By Xinyue Zhu
August 28, 2025
During my internship at the Rural Development Institute (RDI), I became a member of the Rural Capacity Building team, working under the mentorship of Dr. Wayne Kelly and Dr. Gary McNeely. My main task was to evaluate selected undergraduate and graduate programs at universities in Manitoba, focusing on how these programs contribute to the development of a core set of competencies and skills relating to community economic development (CED) – Communications, Community Engagement, Project Management, Research and Data Analysis, and Leadership. This evaluation also considered courses contributing to the understanding of seven community capitals, including Human, Social, Cultural, Political, Financial, Built, and Natural capitals. Although the work initially felt like a straightforward text analysis, it gradually sparked a deeper reflection on the relationship between educational content, capacity building, and the real challenges faced by rural communities.
Over the past several weeks, I completed an assessment of undergraduate and graduate programs across multiple post-secondary institutions in Manitoba, not just at Brandon University. I reviewed over 150 course descriptions, aiming to identify which courses address the core CED skills and community capitals. I have not started the in-depth data analysis, but I have noticed that while there was variation across the schools, certain patterns began to stand out. For instance, one observation was that many programs support interdisciplinary flexibility. Courses often connect areas like education, economics, environment, sociology, and rural development. Some even provide applied modules or field-based learning. These elements suggest that institutions are trying to equip students with adaptable knowledge and cross-sectoral skills.
As I continued the evaluation work, I began to develop a more nuanced understanding of what this analysis could offer. Though I didn’t have direct contact with students or faculty, I came to see that analyzing these secondary data sources was still a valuable way to explore how institutions conceptualize rural capacity building. At the same time, a question lingered in my mind: was relying mainly on subjective interpretation—without quantitative support—enough to produce meaningful and convincing insights? Could this method truly contribute to the broader goals of the project?
My doubts were dispelled when Dr. McNeely provided a copy of a journal article on rural policy education in Canada. In his piece, he critically examined how most Masters of Public Policy / Masters of Public Administration programs fail to address rural and Indigenous public policy — describing it as “pathetic and tragic.” After reading it, I reached out to him, and through our email exchange, he confirmed that my interpretation was accurate and that the course analysis method I was using closely aligned with his own approach. This conversation helped me realize that my work was meaningful and that the current methods for course evaluation are indeed valid.
This sense of connection deepened when I had the opportunity to conduct a long, in-depth interview with Dr. McNeely. The conversation was part of a separate report I was working on for a course in China, focusing on the theme of “visible but unreachable” rural public services—services that technically exist in rural areas, but remain inaccessible due to social, cultural, supervisory, or institutional barriers. During our interview, Dr. McNeely vividly described this phenomenon from a Canadian perspective. He explained how public services, though available on paper, are often rendered ineffective by structural and cultural barriers. His insights struck a chord with me, reminding me of similar challenges I had studied in rural China—particularly the persistent gap between policy design and real-world implementation. Hearing these issues discussed in the Canadian context helped me realize that this is not a uniquely Chinese problem. Rather, it is a shared rural dilemma, one that demands local knowledge, adaptive capacity, and continuous learning to overcome.
These reflections encapsulate my experiences and insights from my research internship this July. What started as a straightforward task turned into a valuable opportunity to connect theory with real rural challenges. I look forward to continuing this learning process and deepening my understanding through ongoing dialogue and research.