to documenting the
ways in which her experiences and assumptions influence the interpretation of the data (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018).
In her current position, the researcher works as a USAID contractor. Although some
might consider this a bias, the researcher has worked at and with the Agency in various
capacities over the last 10 years, reinforcing her commitment to advancing partnership initiatives
at multiple levels. For this reason, the researcher incorporated the document analysis to center
the voice of diaspora leaders, coordinators of diaspora groups, networks, and coalitions.
Data Sources
A research study that employs multiple types of qualitative data collection procedures,
such as interviewing, observing, and documenting, is one form of multiple methods triangulation
(Denzin, 2009; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Thurmond, 2001). Triangulation improves the validity
of a study (Blackstone, 2019; Natow, 2020). The interviews and document analysis provide the
data for the current study. Because conducting interviews is one of the best methods to gather
55

info, using Method 1, this study conducted interviews with participants (B. Johnson &
Christensen, 2017). For Method 1, participants completed an individual interview lasting
approximately 60 minutes. For Method 2, the document analysis provides crucial data on the
partnership needs of the diaspora stakeholders with international donors like USAID.
As an underutilized approach to qualitative research, Morgan (2022) argued document
analysis is a valuable method to complement interviews and observations. Merriam and Tisdell
(2015) maintained analysis of written documents can help provide insight into a situation, event,
or experience. They also claimed document analysis provides access to data that is otherwise
difficult and time consuming to collect. For this reason, Method 2 involved the researcher
conducting a document analysis of policies and strategies engaging the diaspora as partners. The
document analysis also involved reviewing and analyzing relevant reports, including a brief
comparative assessment of the policies and strategies of donors like USAID and diaspora
populations such as the Philippines, Haiti, and Nigeria.
Method 1: Interviews
In qualitative social research, there are various data sources. Because conducting
interviews is one of the best methods to gather info, using Method 1, this study conducted
interviews with key participants (B. Johnson & Christensen, 2017). In the first method, each
participant underwent a 60-minute individual interview. For Method 1, participants completed an
individual interview that lasted approximately 60 minutes. It is impossible to observe past
experiences, but interviews provide insight into them (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Creswell and
Creswell (2018) noted interviews provide researchers with an opportunity to capture the diversity
within a population. This study allowed participants to provide their experience working with
nontraditional partners in the international development space. Participants for this survey
56

included former or current international development workers who have worked in the
partnership space (see Appendix A for an outline of the study’s participating stakeholders). The
researcher developed an interview protocol that included the basic information about the
interview, opening questions, content questions, the use of probes, and closing instructions
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The interview was semistructured and included closed- and open-
ended questions. The same questions were asked to the same respondents in the same order,
creating a structure that allowed data items to be compared (B. Johnson & Christensen, 2017). In
addition, this method reduces bias in the interviewing process and makes data organization
easier. The researcher chose the interviewees based on their capacity to provide the necessary
data for understanding the dynamics of the research elements (see Appendix B for
comprehensive interview protocol; see Appendix C for qualitative survey protocol).
Method 2: Document Analysis
Morgan (2022) pointed out that document analysis gives researchers fewer ethical
concerns, is an unobtrusive research method, and is cost-effective. The researcher conducted a
document analysis of policies and strategies employed by donor organizations engaging the
diaspora as partners. The document analysis included a brief comparative assessment of the
policies and strategies of USAID and diaspora populations such as the Philippines, Haiti, and
Nigeria. Researchers can use this method to develop theoretical frameworks in comparative
analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The following countries were selected based on their large
diaspora populations and regional representation. To conduct a document analysis, researchers
must consider several factors when choosing the documents to analyze. Flick (2018) outlined
four considerations when selecting which documents to include in the study, authenticity,
credibility, representativeness, and meaning (Morgan, 2022). The study divided the documents
57

into four categories. Policy-related documents are official government documents, legislative
records, interest group publications, speech transcripts, budgets, and similar documents. The
document analysis included reviewing news articles and other accounts published in various
press outlets. The academic literature consisted of peer-reviewed research and other academic
reports relevant to the problem of practice. Lastly, the analysis included reviewing internet-based
data, such as the websites of relevant organizations, social networking sites and blogs, and email
correspondence. As mentioned above, document analysis has its advantages. The limitations,
however, include locating the information in hard-to-reach places, incomplete information, or
protected information unavailable for public access (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Appendix D
includes the study’s document analysis.
Method 3: Qualitative Questionnaire
Qualitative questionnaires, which were originally used in ethnography to capture and
collect data about everyday life, can be as useful a method in research inquiries (Eckerdal &
Hagström, 2017). The study administered the questionnaire online using Qualtrics. The objective
of the qualitative questionnaire was to gain insight into areas of diaspora engagement while also
pinpointing opportunities and gaps with donors. The researcher formulated the questionnaire to
gather difficult or impossible data, such as attitudes and challenges, offering open-ended
questions that allowed for written long-form responses. While the study designed the instrument
with mostly open-ended questions, a series of closed questions were included for categorical
variables like sex, gender, race, age, and other demographic questions. The development process
for the qualitative questionnaire included determining the type of survey method to employ,
designing the questionnaire, conducting a pilot study of the questionnaire, and adapting the
questions and question order based on pilot results. The study recruited over 60 participants via
58

ads posted on LinkedIn, Facebook, and other social media platforms through diaspora listservs or
partnerships engagement bulletin boards. However, online surveys are not without their fair
share of problems like sampling bias, nonresponse bias, and response bias (Robinson & Leonard,
2018). Ultimately, the researcher made the decision to omit this particular method of data
collection from the study due to a Qualtrics branching error that impeded the proper presentation
of crucial questions to the survey participants. This particular glitch hindered the survey
participants, rendering the data collection method unreliable for the purposes of the study. Refer
to Appendix C for the qualitative survey protocol.
Participants
For Method 1, the target population is 10 humanitarian workers trained to respond to
various international crises and have the mandate to diversify the Agency’s partner base. The
target population has direct experience engaging multiple partners, including nontraditional
partners. They have worked under multiple partnership policy initiatives. For Method 2, there are
no distinct participants for document analysis.
Data Collection Procedures
This study applies a qualitative methodology to data collection. The primary methods
used are interviews and document analysis using Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
framework. The methods applied supported the study’s goal to evaluate the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences and barriers related to donors and their partnership
engagement. The following sections provide an overview of the data set obtained from
interviews, qualitative surveys, and document analysis that helped identify USAID’s
performance gaps and determine areas of improvement. The study did not use in-person focus
groups. Due to the need for privacy and confidentiality, semistructured interviews were chosen
59

instead of focus groups. Observations were not suitable for investigating this topic. The literature
review influenced the selection of the qualitative survey questions.
Instrumentation
The study’s instrumentation includes an interview checklist, question rubric, observation
forms, and document analysis table, which are deeply rooted in the study’s conceptual
framework that focuses on explaining the relationship between two entities: diasporas and
international development donors (Miles et al., 2014). Further, these methods aided the study’s
goal of assessing potential knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences and barriers to
engaging diasporas as stakeholders. For Method 1, during an interview, participants were asked
to define partnerships, discuss how partnership goals are set and disseminated by the Agency, if
partnership goals are linked to task performance, and to what extent they have integrated
diaspora engagement at the organization (see Appendix A). Identifying emerging themes can be
made easier by collecting and analyzing organizational documents (Creswell, 2014; McEwan &
McEwan, 2003). For Method 2, an important goal of this tool is to gather data that would
otherwise be difficult or impossible to measure and to confirm preliminary results.
Data Analysis
The following section provides detailed descriptions of the interview and document data
analysis.
Method 1: Interview Analysis
For the interviews, the study used a series of instruments and tools to collect data,
including a virtual meeting platform, interview checklist, observation forms, and NVivo. The
researcher developed an interview guide outlining the protocol that includes the basic
information about the interview, opening questions, content questions, the use of probes, and
60

closing instructions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A significant element of the interview process
included developing good-quality questions to gather data. Following Patton’s (2002) interview
matrix, the researcher developed questions that touched on participants’ past, present, and future
engagement with diasporas. Patton (2015) identified six types of questions: experience and
behavior, opinion and values, feelings, knowledge, sensory, and background.
The researcher transcribed notes and developed an analytical memo using Zoom
video/audio transcriptions. As part of the observation of participants, the researcher made a
special notation of participants’ body language, tone, and other nonverbal cues (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015). The researcher performed two checks to remove identifying information and clear
up any irrelevant text or mistakes in the transcriptions. First, all 10 transcripts were
independently analyzed. Table 2 outlines the study’s inductive and priori codes.

Table 2

Inductive and Priori Codes
A priori codes Inductive categories
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Donor
engagement

Barriers to
engagement
Power dynamics

Challenges, local
capacity
Geopolitical
influence, Global
South,
international
actors, United
States foreign
interests
Aid recipient, local
actors and program
participants,
imperialism
Neocolonialism,
national security,
and defense
Diaspora engagement Diaspora leadership
Investments, private
sector, remittances

Diaspora enhances
donor investments
Partnerships
Framework, policy,
strategy

Employee
incentivization
Decoloniality

DEIA, racism in
development,
representation

61

During the initial review of the transcripts, the researcher assigned participants an
identification number and replaced any personal identifiable information (PII). The researcher
addressed any mistakes via a second review as a cross-check and ensured all participant
identities were anonymized. The cross-check includes giving participants pseudonyms and
gender-neutral pronouns. The researcher established a priori codes derived from the conceptual
framework. These key themes were barriers to diaspora engagement, power dynamics, diaspora
engagement in international development, partnerships, and staffing incentives. The researcher
used in-vivo coding to describe participants’ responses as expressed by them. In examining the
data, the researcher developed inductive codes. The interviews proved particularly useful in
gathering information about diaspora engagement knowledge among development practitioners.
Furthermore, it enabled the research to examine motivational factors and metacognitive issues.
It was essential to center participants’ voices during the coding process. The second
phase of data analysis aggregated empirical and a priori codes into axial and analytical codes
representing various Levels 1 through 3. The third phase of data analysis identified themes from
the axial codes related to the conceptual framework, addressing each research question. Lastly,
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences were analyzed using the identified themes
located in Table 2.
Method 2: Document Analysis Procedure
During the 16-week analysis, the researcher analyzed documents related to donor
organizations engaging diasporas as stakeholders. The researcher developed a system for
identifying, collecting, and categorizing over 80 documents, policies, strategies, reports, and
executive orders in accordance with the research questions. As a first step, the following
62

countries, Haiti, Nigeria, and the Philippines, were initially selected based on their large diaspora
populations and regional representation. The study organized the documents using four of Flick’s
(2018) outlined considerations, authenticity, credibility, representativeness, and meaning
(Morgan, 2022). In addition, tracking the document is an ethical requirement. Therefore, the
researcher developed a digital tool to question, code, and compare the relevant documents. The
researcher identified and organized the relevant documents. None of the documents reviewed
were labeled classified or sensitive. Each of the organization documents reviewed are public-
facing documents available to the public on the organization’s website. The digital document
matrix incorporated a standard note matrix system but integrated a comparative analysis
component across five themes:
● Analysis 1: USAID diaspora engagement
● Analysis 2: multilateral donors and diaspora engagement
● Analysis 3: partnerships, localization, and inequality
● Analysis 4: diaspora engagement and donors
● Analysis 5: USAID workforce challenges
The document review was crucial to triangulation in understanding organizational practices and
processes, including resource and funding allocation, competing partnership priorities, and
cultural factors. As a second step, the researcher logged and color-coded all relevant documents
using a Google digital data tracker.
Like any other form of research, bias can exist in document analysis when assessing both
public and private records (Morgan, 2022). For example, Merriam and Tisdell (2015) used the
frequency and incidence of crimes recorded by police records to depend upon how a particular
department defines and reports crimes. Therefore, public documents may not explain racially
63

discriminatory practices. Like focus groups or interview transcripts, document analysis involves
sorting content into themes (Bowen, 2009). To prevent bias in selection, the researcher must
document the reasons behind selecting each document and how they used it. In addition, as a
second step, the researcher color-coded and logged each record meticulously to prevent bias in
the analysis. While reading and coding the documents, the researcher added notes while
exploring whether there was bias in the selected sources. For all primary sources identified, the
researcher completed a document analysis worksheet.

Method 3: Qualitative Questionnaire Procedure

Although the study eliminated Method 3 due to the Qualtrics processing error, the
researcher developed a qualitative questionnaire with the intention of capturing crucial data on
the perceptions and needs of the diaspora stakeholders with international, bilateral, and
multilateral donors like USAID. Studies use surveys for several reasons, including market
research, political polling, feedback from customer service representatives, evaluations, opinion
polling, and social science research (O’Leary, 2014). Researchers formulate this tool to gather
data that is difficult or impossible to measure. The researcher designed the survey for a unique
population. The researchers designed the qualitative questionnaire to explore how diaspora
groups, networks, or coalitions actively contribute to enhancing the role of international
development donors. Like the interview procedure, the researcher developed a qualitative
questionnaire with a clear protocol. Pilot testing is important to determine the validity of the
instrument (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The researcher conducted a pilot test with 13
participants. Based on the information gathered from the pilot test, the questionnaire was adapted
appropriately. Although the researcher designed the instrument with mostly open-ended
64

questions, the researcher included a series of closed questions for categorical variables like sex,
gender, race, age, and other demographic questions.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Methodologically, quantitative and qualitative research differ in their approaches, which
is why they are judged using different standards. For example, qualitative research focuses on
credibility and trustworthiness, and quantitative research focuses on rigor and validity (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2015). Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed several criteria for evaluating qualitative
research. For example, to develop trustworthiness in qualitative research, they suggested five
guidelines: credibility, dependability, confirmability, transferability, and authenticity.
According to Polit and Beck (2012), credibility is the extent to which the data or the
views of participants are accurate and that they are interpreted and represented by the researcher.
Researchers gain credibility by talking about their experiences as researchers and verifying their
findings with their subjects. This led the researcher to explore how her own experiences,
assumptions, and identity influenced the collection and interpretation of data (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). As a Black American woman, a descendant of survivors of the transatlantic
slave trade, with deep African Caribbean roots that has worked as a development and
humanitarian worker, the researcher understands how systematic inequalities in international
development translate into failed foreign policy that harms already marginalized communities.
The researcher has spent nearly 20 years working in the international development sector,
focusing on a variety of issues, including inclusive development, new partnership development,
diaspora engagement, localization, organizational capacity development, and DEIA. The
researcher served as the external partnerships director under USAID’s New Partnership
Initiative. Additionally, the researcher has extensive field experience in Haiti, Liberia, and
65

Afghanistan, implementing development programs and working on localization efforts to support
their credibility as a researcher on this problem of practice.
To confirm that data analysis has the intended consequences, qualitative researchers rely
on expert advice and member checks. Validating results with members is an approach that
examines the credibility of results. Members receive the data for their input, and the researcher
verifies for precision and relevance with their personal experiences in relation to the researchers’
analysis of the data (Carl & Ravitch, 2018). This approach is known as member check (Barbour,
2001; Birt et al., 2016; Carlson, 2010; B. Williams, 2001). The researcher incorporated this
method by engaging with participants. Where confirmation of data with research participants
was unattainable, the researcher relied on consultations with field and sectoral experts.
Among the factors determining dependability of the research are how participants
evaluate the results, interpretation, and recommendations of the study in light of the evidence
they provide (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Integral to dependability is confirmability. Confirmability
in qualitative validity refers to the degree to which others are able to corroborate the study’s
results (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Research can be improved through many strategies, one of
which is to document the process of checking and rechecking data throughout the inquiry. The
researcher can also document by having another researcher play the role of the “devil’s
advocate,” looking for and describing negative results that contradict prior findings (Polit &
Beck, 2012; Tobin & Begley, 2004). Another option is conducting a data audit after the study to
assess whether or not bias or distortion may have occurred in the data collection and analysis. As
part of the study, it may be necessary to provide an audit trail to demonstrate the coding process.
One way to accomplish this is by presenting a table that showcases examples of the coding
process. Additionally, researchers should document how they transformed codes into themes and
66

provide insight into the thought process behind grouping codes together to create a theme
(Rodgers & Cowles, 1993).
To assess the confirmability of the study, the researcher described in detail the steps
taken to develop and report findings from the onset of a study through the field notes. The field
notes also include a chronological index of the study (Rodgers & Cowles, 1993). The researcher
recorded the steps and maintained them throughout the research process. Specifically, it
encompasses the study’s conduct, conclusions, and judgments based on audits, field notes, audio
and video recordings, and other study-related materials.
Ethics
Ethics is a concern at all stages of the research process, from developing the study to
reporting the results. Researchers must navigate these ethical challenges. Anonymity,
confidentiality, informed consent, and potential effects on participants and researchers are all
examples Sanjari et al. (2014) offered. In applying the do no harm principle, the ethical standards
of the investigator are crucial to the trustworthiness of the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Once
again, as a Black American woman, a descendent of survivors of the transatlantic slave trade,
with deep African Caribbean roots, who has worked as a development and humanitarian worker,
the researcher understands how systematic inequalities in international development translate
into failed foreign policy that harms already marginalized communities.
Based on Esomonu’s (2017) analysis, maintaining dominance within a society will result
in systemic disparities. According to the author, society creates and maintains this dominant
system that simultaneously categorizes and preserves those who are inferior. In the spectrum of
societal dominance, the researcher identifies their race, ethnicity, and gender as inferior. This
section investigates how the researcher’s salient identities, as listed in Cooper’s (2017)
67

“Intersecting Axes of Privilege, Domination, and Oppression,” influence her worldview,
research, and leadership practices.
During all stages of the study’s process, from the research design to recruitment and
participant engagement, the positionality of the researcher was considered. It is clear to the
researcher they are acting as an instrument and may be filtering participant testimonies through
their own positionality (Tuck & Yang, 2013). The study’s primary objective was to gather
comprehensive data on the individual experiences arising from organizational deficiencies. The
goal was to provide participants with meaningful insights they could use to improve their
organization’s situation. The researchers conducted this study in accordance with the guidelines
set by the institutional review board (IRB).
Using informed consent as a tool for promoting communication and understanding is a
directive of the IRB for interviews (22 CFR 225.116 and 117). The informed consent required
participants’ willing participation in the study. To ensure participants’ willful participation, the
researcher provided the purpose of the study and outlined the process of obtaining the data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Participants also received ample time to review the supporting
documentation outlining the interview process. After reviewing the documents, participants
provided consent, acknowledging their voluntary participation in the research study and their
ability to withdraw at any point during the process. Participants’ identifying information was
cleaned from the report and kept confidential. The nature and sensitivity of the subject matter
may make it difficult for participants to openly express their experience around sensitive topics
of diversity and partnership. Consequently, the researcher did not disclose the names or any
identifying information that may hinder their success in their organization and sector. The
researcher used the recorded video and audio transcriptions from the Zoom platform to
68

accurately document the information gathered during the interview. The transcription allowed for
the capture and preservation of all important details and nuances for future reference. As part of
the observation of participants, the researcher made a special notation of participants’ body
language, tone, and other nonverbal cues (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Through the insights gained from participants’ experiences, diasporas can be better
engaged by international development donors as formal partners and stakeholders. An improved
partnership framework within the international development sector elevates local voices while
tapping into the wealth of diaspora knowledge and resources that can contribute to sustainable
development outcomes. While outlining the research question and methodology, the researcher
anticipates making changes throughout the course of the study as the research progresses. The
study proposal went through the schools’ IRB process.

69

Chapter Four (Part 1): Thematic Findings
Rather than serving as a critique of development diplomacy or an admonishment of
foreign aid, this research served as a call to action for development practitioners seeking to
strengthen donor accountability, maximize impact, and optimize resources through inclusive
partnerships. The purpose of this study was to explore the gap in the partnership framework of
international development donors like USAID while examining the various ways diasporas
influence the development of their home country. This research used postcolonial theory and
CRT to analyze partnerships between diasporas and international development donors. These are
merely frames for investigating how power operates within institutions. Applying this lens to
foreign assistance and partnership engagement can provide some insight into the power
dynamics that govern global development aid.
The study examined how knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences may
impact these partnerships’ performance gaps. The conceptual framework also applied
comprehensive organizational performance research using Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis,
a methodological approach to evaluating stakeholder performance goals and identifying gaps.
Further, this approach explored partnerships from the organizational level through Bolman and
Deal’s (2008) four frames, structures, symbols, people, and power. Examining partnerships
through the four lenses (i.e., structural, human resource, political, symbolic) provided an overall
view of how donor organizations build and maintain partnerships in international development
(Bolman & Deal, 2008). Three research questions guided this study:
1. How do international donors like USAID engage the diaspora?
2. How do diaspora groups, networks, or coalitions enhance the role of international
development donors?
70

3. How are USAID employees incentivized to implement new partnership strategies and
policies?
Participating Stakeholders
To gain valuable insights about the key stakeholders, the researcher conducted
meticulous and thorough interviews with 10 participants. This approach helped in understanding
the matter comprehensively and provided reliable and relevant information. These stakeholders
are development workers who formerly or presently work under USAID’s mandate to diversify
the donor’s partner base. The stakeholders represent a wide range of hiring mechanisms, bureaus,
operating units, programs, and activities. Two of the 10 stakeholders are implementing partners
who have worked to support the Agency’s partnership engagement policy initiatives. Participants
come from a diverse range of ethnic and racial backgrounds. Among the stakeholders, five were
male, and five were female. Table 3 shows the specialty areas of these participants.

71

Table 3

Stakeholder Specialty Areas
Participant Pseudonym Interview length
(minutes)
Specialty area
P1 Franklin 93 Local capacity development
P2 Edana 63.6 Local capacity development & livelihoods
P3 Jackson 88.2 Private sector engagement
P4 Alice 46.11 Partnership development; African diasporas
P5 Nigel 75.6 Private sector development and engagement
P6 Kevin 79.2 Communications and diaspora engagement
P7 Luke 63.6 Europe and Eurasia; transitional justice; peace
building; African diaspora in postcolonial
contexts
P8 Carrie 76.2 Local capacity development
P9 Jude 43.41 Diaspora outreach, coordination, and
mobilization
P10 Sarah 56.07 Private sector and diaspora engagement
P11 Butler Governance and parliamentary reform

Findings
The researchers meticulously divided the data into two distinct sections in the results
chapter. They organized the data based on the extensive findings for each research question
presented in Part 1. This approach ensures readers can systematically understand and
comprehend the presented data. This section summarizes and synthesizes the evidence, followed
by a summary at the end. An overview of the overall results concludes the chapter. A summary
of the results of the semistructured interviews conducted between October 30, 2022, and
December 18, 2022, is presented in the following section. Initially, the study selected 10
participants to represent various technical areas of the organization, including various hiring
mechanisms, bureaus, and operating units. However, one participant could not continue with the
interview during the data collection process due to a scheduling conflict. That participant,
identified here as Butler, withdrew from the interview. Another participant, Sarah, was identified
72

and selected using the same selection criteria as the other participants. These criteria
encompassed being 18 years or older, having experience working with the organization either as
an employee or implementing partner, and possessing expertise in relevant Specialty areas. The
findings present data collected from 10 development practitioners who participated in the
interviews. It is important to note that the names of the interviewees are pseudonyms that bear
little resemblance to their actual names. As an additional precaution, the researchers used third-
person pronouns to avoid making inferences about the gender of the pseudonyms. There are
some minor edits to these quotes to protect the identities of the contributors and the
organizations.
Findings for USAID Diaspora Engagement

Research Question 1 asked: How do international donors like USAID engage the
diaspora? This section explores the question of whether international development funders and
the diaspora engage sufficiently. Additionally, the study examines whether we can attribute any
limitations to policy gaps, and organizational barriers, such as complicated partnership rules, and
power dynamics.
Gaps in Policy
This particular section presents an analysis of hundreds of pages of public-facing
documents from the organization over the last decade. These documents included various
organizational policies, strategies, press releases, factsheets, and presidential executive orders
(see Appendix D). This section explored the following partnership documents:
● Acquisition and Assistance (A&A) Strategy (2018b)
● Private-Sector Engagement Policy (2018)
● Local Capacity Strengthening Policy (2022)
73

● Local Systems: A Framework for Supporting Sustained Development document
(2014)
● The New Partnerships Initiative (NPI; 2021)
● Diaspora Partnership Toolkit (2016)
● executive orders
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce
(DEIA; Exec. Order No. 14,035, 2021)
• Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping (Exec. Order No. 13,950, 2020)
• Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through
the Federal Government (Exec. Order No. 13,985, 2021)
• Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities
Through the Federal Government (Exec. Order No. 14,091, 2022)
• Establishing the President’s Advisory Council on African Diaspora
Engagement in the United States (Exec. Order No. 14,089, 2022)
The organization has released a series of policies focused on partnerships. In 2018,
USAID developed the Acquisition and Assistance (A&A) Strategy to reshape its relationship
with current and future partners and embrace entrepreneurship. The strategy aims to promote
efficient and effective engagement with partners while furthering USAID’s mission to reduce
poverty and promote sustainable development. There was a funding gap identified in the strategy
in which 60% of obligations went to 25 partners, and more than 80% of obligations went to 75%
in 2017 (USAID, 2018a). The strategy acknowledges that the organization would require new
initiatives and use targeted and innovative approaches. The A&A strategy focuses on engaging
local partners and social entrepreneurs but only briefly acknowledges other groups that are
74

sometimes overlooked or may face barriers to participating in USAID programs. The A&A
strategy focuses on local partners and social entrepreneurs, with limited attention given to other
groups that are often underutilized or unable to participate in USAID programs. Diaspora groups
are only mentioned once in this strategy. There is no clear distinction between the different needs
of the various partner groups. Under the incentivizing and strengthening engagement with the
private sector, the strategy identified the following shift:
Through strategic engagement with the private sector, USAID will be able to build
enduring capacity for development. The Agency will accomplish this by collaborating
with the private sector and all USAID partners to find opportunities for alignment and
jointly identify and advance high-impact approaches led by the private sector. The
Agency will also enhance the technical and contracting officer’s expertise, create new
tools and guidelines, and strengthen existing ones to encourage private sector
engagement, market-based solutions, and enterprise-driven strategies. (USAID, 2018b, p.
4)
As part of the Private-Sector Engagement Policy, the organization committed to working
closely with the private sector to design and deliver development and humanitarian programs
across all sectors. The organization also committed to using its resources to open markets and
other opportunities for U.S.-based businesses. The text does not mention how diasporas will
contribute to the desired outcomes, the resources required for engaging diaspora businesses, or
the best practices required to achieve the desired outcomes.
The document analysis reviewed the Local Capacity Strengthening (LCS) Policy
(USAID, 2022). The LCS Policy draws upon principles derived from emerging consensus across
the development landscape, feedback from local actors, and years of experience. As part of
75

USAID’s humanitarian assistance and development programming, the LCS Policy lays out seven
principles that guide USAID’s local capacity-strengthening work:
● principles for effective programming
o Start with the local system.
o Strengthen diverse capacities through diverse approaches.
o Plan for and measure performance improvement in collaboration with local
partners.
● principles for equitable partnerships
o Align capacity strengthening with local priorities.
o Appreciate and build on existing capacities.
o Be mindful of and mitigate the unintended consequences of our support for
local capacity strengthening.
o Practice mutuality with local partners.
The absence of any reference to engaging diasporas in the policy is worth noting, given
their important role in partnering with local communities. The document analysis indicates no
consideration of how diasporas intersect with the local system or how to tap into the diaspora
capacity.
The agenda for localization is broader than simply broadening an organization’s partner
base to include more direct funding to local organizations. Throughout the program cycle,
USAID’s localization efforts involve delegating power, leadership, decision-making, agenda-
setting, and accountability at the local level to ensure that the organization’s programming is
inclusive and locally sustainable (USAID, 2022). The organization has undergone several
iterations of a local strategy, including Local Solutions, the Local Systems Framework, and the
76

New Partnership Initiative. USAID hopes to realize a vision of development that is locally
owned, locally led and sustained through the Local Systems Framework (USAID, 2014). The
framework outlines how USAID will advance aid effectiveness while laying the groundwork for
deeper collaboration with all partners to support long-term sustainability. However, there is no
mention of diasporas.
The New Partnership Initiative, first launched in 1995, was relaunched in 2019 to
diversify USAID’s partner base and change the Agency’s partnership strategy. The NPI action
planning process was approved for a second time in October 2021 based on revisions to the
guidance. The NPI Action Plans highlight working with new partners and local organizations to
promote inclusive development. In addition, NPI launched a new platform to share information,
resources, and networks about partnering with USAID on WorkwithUSAID.org. The website
hosts a partner directory that offers a classification category for diaspora organizations. On the
site developed by USAID’s Private Sector Engagement Hub, there is a dedicated short blog
specifically addressing diaspora engagement. However, beyond the blog, there is no mention of
diasporas.
Many of the interviewees expressed some degree of awareness of the organization’s new
partnership initiatives. Franklin, Edana, and Carrie shared they were aware of the organization’s
efforts to diversify partnerships and elevate local ownership. However, Kevin (P6) noted the new
policies around partnerships and local capacity lacked substantial diaspora integration
components. During the development of the new partnership programming, Edana mentioned
she was not contacted by anyone to consult or consider the insights gained from the previous
programming. Edana (P2) responded, “Nobody reached out. Hopefully, they are learning from
their experiences to be able to reach more people.” There appeared to be no system to capture
77

and synthesize the knowledge gained from previous partnerships and diaspora engagement
efforts.
According to Carrie (P8), the organization has a unique ability to develop unique and
isolated projects. Once the project ends, however, the organization simply moves on. There is no
systematic application of the lessons in future designs. According to Nigel (P5), “You must adapt
what you learn to local circumstances. A copy-and-paste approach to development does not
work. We cannot assume that because this program has worked in Southeast Asia, it will work
[in other places].” As Kevin (P6) pointed out, “Despite the changing priorities, it is often the
same thing, just labeled differently. We come back with the same project with a different just
spin on it.”
In March 2023, USAID released its policy framework as a guide to drive progress
through and beyond its programming. To drive progress, the policy framework prioritizes
addressing challenges, embracing new partnerships, and improving USAID’s effectiveness.
Essentially, USAID’s policy framework articulates a shared vision of international development,
translates the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States into agency
priorities, and promotes coherence among our international development, humanitarian aid, and
crisis response policies and the work we do to implement these policies. It is a tool for USAID
personnel and partners, forming the foundation for planning strategy, programs, budgets, and
operations. The policy framework does not offer implementation-specific details and is broad.
The policy framework, however, does highlight that to achieve development impact, USAID
recognizes the need for partnerships with diaspora groups and other private and quasi-private
institutions.
78

Organizational Barriers
Furthermore, the findings indicated the following organizational barriers to engagement
existed for diasporas, including lack of access to financing, less familiarity with how USAID
operates, complicated procurement rules, and extremely high staff turnover causing staff
shortages. These barriers were no different from what nontraditional and underutilized partners
like local partners face.
During the interview, the researchers evaluated participants based on their conceptual
knowledge of the barriers to partnering with diasporas within the organization. The interviews
and documents assessed participants’ procedural knowledge of partnership development,
including how to partner successfully with diasporas. Additionally, the researcher evaluated
participants on their understanding of power dimensions between local and global, beneficiaries
and donors, recipient and funder, and neutral and political stances (Thompson & Storberg-
Walker, 2018). There was no clear organizational strategy to leverage diaspora contributions and
investments, according to the research. Further, participants were unaware of agency-specific
diaspora engagement best practices, strategies, or procedures designed to promote funding
opportunities and capacity development. Participants highlighted the barriers to engagement that
exist for diasporas. Alice (P4) expressed that “diasporas still struggle with raising enough funds
to do things in mass.” Nigel (P5) echoed a similar sentiment “Diaspora efforts in international
development lack access to financing, and there is no proper structure to help them understand
how the international development sector works.”
Power Dynamics
Racism perpetuates and reinforces structural inequalities, leading to unequal access to
resources, opportunities, and power, which can have a negative impact on development
79

outcomes. For example, marginalized racial and ethnic groups may face barriers in accessing
education, healthcare, employment, and political participation, hindering their development. This
study demonstrates the interdependence of diplomacy, defense, and development as a key
component of maintaining neocolonial power structures (Constantinou & Opondo, 2016). Due to
the colonization of BIPOC populations by westerners, racism and colonialism are linked, with
Westerners believing that BIPOC populations are inferior, resulting in racial hierarchies globally
(Fischer-Tiné & Mann, 2004; Grosfoguel, 2007; Lawrence & Dua, 2005). Nations in the Global
North use development assistance to maintain a geopolitical presence in the Global South
(Byekwaso, 2016). The findings indicated power dynamics influence power structures within the
organization’s partnership framework as a demonstration of the government’s “soft power.”
Nontraditional organizations and local partners experience a lack of mutual trust, reciprocal
accountability, joint decision making, a two-way exchange of information, and a sense of
mutuality (Ntale & Ssempebwa, 2022).
Based on the analysis of participant interviews and documents, participants
acknowledged shifting power dynamics in international development is necessary to engage
diasporas as stakeholders. In complex crises, the diplomatic, defense, and development
communities of the United States increasingly work together (USAID, 2012). It is not by
accident that USAID’s administrator is now a sitting member of the White House National
Security Council (Congressional Research Service, 2022; The White House, n.d.). Participants
acknowledged the interdependence of diplomacy, development, and defense plays a crucial role
in maintaining neocolonial power structures (Dei & Anamuah-Mensah, 2014; Sader, 2009;
Siddiqui, 2012). The organization’s new policy framework emphasizes the need to elevate
development diplomacy by coordinating closely with U.S. government counterparts, such as the
80

Department of Defense, to shape and support the broader foreign policy and national security
goals (USAID, 2023). For example, Jackson (P3) indicated “countries in the Global North use
development diplomacy to keep a geopolitical presence in these countries.” They further added,
“There is no way that those countries will fully be autonomous if they are still continuing to
receive foreign assistance when the United States uses it as a leverage stick.” Alice (P4) echoed a
similar sentiment in their assessment of the organization’s power dynamics in relation to
partnerships:
The power structure is clear. As a [government counterpart], you can tell us which
sectors, no, not even which sectors. You can tell us which organizations or whom you
wish we should send this through. But here’s what we’re doing.
Edana (P2) and Alice (P4) agreed aid is an effective and important tool of United States
foreign policy and national security. Edana (P2) added, “Whoever’s financing will lead. They
[donors] dictate how things are done. There’s a lot of politics going on within it. They dictate
how things are done, even the conception; what do they decide to give money to, how, when,
where, and who’s involved.” Alice (P4) said:
So, it all sounds great. But in my opinion, the way they’re treated is not as equals. It’s not
a co-development process. We can tell you how best to run your country. We have the
answers, and of course, the money.
Participants all can agree the way development aid is currently structured, the system is
not purely altruistic but a means to further the national self-interests of donor countries. For
example, Kevin (P6) described the development aid as a demonstration of the government’s “soft
power.” Luke (P7) offered a nuanced perspective on how “the conditionality of development aid
81

can maintain international human rights standards.” The donors can best describe these
conditionalities as a return on investment.
While exploring the notion of return on investment in greater depth, a number of
participants echoed Edana’s (P2) assertion that it is not coincidental that the organization awards
most of its contracts and grants to the same U.S.-based firms. Edana (P2) stated, “We are
designing projects that are not meeting the needs of the population.” Donors may be more
focused on boosting trade relations, improving political leverage in a region, or even influencing
elections (Khan, 2020). Kevin (P6) equated the “development aid model to the mafia.” Carrie
(P8) noted, “Now it’s like a symbiotic relationship with the donor and the large implementer,
where neither one wants to give up control because of this system.” Study participants
recognized the need to revisit the current organizational model that centers return on investments
on partnering with traditional U.S.-based implementing partners.
The study’s KMO gap analysis revealed the organization had conceptual knowledge of
the importance of involving the diaspora in policies and programs. Although employees are
aware of the fundamentals of effective partnership development, they do not possess the
knowledge of how to identify and collaborate with diasporas according to best practices.
Organizational power imbalances are rooted in historical, social, economic, and political factors
(Barnett, 2018). USAID partners are predominately White organizations in the Global North
working with BIPOCs in the Global South. The findings indicate a limited understanding of how
systemic structures of oppression such as neocolonialism, neoliberalism, and racism influence
unconscious biases that ultimately influence their predispositions to work with nontraditional
partners such as diasporas. It is essential that donors recognize the utility value of diaspora
engagement in extending the organization’s reach, garnering stakeholder support, and engaging
82

the local community, based on the motivation-expectancy-value theory. There is, however, an
organizational disconnect preventing USAID from engaging with the diaspora. To maximize
bureaucratic efficiency, organizations rely on judgment, universalization, and controls as part of
their organizational structures. They can, however, become enmeshed with racial and colonial
power relations, resulting in unexpected effects. This enmeshment can have unforeseen
consequences. As a consequence of the cycle of exclusion and mistrust, motivation is lacking. In
spite of the donor’s organizational environment and culture being committed to more inclusive
partnerships, there is still a long way to go in the area of diaspora engagement. According to the
findings, USAID failed to systematically allocate resources/budgets, structures, training, policies,
and procedures to foster diaspora engagement from a procedural perspective. Although the U.S.
government has provided some guidance on diaspora engagement in recent months, there is still
room for improvement in developing policies, practices, and procedures for effective strategic
diaspora engagement.
Executive Orders and CRT
CRT builds upon long-standing scientific theories and concepts examining how racism
shapes U.S. policies, both public and foreign (Solorzano et al., 2000). CRT explains how
institutions, systems, and policies actively reinforce, codify, and perpetuate socioeconomic and
racial differences in exposures, risks, and opportunities (Delgado & Stefancic, 2011). CRT
compels us to acknowledge the realities and brutality of racism (Delgado & Stefancic, 2011). It
requires a thoughtful examination of oppressive racial systems and their long-term ramifications
on society. CRT is particularly relevant in international relations as U.S. ideologies are exported
abroad through foreign policies and development aid. Pailey (2020) asserted development
scholars, policymakers, and practitioners are complicit in maintaining the racial hierarchies in the
83

sector. Pailey contended racialized phenotypic others in international development have emerged
as a result of slavery, colonialism, globalization, and neoliberalism; however, academics and
practitioners often ignore this point. The absent presence of race is embedded in the DNA of
international development (Pailey, 2020).
There are no better examples of how the United States exports ideologies on race than
President Trump’s Executive Order No. 13,950 (2020) on Combating Race and Sex
Stereotyping. Advocates for diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and antiracism (DEIAA)
from around the nation denounced the presidential order as another illustration of how White
supremacy is operationalized deliberately and weaponized actively (Martinez, 2022). An
executive order is a declaration the president of the United States issues by the stroke of their pen
that has the force of law (K. R. Mayer, 2001). This authority is based on existing statutory
powers and does not require the approval of Congress or state legislatures to be implemented.
Executive Order No. 13,950 (2020) prohibited federal agencies, federal grant recipients, and
government contractors from conducting DEIA training, including discussions of CRT and
White privilege (Kalkman, 2021). According to Kalkman (2021), leaders in positions of
authority not only reject the idea that racial and gender obstacles exist systemically in U.S.
culture but actively oppose others from learning about these issues, putting an undue burden on
contractors, subcontractors, vendors, grantees, and ultimately USG partners.
Civil rights advocacy groups like the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP), the National Urban League (NUL), and the National Fair Housing
Alliance (NFHA) challenged the constitutionality of the executive order in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia (NFHA, 2020). Ultimately, the Northern District of
California granted a permanent injunction on the executive order due to its unconstitutional
84

violation of the Due Process Clause and First Amendment right to freedom of speech (Santa
Cruz Lesbian & Gay Cmty. Ctr. v. Trump, 2020). Kothari (2006) contended practitioners and
scholars who remain silent on issues of race absolve themselves of responsibility for the
privileges, rights, and inequities that continue to flow from Whiteness. The Biden Administration
clearly adopted a stance on its policies that strongly supports the fundamental tenets of CRT,
which asserts racism shapes prior laws, policies, and rulings that continue to impact the legal
system today. On June 25, 2021, President Biden rescinded the Trump Administration’s
executive order prohibiting CRT training for federal agencies and contractors. He followed up
with an executive order directing all federal agencies to develop strategic plans, establish chief
diversity officers, and expand DEIA training throughout the Federal workforce (EO 14035,
2021).
In contrast to the previous administration’s stance, the Executive Order (14035) on
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce recognizes racism is not
about White guilt but rather a legacy of racist laws and rulings that continue to shape the U.S.
legal system today. Markus and Kitayama’s (2010) culture cycle illustrates how ideas influence
everything from laws to social norms in the cycle of mutual constitution. Markus and Kitayama’s
framework suggests culture shapes individuals’ psychological processes, which shape their
behaviors and create a feedback loop that reinforces cultural norms and values. We can observe
it in international development through cultural values, beliefs, decision-making, social norms,
psychological processes, behavior change, adaptation, and localization. Figure 4 outlines the
culture cycle by Markus and Kitayama.

85

Figure 4

Culture in the Cycle of Mutual Constitution
Note. From “Cultures and Selves: A Cycle of Mutual Constitution,” by H. R. Markus and S.
Kitayama, 2010, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), p. 422
(https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375557). Copyright 2010 SAGE Publications.

Culture Cycle in International Development
In society, the self is the center of awareness and agency that incorporates and reflects
sociocultural patterns, and people’s thoughts, feelings, and actions reinforce and change the
forms that shape their lives (Markus & Kitayama, 2010). Partnership engagement within
international development can also extend this cultural cycle. Markus and Kitayama’s (2010)
“culture cycle” framework suggests culture shapes individuals’ psychological processes, which
shape their behaviors and create a feedback loop that reinforces cultural norms and values. We
can observe the framework in international development partnerships through cultural values,
86

cultural norms, decision-making processes, social norms, and psychological processes. It also
can be observed through adaptation and localization or through learning and knowledge
exchange (Constantino et al., 2022).
The cultural values of donor organizations or countries in the Global North shape the
priorities and goals of international development partnerships. These cultural values have also
influenced international development donor funding to indirectly benefit countries in the Global
North. USAID’s culture value dictates only 6% of the total funding goes to recipient countries
while 80% goes to 75 U.S.-based organizations (USAID, 2021). Power dynamics can also be
shaped by financial dependencies; as one partner provides a significant portion of the funding,
they may exert greater control over the partnership and its objectives. Other examples beyond
funding where cultural values dictate how partnerships must benefit the Global North include
technological advancements, scientific breakthroughs, and knowledge exchange (Gwaravanda &
Ndofirepi, 2020). Funding for development projects from the Global North can create economic
opportunities and contribute to global economic stability, which can indirectly benefit countries
in the Global North (de Sousa Santos, 2020).
Cultural norms and beliefs play a role in decision-making processes within international
development partnerships. Hierarchies and power dynamics can have significant effects on
partnerships, leading to unequal decision-making authority, resource allocation, and agenda-
setting (Ran & Qi, 2018). The culture cycle framework emphasizes the influence of social norms
on behavior, and cultural norms related to trust building, cooperation, communication styles, and
conflict resolution shape the interaction and collaboration among partners. Cultural norms can
contribute to creating disparities in knowledge and expertise between partners, potentially
87

leading to the less powerful partner falling into a subordinate role (Dunbar, 2015). Recognizing
and respecting cultural norms can foster trust, mutual understanding, and effective collaboration.
The psychological processes influenced by culture, such as cognition, emotion, and
motivation, influence the behavior of individuals within international development partnerships.
The culture cycle framework emphasizes the importance of cultural adaptation and localization
in international development partnerships (Markus & Kitayama, 2010). Based on Markus and
Kitayama’s (2010) work, hierarchies and power dynamics can exacerbate cultural and language
differences between partners, leading to miscommunication, misunderstandings, and a lack of
inclusiveness in decision-making processes. Culturally sensitive approaches involve
understanding the local context, incorporating local perspectives, and adapting strategies to align
with the participating communities’ cultural values, norms, and systems (Markus & Kitayama,
2010).
The culture cycle framework suggests culture influences the learning processes of
individuals. In international development partnerships, cultural diversity can facilitate cross-
cultural learning and knowledge exchange (Markus & Kitayama, 2010). Hierarchies can affect
the evaluation and accountability mechanisms within partnerships, as the powerful partner may
have more influence in defining indicators of success, monitoring progress, and evaluating
outcomes. By recognizing the influence of culture, stakeholders can navigate cultural
differences, build effective collaborations, and design strategies that are culturally sensitive and
contextually relevant (Markus & Kitayama, 2010). Embracing the culture cycle framework can
enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of international development partnerships by
leveraging the strengths and perspectives that different cultures bring to the table.

88

USG Diaspora Engagement
Over the course of 3 days, African presidents from over 40 governments met in
Washington, DC, to discuss various pressing issues with Biden, congressional leaders,
diplomatic representatives, business leaders, and the African diaspora. A key objective of the
Summit was to reset relations with the continent and address China’s and Russia’s growing
presence in the region. In the wake of the Summit, the Biden Administration launched a series of
initiatives emphasizing its support for higher education, workforce development, and
environmental equity. One commitment was further strengthening dialogue between United
States officials and the diaspora as outlined in the U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa
(The White House, 2022). Subsequently, The White House (2022) issued an executive order to
establish the President’s Advisory Council on African Diaspora Engagement (PAC-ADE). The
PAC-ADE will advise the White House via the Secretary of State concerning programs and
initiatives to increase diaspora participation in trade, investment, economic growth, and
development in Africa. As part of the USG’s commitment to advancing equity and opportunity
for African diasporas, this new effort also aligns with Executive Order No. 13,985 (2021),
Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities. This whole-of-government
policy shift is bound to have an impact on the organization, with an estimated $55 billion
pledged to support African economic, health, and security initiatives through USAID
programming (Biden, 2022).
89

Findings for Diaspora Development Contribution
Research Question 2 asked: How do diaspora groups, networks, or coalitions enhance the
role of international development donors?
Historically, diasporas have tended to be relegated primarily to discussions of remittances
in international development. However, in recent years diaspora engagement in development has
attracted the attention of key players in the sector like governments, regional bodies,
international organizations, and donors. This shift is indicative of the importance of fostering
inclusive partnerships. As direct investors, philanthropists, social entrepreneurs, movers, and
shakers, diasporas enrich the role of donors in their home countries’ development.
Transnational Cooperation
The diaspora has played a crucial role in facilitating transnational cooperation through
various means, such as knowledge and skills transfer, remittances and investments, trade and
business networks, advocacy and lobbying, cultural diplomacy, and people-to-people exchanges.
Diasporas bring valuable knowledge, skills, and expertise from their host countries to their home
countries through various channels, such as academic collaborations, professional networks, and
mentorship programs (Langley & Kuschminder, 2016; Stoyanov et al., 2018). Communities in
the diaspora play a vital role in transnational collaboration by using financial channels like
remittances and investments to support household welfare, education, healthcare, and
entrepreneurial ventures. Investments, both financial and intellectual, in their home countries
also promote economic growth, create employment opportunities, and foster cooperation
between host and home countries (Langley & Kuschminder, 2016).
Diaspora communities engage in advocacy and lobbying efforts to promote transnational
cooperation on various issues. They actively work to raise awareness and advocate for policies
90

that benefit both their home and host countries (N. Williams, 2020). They serve as cultural
ambassadors, promoting mutual understanding, respect, and cooperation between their home and
host countries. They facilitate cultural exchanges, artistic collaborations, and people-to-people
interactions, which contribute to cultural diplomacy and foster stronger relationships between
nations. The diaspora’s role in facilitating transnational cooperation is multi-faceted,
encompassing knowledge transfer, financial contributions, trade facilitation, advocacy, cultural
diplomacy, and people-to-people connections (N. Williams, 2020). Recognizing and leveraging
the potential of diasporas as transnational actors can strengthen cooperation and promote
sustainable development across borders.
To better harness the diasporas’ engagement potential for transnational cooperation,
major development agencies, bilateral aid organizations, and NGOs have sponsored numerous
studies and initiatives. There is evidence that the diaspora plays an important role in
development policies (Constant & Zimmermann, 2016; Mishra, 2016). The literature identified
diasporas as development actors in the development policy process (Mishra, 2016). They invest
in data collection and analysis and foster cooperation between countries of origin and
destination.
Furthermore, the findings acknowledge that diasporas possess valuable knowledge about
culture, language, society, history, religion, and politics (Constant & Zimmermann, 2016).
Development assistance policies benefit from insight gained from experiencing conflict,
instability, and extreme poverty (Langley & Kuschminder, 2016). In some cases, firsthand
experiences in home countries may provide a better understanding of the challenges and
solutions than those of potential donors (Chen, 2021; P. D. Johnson, 2007; Newland & Tanaka,
2010). The document analysis conducted for this study revealed examples of how donors
91

facilitate international cooperation. Taking place in 2013, the first-ever Global Diaspora Summit
brought together high-level government officials from around the world with representatives
from academia, diaspora groups, civil society, media, and business. Taking inspiration from the
International Diaspora Ministerial Conference, over 700 delegates from governments, diaspora
groups, and donors attended the Summit.
Human Capital and Financial Resources
By using intermediary organizations, diaspora philanthropy can benefit people in
homelands as a whole by using intermediary organizations such as village associations, online-
based humanitarian channels, faith-based organizations, professional associations, and diaspora
foundations (Chen, 2021; Flanigan, 2017; Newland et al., 2010; Sidel, 2008). Diasporas
contribute their human capital and financial resources to support international development in
various ways, such as remittances, investment and entrepreneurship, knowledge transfer and
expertise, philanthropy and charitable contributions, advocacy and networking, and skills
volunteering and diaspora professionals (Chen, 2021; Frehywot et al., 2019; Taslakian et al.,
2022). Diaspora members often invest their financial resources in businesses and entrepreneurial
ventures in their home countries, creating job opportunities, stimulating local economies, and
contributing to economic development (Chen, 2021; Olliff, 2018; Zapata-Barrero & Rezaei,
2020). Diaspora entrepreneurs bring their knowledge, skills, and networks to start businesses,
introduce innovative practices, and foster economic growth. Diaspora communities possess
valuable human capital in the form of knowledge, skills, and expertise acquired through
education and professional experiences in host countries, and they contribute to international
development by transferring their knowledge and expertise to their home countries (Ferguson et
92

al., 2016). This knowledge transfer enhances local capacities, strengthens institutions, and
supports sustainable development efforts.
The findings revealed diaspora contributions can take many forms. Most often, diaspora
communities engage in philanthropic activities and charitable giving to support international
development (Ademolu, 2021; Appe & Oreg, 2020; Chen, 2021). They establish foundations and
nonprofit organizations or contribute to existing ones to address social challenges, provide
humanitarian assistance, and support education, health care, and community development
initiatives. In addition, they also engage in advocacy and networking to support international
development (Craven, 2021). Diaspora professionals contribute their skills and expertise through
volunteering initiatives and short-term assignments in their home countries. Orozco’s (2008)
diaspora economy model outlines the role of the private sector in the diaspora (Minto-Coy,
2016). This model consists of five elements: telecommunications, trade, transfers (remittances),
tourism, and transportation. Researchers commonly use this framework to assess private sector
engagement with the diaspora. Additionally, the diaspora plays an important role as a market, a
marketer, a collaborator, an investor, and a cocreator in the diasporic economy (Minto-Coy,
2016). In the Caribbean, innovative and successful enterprises have built their business models
around the diaspora and provided goods and services to the diaspora.
Overall, diasporas contribute their human capital and financial resources to support
international development by providing remittances, investing in businesses, transferring
knowledge and expertise, engaging in philanthropy, advocating for policies, and volunteering
their skills (Chand, 2019). The knowledge and skills that diaspora communities have acquired in
the nations of residence can improve human resources in sectors such as health care, public
administration, and education in their countries of origin (Chand, 2019; Nyame-Asiamah et al.,
93

2020). Diaspora professionals tend to have soft skills, including the capability to mentor and
train. Programs promoting these forms of diaspora contributions are set up in areas characterized
by societal issues and crises and necessitate robust collaboration between diaspora communities
and beneficiary institutions. An agency such as USAID can undertake needs assessment and
locate matching skills in diaspora communities and enable the virtual and temporary placement
of diaspora professionals in relevant organizations in the countries of origin. Diaspora
knowledge networks are an important mechanism that can help in engaging such professionals
(Ho & Boyle, 2015). Incorporating diaspora skills into both professional and social settings
typically grants access to unique resources, technology, and professional connections that may
not be accessible upon their return. Their contributions have a significant impact on poverty
reduction, economic growth, and the well-being of communities in their home countries.
Health System Strengthening

As a result of the study’s findings, diasporas contribute to health system strengthening by
sending remittances specifically for healthcare purposes. The formal contributions of the
diaspora to health systems lack comprehensive documentation. Though the literature is limited,
the findings indicate that diaspora groups, networks, and coalitions also transfer their knowledge
and skills to their home countries through capacity-building initiatives, training programs, and
mentorship opportunities (P. D. Johnson, 2007; Langley & Kuschminder, 2016; Sidel, 2008).
This knowledge transfer enhances the capabilities of local healthcare providers, improves clinical
practices, and strengthens health care delivery. Diasporas also have contributed to scholarship
programs for educating new physicians and nurses, as well as telemedicine and instructional
webinars. The literature indicated diaspora groups usually undertake short-term medical missions
and collaborate with local organizations to address the needs of their countries of origin (Chand,
94

2019). Because diasporas have long served as a formal and informal bridge to facilitate
transnational cooperation to the role of international development donors, this also has caught the
eye of a number of other stakeholders. An increasing number of migrant-sending countries are
developing innovative strategies to tap migration’s potentially positive contribution to the
development agenda.
According to Wojczewski et al. (2015), migrant health care workers not only fill gaps in
their countries of residence but also participate in improving the living conditions for citizens of
their countries of origin, especially through expatriate professional circles and networks.
Diaspora communities often organize medical missions and volunteer their time and expertise to
provide healthcare services in their home countries. Health care professionals from diaspora
communities may participate in short-term assignments and medical camps or volunteer at local
hospitals. They also contribute to health system strengthening by supporting infrastructure
development in health care facilities, providing financial resources, or participating in
fundraising efforts to build or renovate hospitals, clinics, and health care centers (Portes &
Grosfoguel, 1994). Diaspora involvement helps expand health care access, improve the quality
of services, and create a more robust healthcare system.
Diaspora communities work with development organizations and donors in health
projects in their countries of origin. Diaspora members engage in research collaborations and
knowledge exchange initiatives with health care institutions in their home countries (Frehywot et
al., 2019; Minn, 2016). This collaboration enhances evidence-based practices, advances medical
knowledge, and strengthens research capacity. Diaspora communities advocate for improved
healthcare policies and increased investment in health systems, raising awareness about health
challenges, mobilizing resources, and engaging with policymakers and government officials to
95

influence healthcare policies and priorities (Frehywot et al., 2019). By amplifying the voices of
communities and advocating for equitable and inclusive healthcare, diasporas contribute to
strengthening health systems.
Diasporas contribute to healthcare access, quality, and sustainability by providing
financial support, knowledge transfer, volunteerism, infrastructure development, research
collaboration, and advocacy efforts (Frehywot et al., 2019). They work in rural areas training
health workers in primary health care and family planning. These efforts help improve healthcare
outcomes and promote health system resilience.
Findings for Incentivization of USAID Employees

Research Question 3 asked: How are USAID employees incentivized to implement new
partnership strategies and policies? Gaps in operationalizing policies, organizational and
workforce barriers, and significant equity and inclusion challenges disincentivize USAID
employees from successfully implementing new partnership initiatives.
Limited Incentives

Although limited in capacity, USAID encourages employees to implement new
partnerships and policies through performance evaluation, professional development
opportunities, career advancement, collaborative work environment, feedback and learning
culture, and clear policy guidance. These limited incentives contribute to the Agency’s mission
to promote positive change. Although some USAID employees’ performance is evaluated based
on their ability to implement new partnership strategies and policies effectively, the Agency has
not standardized those performance standards across the different hiring mechanisms used to
bring staff into the Agency, like USDH, FSO, FSN, PSC, ISC, or PASA. The organization
recruits under 20 mechanisms (Congressional Research Service, 2022). Recognition programs
96

are often in place to recognize and reward employees who demonstrate exceptional performance.
However, the organization often awards partnership awards to recipients who are explicitly
engaged in partnership initiatives, and there is a need to standardize these awards across various
hiring mechanisms within the organization. Although USAID offers some professional
development opportunities to employees, such as training programs, workshops, and conferences
focused on new partnership strategies and policies, these opportunities are very limited in
enabling employees to enhance their skills and knowledge, stay updated on the latest best
practices, and build their capacity to implement innovative partnership approaches effectively.
USAID does provide some career advancement opportunities for employees who
successfully implement new partnership strategies and policies. When certain employees
demonstrate proficiency in implementing innovative approaches, it can open doors for career
progression, such as promotions or assignments with higher responsibilities. Racial and ethnic
minorities, however, are far less likely to attain promotion outcomes than Whites (GAO, 2020).
USAID strives for a collaborative work environment that encourages teamwork, knowledge
sharing, and cross-functional collaboration. Collaboration provides a platform for employees to
learn from each other, share experiences, and collectively contribute to the success of new
approaches. However, slow decision making, lack of information flow, reduced innovation, lack
of adaptability, organizational power struggles, and limited employee autonomy often stifle the
organization’s collaborative efforts (GAO, 2020). The interviews and document analysis
confirmed that USAID is not immune to the challenges faced by hierarchical organizations
(Harsch & Festing, 2020; Joseph & Gaba, 2020; Kanter, 2019).
USAID strives to encourage feedback and attempts to foster a learning culture where
employees have opportunities to provide input, share lessons learned, and suggest improvements
97

related to the implementation of new partnership strategies and policies (USAID, 2022).
However, the findings confirmed USAID’s collaboration gaps, fragmented approaches, and
duplication of efforts are all areas needing improvement (GAO, 2021; U.S. Office of Inspector
General, 2012, 2019a, 2019b, 2020, 2021). The Agency often seeks employee feedback in hopes
of demonstrating its commitment to continuous improvement and encouraging employees’
engagement and ownership in the implementation process. However, similar to other large
bureaucratic organizations with hierarchical structures, important information does not always
reach the right people in a timely manner, leading to miscommunication, duplication of efforts,
and reduced collaboration (Portillo et al., 2020). With limited employee autonomy varying
across the organization, decision-making authority is concentrated at the top levels, limiting the
autonomy and empowerment of lower-level employees like ISCs and FSNs (Glick, 2020). This
results in disengagement, decreased job satisfaction, and reduced motivation among employees
(Congressional Research Service, 2022).
Implementation Gaps

Knowledge sharing and information sharing are both forms of human communication
(Ellison et al., 2015; Savolainen, 2017). According to Wilson (2008), knowledge results from
understanding and learning. According to Wang and Noe (2010), knowledge comprises ideas,
facts, expertise, and judgments relevant to individual, team, and organizational performance.
Based on this definition, Savolainen (2017) asserted knowledge and information are analytically
distinct concepts but exhibit conceptual interconnectedness in practice. Following Davenport and
Prusak’s (2000) three main objectives for organizational knowledge management, the researcher
conducted a document analysis to fully comprehend if USAID increases the visibility of
knowledge within the organization while indicating the importance of knowledge, encourages
98

individuals within the organization to share their knowledge, and develops an infrastructure to
support organizational knowledge management via technical systems, tools, workflows.
Similar to the findings in Research Questions 1 and 2, the gap analysis revealed no
indication of a clear implementation strategy focused on staff knowledge transfer. The interviews
revealed USAID staff were unaware of best practices, strategies, or procedures for implementing
diaspora engagement. The document analysis further revealed although the organization has
implemented numerous initiatives, policies, and strategies related to partnership development,
however, there is a gap in the policies’ theory of change. Using a theory of change is a reliable
way to describe how and why a set of interventions is expected to achieve a specific outcome
(Mayne, 2015). It clarifies underlying assumptions about processes and provides information
necessary to monitor progress during the life of the intervention. TOCs have been less used in
the development community but can be useful for establishing a common understanding of the
processes required to accomplish the intended changes (Mayne, 2015).
The document analysis attempted to unravel USAID’s complex organizational structure,
knowledge management, knowledge management systems, and knowledge transfer between
employees or organizational units (Leonardi, 2014). The policies, strategies, and executive
orders listed above set the tone for how partnership engagement should be systemized and
communicated at USAID; they represent the explicit knowledge of KM within an organization.
Despite a series of conceptual documents outlining why USAID needs to expand its partnership
framework and engage with the diaspora, there were not enough knowledge assistant tools to
guide users. The researcher found a series of diaspora-related documents as part of the
knowledge management system. The organization’s website provides some information that is
available and organized by categories. There is a short introduction to the importance of
99

collaborating with diasporas, how diasporas contribute to the development space, and a section
highlighting the organization’s diaspora partnerships. In the case of partnership initiatives, there
are no clear theories of change that outline the role and resources required for employees to
successfully operationalize these policies in USAID’s complex organizational structure.
The organization designed a few mechanisms, such as the African Diaspora Marketplace
and MicroMentor, focused on providing funding and mentorship to entrepreneurs. USAID also
supports two investment platforms, the India Investment Initiative (III) and Raíces, empowering
diasporas in India and Latin America. Lastly, Homestrings is a USAID-funded online investment
and social media platform that channels diasporic capital (USAID, 2020). As a public-private
partnership, the African Diaspora Marketplace is an example of a Global Development Alliance,
which USAID pioneered. The idea behind this initiative is that remittances have the potential to
impact development more directly. The African Diaspora Marketplace Customer Relationship
Management Platform (CRM Platform) platform appears outdated, and the last funding cycle
ended in 2016.
USAID’s MicroMentor’s online business mentoring program connects purpose-driven
entrepreneurs and business mentors, fostering powerful connections, problem solving, and
successful business growth. A USAID implementer, Mercy Corps, implemented this program,
but there is no indication of the duration of the program. India Investment Initiative (III) was
originally launched by Calvert Foundation in New Delhi in January 2015, with Indiaspora’s
support, a nonprofit organization with a mission to inspire diasporas through collaboration,
community engagement, and social change. Although the USAID site lists the program, there is
no indication of its current existence. There is no information about when it ended, evaluation
reports, or lessons learned to be shared. The Homestrings platform was established in 2012,
100

offering 240 million diasporas unique access to opportunities in emerging markets. Like the
platforms mentioned earlier, there is no indication of its current functionality or how the lessons
learned translated into best practices.
The organization shared two opportunities for diaspora engagement under the “Engage
with Us” section of the knowledge management system. Located online, the Global Innovation
Exchange has connected innovators with funders and insight seekers with resources and
knowledge since 2016. GIE facilitates conversations among them using USAID’s Diaspora
Microsite to connect participants with diaspora communities. USAID’s Diaspora Microsite
connects participants with diaspora communities using USAID’s signature strategy through
Global Development Alliances (GDA). Using market-based approaches to solve development
challenges, USAID and the private sector collaborate through the GDA (USAID, 2021).
Although this section of the KMS is devoted to diaspora engagement, there are no direct linkages
to engaging diasporas in the GDAs, notably through USAID and private sector value
propositions or market-based approaches.
Reviewing these documents raises the question of whether the organization has
operationalized efforts for employees to demonstrate conceptual and procedural understanding of
policies, strategies, and executive orders. An organization’s capability to use and leverage
knowledge heavily depends on who creates, shares, and uses that knowledge (Leonard-Barton et
al., 2015). The organization developed one toolkit. The toolkit aims to provide an overview of
the diverse partnership opportunities at USAID by focusing on the diaspora. The Agency
organized the toolkit into five sections:
● partnership opportunities: an overview
● requirements to work with USAID
101

● acquisition (contracts)
● assistance (grants and cooperative agreements)
● co-creation and co-design
From the partnership overview, the audience addressed in this toolkit is not internal USAID
development practitioners but diaspora actors seeking to partner with USAID. The overview
introduces the types of mechanisms USAID uses to fund partner activities. The toolkit presents a
quarterly publication overview of possible USAID funding and partnership opportunities in the
USAID Business Forecast. Included in the information are the eligibility requirements for
partnering with USAID. Organizations must have a unique nine-digit identifier for all U.S.
federal awards, a Data Universal Number System (DUNS), CAGE or NCAGE, or the System for
Award Management (SAM). This information is outdated as Unique Entity IDs (SAMs) have
replaced DUNS numbers as the government’s official identifier for federal awards as of April
2022. As a result, businesses seeking to do business with the federal government no longer need
to provide DUNS numbers. The toolkit provides an overview of the requirements for both
contracts and grants. FedBizOpps.gov provides critical resources for accessing federal
procurement opportunities, while Grants.gov offers resources for accessing grants.
The Global Development Alliance (GDA) Annual Program Statements (APS) and Partial
Credit Guarantees provide a brief introduction to private sector opportunities. Partnering through
GDAs allows partners to leverage and apply each other’s assets and knowledge. The toolkit
mentions USAID’s Global Partnerships Team, which develops and tests new models for
collaboration to form dynamic, mutually beneficial alliances with a broad range of partners—
companies, NGOs, foundations, universities, diaspora groups, international organizations, and
local and national governments—where business interests align with USAID’s development
102

objectives. USAID mentions its Global Partnerships Team in the toolkit, which develops and
tests new collaboration models to develop dynamic, mutually beneficial partnerships with a wide
range of partners, including diaspora groups. The referenced Global Partnerships Team link is
not working, and a search on the USAID website yielded nothing.
The study revealed few frameworks and toolkits exist to support staff implementing
policies effectively. Although there are toolkits readily available to guide partners, there seems to
be a lack of resources to support employees in technical roles. Further, there are limited
employee incentives as it relates to partnership development that tap into the staff’s intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation.
Individuals and groups share knowledge through knowledge donation and collection (H.-
F. Lin, 2007; Van den Hooff et al., 2012). However, the current KMS does not facilitate a space
for development practitioners within the organization to donate and collect knowledge related to
diaspora engagement. According to Razmerita et al. (2016), knowledge donation entails
employees communicating with and consulting with one another to learn from one another via
knowledge collection. The document analysis mainly revealed external resources for partners.
H.-F. Lin (2007) defined knowledge sharing as the active process of collecting, organizing,
reusing, and transferring experience-based knowledge within an organization.
There is limited knowledge transfer between organizational units and employees. Of all
the organization’s partnership approaches, the Private Sector Engagement and Partnerships
(PSE) 101 Prerequisite Course is the only course offered on the organization’s knowledge
management system. Some country offices offer an in-person locally led development skill-
building workshop for participants to engage in peer-to-peer sharing of knowledge, challenges,
and lessons learned from the implementation of their Local Works projects. However, the
103

organization’s KMS does not promote systematically a space for development practitioners to
collect and donate knowledge associated with diaspora engagement.
The organization developed an Action Plan for Diaspora Engagement in 2010. A review
of action memos and notices indicated the action plan from USAID addressed four areas:
• explaining U.S. foreign policy to diaspora members
• including diaspora members in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy
• utilizing diaspora financial resources for foreign efforts
• leveraging diasporas as human capital (USAID, 2010)
To address the decentralized nature of the organization’s diaspora engagement activities,
representatives from various offices and bureaus formed a Diaspora Engagement Working Group
tasked with overseeing and coordinating these activities. Working group members were tasked
with promoting awareness of diaspora activities within the Agency and their impact, providing
support to Agency operating units seeking to work more effectively with the diaspora, and
recommending career and program incentives for USAID staff to encourage the inclusion of the
diaspora as key private sector partners (USAID, 2010).
The action plan sought to mainstream diaspora and development throughout USAID. One
key goal was to enhance the coordination of diaspora engagement within USAID’s toolbox by
developing a training curriculum for both new and existing personnel. The training would
explore program design and the benefits of partnering with the diaspora. Unfortunately, the
training was never developed and implemented. Besides training, empirical evidence confirms
that people and people-related factors play a crucial role in knowledge processes within
organizations (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000; Quinn et al., 1996). The working group allowed
employees to share their knowledge with one another. The organization distributed a notice to its
104

employees to announce the formation of the working group and to encourage participation.
However, it is unknown how long the working group existed and when or why it disbanded.
There were limited meeting notes available to confirm the working group’s scope. What is clear
is that the working group lasted only a short time. Only one interview participant appeared to be
aware of the IdEA partnership under Secretary Clinton. No other participant mentioned the
working group.
CRT and Postcolonial Perspectives
As explored in RQ1, CRT and postcolonial theory explains how institutions, systems, and
policies can intentionally reinforce, codify, and perpetuate socioeconomic and racial differences
in exposures, risks, and opportunities (Delgado & Stefancic, 2011). Helms’s (1995) theoretical
model of White identity provides a framework for understanding the various stages of racial
identity development among White individuals. Although the model primarily focuses on the
psychological development of White individuals within a domestic context, it can be applied to
examine how White identity manifests in the organizational context of international
development. This is crucial to understand while dissecting leadership and partnership within the
organization.
The contact stage of Helms’s (1995) model involves limited awareness of racial issues
and a lack of critical reflection on White privilege. In the realm of international development,
this stage may manifest in the limited understanding and acknowledgment of historical and
structural inequalities that have shaped global power dynamics. Individuals or organizations in
the contact stage may engage in development initiatives without fully recognizing the
implications of their own privilege and the potential for perpetuating power imbalances. For
USAID, this translates to certain individuals within the organization lacking an understanding of
105

the systemic barriers that affect marginalized communities within the context of their work.
Figure 5 outlines Helms’s theoretical model of White identity.
Figure 5

Theoretical Model of White Identity

Note. From “Deny, distance, or dismantle? How white Americans manage a privileged identity,”
by E. D. Knowles, B. S. Lowery, R. M. Chow, and M. M. Unzueta, 2014, Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 9(6), p. 600 (https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614554658). Copyright
2014 by SAGE Publications.

106

In the disintegration stage, individuals experience cognitive and emotional conflict as
they become aware of the contradictions and injustices associated with their White identity. In
the realm of international development, this stage involves White individuals or organizations
acknowledging their privilege, confronting the history of colonialism and imperialism, and
recognizing how power dynamics impact their efforts. In the context of USAID, this stage
involved recognizing and acknowledging the existence of organizational barriers that hinder
diversity, equity, and inclusion. This stage can be a turning point for critical self-reflection and a
motivation to challenge and dismantle oppressive structures. One example of this is the Biden
Administration reacting to how power dynamics, biases, and systemic inequities operate within
the USG. The Agency began working to address the discomfort and contradictions associated
with these realizations.
The reintegration stage involves a retreat from the discomfort experienced in the
disintegration stage, often resulting in a reaffirmation of White identity and a defensive response
to racial issues. In international development, this stage may manifest as a resistance to
acknowledging the continuing power dynamics and a tendency to prioritize one’s own
perspective and interests. In the context of USAID’s DEIA efforts, this stage may manifest as
resistance or defensiveness when confronted with the need to address organizational barriers. It
may result in preserving existing power structures and reinforcing paternalistic approaches in
development efforts. The organization’s DEIA initiative is facing the same challenges plaguing
other institutions with the rise of the anti-CRT and anti-DEIA movement.
During the pseudo-independence stage, individuals tend to have a better understanding of
racial issues and a strong desire to promote social justice. However, they may lack the necessary
knowledge and skills to challenge systemic racism effectively. In international development, this
107

stage may involve well-intentioned efforts by White individuals or organizations to address
inequality and injustice, but with a lack of deep engagement with local communities and a failure
to recognize and address power imbalances in their approaches. In the case of USAID, this stage
may manifest as well-intentioned efforts to promote DEIA but with limited effectiveness due to a
lack of comprehensive strategies, policies, or frameworks. It emphasizes the need for USAID to
move beyond performative actions and prioritize concrete steps to address and dismantle
organizational barriers. In this stage, individuals actively seek opportunities to immerse
themselves in learning about racial issues and engaging in antiracist work. In the context of
international development, this stage may involve actively seeking diverse perspectives,
engaging in meaningful partnerships with local communities, and working toward decolonizing
development practices. For USAID, this stage may involve embracing a more comprehensive
approach to DEIA, such as actively seeking diverse perspectives, engaging with marginalized
communities, and involving them in decision-making processes. It requires a commitment to
ongoing self-reflection, critical dialogue, and challenging the status quo.
The autonomy stage represents a deep and integrated understanding of White identity and
a commitment to antiracist action. In international development, this stage may involve White
individuals or organizations actively working toward dismantling systemic inequalities, centering
the voices and agency of local communities, and engaging in transformative and equitable
development practices. In the context of USAID’s DEIA efforts, this stage may involve the
Agency fully integrating DEIA principles into its organizational culture, policies, and practices.
It includes promoting racial equity within the Agency’s workforce, implementing fair
recruitment and promotion practices, ensuring equitable resource allocation, and dismantling
structural barriers that perpetuate inequality. Racial or ethnic minorities are under-represented in
108

the U.S. Foreign Service and Civil Service due to a low promotion rate in mid-careers and a high
promotion rate from the GS-11 to GS-12 government pay scale (GAO, 2020).
Weaving Helms’ (1995) theoretical model of White identity, the results can provide
insights into the ways in which organizations engage in international development. It highlights
the importance of self-reflection, awareness of privilege, and a commitment to challenging
power dynamics and promoting racial equity within the field of international development.
Theoretical Model of White Identity, Cultural Cycle, and Sociocultural Theory
The theoretical model of White identity (Helms, 1995) and the cultural cycle framework
by Markus and Kitayama (2010) have distinct focuses. However, there are similarities in their
comprehension of identity and the significance of culture. Helms’ (1995) model focuses on
White identity development within the context of racial dynamics. Markus and Kitayama’s
cultural cycle framework explores the impact of culture on psychological processes in a
comprehensive manner (Hamedani & Markus, 2019). However, both approaches recognize the
impact of culture on the formation of one’s identity and acknowledge that the process of shaping
one’s identity is constantly evolving and influenced by cultural factors.
Markus and Kitayama’s (2010) cultural cycle framework and Vygotsky’s (1978)
sociocultural theory share some parallels in their understanding of the role of culture in shaping
individuals’ cognitive and social development. Markus and Kitayama’s cultural cycle
emphasizes how cultural values and beliefs shape individuals’ psychological processes.
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory emphasizes how cultural tools, such as language and symbols,
mediate cognitive development (Daniels et al., 2007). Both frameworks highlight that culture
provides the cognitive frameworks and tools through which individuals perceive, interpret, and
make sense of the world. Markus and Kitayama’s cultural cycle highlights the role of social
109

norms and collective action. At the same time, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory emphasizes the
significance of social interactions, particularly with more knowledgeable others, in cognitive
development. Both frameworks acknowledge cultural practices and social interactions play a
significant role in the process of learning, cognitive development, and the acquisition of cultural
knowledge and skills. These are important in exploring the problem of practice.
Although there are similarities between Markus and Kitayama’s (2010) cultural cycle
framework and Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory, they originated from different scholarly
traditions and focus on different aspects of culture and development. The framework Markus and
Kitayama established focuses mainly on how culture affects an individual’s psychological
processes. Meanwhile, Vygotsky’s theory offers a more comprehensive framework exploring
how cultural contexts and social interactions shape individuals (Daniels et al., 2007).
Part 2: Clark and Estes’ Evaluative Model
In the Part 2 section, the researcher categorized the data according to Clark and Estes’
(2008) gap analysis. The KMO influences include knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors, with each influence categorized according to its type. Gap validation requires more than
75% of the evidence to confirm the assumed influence, while gap invalidation requires more than
75% of the evidence to reject it. The validity or invalidity of an assumed influence is
undetermined if less than 75% of the evidence contradicts it. The assumptions in this study are
not all encompassing, so further research may be needed to confirm or refute them.
Knowledge
The study examined three types of knowledge influences: conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive. The study’s moderators provided participants with a series of questions to assess
their comprehension of a particular concept while urging them to consider the importance of
110

establishing diverse partnerships and collaborating with the diaspora. All participants could
articulate the value of partnerships and engage with diasporas. Participants were unable to
comfortably articulate their knowledge of the acquisition and assistance (A&A) policy
requirements for engaging with nontraditional partners like diasporas. Moreover, document
analysis revealed it was difficult to articulate the organizational, financial, and cross-cutting
benefits of engaging diaspora populations. When asked about the fundamentals of effective
partnership development, many participants were unfamiliar with evolving best practices,
strategies, and procedures designed to develop a culture of partnership engagement (e.g., align
incentive structures, develop or modify systems, and integrate partnership staff in key units
across the organization). When discussing power dynamics within the organization, participants
referenced broad concepts of oppression like colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism,
neoliberalism, and racism. The partnerships policies, however, did not mention how anti-
Blackness, sexism, misogyny, and homophobia can influence unconscious bias and ultimately
influence employee predispositions about partnering with nontraditional partners such as
diasporas. In this section, participants provided a clear breakdown of what it would take to
operationalize the various partnership initiatives and policies. Table 4 summarizes the presumed
knowledge needs and evaluation results based on participants’ responses. Factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive knowledge are four types of knowledge associated with learning
and performance goals (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).

111

Table 4
Summary of Presumed Knowledge Needs and Evaluation Results
Assumed knowledge influence Knowledge
type
Knowledge
influence
assessment
Validation
KC-DE: Development practitioners at
USAID require knowledge of the
acquisition and assistance (A&A)
policy requirements for engaging
diasporas. Employees need
organizational, financial, and cross-
cutting benefits of engaging diaspora
populations.
Conceptual–
Declarative
Interviews,
document
review, and
data analysis
Gap
Validated
KP-PD: Development practitioners at
USAID require knowledge of the
fundamentals of effective partnership
development, including employing
best practices for identifying and
collaborating with diasporas.
Procedural Interviews,
document
review, and data
analysis.
Gap
Validated
KM-UB: Development practitioners at
USAID need knowledge of how
systemic structures of oppression
such as colonialism, neocolonialism,
imperialism, neoliberalism, racism
and anti-Blackness, sexism, misogyny
and patriarchy, homophobia, and
heterosexism influence unconscious
bias that ultimately influence their
predispositions about partnering with
nontraditional partners like diasporas.
Metacognitive Interviews,
document
review, and
data analysis
Gap
Validated
Note. Knowledge Conceptual-Diversity Engagement (KC-DE); Knowledge Procedural-
Partnership Development (KP-PD); Knowledge Metacognitive-Unconscious Bias (KM-UB).

Conceptual Knowledge
Development practitioners were asked during the interview to provide their
understanding of various partnership processes that govern how partnership goals are determined
112

and prioritized by the organization. Participants expressed an overall knowledge of the
organization’s policy positions. Edana (P2) offered this perspective:
The local partnership agenda was set in DC. We were told this is the policy change, and
here are the outcomes we’re trying to achieve. It was very unclear how we would have to
design the programming and how we would implement this.
Nigel (P5) added, “I can appreciate the effort to build partner capacity on LinkedIn.” The
researchers asked participants to clarify their understanding of the requirements for involving
diasporas in the acquisition and assistance (A&A) policy. Employees need organizational,
financial, and cross-cutting benefits of engaging diaspora populations. The detail with which
participants described the partnership procurement process was indicative of their knowledge of
the lack of adequate A&A policy support. Nigel added, “While CORs are usually helpful, they
often lack the capacity to deal with these new and nontraditional partnerships.” Kevin (P6) noted
this disconnect was due to “hierarchal structures where policies flowing top down and some
buckets of sectors just remain the same. While it may appear that the priorities changed, many
times it’s the same thing, but just with a different name.”
Procedural Knowledge
In reviewing the findings, there was no indication of a clear organizational strategy to
leverage diaspora contributions and investments beyond the policy level and into a sustainable
operational framework. Participants working for USAID were unaware of best practices,
strategies, or procedures specific to diaspora engagement designed to promote funding
opportunities and capacity development. It is important to acknowledge that despite the
Agency’s tireless efforts in implementing various partnership initiatives, policies, and strategies
aimed at developing partnerships, the incontrovertible results of this study unmistakably reveal
113

that diaspora engagement is not consistently integrated and often lacks full integration. It is
important to acknowledge that despite the Agency’s efforts in implementing various initiatives,
policies, and strategies aimed at developing partnerships, the results of this study show that
diaspora engagement is not consistently integrated and often lacks full integration. The study
highlights that the Agency neglects to consistently integrate diaspora engagement despite
implementing numerous initiatives, policies, and strategies to foster partnerships. The findings of
this study indicate that diaspora engagement most frequently falls short of integrating diaspora
engagement. The role of diasporas in their home countries is significant, yet, surprisingly,
existing policies fail to mention their engagement. The Private-Sector Engagement Policy does
not mention, for example, how diasporas will contribute to the desired outcomes, the resources
needed to engage diaspora businesses, or the best practices required to make the policy
successful. The Local Capacity Strengthening (LCS) Policy and Local Systems Framework do
not explore how diasporas interact with the local system. Despite its aim to reshape the Agency’s
relationship with current and future partners and embrace entrepreneurship, the Acquisition and
Assistance (A&A) Strategy only mentions diasporas once. The newly released Policy
Framework, however, does articulate a shared vision of international development and
recognizes the need for partnerships with diaspora groups and other private and quasi-private
institutions.
Despite gaps in those policies, the frameworks and toolkits need to be more
comprehensive and do more to assist USAID staff in implementing those policies. For example,
the Diaspora Partnership Toolkit is an outward-facing document meant to provide potential
partners with an overview of the organization. The toolkit also presents an overview of possible
USAID funding and partnership opportunities. There were only a few references to fostering
114

diaspora partnerships in the document analysis related to policies, processes, practices, or
procedures.
As highlighted in Part 1 of this chapter, the organization is aware of the need to rethink
its partnership framework through the various iterations of partnership policies, strategies, and
frameworks. Still, there is a lack of procedural knowledge of how to accomplish this. Luke (P7)
noted, “There is a need to ensure partnership engagement prior to the activity design.” Kevin
(P6) stated, “There’s a need to revamp the strategy on how donors disseminate and distribute aid
and the type of partnerships they incorporate to achieve their outcomes.”
Motivation

Motivation is essential for achieving goals and resolving human capital, operational, and
performance issues. Investing in employees’ professional growth supports their motivation and
competence in implementing new strategies. This study found three motivational influences,
self-efficacy, attribution, and expectancy-value theories, presented barriers to improving diaspora
engagement. The three motivational influences are: self-efficacy theory (M-SE) is the belief that
development donors are capable of improving program implementation and outcomes through
strengthening their organization’s partnership, partner engagement, and collaboration
ecosystems; attribution theory (M-AT), which believes that improving partnerships with
nontraditional partners is part of their inherent function as development donors; and expectancy-
value theory (M-EVT), which appreciates the utility of improving diaspora engagement to
extend the organizations’ reach, stakeholder support, and community participation.

115

Table 4
Summary of Presumed Motivation Needs and Evaluation Results
Assumed motivation influence Motivation
influence assessment
Validation
M-SE: Development donors need to
believe they are capable of
strengthening their organization’s
partnership, partner engagement, and
collaboration ecosystem with
nontraditional partners like diasporas
to improve program implementation
and outcomes.
Interviews, document
review, data analysis
Semi-validated
M-AT: Development donors believe
improving partnerships with
nontraditional partners like the
diaspora is part of their inherent
organizational function to improve
program implementation and
outcomes.
Interviews, document
review, data analysis
Validated
M-EVT: Development donors need to
appreciate the utility value of
diaspora engagement in extending the
organizations’ reach, stakeholder
support, and community participation.
Interviews, document
review, data analysis
Validated
Note. (M-SE) Motivation-Self-Efficacy; (M-AT) Motivation-Attribution Theory; (M-EVT)
Motivation Expectancy-Value Theory

The study’s results validated or partially validated the conceptual framework in the three
motivational influences listed in Table 4. Participants in the study did not entirely comprehend
the organization’s diaspora engagement efforts despite being somewhat aware of the
organization’s New Partnerships Initiative, Local Capacity Strengthening Policy, and
Acquisition and Assistance (A&A) Strategy. Nonetheless, several interviewees expressed an
interest in and a commitment to advancing equitable partnerships in alignment with the
organization’s goals. This sentiment was in part due to their convictions. Franklin (P1) stated,
116

“Only when you [are] inside of a system can you fix it. You cannot fix a system outside of the
system.” A significant number of participants in the study hold technical positions within
USAID, which enables them to promote diaspora engagement through intermediaries such as
private sector engagement, localization, and partnerships initiatives.
Self-Efficacy Theory
Participants were questioned about their belief in strengthening their organization’s
partnership ecosystem, specifically as development donors partner with nontraditional partners
like diasporas, to test conceptual framework assumptions regarding self-efficacy as a barrier to
diaspora engagement. Those who do not believe they can develop effective partnerships or
believe external factors impede their ability to attract qualified diaspora partners will be less
motivated to prioritize diaspora engagement. Conversely, development donors with high self-
efficacy are likelier to commit to diversifying partnerships and engaging diasporas as
stakeholders.
The interview findings and document analysis Identified a gap in development donors’
self-efficacy. Five participants stated low self-efficacy in strengthening their organization’s
partnership ecosystem. Data from 10 interview transcripts showed the USAID partnership
framework did not include engaging diasporas. This finding suggested a possibility of low self-
efficacy on the part of the development practitioners. For instance, Jackson (P3) believed the
international donor’s current partnership model was beyond repair. Kevin (P6) added:
You know you come into this work wanting to feel optimistic for the greater good. You
have motivated people who really do this work because they love it. [But you have to]
ensure that [expanding partnerships] is relevant and important to them. That’s where I see
the greatest incentives for me and how this can, you know, this partnership model can
117

change, but outside of that, there’s no, there’s no motivation. They see it’s a money train.
It’s the same thing over again. So, they’re comfortable and complacent.
Study participants who saw the importance of engaging diasporas could fully articulate
how they have used their influence to collaborate with diaspora partners. Luke (P7) shared, “One
of the criticisms that we would always run into in a USAID mission in Eastern Europe, in
particular, was that USAID continues to work with the same organizations repeatedly.” During
Luke’s (P7) service there, he admitted:
I was cognizant when managing and overseeing activities, or any events we had, to
ensure we had a pluralistic representation of the different organizations that existed in the
Eastern European nation. I conducted [specific roundtable] sessions with civil society
organizations for a USAID country strategy. Although we invited some of the “usual
suspects,” I also wanted to hear from others. I wanted to have other voices, you know,
not-so-well-established organizations that can give us a different kind of perspective. So,
I think when and if we’re not focused on developing new partnerships, we’re going to run
into creating the same stale activities, the same style interventions. Having new partners
brings new life, blood, new thoughts, and new ideas that you know we may not think of,
especially regarding international development.
Edana (P2) echoed a similar sentiment when they asserted, “There’s high turnover within
USAID. People leave and change, but most local teams remain the same.”
When asked how their identity shapes their view on inclusive partnerships, Luke (P7)
was clear in their assertion:
My racial background, my education, my background, and where I grew up influence
how I think. When I think about international development now, my identity influenced
118

me to do this type of work on a global scale. As a result, I have prioritized being more
inclusive in developing partnerships. Knowing [whom] to invite to the table and who’s
making those decisions is important. I commend USAID leadership, in particular, for
moving to create more diverse foreign service.
Several participants cited the limited number of racially and ethnically diverse employees in
leadership positions in the organization, linking that gap to a perceived inability to be inclusive
partnership developers. Leadership teams should model equitable partnerships to help
development practitioners achieve their goals. Luke (P7) mentioned:
If we’re going to be an international development agency and invested in all aspects of
society, we should have a major representation of everybody from that society and the
different organizations. We need new partners that bring new lifeblood, new thoughts,
and new ideas we may not think of, especially regarding International Development.
Attribution Theory
The interviewer presented participants with a set of questions on external and
uncontrollable variables influencing partnerships with nontraditional partners. The researcher
also inquired about participants’ belief that improving diaspora engagement played an important
role in enhancing program implementation and outcomes within their organization. Most
participants viewed identifying partners, assessing risks and rewards, resource mapping, securing
partner commitment, governance and accountability procedures, and managing the partner
process as primary partnership development obligations. In addition, participants were cognizant
of the organizational implications of improving diaspora engagement. Most study participants
saw the USG’s lack of political will and other factors as impediments to successfully developing
nontraditional partnerships and engaging diasporas. Multiple participants perceived the complex
119

contracting and acquisition process and the lack of a diverse workforce as barriers to successful
diaspora engagement.
In reflecting on whether inclusive partnering and engaging diasporas as stakeholders is an
organizational obligation, several participants captured the sentiments of Jackson (P3), who
stated, “There are discrepancies in funding diaspora organizations.” Edana (P2) similarly
indicated, “We need the breakthrough to bring down the barriers so that it can be more inclusive,
and the design of project[s] can be more inclusive.” They went on to say, “The team in the field,
it doesn’t look like me in you.”
Expectancy-Value Theory
Expectancy-value theory focuses on an individual’s internal processes and cognitive
predictions regarding the likelihood of completing a task successfully, and self-efficacy theory
focuses on a person’s self-perception of competency (Bandura, 2000). According to the
expectancy-value theory, two key factors influence motivation: expectancy and value. With
expectancy, employees need to believe their efforts to foster inclusive partnerships will lead to
positive outcomes. USAID provides employees with clear communication about the importance
of inclusive partnerships and how their efforts contribute to achieving organizational goals.
When employees understand the significance of their work in fostering inclusivity, they are more
likely to believe their efforts will lead to positive outcomes. Edana (P2) said, “We need the
breakthrough to bring down the barriers so that it can be more inclusive, and the design of these
projects can be more inclusive.”
Additionally, USAID can offer training and skill development programs to equip
employees with the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively engage in inclusive partnership
initiatives that engage the diaspora. By providing them with the tools and resources they need,
120

employees will have greater confidence in their abilities to foster inclusivity and partner with the
diaspora. Like the other participants, Edana is optimistic about the changes required to pull the
Agency out of this cycle of this exclusionary spiral.
With value, the employees need to perceive the value and importance of fostering
inclusive partnerships. USAID can emphasize how fostering inclusive partnerships aligns with
the organization’s mission and values. By highlighting the positive impact that inclusive
partnerships can have on program recipients, communities, and the organization itself,
employees will perceive their work as meaningful and valuable. Kevin said, “You have to
motivate people who really do this work because they love it.” They understood internal
processes and cognitive predictions regarding the likelihood of completing a task successfully.

Figure 6

Expectancy Theory of Motivation

Note. Figure created based on information from Work and Motivation (p. 115). V. H. Vroom,
1964, Wiley.
121

As highlighted in the limited incentives section, the organization provides limited
incentives and recognition to employees who actively contribute to fostering inclusive
partnerships. Individuals responsible for partnership development receive financial bonuses and
public acknowledgment for their hard work. The incentives and recognition are limited. For
example, Alice (P4) noted, “As a civil service employee, there are no real incentives to
partnership engagement.” In recognizing and rewarding diaspora engagement, USAID can
demonstrate the value it places on inclusivity and motivates employees to continue their efforts.
USAID struggles to foster a supportive organizational culture that values and promotes
inclusivity. A supportive organizational culture can be achieved by establishing inclusive
policies and practices, encouraging diversity in the workplace, and providing a safe and
respectful environment for employees to voice their ideas and concerns. When employees see
that inclusivity is genuinely valued and supported, they are more likely to be motivated to
actively participate in fostering inclusive partnerships. Luke (P7) said, “Samantha Power’s vision
for inclusivity at the Agency has led to some changes in international development. I do see a lot
of communication on how to become a USAID partner.” Most participants expressed their
approval of the New Partnerships Initiative’s work with USAID efforts. Kevin said, “You know
you come into this work wanting to feel optimistic about the greater good.”
By considering the expectancy and value factors, USAID can motivate its employees to
actively engage in fostering inclusive partnerships. Clear communication, training, mission
alignment, incentives, recognition, and a supportive culture are all essential elements in creating
a motivating environment that encourages employees to contribute to inclusive partnership
initiatives. Franklin (P1) expressed, “It is not [solely] about incentives. It’s mostly about
122

preparing you. Preparing you to [partner inclusively]. Giving you the training [required] and
making resources available for you to [succeed].”
Document Analysis
This section’s analysis relies entirely on thousands of pages of the Agency’s public-
facing documents produced within the last decade. Among these documents are various
organizational policies, strategies, press releases, factsheets, and presidential executive orders
(see Appendix D). Of the hundreds of pages of documents reviewed and analyzed as part of this
study and gap analysis, the researcher found few references to fostering diaspora partnerships
expressly related to motivation influences. This section specifically explored the following
partnership documents:
• Acquisition and Assistance (A&A) Strategy (2018b)
• Private-Sector Engagement Policy (2018)
• Local Capacity Strengthening Policy (2022)
• Local Systems: A Framework for Supporting Sustained Development document
(2014)
• The New Partnerships Initiative (2021)
• Diaspora Partnership Toolkit (2016)
Partnership Engagement Documents
As the findings in RQ1 have indicated, diaspora groups are only mentioned once in the
Acquisition and Assistance (A&A) Strategy, a strategy geared to reshape the organization’s
relationship with current and future partners and embrace entrepreneurship. The Private-Sector
Engagement Policy makes no mention of how diasporas will contribute to the desired outcomes,
the resources required for engaging diaspora businesses, or the best practices required to achieve
123

the desired outcomes. The Private Sector Engagement and Partnerships (PSE) 101 Prerequisite
Course is the only course offered on the organization’s knowledge management system. Some
country offices do offer an in-person Locally Led Development Skill Building workshop from
the implementation of their Local Works projects. The document analysis also reviewed the
Local Capacity Strengthening (LCS) Policy (USAID, 2022) with no reference to engaging
diasporas in the policy. There is no consideration of how diasporas intersect with the local
system or how to tap into the diaspora capacity.
The organization has undergone several iterations of a local strategy, including Local
Solutions, the Local Systems Framework, and the New Partnership Initiative. USAID hopes to
realize a vision of development that is locally owned, led and sustained through the Local
Systems Framework (USAID, 2014). Although the Local Systems Framework outlines how
USAID will advance aid effectiveness while laying the groundwork for deeper collaboration
with all partners to support long-term sustainability, there is no mention of diasporas. Despite
gaps in those policies, the frameworks and toolkits need to be more comprehensive and do more
to assist USAID staff in implementing those policies. For example, the Diaspora Partnership
Toolkit is an outward-facing document meant to provide potential partners with an overview of
the organization. The toolkit also presents an overview of possible USAID funding and
partnership opportunities.
USAID’s new Policy Framework released in 2023 serves as a guide to drive progress
through and beyond the organization’s programming (USAID, 2023). To drive progress, the
Policy Framework prioritizes addressing challenges, embracing new partnerships, and improving
USAID’s effectiveness. Essentially, USAID’s Policy Framework articulates a shared vision of
international development, translates the national security and foreign policy objectives of the
124

United States into agency priorities, and promotes coherence among our international
development, humanitarian aid, and crisis response policies and the work we do to implement
these policies. The organization presents this as a tool for USAID personnel and partners,
forming the foundation for planning strategy, programs, budgets, and operations. While at first
glance, the Policy Framework appeared to be the organization’s theory of change, it does not,
however, offer implementation-specific details and remains fairly broad. The policy framework,
however, does highlight that to achieve development impact, USAID recognizes the need for
partnerships with diaspora groups and other private and quasi-private institutions. The policy
also promises to have 50% of the organization’s programming in the hands of local communities
by co-design projects, setting its priorities, driving its implementation, and evaluating its impact.
It remains unclear how much this will cost, its impact on the workforce, and how staff will be
motivated to support another initiative.
Organizational
Evaluating organizational barriers is essential for effective gap analysis and performance
goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). This study analyzed four organizational factors that
may promote or hinder the involvement of development donors in creating inclusive partnerships
and collaborating with diasporas. Through participant interviews and document analysis captured
in Table 5, the review assessed the donor’s commitment to inclusive partnership development
and diaspora engagement (OCS-A), allocation of resources/budget structures, training, policies,
and procedures to foster inclusive partnerships and diaspora engagement (OCS-DR-P),
promotion of inclusive partnerships and diaspora engagement by leaders and champions (OCS-
DL), and organizational need for strategic policies, procedures, and practices (OC-DM).
125

The concepts of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) are critical to
USAID’s efforts to promote fairness and justice, maximize impact, cultivate local ownership,
and align with global commitments. A DEIA framework guarantees everyone can have equitable
access to resources and opportunities across its programming and workforce. It also
acknowledges the importance of diverse perspectives, experiences, and expertise in achieving
sustainable development results. It enables its programs to have a greater impact on the
communities and countries they serve as a result of this increased effectiveness and efficiency.
According to the study’s findings, there are limited incentives for employees to implement new
partnership strategies and policies successfully to engage the diaspora. Significant equity and
inclusion challenges attribute to this lack of incentivization.
The data revealed although the donor’s partnership initiatives promote inclusive
partnership, there is a gap in the embedded culture and manifested climate. USAID’s vision and
mission articulate inclusive partnerships, but the cultural norms, organizational environment,
shared values, and beliefs required to engage diasporas as an organizational priority are absent.
An organizational environment supportive of inclusive partnership through processes, structures,
mechanisms, and strategic focus is critical to enabling partnership development and diaspora
engagement (Prescott & Stibbe, 2015). Without the five levels of partnership engagement,
individuals, organizations, collaboration, platform, and system, organizations will fail to dedicate
adequate resources to support change initiatives (Prescott & Stibbe, 2015).
This study found few inward facing partnership engagement training, no emphasis on
increasing diaspora relationships, and limited diaspora engagement goalsetting. There also were
no clear Agency-wide diaspora engagement directives. Despite this, most study participants
believed the organization had made progress in its partnership initiatives. The document analysis
126

confirmed organizational leaders and partnership advocates frequently prioritized other
partnership objectives that did not involve diaspora engagement. See Table 5 below for the
highlighted organizational influences.

Table 5

Summary of Presumed Organizational Needs and Evaluation Results
Assumed organizational influence Organizational
type
Organizational
influence
assessment
Validation
OCS-A: The donor’s organizational
environment and culture must be
committed to inclusive partnerships and
diaspora engagement.
Cultural setting Interviews,
document review,
and data
analysis.
Validated
OCS-DR-P: The donor organization must
allocate resources/budget, structures,
training, policies, and procedures to foster
inclusive partnerships and diaspora
engagement.
Procedural Interviews,
document review,
and data
analysis.
Validated
OCS-DL: The donor organization needs
champions in the leadership to promote
inclusive partnerships and diaspora
engagement.
Cultural setting Interviews,
document review,
and data
analysis.
Validated
OCS-DM: The donor organization needs
strategic diaspora engagement policies,
procedures, and practices.
Cultural setting Interviews,
document review,
and data
analysis.
Validated
Note. Organizational Culture Setting-Alignment (OCS-A); Organizational Culture Setting
Diversity Leadership (OCS-DL); Organizational Culture-Diversity Resources-Policies (OCS-
DR-P); Organizational Culture Setting-Diversity Management (OCS-DM).

127

Organizational Environment and Culture
USAID’s organizational culture and environment may suppress inclusive partnerships
due to factors such as a lack of diversity and representation, power imbalances, limited
collaboration, resistance to change, and limited accountability. An organization’s environmental
culture that openly acknowledges the consequences of unconscious bias tends to foster a diverse
cultural climate that thrives (Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Tidwell, 2005).
Results indicated although all participants are committed to inclusive partnerships, they
acknowledged a shortage of cultural alignment with those values in the donor organization,
especially regarding representation. Many stated diasporas sometimes get lost in the many
discussions around DEIA, decoloniality, and localization as administrations and government
funding priorities pivot. Based on this view, Kevin (P6) expressed, “Every administration comes
in with their core interests. [They] put a Band-Aid on the wound that never ends. Now all of a
sudden, we’re talking about Africa again. This can give the semblance that development aid is a
mafia money train.” Carrie (P8) corroborated these concerns, “It’s the same stories being told
about African countries. The pervasiveness of White supremacy in aid and development.”
Jackson (P3) corroborated these concerns: “These are discrepancies in funding to people who
look like me, [to] Black and Brown firms.”
Several participants acknowledged the leadership’s interest and commitment to fostering
a culture of inclusive partnerships. Carrie (P8), Luke (P7), and Kevin (P6) offered their praise to
the organization’s leadership on partnership development and cocreation. Carrie (P8) noted,
“Having been part of a cocreation process, the idea makes perfect sense. It’s actually a no-
brainer to bring everyone to the table to try to design something as comprehensive and as
inclusive as possible.” Participants’ views are reflective of the implementation gap findings
128

where policies do not quite live up to their expectations. Carrie (P8) articulated this in their
summary of the cocreation process and asserted:
What ends up happening is that, once again, the cocreation is designed more for larger
international implementers than actual local organizations. Some of these cocreations are
facilitated in Washington, DC. For smaller nonprofits or civil society organizations that
rely heavily on volunteer staff, you’re asking them to spend a lot of money upfront. There
were up to 12 local organizations in one cocreation I participated in. While it feels nice to
hear from these small local organizations, I can’t help but feel that they were being
invited to pick their brains; that was all. It’s an unfortunate paternalistic approach to
simply check off the box.
Ní Shé and Harrison (2021) argued the co-design process requires reflective discussions and
deliberative thinking to resolve power imbalances. These paternalist attitudes not only inhibit
partnership development but also inhibit employee motivation and perpetuate unequal power
dynamics (Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2005; Weber, 2009).
Similar to the findings outlined under RQ1, USAID’s organizational culture inadvertently
suppresses inclusive partnerships. Leadership positions tend to be homogenous, excluding and
marginalizing certain groups due to a lack of diversity. Power imbalances exist across the
organization’s 20 hiring mechanisms (Glick, 2020). Power imbalances and hierarchy suppress
inclusive partnerships. According to the results, the donor’s hierarchical organizational culture
undermines inclusive partnerships due to power imbalances. Diverse partners, particularly from
marginalized communities and smaller organizations, encounter challenges in engaging
meaningfully as long as decision-making processes remain centralized and authority is
concentrated in a few individuals or units (Matenga et al., 2019; Menashy, 2019; Sander, 2021).
129

The findings indicate that organizational cultures that resist change and adaptation are less likely
to respond to partners’ evolving needs and contexts. Fostering inclusive partnerships requires
flexibility, open mindedness, and a willingness to challenge established norms and practices. It is
possible for organizational cultures that discourage innovation and experimentation to also
inhibit partnerships.
Diversity Resources and Policies
Providing resources for inclusive partnerships is crucial to building capacity, fostering
outreach, building access to knowledge, developing programs, and ensuring sustainability.
Interviews with participants and document analysis reported the presumed needs assessment that
USAID would benefit from additional training, policies, budget/resources, and procedures to
promote inclusive partnership outcomes that drive diaspora engagement. Apart from the limited
inclusive partnership discussed under RQ1, the findings indicate gaps in training, policies,
budget/resources, and procedures to engage diasporas. Participants reported, although they were
aware of the New Partnerships Initiative, they were aware of the many challenges hindering
diaspora engagement. A few of these challenges include advocating for increased funding,
allocating resources to prioritize inclusivity, and exploring alternative funding sources. Many
participants reported the need for the best policies, procedures, and practices to enhance diaspora
engagement.
To foster inclusive partnerships, USAID’s capacity-building activities are essential.
However, without adequate resources, it may prove difficult to provide training, technical
assistance, and mentorship opportunities. These limitations hinder USAID and its partners from
engaging in inclusive practices. There is no space in the organization’s KMS for development
practitioners to collect and donate knowledge related to engaging diasporas. The document
130

analysis highlighted only external resources for partners. The lack of adequate resources can
hamper USAID’s outreach to diverse partners, particularly those from marginalized communities
or remote areas. These inadequate resources can lead to excluding or overlooking the
perspectives and needs of certain groups, undermining inclusive partnerships. With limited
funding allocated to diversifying partnerships, it can pose a challenge to establish connections
with a diverse range of partners and stakeholders.
To clarify, the United States’ international affairs budget constitutes only 1% of the
federal budget, and poverty-focused development aid makes up less than half of that amount,
specifically 0.5% (Sharma, 2021). The document analysis revealed to engage NGOs and
businesses that USAID had not previously funded, USAID created the New Partnership Initiative
(NPI). By offering special NPI funds to businesses and nonprofits, USAID aims to expand the
number and types of partners it engages with (USAID, 2020). Although USAID places emphasis
on local partnerships in each country, access to these funds is likely to remain a challenge for
nontraditional, underutilized local organizations. The Senate bill introduced by Senators Kaine
and Marco Rubio in 2021 would provide $250 million annually to support USAID’s New
Partnership Initiative (Johnston & Lorentzen, 2022). This bill would increase the organization’s
engagement with local and underutilized partners. The status of the bill is unclear. In addition to
setting up a working group to implement localization policies, USAID’s administrator
announced LNGOs would receive 25% of USAID funding by 2024 (Fine, 2022).
The question of insufficient resources can result in inadequate funding for partner
initiatives, limiting the capacity of local organizations, civil society groups, and community-
based organizations to contribute effectively. Insufficient resources could harm the
organization’s capacity to build sustainable and equitable partnerships. An evaluation of the
131

organization’s previous partnership engagement initiative, Local Solutions, revealed although its
leaders hoped to engage local partners, they lacked appropriate measures to gauge progress
(OIG, 2019). OIG’s (2019) report on determining impact and mitigating risks determined the
policy was not operationalized adequately across the organization’s various units.
Champions for Diaspora Engagement
It is necessary for champions to help shift power dynamics and ensure meaningful local
ownership since external actors can undermine this process. Leadership should prioritize DEIA
initiatives to build employee motivation and support for inclusive partnerships. Employees can
be motivated to engage in inclusive practices if DEIA initiatives are integrated into the
company’s culture and values (Simmons & Yawson, 2022). As evidenced in the RQ1 findings,
participant interviews and documents indicated shifting power dynamics are necessary to engage
diasporas as stakeholders in international development. The organization’s current cultural
values have indirectly influenced the funding of major organizations in the “Global North.” It is
important to acknowledge the cultural values of USAID, which allocate only 6% of the funding
to recipient countries. In comparison, 80% of the funds go to organizations based in the United
States (USAID, 2021). Table 6 lists the top 30 USAID funding partners.

Table 6

Summary of Top USAID Partners
Top 15 acquisition partners Top 15 assistance partners
Abt Associates Inc. Anova Health Institute
Chemonics Care USA
Creative Associates International, Inc. Catholic Relief Services
Deloitte
Consortium for Elections & Political
Process Strengthening
Development Alternatives Incorporated (DAI) Food & Agriculture Organization of the UN
Education Development Center (EDC) FHI 360
Kenya Medical Supplies Authority Gavi Alliance
132

Top 15 acquisition partners Top 15 assistance partners
Management Science for Health, Inc.
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and
Malaria
Management System International, Inc. International Organization for Migration
Palladium International LLC
International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (IBRD)
Remote Medical International Save the Children Federation
RTI International United Nations Children Fund
Social Solutions International Mercy Corps
Tetra Tech ARD World Vision Inc.
Tetra Tech Engineering & Architecture
Services
World Food Program
Note. New Partnership Initiative (USAID, 2021)

Amis et al. (2018) argued organizations intended to promote economic development
often exacerbate social inequalities. Organizational leaders can create and sustain inequality by
selecting whom to promote, recruit, and reward, contributing to a lack of trust in the organization
(Stainback et al., 2010). Organizations show evidence of systematic discrimination against
certain groups, particularly racial minorities. As a result, recruitment opportunities, promotion
chances, and compensation levels are negatively affected (Carton & Rosette, 2011; Adam Cobb,
2016; Rivera & Tilcsik, 2016). Table 5 highlights the themes and concepts linked to the
validated needs of stimulating inclusive management policies and practices.
Championing DEIA and Inclusive Partnerships
An organizational culture that harbors cultural biases or unconscious biases can
unintentionally suppress inclusive partnerships (Banaji et al., 2015; J. C. Williams, 2014). If
there are prevalent stereotypes or discriminatory attitudes within the organization, it can affect
how partners are perceived, engaged with, and included in decision-making processes. After
noting the lack of targeted inclusive diaspora engagement initiatives, many participants
suggested a need for a more strategic focus on improving the organization’s leadership
133

representation. Edana (P2) expressed, “We still need [a] way for more BIPOC to be able to guide
the [partnership engagement] process. Not only133ecentle leave [the organization] a lot, but it
takes them forever to hire somebody.” One participant, Luke (P7), supported the need for diverse
representation, stating, “My racial background and my education and my influence and where I
grew up, does influence the way I think.”
Synthesis
Results in Parts 1 and 2 highlight the gap in the partnership framework of international
development donors, specifically USAID. Participant interviews and document analysis show the
need to shift power dynamics in international development to engage diasporas as key
stakeholders. The interdependence of development, defense, and diplomacy continues to
maintain neocolonial power structures. Western countries like the United States employ
development assistance to maintain a geopolitical presence in the Global South. It is thus not a
coincidence that USAID systematically awards contracts and grants to the same U.S.-based
companies. The findings recognize the necessity to restructure the current organizational model
that revolves around return on investment on partnering with traditional U.S.-based development
partners.
The document analysis shows a gap in USAID’s complex organizational structure,
knowledge management systems, and knowledge transfer between organizational units or
employees (Leonardi, 2014). Knowledge donation refers to employees consulting,
communicating with, and learning from each other through knowledge collection (Razmerita et
al., 2016). The organization’s KMS does not promote a space for development practitioners to
collect and donate knowledge associated with diaspora engagement. The document analysis only
highlighted external resources for partners. In 2010, USAID developed an Action Plan for
134

Diaspora Engagement that focused on areas such as explaining U.S. foreign policy to diaspora
members, including diaspora members in the development of the foreign policy, and leveraging
diasporas as human capital (USAID, 2010). After the Agency developed the Action Plan, a
Diaspora Engagement Working Group supervised activities related to engaging with the
diaspora. A key objective of the Action Plan was to enhance the coordination of diaspora
involvement in USAID’s toolkit. This also involved creating a training program for both new
and current employees. However, the document analysis showed the organization did not
develop or implement the training program. The duration of the working group’s activity remains
uncertain, and its dissolution remains unclear. Nonetheless, it is clear it only lasted for a brief
period.
The data showed although the organizational mission promotes inclusive partnership,
there is a gap between embedded culture and manifested climate. The findings suggest USAID’s
climate is lacking in engaging diasporas as an organizational priority. The document and
interview analysis indicates the organization lacked concrete partnership engagement training,
emphasis on increasing diaspora relationships, actual discussion, or agenda setting on diaspora
engagement. The findings indicate although most participants feel USAID has committed
partnerships advocates and leaders, these administrators and directors routinely focus on other
goals at the expense of diaspora participation.
The data corroborated the need for USAID to focus on more inclusive leadership to
promote diverse partnerships and diaspora engagement. Participants reported a lack of leadership
priority in this area, as there is little intentionality linked to inclusive diaspora engagement.
Based on the data participants provided, it is evident that although the organization values
partnerships, its climate does not prioritize them as a key organizational goal. This assertion
135

supports the working theory of the conceptual framework. The lack of emphasis on diaspora
integration within key partnership policies and initiatives often results in a limited focus on the
organizational climate that prioritizes diaspora integration. The lack of established structures,
protocols, and policies targeting improved diaspora engagement by the organization shows
USAID’s senior leadership may not perceive this issue as an organizational imperative.
Furthermore, participants cited the limited number of ethnically and racially diverse workers in
leadership positions, linking the gap to a perceived incapacity to engage in inclusive
partnerships. International development agencies must prioritize inclusion of individuals from
diverse backgrounds in their efforts.

136

Chapter Five: Recommendations
According to the study’s conceptual framework, all presumed KMO performance barriers
were validated or partially validated through an analysis of interviews, documents, and artifacts.
In Chapter Five, the researcher offers concrete recommendations for improving each supported
influence identified in the previous chapter. An implementation and evaluation strategy grounded
in the Kirkpatrick new world evaluation framework supports each recommendation (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The recommendations identify a broad range of actions, procedures, and best practices to
facilitate increased board racial and ethnic diversity. The recommendations, implementation, and
evaluation plan are synergistically linked and work holistically to mitigate identified KMO
influences gaps. The researcher presents a summary of possible future research areas at the end
of the chapter and reflects on the study’s value for donor organizations that may encounter
similar challenges in their partnership development.
Solutions to Localize and Decolonize
Successful localization and decolonization models exist. A number of USAID-funded
projects have achieved their objectives successfully at a fraction of the cost. The Agency, for
example, cut its school building costs in Senegal by 50% by switching from a traditional
international implementation firm to a fixed-price reimbursement model with the local
government (Dunning, 2013). After reviewing the literature and data, the researchers developed
a strategy to assess which approach was more cost-effective. The Agency’s efforts must increase
resources available to local, national, and diaspora actors. The study’s recommendations strongly
advocate for increasing the organization’s localization and decolonization efforts to remove
current obstacles to partnership development and diaspora engagement.
137

In the international development sector, solution-oriented approaches are effective tools
for identifying positive outcomes in the face of complex and challenging issues (A. Banerjee &
Duflo, 2011; Caniglia et al., 2017; Culotta et al., 2016; Luederitz et al., 2017). Emphasizing
problem solving with a solution-oriented mindset enables the transformation of ideas into
actionable steps, leading to tangible impact. With this perspective in mind, the researcher adopts
the notion of “solutions” as a pivotal discussion point to introduce viable ways of addressing the
gaps in donor engagement with the diaspora.
Solution 1: Remove Organizational Barriers to Implementation
It is possible to remove the institutional barriers undermining global development
outcomes by expanding the Agency’s localization efforts that enhance local and diasporic
partnerships. This solution increases resources available to local, national, and diaspora actors.
USAID can only do this by growing the resource base. Because localization is about getting
decision making closer to those most affected, the need for participation from those affected
most by the various development challenges is crucial.
1. Revise policy framework to be more inclusive of nontraditional partners like
diasporas and local partner.
2. Develop best practices, processes, or procedures specific to operationalizing diaspora
engagement.
3. Develop staff competencies in partnership engagement to address partnership gaps.
4. Procurement reform removes complex barriers and creates accessibility to a wider
range of local actors and diasporas, all while evening relations between organizations
in the Global North and the Global South.
138

5. Ensure up to 60% of program funding recipients are local, national, and diasporic
actors.
6. Move beyond short-term, project-based, and one-off training capacity-building
models.
Solution 2: Restructure Power Dynamics and Embrace Decoloniality
The overarching goal is to do more with less by decolonizing aid through funding,
partnerships, coordination, capacity bridging, and leadership. To advance financial and
efficiency, the Agency can measure funding flows to local and national actors, strengthen local
fundraising, manage financial risk, and increase the resource base. Furthermore, localization
efforts must increase investment in pooled funds and create locally managed funding
mechanisms.
1. Develop an antiracist and decolonial organizational framework to address unequal
power relations in donor organizations.
2. Design a theory of change that addresses the organization’s power imbalances
through inclusive partnerships.
3. Move beyond a local capacity strengthening model, rooted in Eurocentric knowledge
hierarchies, to a reciprocal building of an organizational capacity model.
4. Strengthen and invest in locally led initiatives that center local knowledge, local
government priorities, and the expertise of diaspora partners when designing and
implementing activities.
5. Integrate DEIA approaches to recruitment and retention that integrate more local and
diaspora staff into positions of influence and leadership.
139

There are some key ingredients to consider in localizing and decolonizing development
aid. The Agency will need personnel to lead the initiative. As previously stated, it is necessary to
create key program inputs in the form of a resource base or pooled funds. The cost of translating
content is significantly high.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
CEA is an economic tool used to compare alternative interventions to determine which is
most effective for the least amount of money (Levin et al., 2018). Using CEAs is an effective
way to measure some sectors of the economy in which easy quantification is not possible, such
as improving public health and education (USAID, 2021). CEA can guide in assessing if
USAID’s programs are high impact and of good value. A significant part of comprehending cost-
effectiveness is understanding USAID’s program results (Rose & Glassman, 2018). This cost-
effectiveness analysis considers two factors: cost efficiency (cost per output, such as USAID’s
interventions) and effectiveness (impact per output, such as project success rates that increase
development outcomes; see Figure 7). Cost-effectiveness calculations require an implied
baseline level of costs (e.g., implementation, salaries, training, evaluations) and achievement
(e.g., increased project success rate, development outcomes) that would exist without the
program (see Figure 8). In a cost-effectiveness analysis, researchers refer to this as the
comparator case.
140

Figure 7

Illustration of Cost-Effectiveness Map

Note. From “An Introduction to Cost Effectiveness and Benefit-Cost Analyses in Education
Research”[Slideshow], by N. A. Koziol, 2017, Slide 30
(https://cyfs.unl.edu/cyfsprojects/videoPPT/cbeddaf4798e794116109e333a3d6e12/170908-
Koziol.pdf)
141

Figure 8

Illustration of Cost-Effectiveness Inputs, Outputs, and Outcomes

Note. Adapted from Concepts of Cost-Effectiveness from a Certified Cost Analyst by S.
Sheamer, 2017, Milt Lauenstein (http://www.miltlauenstein.com/blogs/concepts-of-cost-
effectiveness-from-a-certified-cost-analyst-by-steve-sheamer).

USAID’s 2021 annual budget is $60 billion, with a workforce of 9,000 employees that
collaborates with 4,000 partners. For the analysis, we used the Agency’s current project success
rate of 39% against the annual budget. We also used the cost-saving of 50% from Agency
research to showcase the cost-reduction in programming when localizing aid (see Figure 9). The
program impact follows the theory of change. The reduced implementation costs would
contribute to other programs as Congress often recalls unused funds.

142

Figure 9

Illustration of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Recommendations
Localization and decolonization entail making fundamental changes in how international
cooperation operates. There is no denying the complexity of each approach, but one of the key
components is flexible and predictable funding that targets local actors and diaspora alike.
Instead of focusing exclusively on service outcomes provided by local partners, donors must
strengthen local actors and processes. There needs to be thorough engagement between donors
and local actors to allow the local leadership to flourish and international actors to play an
allyship role. In comparing all three approaches, decolonization efforts with diaspora
engagement would be the most cost-effective initiative. This approach would save the USG and
U.S. taxpayers up to 50% of the current USAID budget while increasing project success to 85%.
143

Integration of Organizational and Stakeholder SMART Goals
Since the 2016–2017 efforts to integrate diasporas within USAID’s programming, there
has not been any push to elevate the diaspora partnerships. Instead, USAID launched its latest
partnership activities based on three fundamental guiding principles. The principles seek to
promote local leadership by working through local systems and engage traditional partners in
strengthening local capacity; foster self-reliance by seeking bold, creative, and innovative
approaches that capitalize on broad ideas and solutions; and sustain and scale partnerships by
identifying new sources of funding that can leverage additional funding to achieve even more
significant development outcomes. Although often framed in terms of remittances, diaspora
investments include three other areas: philanthropy, direct investment, and portfolio investment
(Asquith & Opoku-Owusu, 2020). The goals of diaspora stakeholders would strive to (a)
eliminate any obstacles and barriers to these investment opportunities through information and
transparency, (b) advocate for effective and efficient avenues for diasporic investments by
removing complex legal requirements, and (c) build confidence that their investment will have
a lasting social impact. To achieve these guiding principles, the organization will need to use
SMART goals. The organization’s goals should be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic,
and timely (Doran, 1981).
• Specific: By 2025, the organization’s partnerships approach will integrate diaspora
groups. In addition, the Agency will increase its outreach to diaspora groups and
develop a training module for USAID personnel to increase diaspora engagement by
25%.
144

• Measurable: The roadmap for engaging with the diaspora can be measured by
outlining the necessary steps. The training module will be measured based on the
number of hours.
• Attainable: The Agency will support employees by allowing time to complete the
training and allowing country offices to set key milestones on engaging diasporas.
• Realistic: Milestones must be integrated across the Agency’s program cycle for the
results to be realistic. When adopted as part of the policy framework, the milestones
will be more realistic.
• Timely: The leadership of USAID will ensure the completion of milestones and
training within the designated timeframe.
Level 4 NWIE Framework: Results and Leading Indicators
Following the NWIE, Table 7 represents proposed Level 4: Results and Leading
Indicators in the form of outcomes, metrics, and methods for both external and internal outcomes
for USAID’s Diaspora Engagement SMART goals. For example, suppose the organization
achieves internal outcomes through its partnership approach by integrating diaspora groups
through outreach and training personnel to engage with the diaspora. In that case, it should also
successfully meet its external programmatic outcomes.

Table 7

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Data collection method(s)
External outcomes
1. Network, organization,
and governmental
stakeholders mapped
a. Number of established
diaspora organizations in the
ecosystem
a. Conduct Desk review
145

Outcome Metric(s) Data collection method(s)
b. Number of stakeholders
mapped within a framework
to capture the degree to
which each stakeholder
influences the relevant
issues, possible partnership
objectives, and level of
interest
b. Design a database
specifically to track
organizations
2. Resource-mapped
diaspora stakeholders,
including networks,
organizations, and
governmental
institutions
Amount of funds, dollar
amount available for
leverage
Conduct quantitative and
qualitative assessments,
desk review,
questionnaires, surveys,
interviews, focus groups,
roundtable discussions,
and written or oral public
testimony
3. Conducted specialized
studies, detailed surveys,
and piloted exercises for
reliable data on
identifying obstacles to
developing effective
diaspora policies and
programs
Numbers, distribution, skills,
prosperity, and level of
integration of diaspora
groups, along with their
history, to understand the
possibilities for diaspora
partnerships
Conduct quantitative and
qualitative assessments,
desk review,
questionnaires, surveys,
interviews, focus groups,
roundtable discussions,
and written or oral public
testimony
4. Developed online portal,
community of practice,
coordinated network
connecting identified
diaspora stakeholders
including networks,
organizations, and
governmental
institutions
Coordination among
stakeholders
Retrieve and review the data
from the online portal,
community of practice
5. Multipronged outreach
strategy expanding and
diversifying partnerships
a. Number of outreach and
promotional campaigns
b. Number of media mentions
resulting from the
promotional campaigns
a. Quantitative data on the
types of media used
b. Quantitative media
mentions data, (print,
online, social media,
television, or radio) if
available
6. Increased diaspora
partnerships
Number of new USG-supported
diaspora partnerships
formed

a. Partnership roster
b. Annual partnership
assessment
146

Outcome Metric(s) Data collection method(s)
7. Increased knowledge by
diaspora partnership
organizations gained
from partnership
activities
Number and percentage of
partner organizations
applying
information/knowledge
produced from partnership
activities
Periodic surveys, key
informant interviews,
and focus groups

Internal Outcomes
8. Developed training
modules and trained
staff
Number and percentage of
monthly, quarterly, and
yearly completed training
courses
Training administrative
records and reports

9. Adopted new metrics for
employee performance
plans and evaluations
“Objective key results” Performance management
plans
10. Increased employee risk
tolerances
a. Number of key risk
indicators
• The potential risks
• The risk analysis–
qualitative and
quantitative impacts
Risk management platform
11. Reduced internal
processes to enable
external engagement
Number of updated
organization’s (a) internal
controls, (b) policies, and
(b) procedures
Internal controls, policies,
procedures
12. Increased matched
grants program to jointly
support development
The number of leverage awards
granted
Award documents, grants
management system
Note. This table outlines the external and internal outcomes of the results and leading indicators.

Level 3 NWIE Framework: Behavior
The stakeholders of focus are development aid workers and diaspora organizations
building partnerships. Level 3 helps stakeholders explore critical behaviors they can apply to
their jobs (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Developing new relationships with diaspora
stakeholders, including networks, organizations, and governmental institutions, is the first critical
behavior aid workers must develop. Second, development agency aid workers must be willing to
internally pivot their policy and legal framework to leverage diaspora investments. Lastly, the
147

third critical behavior of diaspora organizations is that they must be motivated toward partnering
with development agencies. Finally, monitoring evaluation, accountability, and learning are
critical behaviors to help USAID adapt to the change process. Table 8 categorizes the specific
metrics, methods, and timing for each outcome behavior for the organization’s diaspora
engagement.

Table 8

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Engaging Diasporas as Stakeholders
Critical behavior Metric(s)
Data collection
method(s)
Timing
1. Build new
relationships with
diaspora
stakeholders,
including
networks,
organizations, and
governmental
institutions
a. The number of
hours logged for
outreach and
promotional
campaigns
b. The number of
media mentions
resulting from the
promotional
campaigns
a. Quantitative data on
the types of media
used
b. Quantitative data on
the number of
mentions (print,
online, social
media, television, or
radio) and the
numbers of people
reached by each
news media outlet,
if available
Weekly updates;
team meetings;
performance
reviews

2. Pivot policy and
legal framework to
accommodate
leveraging
diaspora
investments
The number of
revised and
updated (a) policy
and (b) legal
framework
assigned goals and
monthly milestone
metrics
Tracking of milestones
of assigned activities;
surveys,
questionnaires

Weekly updates;
team meetings;
3. Build motivation
toward partnering
with development
agencies
Self-reported
quantitative data
on perceived
motivation
Tracking of milestones
of assigned activities;
Case studies,
surveys,
questionnaires, in-
depth interviews,
Periodic, weekly,
and ongoing
(before, during,
and after specific
activities)

148

Required Drivers. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) list required drivers as essential
components of desired behaviors. Table 9 illustrates USAID’s required drivers to reinforce,
encourage, reward, monitor, and support diaspora engagement.

Table 9

Required Drivers to Support Engaging Diasporas as Stakeholders
Method(s) Timing
Critical behaviors
supported
1, 2, 3
Reinforcing (K Related)
Partnership guidebook with virtual resources for
building relationships, goals, and trust
Quarterly 1, 2, 3

Continuing professional development course for
internal staff to maintain industry expertise in
partnership building and management
Annual 1, 2, 3
Agency-wide virtual communication to inform and
align goals to expand diaspora partnership
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging (M Related)
Peer exchange in an online portal, community of
practice, coordinated network connecting
identified diaspora
Monthly

1, 2, 3
Ongoing feedback from diaspora partners seeking to
partner with USAID
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Rewarding (M Related)
Promotional job opportunities based upon overall
job performance and diaspora engagement POC
program participation
Annually

1, 2, 3
Public recognition in organization town hall
meetings by leadership
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Monitoring (O Related)
Annual performance evaluation process to
incorporate partnership program skills, behaviors,
and outcomes
Annual 1, 2, 3
Quarterly, Program Participant’s Survey feedback
on program design and progress within first 2
years of program completion
Quarterly 1, 2, 3

149

Support From Associated Critical Stakeholders Within the Organization
To succeed, USAID’s critical behaviors and recommended drivers for engaging the
diaspora as partners will require additional support from critical stakeholders within and outside
the organization: 1) Garner support from senior leaders across the Agency and sister agencies
like the State Department, Congress’ House Appropriations Subcommittee, Senate’s Foreign
Relations Committee; and 2) USAID leaders developing their leadership skills as role models to
expand USAID programming partners.
Level 2 NWIE Framework: Learning
Recalling that NWIE’s Level 2 (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is the way trainees
receive knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment through the training content,
USAID’s Level 2 assesses employee skills acquired from the professional development courses
to build Level 3 critical behaviors. Professional development courses allow Agency employees
to (a) gain the skills or knowledge they need to develop in their role and (b) improve in the
specific practice area. Aligning with the NWIE model, Krathwohl (2002) described the
“taxonomy of educational objectives as a framework for classifying what we expect or intend
students to learn as a result of instruction” (p. 212). In Krathwohl’s (2002) revised Bloom’s
taxonomy, the new knowledge dimensions cut across four categories, factual (F), conceptual (C),
procedural (P), and metacognitive (M). Factual knowledge refers to the fundamental elements
that learners have to be acquainted with for a discipline. Conceptual knowledge is the
interrelationships in the larger structure that allows them to fit together. Procedural knowledge
references the ways to do something and the criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and
methods. Finally, metacognitive knowledge focuses on general knowledge, awareness, and
knowledge of one’s cognition (Krathwohl, 2002). The Agency’s investment in learning has the
150

potential to solidify staff knowledge and increase USAID’s expertise in the field of diaspora
engagement.
Learning Goals
Upon completion of USAID’s training program, Agency staff (i.e., U.S., local, and
contracting) will have experienced the following learning goals:
1. Gain deeper knowledge on diaspora matters by exploring issues of migration
and development, origins, and history. (C-F)
2. Expand procedural knowledge on key elements of diaspora engagement by
understanding the challenges and opportunities, and the role of the government.
(C-P)
3. Recognize industry-specific skill sets and integrate them into peer online
exchange programs. (C-P)
4. Recognize various models of diaspora philanthropy, new generation initiatives,
and philanthropy as a gateway. (C-P)
5. Recall how to write SMART professional development goals specific to
diaspora engagement. (P)
6. Self-reflect and respond to questions on the diaspora program to help apply
learning findings and make adjustments during implementation. (M-F-P)
7. Indicate confidence in completing the professional development training
courses. (Self-efficacy)
8. Value the internal and external relationships developed through the program.
(Value)
9. Create a culture of learning by sharing knowledge and experiences. (Attitude)
151

10. Commit to organizational goals that support expanding partnerships with
diaspora stakeholders. (Commitment)
Program
USAID’s professional development curriculum will achieve the learning goals
highlighted in the previous section. The 3-part series training program provides USAID
participants with various levels of certification. The curriculum includes a combination of
real-time and self-paced components, allowing for flexibility in learning and
accommodating diverse schedules. Synchronous modules will be conducted in small groups
across USAID field offices, and the asynchronous e-learning courses will be available on
USAID’s LMS, USAID University. The in-person courses are full-day, 1 workweek, and
about 20–25 hours in duration. Additionally, the recommendation includes two short online
webinars as supplements, each lasting 1.5 hours, resulting in a total of 4.5 hours. The
courses also include pre- and post-tests to help assess participants’ skills. At the
culmination of every stage, individuals will receive recognition in the form of official
certificates for their achievements.
All USAID program participants begin their training journey with an asynchronous
course. This core introductory online class strives to ensure all Agency staff understand the
key concepts and skills around diaspora engagement. The core course not only serves to
ensure all employees understand the basics of partnership building but also elevates
diaspora engagement to an Agency priority. The three courses will prepare Agency
employees to support USAID’s strategy for effective diaspora engagement. The courses
cover various topics, from exploring issues of migration and development, origins and
history, and models of diaspora philanthropy. The course will also focus on performance
152

development and evaluation, explore tips for success, and review the module. The Agency
will need to ensure that systems are in place to support USAID staff after training at the
operational level. USAID field offices will incorporate technical working groups
responsible for leading diasporic initiatives at the Mission.
The three asynchronous USAID University modules (one course, two webinars)
will support the diaspora engagement curriculum. The course participants will follow a
series of video sequences, including checklists, learning objectives, and developing critical
behaviors. The webinars will equally allow for group scenarios and case studies to better
understand tools for successful diaspora engagement. To ensure the success of the
upcoming activities, conducting a comprehensive strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats (SWOT) analysis is imperative. This analysis will thoroughly assess and evaluate all
potential positives, negatives, opportunities, and challenges that may arise. By doing so, the
organization will gain valuable insights and make informed decisions, ensuring that all
necessary measures support the goals. We are committed to this process and look forward
to presenting our findings and recommendations to the team. Upon completing the
program, the plan requires participants to develop a professional development plan
incorporating what they have learned.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
To ensure successful outcomes in both Level 3 and Level 4 of the diaspora
engagement program established by USAID, it is crucial to conduct a thorough evaluation
of Level 2. To accomplish this, Table 10 provides a comprehensive overview of the
evaluation methods and timelines used by USAID to scrutinize the learning aspects of the
153

diaspora engagement program. By assessing these components, USAID can obtain valuable
insights that can help improve the program’s effectiveness and impact.

Table 10

Evaluation of Components of Learning for the Diaspora Engagement Program
Method(s) or activity(ies) Timing
Factual Knowledge “I know it.”
Value-added assessments (pre-/post-tests)
scored at 75% minimum passing grade
Beginning and end of online courses and in-
person sessions
Brief chapter knowledge checks scored at 75%
minimum passing grade
Beginning, middle, and end of online courses
and in-person sessions
Discussion prompts, group work, case
studies/scenarios, and LMS (USAID
University) to identify key terms,
definitions, and application of concepts
Beginning and end of online courses and in-
person sessions
Participant surveys on learning objectives End of online courses and in-person sessions
Group problem-solving, team-based learning
case studies covering partnerships
development and diaspora engagement
procedures, practices, principles, roles, and
responsibilities scored 75% minimum
passing grade
Beginning, middle, and end of online courses
during in-person sessions and working
group sessions

Group problem-solving, team-based learning,
case studies, including role-playing
scenarios covering partnerships
development procedures, practices,
principles, roles, and responsibilities using
in-person discussion questions and feedback
During specific modules of online courses
during in-person sessions and working
group sessions

Learning about partnerships development and
diaspora engagement through group
problem-solving, team-based learning, and
case studies using LMS. Identifying key
terms, definitions, and concepts to
understand roles and responsibilities
During and end of online courses and in-
person sessions
Knowledge and technical skill assessments Beginning and end of in-person sessions and
working group sessions
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Quality of in-person and LMS contributions Beginning, middle, and end of online courses
during in-person sessions and working
group sessions
154

Method(s) or activity(ies) Timing
Quality of mid-point and final participant
surveys
During and end of online courses and in-
person sessions
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Surveys using the LMS system with open-
ended questions
End of online courses and in-person sessions
Discussions and feedback sessions for training
coordinators, working groups, and cohorts
Beginning, middle, and end of online courses
during in-person sessions and working
group sessions
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Ongoing practice and feedback Beginning, middle, and end of online courses
during in-person sessions and working
group sessions
Developing a professional development plan
using SMART goals tied to the
organization’s values, mission, and purpose
End of online courses and in-person sessions

Level 1 NWIE Framework: Reaction
USAID values its global workforce and deeply appreciates its active involvement in the
diaspora engagement training program. To support the program’s learning objectives effectively,
critical behaviors, and desired outcomes, it is imperative for the Agency to gain a comprehensive
understanding of participants’ reactions to the program, the level of engagement demonstrated by
the learning, and continuous improvement team, and overall satisfaction with the training
experience. To achieve this, USAID has implemented various assessment methods, as outlined in
Table 11, to evaluate and gauge participants’ responses to the diaspora engagement training
program. These assessment methods serve as valuable tools in assessing the effectiveness and
impact of the program, allowing USAID to make informed decisions and further enhance the
training program’s quality and value.
155

Table 11

Components to Measure Reactions to the Diaspora Engagement Training Program
Method(s) or tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Data capture from LMS (USAID University) covering
(a) course progression, (b) start/past due dates, (c)
completion times/percentages, (d) number and
percentage of activities completed, and (e) knowledge
checks/quiz scores for pass/fail
Ongoing
Observations by training facilitators and coordinators,
trainees, and guest participants
Ongoing in-person sessions
Track attendance Ongoing in-person sessions
Final LMS course evaluations End of online courses and in-person
sessions
Relevance
Online surveys and in-person discussion End of online courses and in-person
sessions
Final LMS course evaluations End of online courses and in-person
sessions
Customer Satisfaction
Online surveys and through in-person discussion
(training facilitators and coordinators)
Ongoing and online courses and in-
person sessions
Final LMS course evaluations End of online courses and in-person
sessions

Evaluation Tools
Appendix E lists the immediate evaluation instruments for Levels 2 and 1. The formative
and summative evaluations indicate the staff’s use of the learned skills and resources at the
beginning, during, and end of the training program. In addition, online surveys available via
USAID University will measure Level 2 categories of factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge,
procedural skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment. Level 1 surveys contain the categories
for engagement, relevance, and participant overall satisfaction with the program. The surveys are
conducted online using LMS integration on the USAID intranet for USAID University. The
training, professional development, and continuous improvement teams will collect the data,
156

assess, and compare information received from prior in-person and online courses, formative
evaluations, in-person, and feedback.
Appendix F is the blended evaluation instrument for Levels 4, 3, 2, and 1. Immediately
after the implementation of the program, participants begin completing surveys in the LMS. The
survey data is collected and analyzed by the Agency’s Training and Continuous Improvement
Department and Mission leadership. NWIE Level 4 results are used for completion and retention
rates; Level 3 is the development of critical behaviors for building partnerships, teaching
industry expertise, and creating SMART goals; Level 2 achievement of learning objectives to
recognize and consistently; and Level 1 reactions to the value, relevance, and overall satisfaction
of the mentorship program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Appendix G illustrates Level 4 trend analysis and an example of USAID’s dashboard
report for engaging with diaspora stakeholders. The dashboard trend reports include their
analysis of the overall program goal. These data include completion and retention rates, overall
satisfaction rates, and recommended enhancements to course content. The plan will be
implemented to the extent that the gap in performance has been closed.
Summary
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) developed the new world Kirkpatrick model (NWIE)
as a tool to create an effective training evaluation plan. The tool was enhanced to elevate Dr.
Kirkpatrick Sr.’s teachings, correct mistakes in the interpretation of the model, and demonstrate
use of the model across modern organizations. This paper uses the integrated implementation and
evaluation plan to explore the lack of formal and direct engagement of USAID with
nontraditional partners, such as diasporic groups as formal partners to achieve sustainable global
157

development results. Framing the problem of practice helped to better understand how the NWIE
model may be used as an accountability tool to advance equitable partnerships.
Recommendations for Future Research
The study explored the gap in the partnership framework of international development
funders, specifically within USAID, while assessing the different ways diasporas influence the
development of the Global South. Consider applying a mixed methods approach to the study’s
current research questions. Expand the study beyond 11 participants with partnership
engagement experience to increase the sample size. Expand the scope of the study to include
interviews with senior leadership on the donor’s policy framework for engaging diasporas.
Include interviews with diaspora groups engaged in development work. Using the findings of
this study, future research could focus on the importance of international development donors
partnering with informal influencers, those who are important sources of information, such as
diasporas within the organization, or those repatriated to country offices of their home country.
Alternatively, other donor organizations may be able to assist with the research questions.
Various settings, contexts, locations, and cultures may be used to address the same research
problem in the future. A review and expansion of theories and frameworks can be conducted in
the future to examine the effects of DEIA integration into the organization’s new policy
framework and its effectiveness in engaging the diaspora.
Furthermore, during the interviews, evidence showed participants felt confident about the
need to partner with the diaspora, but most of them could not verbalize the means to achieve this
within the organization. This lack of continuity between knowledge and self-efficacy might be
attributed to factors such as suboptimal communication, overconfidence, and an assumed lack of
relationship between policy rollout and realizing key partnership deliverables.
158

Conclusion
This study explored the role diasporas play in the development and lack of engagement of
international development donors. The researcher focused on USAID to assess the gap in its
partnership framework for engaging different diaspora communities. The qualitative study
employed Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model to evaluate the organizational effects of
diaspora partnership engagement. Interviews and document analysis demonstrated organizational
barriers to alignment between organizational culture, work for DEIA practices, diversity
leadership, and inclusive partnerships. It is imperative for USAID to change its partnership
framework, which currently seeks to maintain neocolonial power structures as the United States
uses development assistance to maintain a geopolitical presence in the Global South.
The findings indicated a gap in the organization’s intricate organizational structure, KMS
knowledge transfer between employees and departments. USAID’s KMS fails to encourage a
space for improving and transferring knowledge associated with inclusive diaspora engagement.
There is also a gap between USAID’s embedded culture and manifested climate, evident in the
lack of concrete partnership engagement, strategic plan, and organizational priority. It is thus
pertinent for USAID to adopt a variety of procedures and best practices to promote increased
inclusive diaspora engagement and partnerships, including implementing localization and
decolonization models and integrating stakeholder and organizational SMART Goals.
159

References
Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional
change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58(2), 239–275.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582024
Adam Cobb, J. (2016). How firms shape income inequality: Stakeholder power, executive
decision making, and the structuring of employment relationships. Academy of
Management Review, 41(2), 324–348. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0451
Ademolu, E. (2021). An outward sign of an inward grace: how African diaspora religious
identities shape their understandings of and engagement in international development.
Identities, 28(6), 635–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2020.1813462
Agunias, D. R. (2009). Guiding the invisible hand: Making migration intermediaries work for
development. IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc.
https://ideas.repec.org/p/hdr/papers/hdrp-2009-22.html
Akintoye, A. (2015). Developing theoretical and conceptual frameworks. EDMIC research
workshop. Ile-Ife: Faculty of Environmental Design and Management, Obafemi
Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. https://oauife.edu.ng/faculty-of-environmental-
design-and-management/
Alonso, J. A., Cornia, G. A., & Vos, R. (2014). Alternative development strategies for the post-
2015 era. United Nations Series on Development. https://doi.org/10.18356/f10d15b3-en
Aloudat, T., & Khan, T. (2022). Decolonising humanitarianism or humanitarian aid? PLOS
Global Public Health, 2(4), Article e0000179.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000179
Amin, S. (1978). The law of value and historical materialism. Monthly Review Press.
160

Amis, J. M., Munir, K. A., Lawrence, T. B., Hirsch, P., & McGahan, A. (2018). Inequality,
institutions and organizations. Organization Studies, 39(9), 1131–1152.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618792596
Amo-Agyemang, C. (2021). Decolonising the discourse on resilience. International Journal of
African Renaissance Studies, 16(1), 4–30.
https://doi.org/10.1080/18186874.2021.1962725
Amuedo-Dorantes, C. (2014). The good and the bad in remittance flows. IZA World of Labor.
https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.97
Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2020). Classroom motivation: Linking research to
teacher practice. Routledge.
Andersen, S. B., & Jensen, S. (2017). Partnerships as interpellation. The European Journal of
Development Research, 29, 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.80
Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes in organizational
learning: The psychosocial filter. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 797–810.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00204
Appe, S., & Oreg, A. (2020). Philanthropic entrepreneurs who give overseas: An exploratory
study of international giving through grassroots organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 49(3), 502–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019878785
Arbache, J. S., Kolev, A., & Filipiak, E. (Eds.). (2010). Gender disparities in Africa's labor
market. World Bank Publications.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/c5b12a6b-4064-532e-86f4-
a87219610f36
161

Asquith, P., & Opoku-Owusu, S. (2020). Diaspora investment to help achieve the SDGs in
Africa: Prospects and trends. In A. Maček (Ed.), Foreign direct investment perspective
through foreign direct divestment. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93129
Baaz, M. E. (2005). The paternalism of partnership: A postcolonial reading of identity in
development aid. Zed Books.
Bailey, F., & Dolan, A. (2011). The meaning of partnership in development: Lessons for
development education. Policy & Practice, 13, 30–48. http://hdl.handle.net/10395/1916
Banaji, M. R., Bhaskar, R., & Brownstein, M. (2015). When bias is implicit, how might we think
about repairing harm? Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 183–188.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.08.017
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy 12. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
8721.00064
Banerjee, A., & Duflo, E. (2011). Poor economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fight
global poverty. PublicAffairs.
Banerjee, S. B. (2022). Decolonizing deliberative democracy: Perspectives from below. Journal
of Business Ethics, 181(2), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04971-5
Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail
wagging the dog? British Medical Journal, 322(7294), 1115–1117.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115
Barnett, M. (2018). Empire of humanity: A history of humanitarianism. Cornell University Press.
https://doi.org/10.7591/j.ctt7z8ns
162

Beatty, A. S., & Kaplan, R. M. (Eds.). (2022). Ontologies in the behavioral sciences:
Accelerating research and the spread of knowledge. National Academies Press.
Beine, M., Docquier, F., & Rapoport, H. (2008). Brain drain and human capital formation in
developing countries: Winners and losers. The Economic Journal, 118(528), 631–652.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02135.x
Bhambra, G. K., & Santos, B. D. S. (2017). Introduction: Global challenges for sociology.
Sociology, 51(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038516674665
Bhattacharyya, G., Gabriel, J., & Small, S. (2016). Race and power: Global racism in the twenty-
first centur
y
(1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315010922
Biden, J. R. (2022, December 15). President Biden’s remarks at the U.S.-Africa Summit Leaders
Session on partnering on the African Union’s Agenda 2063 [Speech transcript]. The
White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-
remarks/2022/12/15/remarks-by-president-biden-at-the-u-s-africa-summit-leaders-
session-on-partnering-on-the-african-unions-agenda-2063/
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to
enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research,
26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
Blackstone, A. (2019). Social research: Qualitative and quantitative methods. FlatWorld.
Blake, O., Glaser, M., Bertolini, L., & te Brömmelstroet, M. (2021). How policies become best
practices: A case study of best practice making in an EU knowledge sharing project.
European Planning Studies, 29(7), 1251–1271.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1840523
163

Blaser-Mapitsa, C. (2022). A scoping review of intersections between indigenous knowledge
systems and complexity-responsive evaluation research. African Evaluation Journal,
10(1), Article 624. https://doi.org/10.4102/aej.v10i1.624
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadersh
ip

(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). Racial attitudes or racial ideology? An alternative paradigm for
examining a’tors' racial views. Journal of Political Ideologies, 8(1), 63–82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310306082
Bonis-Charancle, J., & Vielajus, M. (2019). Localizationtion de l’aide; plus de proximité permet-
il d’assurer l’autonomie des projets déployés? [Localization of aid: Does more proximity
ensure the autonomy of deployed projects?] https://www.coordinationsud.org/wp-
content/uploads/synthese-etude-localisation-aide.pdf
Bornstein, E., & Redfield, P. (2010). Forces of compassion: Humanitarianism between ethics
and politic
s
(1st ed.). SAR Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Eds.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Bradley, A. S. (2019). Human rights racism. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 32, 1.
https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1231
Brandt, W. (1980). North-South: A programme for survival—Report of the independent
commission on international development issues. The MIT Press.
164

Brinkerhoff, J. (2011). David and Goliath: Diaspora organizations as partners in the development
industry. Public Administration and Development, 31(1), 37–49.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.587
Bruneau, M. (2010). Diasporas, transnational spaces, and communities. In R. Bauböck & T. Faist
(Eds.), Diaspora and transnationalism: Concepts, theories and methods (pp. 35–50).
Amsterdam University Press.
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instructi
on
(5th
ed.). Pearson.
Budabin, A. (2014). Diasporas as development partners for peace? The alliance between the
Darfuri diaspora and the Save Darfur Coalition. Third World Quarterly, 35(1), 163–180.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2014.868996
Budiman, A., Noe-Bustamante, L., & Lopez, M. H. (2020). Naturalized citizens make up record
one-in-ten US eligible voters in 2020. Pew Research Center, 26.
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/wp-
content/uploads/sites/5/2020/02/GMD_2020.02.26_Immigrant-Eligible-Voters.pdf
Burke, W. (2018). Organizational change: Theory and practi
ce
(5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Byekwaso, N. (2016). The politics of modernization and the misleading approaches to
development. World Review of Political Economy, 7(2), 285–312.
https://doi.org/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.7.2.0285
Caniglia, G., Schäpke, N., Lang, D. J., Abson, D. J., Luederitz, C., Wiek, A., & von Wehrden, H.
(2017). Experiments and evidence in sustainability science: A typology. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 169, 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.164
165

Carbonnier, G., & Kontinen, T. (2015). Institutional learning in North-South research
partnerships. Revue Tiers Monde, 221, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.3917/rtm.221.0149
Carlson, J. A. (2010). Avoiding traps in member checking. Qualitative Report, 15(5), 1102–
1113. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1332
Carr, S., McWha, I., MacLachlan, M., & Furnham, A. (2010). International–local remuneration
differences across six countries: Do they undermine poverty reduction work?
International Journal of Psychology, 45(5), 321–340.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2010.491990
Carton, A. M., & Rosette, A. S. (2011). Explaining bias against black leaders: Integrating theory
on information processing and goal-based stereotyping. Academy of Management
Journal, 54(6), 1141–1158. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0745
Castles, S. (2009). Development and migration or migration and development: What comes first?
Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 18(4), 441–471.
https://doi.org/10.1177/011719680901800401
Chand, M. (2019). Brain drain, brain circulation, and the African diaspora in the United States.
Journal of African Business, 20(1), 6–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2018.1440461
Chaudhuri, M. M., Mkumba, L., Raveendran, Y., & Smith, R. D. (2021). Decolonising global
health: Beyond ‘reformative’ roadmaps and towards decolonial thought. BMJ Global
Health, 6, Article e006371. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006371
Chauvet, L., Collier, P., & Duponchel, M. (2010). What explains aid project success in post-
conflict situations? PsycEXTRA Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/e503962013-001
166

Chein, D. B. (1981). Discretion in juvenile justice. In D. Fogel & J. Hudson (Eds.), Justice as
fairness (pp. 160–192). Anderson Publishing.
Chen, X. (2021). Immigrant-owned small businesses’ participation in diaspora philanthropy: A
case study during the COVID-19 outbreak. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship,
24(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/NEJE-08-2020-0033
Christian Aid. (n.d.). Programmes | Accelerating localisation through partnerships.
https://www.christianaid.org.uk/our-work/programmes/accelerating-localisation-through-
partnerships
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Cohen, R. (2008). Global diasporas: An introducti
on
(2nd ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203928943
Comaroff, J., & Comaroff, J. L. (2012). Theory from the South: Or, how Euro-America is
evolving toward Afri
ca
(1st ed.). Routledge.
Congressional Research Service. (2022, January 18). U.S. Agency for International
Development: An overview. In Focus.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10261
Constant, A. F., & Zimmermann, K. F. (2016). Diaspora economics: New perspectives.
International Journal of Manpower, 37(7), 1110–1135. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-
2016-0151
Constantino, S. M., Sparkman, G., Kraft-Todd, G. T., Bicchieri, C., Centola, D., Shell-Duncan,
B., & Weber, E. U. (2022). Scaling up change: A critical review and practical guide to
167

harnessing social norms for climate action. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
23(2), 50–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006221105279
Constantinou, C. M., & Opondo, S. O. (2016). Engaging the ‘ungoverned’: The merging of
diplomacy, defence and development. Cooperation and Conflict, 51(3), 307–324.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836715612848
Cooper, Y. (2017). Intersectionality. National Career Development Association.
https://www.ncda.org/aws/NCDA/pt/sd/news_article/139052/_PARENT/CC_layout_deta
ils/false
Craven, C. R. (2021). Networks do not float freely: (Dis)entangling the politics of Tamil
diaspora inclusion in development governance. Global Networks, 21(4), 769–790.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2015.1114737
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. The University of
Chicago Legal Forum, 1(8), 139–167.
http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Crewe, E., & Fernando, P. (2006). The elephant in the room: racism in representations,
relationships and rituals. Progress in Development Studies, 6(1), 40–54.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1464993406ps126oa
168

Crosschild, C., Huynh, N., De Sousa, I., Bawafaa, E., & Brown, H. (2021). Where is critical
analysis of power and positionality in knowledge translation? Health Research Policy
and Systems, 19, Article 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-021-00726-w
Culotta, D., Wiek, A., & Forrest, N. (2016). Selecting and coordinating local and regional
climate change interventions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy,
34(7), 1241–1266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15607475
Cummings, S., Kiwanuka, S., Gillman, H., & Regeer, B. (2019). The future of knowledge
brokering: Perspectives from a generational knowledge management framework for
international development. Information Development, 35(5), 781–794.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666918800174
Damoah, I., & Kumi, D. (2018). Causes of government construction projects failure in an
emerging economy: Evidence from Ghana. International Journal of Managing Projects
in Business, 11(3), 558–582. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-04-2017-0042
Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (2007). The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky.
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521831040
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organisations manage what
they know. Harvard Business Review Press.
de Haas, H. (2012). The migration and development pendulum: a critical view on research and
policy. International Migration, 50(3), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2435.2012.00755.x
de Haas, H. (2018). Migration and development: a theoretical perspective. The International
Migration Review, 44(1), 227–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2009.00804.x
169

Dei, G. J. S., & Anamuah-Mensah, J. (2014). The coloniality of development: Reframing South-
South co-operation and resistance. In A. Asabere-Ameyaw, J. Anamuah-Mensah, G. J. S.
Dei, & K. Raheem (Eds.), Indigenist African development and related issues (pp. 27–47).
Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-659-2_3
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2011). The Latino/a condition: A critical read
er
(2nd ed.). New
York University Press.
Delgado, R., Stefancic, J., & Harris, A. (2017). Critical race theory (3rd ed.): An introduction
(Vol. 20). NYU Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/9781479851393
Denzin, N. K. (2009). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological metho
ds
(3rd
ed.). Prentice Hall.
de Sousa Santos, B. (2020). The alternative to utopia is myopia. Politics & Society, 48(4), 567–
584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329220962644
Djohossou, P., Bulbul, S., & Hendrix-Jenkins, A. (2023). Creating spaces for knowledge
decolonization: Changing relationships and shifting power dynamics for co-creation
across the movement for community-led development. Part 2. Knowledge Management
for Development Journal, 17(1/2), 107–126.
https://www.km4djournal.org/index.php/km4dj/article/view/540/662
Docquier, F., & Rapoport, H. (2012). Globalization, brain drain, and development. Journal of
Economic Literature, 50(3), 681–730. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.50.3.681
Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a SMART way to write management’s goals and objectives.
Management Review, 70(11), 35–36. American Management Association.
170

Duffield, S. M., & Whitty, S. J. (2016). Application of the systemic lessons learned knowledge
model for170rganizationall learning through projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 34(7), 1280–1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.07.001
Dunbar, N. E. (2015). A review of theoretical approaches to interpersonal power. Review of
Communication, 15(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074017745355
Dunning, C. (2013, November 4). Is local spending better? The controversy over USAID
procurement reform. Center for American Progress.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/is-local-spending-better/
Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related
choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation (pp. 105–121). Guilford Publications.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Eckerdal, J. R., & Hagström, C. (2017). Qualitative questionnaires as a method for information
studies research. Information Research, 22(1), 1–11.
Elliot-Cooper, A. (2018). F170ecentraliznised education–A Lesson from the South African
Student Struggle. In J. Arday & H. Mirza (Eds.), Dismantling Race in Higher Education
Racism, Whiteness and Decolonising the Academy, (pp. 289–296). Palgrave.
Ellison, N. B., Gibbs, J. L., & Weber, M. S. (2015). The use of enterprise social network sites for
knowledge sharing in distributed organizations: The role of organizational affordances.
American Behavioral Scientist, 59(1), 103–123.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214540510
Escobar, A. (1988). Power and visibility: Development and the invention and management of the
171

Third World. Cultural Anthropology, 3(4), 428–443. http://www.jstor.org/stable/656487
Esomonu, U. (2017). What is systemic inequality? The part of inequality that we don’t explicitly
see. Odyssey. https://www.theodysseyonline.com/what-is-systemic-inequality
Exec. Order No. 13,950, 3 C.F.R. 60683 (2020).
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/28/2020-21534/combating-race-and-
sex-stereotyping
Exec. Order No. 13,985, 3 C.F.R. 7009 (2021).
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01753/advancing-racial-
equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government
Exec. Order No. 14,035, 3 C.F.R. 34593 (2021).
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/30/2021-14127/diversity-equity-
inclusion-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-workforce
Exec. Order No. 14,089, 3 C.F.R. 77459 (2022).
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/19/2022-27585/establishing-the-
presidents-advisory-council-on-african-diaspora-engagement-in-the-united-states
Exec. Order No. 14,091, 3 C.F.R. 10825 (2022).
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/22/2023-03779/further-advancing-
racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal
Fanon, F. (1968). The wretched of the earth. Grove Press.
Fechter, A. (2016). Aid work as moral labour. Critique of Anthropology, 36(3), 228–243.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X16646837
Ferguson, J. E., Salominaite, E., & Boersma, K. (2016). Past, present and future: How the
Lithuanian diaspora in the Netherlands accumulates human capital from social capital.
172

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(13), 2205–2225.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1164590
Fernández, J. S., Sonn, C. C., Carolissen, R., & Stevens, G. (2021). Roots and routes toward
decoloniality within and outside psychology praxis. Review of General Psychology,
25(4), 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211002437
Fine, P. (2022). Rethinking the constraints to localization of foreign aid. Brookings.
Fischer-Tiné, H., (2004). National education, pulp fiction and the contradictions of colonialism:
Perceptions of an educational experiment in early twentieth century India. In H. Fischer-
Tiné & M. Mann (Eds.), Colonialism as civilizing mission: Cultural ideology in British
India (pp. 229–248). Anthem Press.
Flanigan, S. T. (2017). Crowdfunding and diaspora philanthropy: An integration of the literature
and major concepts. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, 28, 492–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9755-7
Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative researc
h
(6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Foresti, M., Booth, D., & O’Neil, T. (2006). Aid effectiveness and human rights: strengthening
the implementation of the Paris Declaration. ODI report to the DAC.
https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/2281.pdf
Foucault, M. (1988). Power knowledge. Random House.
Frank, A. G. (1989). The development of underdevelopment. Monthly Review, 41(2), 37–51.
https://doi.org/10.14452/mr-018-04-1966-08_3
Frehywot, S., Park, C., & Infanzon, A. (2019). Medical diaspora: An underused entity in low-
and middle-income countries’ health system development. Human Resources for Health,
17(1), 56–56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-019-0393-1
173

Carl, N. M., & Ravitch, S. M. (2018). Member check. In B. B. Frey (Ed.). The SAGE
encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (Vol. 4). SAGE
Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gallucci, K. K. (2007). The case method of instruction, conceptual change, and student attitude
[Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University].
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/4724
Geiger, M., & Pécoud, A. (2013). Migration, development, and the migration and development
nexus. Population Space and Place, 19(4), 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1778
Glick, B. (2020). The inner workings of USAID: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. But if it is broke, fix
it. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/inner-
workings-usaid-if-it-aint-bI-dont-fix-it-if-it-broke-fix-it
Godin, M. (2018). Breaking the silences, breaking the frames: a gendered diasporic analysis of
sexual violence in the DRC. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(8), 1390–1407.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1354166
Gramsci, A. (1980). Selections from the prison noteb
oo
ks (6th ed.). Wishart Publications.
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”
Administrative Issues Journal, 4(2), 12–26. https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9
Grosfoguel, R. (2004). Race and ethnicity or racialized ethnicities? Identities within global
coloniality. Ethnicities, 4(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796804045237
174

Grosfoguel, R. (2007). The epistemic decolonial turn: Beyond political-economy paradigms.
Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162514
Grosfoguel, R. (2011). Decolonizing post-colonial studies and paradigms of political-economy:
Transmodernity, decolonial thinking, and global coloniality. Transmodernity: Journal of
Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 1(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/T411000004
Gwaravanda, E. T., & Ndofirepi, A. P. (2020). Contextualising African higher education
philosophical debates. In African Higher Education
in
the 21st Century (pp. 1–10). Brill.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004442108_001
Hamedani, M. Y. G., & Markus, H. R. (2019). Understanding culture clashes and catalyzing
change: A culture cycle approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 700.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00700
Harsch, K., & Festing, M. (2020). Dynamic talent management capabilities and organizational
agility—A qualitative exploration. Human Resource Management, 59(1), 43–61.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21972
Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helm’s White and people of color racial identity models. In J.
G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of
multicultural counseling (pp. 181–198). SAGE Publications.
Herrenkohl, L. R., & Wertsch, J. V. (1999). The use of cultural tools: Mastery and appropriation.
In I. E. Sigel (Ed.), The development of mental representation: Theories and
applications. (pp. 231–256). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
175

Ho, E. L. E., & Boyle, M. (2015). Migration‐as‐development repackaged? The globalizing
imperative of the Singaporean state’s diaspora strategies. Singapore Journal of Tropical
Geography, 36(2), 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjtg.12103
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.88
Hug, N., & Jäger, U. P. (2013). Resource-based accountability: A case study on multiple
accountability relations in an economic development nonprofit. VOLUNTAS:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(3), 772–796.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9362-9
Hughes, M. (2010). Mobilizing for humanitarian intervention: African Americans, diasporic
lobbying, and lessons from Haiti, Rwanda, and Sudan. International Journal, 65(4),
1037–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/002070201006500403
Ika, L. A., Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2010). Project management in the international
development industry. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(1), 61–
93. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371011014035
Ingram, D. (2017). Critical theory and global development. In M. Thompson (Ed.), The Palgrave
handbook of critical theory (pp. 677–696). Palgrave Macmillan US.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55801-5_31
Jayasundara, D. S. (2013). Applicability of Amartya Sen’s human development perspectives to
the fields of reproductive health and social work. International Social Work, 56(2), 134–
147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872811414598
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2017). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches
(
6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
176

Johnson, P. D. (2007, May). Diaspora philanthropy: influences, initiatives, and issues. The
Philanthropic Initiative, Inc.
http://philanthropy.org/seminars/documents/Johnson_Diaspora_Philanthropy_FinalMay2
007.pdf
Johnston, J., & Lorentzen, A. (2022). Capacity development for whom? An Agenda for USAID
reform in Haiti. Center for Economic and Policy. https://www.cepr.net/wp-
content/uploads/2022/01/Haiti-Aid-Reform-Final.pdf
Joseph, J., & Gaba, V. (2020). Organizational structure, information processing, and decision-
making: A retrospective and road map for research. Academy of Management Annals,
14(1), 267–302. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0103
Kalkman, F. (2021). Lessons from Executive Order 13950: The dangers of regulating
government contractors through executive orders. Public Contract Law Journal, 51(1),
89–109.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_contract_law/publications/public_contract_la
w_jrnl/51-1/lessons-executive-order-13950-dangers-regulating-government-contractors-
through-executive-orders/
Kanter, R. M. (2019). The future of bureaucracy and hierarchy in organizational theory: A report
from the field. In P. Bourdieu, J. S. Coleman, & Z. W. Coleman (Eds.), Social theory for
a changing society (pp. 63–93). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429306440-3
Kapur, D., & McHale, J. (2007). International migration as an alternative to development
assistance. IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt6q81b75s/qt6q81b75s.pdf
177

Kester, K., Zembylas, M., Sweeney, L., Lee, K. H., Kwon, S., & Kwon, J. (2021). Reflections on
decolonizing peace education in Korea: A critique and some decolonial pedagogic
strategies. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(2), 145–164.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1644618
Khan, T. (2020, February 13). Development aid as foreign policy is a flawed idea. Policy
Options. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/february-2020/development-aid-as-
foreign-policy-is-a-flawed-idea/
Khoo, S. M., & Jørgensen, N. J. (2021). Intersections and collaborative potentials between global
citizenship education and education for sustainable development. Globalisation, Societies
and Education, 19(4), 470–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2021.1889361
Kim, J. Y., Millen, J. V., Irwin, A., & Gershman, J. (2000). Dying for growth: global inequality
and the health of the poor, Common Courage Press.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Knowles, E. D., Lowery, B. S., Chow, R. M., & Unzueta, M. M. (2014). Deny, distance, or
dismantle? How white Americans manage a privileged identity. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 9(6), 594–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614554658
Koinova, M. (2018). 177ecentralizeilisation for conflict and post-conflict reconstruction:
contextual and comparative dimensions, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(8),
1251–1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1354152
Kothari, U. (2005). Radical history of development studies. Zed Books.
Kothari, U. (2006). Critiquing ‘race’ and racism in development discourse and practice. Progress
in Development Studies., 6(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1191/1464993406ps123ed
178

Koziol, N. A. (2017). An introduction to cost effectiveness and benefit-cost analyses in
education research [Slideshow]. University of Nebraska.
https://cyfs.unl.edu/cyfsprojects/videoPPT/cbeddaf4798e794116109e333a3d6e12/170908
-Koziol.pdf
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–
218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104
Kwon, K., & Jang, S. (2022). There is no good war for talent: A critical review of the literature
on talent management. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 44(1), 94–120.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2020-0374
Langley, S., & Kuschminder, K. (2016). Connecting diaspora for development: Literature
review. Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, Maastricht University.
https://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/uploads/1600770738.pdf
Lannon, J., & Walsh, J. N. (2020). Paradoxes and partnerships: a study of knowledge exploration
and exploitation in international development programmes. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 24(1), 8–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-09-2018-0605
Lawrence, B., & Dua, E. (2005). Decolonizing antiracism. Social Justice, 32, (4, 102), 120–143.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/29768340
Leonard-Barton, D., Swap, W. C., & Barton, G. (2015). Critical knowledge transfer: Tools for
managing your company’s deep smarts. Harvard Business Review Press.
Leonardi, P. M. (2014). Social media, knowledge sharing, and innovation: Toward a theory of
communication visibility. Information Systems Research, 25(4), 796–816.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0536
179

Levin, H. M., McEwan, P. J., Belfield, C. R., Bowden, A. B., & Shand, R. D. (2018). Economic
evaluation in education: Cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost an
al
ysis (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483396514
Liehr, P., & Smith, M. J. (1999). Middle range theory: Spinning research and practice to create
knowledge for the new millennium. Advances in Nursing Science, 21(4), 81–91.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-199906000-00011
Lin, H.-F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing
intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 135–149.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506068174
Lin, X. (2010). The diaspora solution to innovation capacity development: Immigrant
entrepreneurs in the contemporary world. Thunderbird International Business Review,
52(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.20319
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Loftsdóttir, K. (2014). Within a “White” affective space: Racialization in Iceland and
development discourses. Social Identities: Whiteness and Nation in the Nordic Countries,
20(6), 452–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2015.1004996
Luederitz, C., Schäpke, N., Wiek, A., Lang, D. J., Bergmann, M., Bos, J. J., Burch, S., Davies,
A., Evans, J., König, A., Farrelly, M. A., Forrest, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Gibson, R. B.,
Kay, B., Loorbach, D., McCormick, K., Parodi, O., Rauschmayer, F., … Westley, F. R.
(2017). Learning through evaluation–A tentative evaluative scheme for sustainability
transition experiments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 61–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.005
180

Lugon Arantes, P. (2022). The due diligence standard and the prevention of racism and
discrimination. Netherlands International Law Review, 68(3), 407–431.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-021-00208-4
Maldonado-Torres, N. (2007). On the coloniality of being: Contributions to the development of a
concept. Cultural Studies (London, England), 21(2–3), 240–270.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162548
Maldonado-Torres, N. (2017). Against coloniality: On the meaning and significance of the
decolonial turn. In Towards a just curriculum theory: The epistemicide (pp. 165–180).
Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315146904
Manusov, V., & Spitzberg, B. (2008). Attribution theory. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithewaite
(Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 37–
49). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483329529.n3
Manzo, L. K. (Ed.). (2015). Culture and visual forms of power: Experiencing contemporary
spaces of resistance. Common Ground Research Networks. https://doi.org/10.18848/978-
1-61229-641-8/cgp
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375557
Martinez, A. (2022). Why critical race theory matters. Ethnic Studies Review, 45(1), 23–32.
https://doi.org/10.1525/esr.2022.45.1.23
Martinez-Vargas, C. (2020). Decolonising higher education research: From a uni-versity to a
pluri-versity of approaches. South African Journal of Higher Education, 34(2), 112–128.
https://doi.org/10.20853/34-2-3530
181

Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2005). LMX differentiation. In G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen
(Eds.). Global Organizing Designs, (pp. 73–98). IAP.
Matenga, T. F. L., Zulu, J. M., Corbin, J. H., & Mweemba, O. (2019). Contemporary issues in
north–south health research partnerships: perspectives of health research stakeholders in
Zambia. Health Research Policy and Systems, 17(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0409-7
Mayer, K. R. (2001). With the stroke of a pen: Executive orders and presidential power.
Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1h9dh4p.6
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning to multimedia instruction. In J. P. Mestre
& B. H. Ross (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation, (Vol. 55; pp. 77–108).
Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00003-X
Mayne, J. (2015). Useful theory of change models. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation,
30(2), 12–35. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.230
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not,
and how to tell the difference. Corwin Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328591
McLellan, C. (2015). America’s ambassadors of African descent: A brief history. The Journal of
Pan African Studies, 8(1). https://jpanafrican.org/docs/vol8no1/8.1-8-McLellon.pdf
Menashy, F. (2019). International aid to education: Power dynamics in an era of partnership.
Teachers College Press.
Merriam, S. B. (1995). What can you tell from an n of 1? Issues of validity and reliability in
qualitative research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4, 51–60.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ497233
182

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implemen
ta
tion (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Mignolo, W. D. (2020). On decoloniality: Second thoughts. Postcolonial Studies, 23(4), 612–
618. https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2020.1751436
Mignolo, W. D., & Walsh, C. (2018). On decoloniality: Concepts, analytics, praxis. Duke
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822371779
Mikkonen, E. (2020). Decolonial and transnational feminist solidarity: Promoting ethically
sustainable social change with women in rural Nepalese communities. The International
Journal of Community and Social Development, 2(1), 10–28.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2516602620911805
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data an
al
ysis (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Minn, P. (2016). Medical humanitarianism: Ethnographies of practice. Sharon Abramowitz, and
Catherine Panter-Brick eds., Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015, 274
pp: Book Review. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 30(4).
https://doi.org/10.1111/maq.12306
Minto-Coy, I. D. (2016). Diaspora engagement for development in the Caribbean. In A.
Chikanda, J. Crush, & M. Walton-Roberts (Eds.), Diasporas, development and
governance (pp. 121–139). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22165-6_8
Mishra, A. K. (2016). Diaspora, development and the Indian state. The Round Table, 105(6),
701–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/00358533.2016.1246859
183

Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. The Qualitative Report, 27(1),
64–77. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5044
M. P. T. (1978). Review of The New International Economic Order: The North-South Debate by
J. N. Bhagwati. Population and Development Review, 4(2), 355.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1972288
Nam Jeon, B., & Young Ahn, S. (2004). Multinational corporations and host country receptivity:
perceptions from three Asian countries. Multinational Business Review, 12(2), 17–36.
https://doi.org/10.1108/1525383x200400008
National Fair Housing Alliance. (2020). LDF, partner organizations commend court decision in
Santa Cruz Lesbian and Gay Center v. Trump [Press release]. Targeted News Service.
https://nationalfairhousing.org/ldf-partner-organizations-commend-court-decision-in-
santa-cruz-lesbian-and-gay-center-v-trump/
Natow, R. (2020). The use of triangulation in qualitative studies employing elite interviews.
Qualitative Research, 20(2), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794119830077
Ndaguba, E., & Hanyane, B. (2018). The peril of international development in the local context
and the misfit of poverty analysis in Africa. Cogent Social Sciences, 4(1), Article
1550908. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1550908
Newland, K., & Tanaka, H. (2010). Mobilizing diaspora entrepreneurship for development.
Policy File. Migration Policy Institute.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mobilizing-diaspora-entrepreneurship-
development
Newland, K., & Taylor, C. (2010). Heritage tourism and nostalgia trade: A diaspora niche in the
development landscape. Policy File. Migration Policy Institute.
184

migrationpolicy.org/research/heritage-tourism-and-nostalgia-trade-diaspora-niche-
development-landscape
Newland, K., Terrazas, A., & Munster, R. (2010). Diaspora philanthropy: Private giving and
public policy. Policy File. Migration Policy Institute.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/diaspora-philanthropy-private-giving-and-
public-policy
Nguyen, X. T. (2018). Critical disability studies at the edge of global development: Why do we
need to engage with Southern theory? Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 7(1), 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v7i1.400
Nhema, A., & Zinyama, T. (2016). Modernization, dependency and structural adjustment
development theories and Africa: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Social
Science Research, 4(1), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijssr.v4i1.9040
Nikolko, M. (2019). Diaspora mobilization and the Ukraine crisis: old traumas and new
strategies. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42(11), 1870–1889.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2019.1569703
Ní Shé, É., & Harrison, R. (2021). Mitigating unintended consequences of co‐design in health
care. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health
Care and Health Policy, 24(5), 1551–1556. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13308
Nkongolo-Bakenda, J., & Chrysostome, E. (2013). Engaging diasporas as international
entrepreneurs in developing countries: In search of determinants. Journal of International
Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 30–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-012-0098-1
185

Noxolo, P. (2006). Claims: A postcolonial geographical critique of ‘partnership’in Britain’s
development discourse. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 27(3), 254–269.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.2006.00261.x
Ntale, P. D., & Ssempebwa, J. (2022). Designing organizations for collaborative relationships:
the amenability of social capital to inter-agency collaboration in the graduate
employment context in Uganda. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 34(3),
291–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-021-09391-1
Nyame-Asiamah, F., Amoako, I. O., Amankwah-Amoah, J., & Debrah, Y. A. (2020). Diaspora
entrepreneurs’ push and pull institutional factors for investing in Africa: Insights from
African returnees from the United Kingdom. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 152, 12–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119876
Nyberg-Sorensen, N., Hear, N., & Engberg-Pedersen, P. (2002). The migration-development
nexus: evidence and policy options. International Migration, 40(5), 49–73.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2435.00211
Oberman, K. (2015). Poverty and immigration policy. The American Political Science Review,
109(2), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055415000106
O’Dowd, M. (2020, February 4). What is systemic racism and institutional racism? The
Conversation. https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-systemic-racism-and-
institutional-racism-131152
O’Leary, Z. (2014). The essential guide to doing your research p
ro
ject (2nd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
186

Olliff, L. (2018). From resettled refugees to humanitarian actors: Refugee diaspora organizations
and everyday humanitarianism. New Political Science, 40(4), 658–674.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2018.1528059
Opara, I. N. (2021). It’s time to decolonize the decolonization movement. PLOS Blogs: Speaking
of Medicine and Health. https://speakingofmedicine.plos.org/2021/07/29/its-time-
todecolonize-the-decolonization-movement/
Organization of American States. (2013). Inter-American convention against racism, racial
discrimination and related forms of intolerance (A-68).
https://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/inter_american_treaties_a-68_racism.asp
Orozco, M. (2008). Are trends in money transfers to Latin America shifting downward? Inter-
American Dialogue. https://www.thedialogue.org/
Pailey, R. N. (2020). De‐centring the “White gaze” of development. Development and Change,
51(3), 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12550
Parrish, C., & Kattakuzhy, A. (2018, March). Money Talks: A synthesis report assessing
humanitarian funding flows to local actors in Bangladesh and Uganda. Oxfam digital
repository. https://doi.org/10.21201/2017.2135
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation m
et
hods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative evaluation and research me
th
ods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Polit, D., & Beck, C. (2012). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing
pr
ac
tice (9th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (1998). Organizational learning mechanisms: A structural and
cultural approach to organizational learning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 34(2), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886398342003
187

Portes, A., & Grosfoguel, R. (1994). Caribbean diasporas: Migration and ethnic communities.
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 533(1), 48–69.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716294533001004
Portillo, S., Bearfield, D., & Humphrey, N. (2020). The myth of bureaucratic neutrality:
Institutionalized inequity in local government hiring. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 40(3), 516–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x19828431
Prebisch, R. (1959). Commercial policy in the underdeveloped countries. The American
Economic Review, 49(2), 251–273. https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/AER
Prescott, D., & Stibbe, D. (2015). Unleashing the power of business: A practical roadmap to
systematically engage business as a partner in development. The Partnering Initiative.
https://thepartneringinitiative.org
Profant, T. (2019). New donors on the postcolonial crossroads: Eastern Europe and Western aid.
Routledge.
Quijano, A. (2007). Coloniality and modernity/rationality. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 168–178.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601164353
Quinn, S., Redmond, K., & Begley, C. (1996). The needs of relatives visiting adult critical care
units as perceived by relatives and nurses. Part 2. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing,
12(4), 239–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0964-3397(96)80148-0
Radcliffe, S. A., & Radhuber, I. M. (2020). The political geographies of D/decolonization:
Variegation and decolonial challenges of/in geography. Political Geography, 78, Article
102128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2019.102128
Raissa, G., Sihotang, S., Christy, F., & Wijaya, K. (2021, May). Identification of cultural capital
and sustainable behavior towards sustainable development. IOP Conference Series: Earth
188

and Environmental Science, 764(1), Article 012015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/764/1/012015
Rajak, D., & Stirrat, J. (2011). Parochial cosmopolitanism and the power of
nostalgia. Adventures in Aidland: The Anthropology of Professionals in International
Development, 6, 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780857451118-009
Rajasingham-Senanayake, D. (2005). Sri Lanka and the violence of reconstruction.
Development, 48(3), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100171
Ran, B., & Qi, H. (2018). Contingencies of power sharing in collaborative governance. The
American Review of Public Administration, 48(8), 836–851.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2015.1016310
Ratha, D., & Plaza, S. (2011). Harnessing diasporas: Africa can tap some of its millions of
emigrants to help development efforts. Finance & Development, 48(3), 48–51.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How theoretical frameworks guide
re
se
arch (2nd ed.). https://doi.org/10.12698/cpre.reasonandrigor
Razmerita, L., Kirchner, K., & Nielsen, P. (2016). What factors influence knowledge sharing in
organizations? A social dilemma perspective of social media communication. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 20(6), 1225–1246. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-03-2016-0112
Redehegn, M., Sun, D., Eshete, A., & Gichuki, C. (2019). Development impacts of migration
and remittances on migrant-sending communities: Evidence from Ethiopia. PloS One,
14(2), Article e0210034. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210034
189

Rivera, L. A., & Tilcsik, A. (2016). Class advantage, commitment penalty: The gendered effect
of social class signals in an elite labor market. American Sociological Review, 81(6),
1097–1131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416668154
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2018). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE
Publications.
Rodgers, B., & Cowles, K. V. (1993). The qualitative research audit trail: A complex collection
of documentation. Research in Nursing & Health, 16(3), 219–226.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770160309
Rose, S., & Glassman, A. (2018). Committing to cost-effectiveness: USAID’s new effort to
benchmark for greater impact. Center for Global Development.
https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/committing-cost-effectiveness-usaids-new-
effort-benchmark-greater-impact.pdf
Rostow, W. W. (1960). The five stages — growth--A summary. Cambridge University Press.
Rostow, W. W. (1991). The stages of economic growth: A non-communist manifesto. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625824
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Sabbagh-Khoury, A. (2022). Tracing settler colonialism: A genealogy of a paradigm in the
sociology of knowledge production in Israel. Politics & Society, 50(1), 44–83.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329221999906
Sader, E. (2009). Postneoliberalism in Latin America. Development Dialogue, 51(1), 171–179.
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.
190

Said, E. W., Jhally, S., Talreja, S., & Said, E. W. (1998). Edward Said on Orientalism. Media
Education Foundation. https://doi.org/10.1037/e534652004-001
Sander, A. (2021). Reclaiming partnership–‘rightful resistance’ in a Norths/Souths
cooperation. Third World Quarterly, 42(11), 2538–2551.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2021.1957672
Sanjari, M., Bahramnezhad, F., Fomani, F. K., Shoghi, M., & Cheraghi, M. A. (2014). Ethical
challenges of researchers in qualitative studies: the necessity to develop a specific
guideline. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 7, 14–16.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4263394/
Santa Cruz Lesbian and Gay Community Center et al v. Trump et al, 508 F. Supp. 3d 521 (N.D.
Cal. 2020). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-
07741/summary
Savolainen, R. (2017). Information sharing and knowledge sharing as communicative
activities. Information Research, 22(3), 767–787.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1156371.pdf
Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and lead
er
ship (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-2616(96)90010-8
Shain, Y. (2002). The role of diasporas in conflict perpetuation or resolution. SAIS Review 22(2),
115–144. https://doi.org/10.1353/sais.2002.0052
191

Sharma, R. (2021). Foreign Aid 101: A quick and easy guide to understanding U.S. foreign aid.
Oxfam Digital Repository. https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-
publications/foreign-aid-101/
Sheffer, G. (Ed.). (1986). A new field of study: Modern diasporas in international politics.
American Political Science Review, 82(2), 684–685. https://doi.org/10.2307/1957468
Sheffer, G. (1995). The emergence of new ethno-national diasporas. Migration, 28(2), 5–28.
https://www.iom.int/international-migration-journal
Siddiqui, K. (2012). Developing countries’ experience with neolibera191ecentralizedalisation.
Research in Applied Economics, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.5296/rae.v4i4.2878
Sidel, M. (2008). A decade of research and practice of diaspora philanthropy in the Asia Pacific
region: the state of the field. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1127237
Simmons, S. V., & Yawson, R. M. (2022). Developing leaders for disruptive change: An
inclusive leadership approach. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 24(4), 242–
262. https://doi.org/10.1177/15234223221114359
Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and
campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. The
Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60–73. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2696265
Stainback, K., Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Skaggs, S. (2010). Organizational approaches to
inequality: Inertia, relative power, and environments. Annual Review of Sociology, 36,
225–247. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120014
192

Stoyanov, S., Woodward, R., & Stoyanova, V. (2018). The embedding of transnational
entrepreneurs in Diaspora networks: Leveraging the assets of foreignness. Management
International Review, 58(2), 281–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-017-0336-9
Sundberg, M. (2019). National staff in public foreign aid: Aid localization in practice. Human
Organization, 78(3), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.17730/0018-7259.78.3.253
Taslakian, E. N., Garber, K., & Shekherdimian, S. (2022). Diaspora engagement: a scoping
review of diaspora involvement with strengthening health systems of their origin
country. Global Health Action, 15(1), 2009165–2009165.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2021.2009165
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., & Folke, C.
(2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for
sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 17-25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005
Theodorakopoulos, N., & Budhwar, P. (2015). Guest editors’ introduction: Diversity and
inclusion in different work settings: Emerging patterns, challenges, and research agenda.
Human Resource Management, 54(2), 177-197. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21715
Thompson, R. J., & Storberg-Walker, J. (2018). Leadership and power in international
development: Navigating the intersections of gender, culture, context, and sustainability.
Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2058-880120186
Thurmond, V . A. (2001). The point of triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(3), 253–
258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00253.x
193

Tidwell, M. V. (2005). A social identity model of prosocial behaviors within nonprofit
organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(4), 449–467.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.82
Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework.
Journal of advanced nursing, 48(4), 388–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2648.2004.03207.x
Tomas, P. S. (2009). Protecting migrant workers from the Philippines. International Labour
Organization. https://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/2009/431865.pdf
Trisos, C. H., Auerbach, J., & Katti, M. (2021). Decoloniality and anti-oppressive practices for a
more ethical ecology. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(9), 1205–1212.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01460-w
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (Eds.). (2013). Youth resistance research and theories of
ch
ange (1st
ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203585078
Turner, R. (2016). Gower handbook of project manag
em
ent (5th ed.). Ashgate Publishing.
Ul Hassan, S. W., & Sajjad, F. (2022). The decolonial turn: New challenges to international
relations traditions. Journal of Contemporary Studies, 11(2), 22–40.
https://doi.org/10.54690/jcs.v11i2.228
United Nations. (1978, November 27). Declaration on race and racial prejudice. The General
Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization at its
twentieth session. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-
mechanisms/instruments/declaration-race-and-racial-prejudice
United Nations. (1985). International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination. Canadian Heritage. https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/45c30ba90.pdf
194

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2019). International migration
2019: Report (ST/ESA/SER.A/438). Population Division. https://population.un.org/wpp/
United Nations General Assembly. (1960, December 14). Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, A/RES/1514(XV).
https://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f06e2f.html
United Nations General Assembly. (1963, November 20). United Nations Declaration on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, A/RES/1904.
https://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f06558.html
U.S. Agency for International Development. (2010). Diaspora action plan. Washington, DC.
Unpublished.
U.S. Agency for International Development. (2012, July). 3D Planning Guide: Diplomacy,
Development, Defense, 4. www.usaid.gov/documents/1866/diplomacy-development-
defense-planning-guide
U.S. Agency for International Development. (2014). The U.S. Indian Diaspora: Investment and
demand for a fixed-income social-impact investment.
U.S. Agency for International Development. (2016, October). USAID and Diaspora: Partners in
development. https://www.usaid.gov/documents/15396/diaspora-engagement-usaid-
partners-development
U.S. Agency for International Development. (2018a, February). Mission, vision, and values.
https://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/mission-vision-values
U.S. Agency for International Development. (2018b, December). Acquisition and assistance
strategy.
195

U.S. Agency for International Development. (2019, April). Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year
2020. www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USAID_FY2020_AFR-508.pdf
U.S. Agency for International Development. (2020). Transformation at USAID: What we do.
https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/transformation-at-usaid
U.S. Agency for International Development. (2021). New partnerships initiative.
https://www.usaid.gov/npi
U.S. Agency for International Development. (2022). Center for transformational partnerships
diaspora engagement: USAID partners with diasporas to grow development impact.
USAID. https://2017-
2020.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/15396/CTP_FactSheet_Diaspora%20%282
%29.pdf
U.S. Agency for International Development. (2023, March). Policy framework: Driving progress
beyond programs. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-
03/Policy%20Framework%2003-23-2023.pdf
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2020, January). State Department: Additional steps are
needed to identify potential barriers to diversity. http://gao.gov/products/GAO-20-237
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2021, April). Haiti: USAID funding for reconstruction
and development activities since the 2010 earthquake (Publication No. GAO-21-263).
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-263
U.S. Mission to the United Nations. (2022, February 1). Statement by Ambassador Linda
Thomas-Greenfield on Black History Month [Press release]. Office of Press and Public
Diplomacy. https://usun.usmission.gov/statement-by-ambassador-linda-thomas-
greenfield-on-black-history-month/
196

U.S. Office of Inspector General. (2012). Most serious management and performance challenges
for the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2018-
06/USAID_Management_Challenges_2012.pdf
U.S. Office of Inspector General. (2019a). USAID’s top management challenges and OIG’s
continuing oversight. https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2019-07/statement-
04302019-USAIDIG-SenateAppropriations.pdf
U.S. Office of Inspector General. (2019b, November). USAID’s top management challenges in
Fiscal Year 2020 and OIG’s continuing oversight (Report No. OIG-20-001).
https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2019-07/statement-04302019-USAIDIG-
SenateAppropriations.pdf
U.S. Office of Inspector General. (2020, October). USAID’s top management challenges in
Fiscal Year 2021 and OIG’s continuing oversight. (Report No. OIG-21-003).
https://oig.usaid.gov/our-work/major-management-challenges
U.S. Office of Inspector General. (2021, October). USAID’s top management challenges in
Fiscal Year 2022 and OIG’s continuing oversight. (Report No. OIG-22-001).
https://oig.usaid.gov/our-work/major-management-challenges
Utter, A., White, A., Méndez, V. E., & Morris, K. (2021). Co-creation of knowledge in
agroecology. Elementa Science of the Anthropocene, 9(1), Article 00026.
https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2021.00026
Vaditya, V. (2018). Social domination and epistemic marginalisation: Towards methodology of
the oppressed. Social Epistemology, 32(4), 272–285.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2018.1444111
197

Van De Laar, A. (2006). A radical history of development studies: Individuals, institutions, and
ideologies edited by Uma Kothari. Development and Change, 37(5), 1143–1145.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2006.00516_2
Van den Hooff, B., Schouten, A. P., & Simonovski, S. (2012). What one feels and what one
knows: the influence of emotions on attitudes and intentions towards knowledge
sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(1), 148–158.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211198990
Vaux, T. (2001). The selfish altruist: Relief work in famine and war. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849774307
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Harvard University Press.
Wall, I., & Hedlund, K. (2016). Localisation and locally-led crisis response: A literature review.
Local to Global Protection (L2 GB). Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.
https://www.local2global.info/wp-
content/uploads/L2GP_SDC_Lit_Review_LocallyLed_June_2016_final.pdf
Wallerstein, I. (1983). The three instances of hegemony in the history of the capitalist world-
economy. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 24(1–2), 100–108.
https://doi.org/10.1163/156854283X00071
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research.
Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001
Weber, M. (2009). The theory of social and economic organization. Simon and Schuster.
198

Weinar, A. (2010). Instrumentalising diasporas for development: International and European
policy discourses. In R. Bauböck & T. Faist (Eds.), Diaspora and transnationalism:
Concepts, theories, and methods (pp. 73–90). Amsterdam University Press.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46mz31.7
White, S. (2002). Thinking race, thinking development. Third World Quarterly, 23(3), 407–419.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590220138358
The White House. (n.d.). National Security Council. Retrieved May 23, 2022, from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/
The White House. (2022, August). U.S. strategy toward sub-Saharan Africa.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/U.S.-Strategy-Toward-Sub-
Saharan-Africa-FINAL.pdf
Williams, B. (2001). Checklists for improving rigor in qualitative research. Including personal
reflections might help. British Medical Journal, 323(7311), 515–515.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7311.514b
Williams, J. C. (2014). Double jeopardy? An empirical study with implications for the debates
over implicit bias and intersectionality. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 37, 185.
https://repository.uclawsf.edu/faculty_scholarship/1278/
Williams, N. (2020). Moving beyond financial remittances: The evolution of diaspora policy in
post-conflict economies. International Small Business Journal, 38(1), 41–62.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242619878064
Williamson, J. (2005). The Washington Consensus as policy prescription for development. In T.
Besley & R. Zagha (Eds.), Development challenges in the 1990s: Leading policymakers
speak from experience. World Bank.
199

Wilson, J. (2008). Reflecting-on-the-future: A chronological consideration of reflective practice.
Reflective Practice, 9(2), 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940802005525
Winckler Andersen, O., & Therkildsen, O. (2007). Harmonisation and alignment: The double-
edged swords of budget support and decentralized aid administration. DIIS Working
Paper, 4. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/84575/1/DIIS2007-04.pdf
Wojczewski, S., Poppe, A., Hoffmann, K., Peersman, W., Nkomazana, O., Pentz, S., & Kutalek,
R. (2015). Diaspora engagement of African migrant health workers: Examples from five
destination countries. Global Health Action, 8, Article 29210.
https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v8.29210
The World Bank. (2019, April 8). Record high remittances sent globally in 2018 [Press
release]. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2019/04/08/record-high-
remittances-sent-globally-in-2018
The World Bank. (2021, May 12). Defying predictions, remittance flows remain strong during
COVID-19 crisis [Press release]. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-
release/2021/05/12/defying-predictions-remittance-flows-remain-strong-during-covid-19-
crisis
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8, 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006
Young, R. (2003). Postcolonialism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Zapata-Barrero, R., & Rezaei, S. (2020). Diaspora governance and transnational
entrepreneurship: The rise of an emerging social global pattern in migration studies.
200

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(10), 1959–1973.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1559990
Zeya, U., & Finer, J. (2020). Revitalizing the state department and American diplomacy. Council
on Foreign Relations. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep27517.1.pdf
201

Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders
Interview sampling
Criteria Rationale
International development work The selected 10–12 participants reflect the
desired population based on their
professional background and experiences
required to answer the research questions.
These participants have a strong
understanding of the international
development sector.
Partnership development experience Selected participants possess either current
or previous partnership development
experience in international. Participants
can contribute substantial knowledge of
their organization’s past or present
partnership framework.
Qualitative survey sampling
Criteria Rationale
Leaders, coordinators of diaspora,
networks, and coalition
The selected participants reflect the desired
population based on their work
transnationally to push the development
agenda of their community at home and
abroad.

202

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
The guide represents the way the questions will be asked and how the interview process
will go. Below is a breakdown of the interview guide for collecting data on engaging diasporas
as international development stakeholders.
Research Questions
1. How do international donors like USAID engage the diaspora?
2. How does engaging diaspora groups, networks, or coalitions enhance the role of
international development donors?
3. How are USAID employees incentivized to implement new partnership strategies and
policies?
Introductory Comments
Welcome and thank the interviewee for volunteering to participate: Thank you for
agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate the time that you have set aside to answer my
questions. The interview should take about 45 minutes to an hour. I will ask you 12 questions. I
hope that still works for you. Before we get started, I want to remind you about this study, the
overview provided to you in the Study Information Sheet and answer any questions you might
have about participating in this interview. I am a student at USC and am conducting a study for
my dissertation. The study is on the direct engagement of the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) with nontraditional partners such as diasporic groups as
formal partners to achieve sustainable global development results. I want to assure you I am
strictly wearing the researcher’s hat today. What this means is that the nature of my questions is
not evaluative.
203

Read and review the consent statement with interviewee: You’ve volunteered to
participate in a research project conducted by me, Lovesun Parent, from the University of
Southern California. The project is designed to gather information about diaspora and donor
partnerships. I will be 1 of approximately 10 people interviewed for this research. You attest
your participation in this project is voluntary. You understand you will not be paid for your
participation. You may withdraw and discontinue participation at any time without penalty. You
understand that most interviewees will find the discussion engaging and thought-provoking. If,
however, you feel uncomfortable in any way during the interview session, you have the right to
decline to answer any questions or to end the interview.
Interview Questions
Open the floor for any questions about the consent statement. Then, offer a copy for those
who want it. Table B1 outlines the list of interview questions.

Table B1
Interview Questions
Interview
questions
Potential
probes
RQ

Key
concept
Question
type
1. Let’s talk about
power in the
distribution of aid. Do
you believe that terms
or conditions are set
to maintain the power
dynamics of rich and
developing nations?
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
Knowledge
Procedural
Experience
Opinion
2. How is partnership
defined in the context
of program recipients
or local actors?
How are
diaspora
groups
included in
RQ1 Knowledge
Factual and
Conceptual
Organization
Background
204

Interview
questions
Potential
probes
RQ

Key
concept
Question
type
that
definition?

3. How are diaspora
groups carving their
own space in
International
Development?
How are
organization
s like yours
capitalizing
on diaspora
partnerships
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
Knowledge
Procedural
Organization
Aid/Development
Process
Knowledge
Experience
Opinion
4. Are there stereotypes
that influence the type
of aid that is given to
impoverished nations?
If so, what are they?
What
determines
which
countries
and crises
become
priorities for
aid?
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
Knowledge
Procedural
Organization
Self-efficacy
DEI, Power AID
Knowledge
Experience
5. How do stereotypes
also affect or reinforce
who is seen as the
‘helper’ of others?
RQ1
RQ3
Organizational
Knowledge
DEI, Power, AID
Knowledge
Experience
Opinion
6. How are partnership
goals set and
disseminated by the
Agency?
Are Agency
partnership
goals clear
and
specific?
Are they
realistic and
challenging?
RQ3 Knowledge
Conceptual
Motivation
Goals
Organization

Background
7. Are partnership goals
linked to program
performance
indicators?
Are
partnership
goals linked
to employee
performance
indicators?
RQ2
RQ3
Motivation
Organizational
Background
8. How are USAID
employees
incentivized to
RQ2
RQ3
Knowledge
Metacognitive
Motivation
Background
205

Interview
questions
Potential
probes
RQ

Key
concept
Question
type
implement new
partnership strategies
and policies?
Affect
Organizational
Culture
9. How have the lessons
learned from previous
partnership initiatives
like USAID Forward,
Local Works, and
Local Solutions been
used to guide future
localization efforts?
RQ3 Organizational
Partnerships
Knowledge
10. A major complaint
of COR/AORs
managing is local
actor capacity. What
kind of research is the
Agency doing to
measure performance
issues regarding local
partnerships and
stakeholder
engagement?
RQ1
RQ3
Organizational
Partnerships
Knowledge
11. Why might leaders
internalize their
organizations’
diversity issues as a
direct representation
of them?
RQ3 Knowledge
Organizational
DEI
Feeling
12. Tell me how you
reconcile open
partnership with
USAID’s complex
assistance and
acquisition rules that
demotivate
nontraditional
organizations?

RQ1
RQ3
Funding Opinion
206

Interview
questions
Potential
probes
RQ

Key
concept
Question
type
13. What kind of
feedback system
exists around
partnership goal
setting?
RQ1 Partnerships

Conclusion to the Interview
Thank you! I appreciate your willingness to share. Should I have any follow-up
questions, may I contact you? And on your end, if you have anything you’d like to share, please
let me know. Again, thank you for participating in my study.

207

Appendix C: Qualitative Survey Protocol
The core objective of the study was to undertake research, analyses, consultations, and
validation of international donor partnership policy. This exercise involves consultations with
key stakeholders in the diaspora, specifically diaspora coalitions, businesses, organizations,
coalitions, and other networks of influence. This ensures there is diverse engagement in the
process. The main output shall be data on the perceptions and needs of the stakeholders with
international donors like USAID.
The research involves reviewing and analyzing relevant existing reports, including
assessing the policies and strategies of countries’ large migration and diaspora populations, such
as the Philippines, Haiti, and Nigeria. In addition, primary research will be undertaken in the
form of surveys and expert interviews.
Research Questions
1. How do international donors like USAID engage the diaspora?
2. How do diaspora groups, networks, or coalitions enhance the role of international
development donors?
3. How are USAID employees incentivized to implement new partnership strategies and
policies?
Target Population
This survey will directly inform the Engaging Diasporas as Stakeholders in International
Development research. The theme of the research is to better understand the needs of the
diaspora groups/networks/coalitions to “enhance the role of the diaspora in international
development.” The target population is leaders and coordinators of diaspora groups, networks,
and coalitions (see Table C1 for qualitative questionnaire questions and measurements).
208

Table C1
Questions and Measurements
Question Open or
closed
Level of
measurement

Response
options

RRQ Concept being
measured (from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
1. Can you confirm that
you have given your
informed consent to
participate in this
study?
Closed Nominal a. Yes
b. No

2. Do you describe
yourself as a man, a
woman, trans, or in
some other way?
Closed Nominal a. Man
b. Woman
c. Trans
d. Some
other way

3. What is your age
range?

Closed Interval a. 15–25
years
b. 26–35
years
c. 36–45
years
d. 46–55
years
e. 56–66
years
f. 66 and
over

4. What is your country
of birth?
Open Nominal Dropped
Down List

5. Which region of the
world do you reside
in?
Closed Nominal a. Western
Europe
b. Eastern
Europe
c. North
America
d. Latin
America &
Caribbean

209

Question Open or
closed
Level of
measurement

Response
options

RRQ Concept being
measured (from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
e. West
Africa
f. Northern
Africa
g. Eastern
Africa
h. Southern
Africa
i. Middle East
j. Asia
k. Southeast
Asia
l. Australia
6. In targeting your own
diasporas living
and/or working
abroad, does your
office currently
implement the
following diaspora
engagement
programs and/or
policies listed
below?
● Remittances (Y/N)
● Direct Investments,
Entrepreneurship &
Capital Markets
(Y/N)
● Philanthropy (Y/N)
● Human Capital
(Y/N)
● Tourism (Y/N)
● Return &
Reintegration
(Y/N)
● Protection (Y/N)
Closed Nominal a. Yes
b. No
RQ2 Organizational
Frames
210

Question Open or
closed
Level of
measurement

Response
options

RRQ Concept being
measured (from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
7. To what extent do
you agree or disagree
with the proposed
approach on how
donors like USAID
would work with
diaspora
stakeholders?
● Through formal,
structured, and
facilitative
engagement with
diaspora
organizations and
individuals
● Implementing
practical measures
to increase the
volume and
impact of diaspora
remittances and
investments
● Through the
protection of
disenfranchised
migrants and
negotiation of
schemes for more
legal routes for
migration
● Create effective
ways for the
diaspora to
participate in
international
policy and local
development
activities
practically
Closed Ordinal a. Strongly
Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly
Disagree
RQ2 Gap Analysis
Organizational
Frames
211

Question Open or
closed
Level of
measurement

Response
options

RRQ Concept being
measured (from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
8. From the four above
approaches
mentioned above,
how do you think
donors could adopt
as a method of
partnering with the
diaspora? (Please
elaborate)
Open RQ2 Gap Analysis
Organizational
Frames
9. How do you propose
that donors like
USAID should
produce a 5-year
diaspora strategy to
guide USAID actions
on diaspora
development?
Open RQ2 Gap Analysis
Organizational
Frames
10. What practical
actions do you
propose donors like
USAID should
undertake to increase
the volume and
impact of diaspora
remittances and
investment (leverage
and match the
investment)?
Open Gap Analysis
Organizational
Frames
11. How do you
propose donors
create effective ways
for the diaspora to
practically
participate in
international policy
and local
development
activities?
Open RQ2 Gap Analysis
Organizational
Frames
212

Question Open or
closed
Level of
measurement

Response
options

RRQ Concept being
measured (from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
12. To what extent do
you agree or disagree
with the proposed
actions that donors
like USAID should
undertake?
● Create a global
diaspora
community of
practice to
coordinate sharing
actions relating to
the diaspora
● Create a platform
for diaspora
organizations to
network and
collaborate
Closed Ordinal a. Strongly
Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly
Disagree
RQ2 Gap Analysis
Organizational
Frames
13. Choose the
following obstacles
your office has
encountered while
engaging diasporas
abroad.
● Lack of
confidence in
institutions
● Work
commitments
● Political and legal
issues
● Financial
Constraints
Closed Nominal Dropped
Down List
RQ2 Gap Analysis
Organizational
Frames
14. How have these
obstacles impeded
your efforts to
engage with
diasporas?
Open Gap Analysis
Organizational
Frames
213

Appendix D: USG Document Analysis Snapshot

# Authors Year Reference in APA format Website
Type of
reference

1 USAID n.d USAID, (n.d.) USAID and
diaspora: partners in
development
Link Online
Factsheet

2 USAID n.d USAID, (n.d.) USAID diaspora:
partnership toolkit

Link Toolkit

3 USAID n.d USAID, (n.d.) USAID and
Diaspora: partners in
development
Link Limited
Policy
Approach

4 USAID 2014 USAID, (2014). Partnering for
impact: USAID and the private
sector
Link Position Paper

5 USAID 2022 USAID. (2022, February 17).
USAID supports diaspora-led
initiatives to help address
global humanitarian crises.
Link Press Release

6 USAID 2018 Acquisition and Assistance
(A&A) Strategy
Link Strategy

7 USAID 2022 Local Capacity Strengthening Link Policy

8 USAID 2022 Local Capacity Strengthening
Policy Overview
Link Policy

9 USAID 2022 Local Capacity Strengthening
Policy: Evidence Summary
Annotated Bibliography
Link Policy

10 USAID 2014 Local Systems: A Framework for
Supporting Sustained
Development
Link Strategy and
Policy

11 USAID 2018 Executive Summary - USAID
Private Sector Engagement
Policy
Link Policy

12 USAID 2018 Private-Sector Engagement Policy Link Policy

13 USAID 2019 New Partnership Initiative Link Initiative

14 USAID 2016 Diaspora Partnership Toolkit Link Toolkit

15 USAID 2011 USAID, (2011). Assessment &
lessons learned from African
Diaspora Marketplace
Link USAID
Project Final
Report

16 USAID 2012 The African Diaspora in The U.S.
And Its Interaction with
Biodiversity Conservation in
Africa
Link Report

17 USAID 2023 USAID’s Policy Framework Link Policy

214

Appendix E: Immediate Evaluation Instrument—Levels 2 and 1

Level 2 Survey questions
Factual Knowledge “I know it.”
Gain deeper perspectives on diaspora matters
by exploring issues of migration and
development, origins, and history.
I understand the impact of migration and the
contributions of diasporic communities.

Expand knowledge on key elements of
diaspora engagement by understanding the
challenges and opportunities, the role of the
government.
I understand how different partnership
strategies can help build and maintain
successful relationships with diaspora
communities.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Recognize industry-specific skill sets and
integrate them into peer online exchange
programs.
I competently design and deliver training on
industry-specific skill sets.
Recognize various models of diaspora
philanthropy, new generation initiatives, and
philanthropy as a gateway.
I confidently create partnership opportunities
for diaspora groups.

Knowledge recall of how to write SMART
professional development goals specific to
diaspora engagement.
I confidently create development plans using
SMART goals.

Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Value the internal and external relationships
developed through the program.
The training program has provided me with
the necessary skills to effectively network
within and outside of the company with
confidence.
Indicate confidence in completing the
professional development training courses.
I consistently use skills, resources, and
evaluation techniques learned from the
program to support successful performance
outcomes.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Confidence in the ability to foster internal and
external relationships developed through the
program.
This program has enabled me to establish
robust connections both within and outside
the organization with absolute assurance.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Create a culture of learning by sharing
knowledge and experiences.
I feel encouraged to share my knowledge and
experience regarding
Commit to organizational goals that support
expanding partnerships with diaspora
stakeholders.
I am committed to reaching my professional
goals in support of organizational values,
mission, and purpose.
Level 1 Survey Questions
Engagement
Final course evaluations in LMS (USAID
University)
I value the diaspora engagement training
program.
215

Level 2 Survey questions
Relevance
Online surveys and in-person discussion The training provided is relevant to personal
and professional development and career
pathing goals.
Final course evaluations in LMS (USAID
University)
The training provided is relevant to personal
and professional development and career
pathing goals.
Customer Satisfaction
Online surveys and through in-person
discussion (training facilitators and
coordinators)
I found the learning strategies and concepts
meaningful, professional and will refer
others to participate in the program.
Final course evaluations in LMS (USAID
University)
The training provided is relevant to personal
and professional development and career
pathing goals.
Note. Delayed Implementation Survey – 30-90 Days After the Program

216

Appendix F: Delayed Evaluation Instrument

Level 2 Survey questions
Level 4 – Results:
Integration of nontraditional
partners such as diasporic
groups as formal
development partners
I am trained to reach goals as a result of monitoring and
reinforcing learning outcomes. Am I using the changes in
the training programs to support the integration of
nontraditional partners such as diasporic groups as
formal development partners?
Level 3 – Behavior:
Build and maintain internal
and external professional
relationships to support
development plans
I continue to explore how different partnership strategies can
help.

I continue to build and maintain internal and external
professional relationships to support development plans.
Level 2 – Learning
Gain the required
knowledge, skills,
attitudes, confidence,
and commitment to
expanding nontraditional
partnerships
Did stakeholders acquire the training program’s intended
skills, knowledge, and attitudes?

Level 1 – Reaction:
Performed evaluation

Do USAID employees positively respond, react, and find
value in the training program? I continually share
evaluation techniques learned from the program with others
to assist them in reaching performance goals.
Note. 30–90 days after the program

212209

Appendix G: Data Analysis Chart Illustrating Big Picture View of Gap Closure

217

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

An unlikely partnership: engaging diasporas as stakeholders to international development donors

Conceptually similar

PDF

An unlikely partnership: engaging diasporas as stakeholders to international development donors

PDF

Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams

PDF

Partnerships and nonprofit leadership: the influence of nonprofit managers on community partnerships

PDF

Examining the pandemic’s impact on remote worker wellness in community colleges: organizational lessons and strategies

PDF

Examining teachers’ perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion professional development

PDF

Performance management in government: the importance of goal clarity

PDF

Online graduate-level student learning and engagement: developing critical competencies for future leadership roles: an evaluation study

PDF

Diversity management in local government: a gap analysis

PDF

Perceptions of professional development from the lens of the global teacher in a rapidly evolving, linguistically diverse instructional environment

PDF

The underrepresentation of Black women general officers in a U.S. military reserve component

PDF

Examining the lack of equity in leadership opportunities for underrepresented employees in the pharmaceutical industry

PDF

Multi-tiered system of support as the overarching umbrella: an improvement model using KMO gap analysis to address the problem of school districts struggling to implement MTSS

PDF

Development of employee well-being initiatives to improve engagement and performance: an innovative study

PDF

Efficacy of non-formal education programs in educational outcomes of marginalized Filipino children: an evaluation study

PDF

Examining donor engagement strategies: an exploratory study of the impact of performance gaps on donor retention and cultivation within higher education development offices

PDF

Innovative parental involvement: Utilizing information and communication technologies to increase parental involvement

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

PDF

The underrepresentation of Latinas as K−12 school district superintendents: an evaluation study

PDF

IT belongingness: from outcasts to technology leaders in higher education – a promising practice

PDF

Girls in STEM: the underrepresented trajectory in Tennessee: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Parent, Lovesun (author)

Core Title An unlikely partnership: engaging diasporas as stakeholders to international development donors

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 09/13/2023

Defense Date 07/07/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag and accessibility,decoloniality,diaspora,diversity,equity,home identity,inclusion,international development,international development partnerships,localization,OAI-PMH Harvest,Racism,remittances,transnationalism

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Brady, Melanie (committee chair), Green, Alan (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member)

Creator Email dr.loveparent@gmail.com,lparent@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113340425

Unique identifier UC113340425

Identifier etd-ParentLove-12379.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ParentLove-12379.pdf

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Parent, Lovesun

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230913-usctheses-batch-1097 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu