International development projects involving Finnish higher education institutions operate in a complex transnational environment. While funding typically comes from Finland or other Northern sources, project activities are largely implemented in the Global South. This arrangement requires continuous cross-continental communication, effective knowledge sharing, and close collaboration among diverse partners. Since these projects aim to improve institutional practices and bring about sustainable change, learning becomes a central requirement for all actors involved.
This article explores how knowledge is generated and learning takes place within an international North–South development cooperation programme for higher education institutions funded by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. It examines the types of knowledge required for effective project implementation, how this knowledge is gathered and used, and how learning unfolds within the project context.
The analysis is based on interviews with staff from Jamk’s School of Professional Teacher Education, which acted as the coordinating agency for three four-year higher education development projects between 2020 and 2024. Through this role, Jamk has gained extensive experience in managing international development projects while also contributing expertise as a teacher education institution. This makes Jamk a relevant case for understanding how experienced project actors conceptualize knowledge and learning in development cooperation.
At the same time, the article acknowledges a clear limitation: the findings rely solely on perspectives from Jamk-affiliated participants. A fuller understanding of knowledge production and learning would require insights from partner institutions in the Global South. This limitation should therefore be considered when interpreting the results.
The projects discussed were implemented under the HEI ICI programme from 2020 to 2024, which aimed to strengthen institutional practices in the Global South through collaboration with better-resourced Finnish higher education institutions. Evaluations of the programme indicate that it performed well in achieving its intended outcomes and supporting Finland’s broader development goals. Funded as part of Finland’s official development assistance, the programme was designed primarily to benefit Southern partners, although Northern institutions also gained through increased funding opportunities, staff expertise, international visibility, and project management capacity.
As the coordinating agency, the Finnish institution is responsible for ensuring effective project implementation, achieving planned results, and complying with strict reporting and accountability requirements. This dual role creates a constant need for collecting, interpreting, and applying different forms of knowledge. Interviews revealed that project implementation relies on administrative knowledge, expert knowledge, and tacit knowledge, each serving distinct but interconnected purposes.
Administrative knowledge mainly consists of quantitative data such as working hours, budget use, and participant numbers, which are essential for reporting to funding agencies and host institutions. However, understanding what lies behind these numbers is equally important. Project coordinators need contextual insight into why variations occur and how activities are actually implemented on the ground. This interpretive layer transforms raw data into meaningful administrative knowledge that supports informed decision-making.
Expert knowledge relates to the substantive focus of the projects, including teacher education, curriculum development, digital pedagogy, and institutional reform. Rather than being treated as fixed facts, this knowledge is shaped by cultural, contextual, and organizational interpretations. Differences in how concepts are understood and applied can influence project outcomes, especially when partners operate in different educational systems and cultural settings.
Tacit knowledge plays a crucial role in explaining behaviors, priorities, and decision-making processes that are rarely documented but significantly affect collaboration. This includes informal power structures, organizational cultures, and unspoken norms that can either facilitate or hinder project progress. Such knowledge is often shared through trust-based relationships developed over time rather than through formal reporting mechanisms.
Learning in these projects occurs both as a planned outcome and as an ongoing process embedded in daily project activities. Formal learning takes place through training, mentoring, study visits, co-creation of curricula, and dissemination events, primarily targeting Southern partners. At the same time, project-level learning is required to ensure quality implementation, particularly in understanding results-based management, reporting requirements, and alignment with development policy principles.
The interviews highlight that learning also happens through co-creation, feedback processes, self-evaluation, report writing, and internal and external evaluations. Learning by doing emerges as a key mechanism, enabling both Northern and Southern actors to refine practices, address challenges, and adapt to evolving project realities. However, the data also suggests that critical reflection and constructive feedback, especially from Southern partners, are often limited, reducing opportunities for deeper learning.
Beyond the intended benefits for Southern institutions, the findings show that Northern actors and organizations also learn significantly through participation in development projects. Finnish project staff develop a deeper understanding of partner contexts, improve their collaboration skills, and gain professional motivation through personal learning experiences. For the coordinating institution, this learning has the potential to strengthen future project design and implementation, although the article finds limited evidence of systematic organizational learning.
Overall, the article highlights the tension between the administrative demands of development cooperation and the relational work required to build equitable, learning-oriented partnerships. While reporting frameworks prioritize quantitative data, meaningful collaboration depends on time, trust, dialogue, and shared reflection. Addressing this imbalance is essential for fostering more equal North–South partnerships and enhancing the long-term impact of international higher education development projects.
The article concludes that while extensive learning takes place within such projects, further research is needed to incorporate perspectives from Southern partners and to explore how coordinating institutions can better capture and institutionalize learning at the organizational level. Understanding these dynamics is a key step toward more effective, equitable, and sustainable international development cooperation.
