Internationalisation – Making it work for Africa

Internationalisation is not a goal in itself but a means to an end and should be embedded in all academic activities as part of a strategy to improve quality and equity in higher education, according to Professor Hans de Wit, director of the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, United States.

Delivering a presentation on “Internationalisation of higher education – Global realities and perspectives” at the Higher Education Forum for Africa, Asia and Latin America (HEFAALA) second international symposium in Addis Ababa last month, De Wit questioned the significant investment in internationalisation made by institutions, particularly in the developing world, given that only a few individuals often benefit from it, particularly in the form of faculty and student mobility – aspects that have, together with global rankings and co-publication rates, come to dominate common understandings of higher education internationalisation and its benefits.

According to De Wit, given that only 20% of Europe’s students, 10% of United Kingdom students, and 0.1% of African students go abroad for study, the focus on internationalisation measured purely in terms of student mobility is questionable.

“If you consider issues such as access and equity, the question becomes ‘How to create an equal approach to internationalisation when only few can benefit’, he said. “It is not bad for students to go abroad if they have commitment and means to do it, but it is only for a small elite, so why invest so much energy in doing it?” he asked.

De Wit described internationalisation as a “relatively new but broad and varied phenomenon driven by a dynamic combination of political, economic, socio-cultural and academic rationales and stakeholders”. He said its impact on regions, countries and institutions depended to an extent on the local context and the identity of the institution and-or its region.

Global forces

“Global forces alone are not good drivers of internationalisation. You have to do it to improve quality, and in response to your role in a national and international context and in collaboration with stakeholders,” he said in response to a question from a delegate.

He argued that the fundamental reasons behind the drive to internationalise are seldom interrogated by institutions – the result being that institutional context, and the contribution that internationalisation of curricula can make towards quality, are at risk of being underplayed.

“There is no single model that fits all,” he told delegates.

Among the global forces driving internationalisation were the two conflicting trends of massification and a global knowledge economy defined by top research centres boasting internationally recognised research, and high student and faculty mobility rates, he said.

Working against these trends was a global political climate increasingly hostile to the idea of internationalism and the notion of global citizenship, and evident in the anti-immigrant policies of United States President Donald Trump, the nationalist revival behind the UK’s Brexit (also evident in other countries in Europe), and radical nationalism in Brazil.

De Wit said that mimicry of Western internationalisation policies by universities in the South had led to a replication of the preoccupation with rankings, partnership numbers, enrolment figures for students, foreign faculty, co-publication rates and less of a focus on quality and curricula.

He said even though cosmopolitanism is viewed as negative in some quarters, it was a growing trend at a number of levels and enjoying an emerging interest in the developing world, an interest which challenges its perceptions as a Western, Anglo-Saxon concept and speaks to what has been described as the “globalisation of internationalisation”.

“The World Bank, the Association of African Universities, the International Association of Universities – all have internationalisation agendas. African, Asian and Latin American institutions have internationalisation strategies and there are more and more national policies on internationalisation.” In addition, regionalisation was growing, with Europe (ironically itself under challenge) as a model, he said.

In countries such as the UK, Australia and the US, international student recruitment was perceived as an income-generator to compensate for reduced state funding (although this was being challenged by Trump policies in the US); and in developing countries there was also a focus on recruiting international students.

The challenge of quality

Against the backdrop of such growth – fuelled by competition, rather than cooperation – the challenge remains: quality – and debates about how to measure it in a way that works to the benefit of the institution.

“The reality is that most of the focus of internationalisation is on mobility of students for degree or credit purposes and, more recently, talent recruitment. Success in these areas is readily quantifiable with the result that international positioning takes place and universities are moved to boast about partnership numbers.

“But in reality, in 90% of agreements, often nothing is happening, or only one or two students have been exchanged,” he said.

As an alternative, De Wit argued in his presentation for the concept of “internationalisation at home”.

Incorporating the development of an internationalised curriculum of which mobility was an integral component, De Wit said such a model was gaining ground in Africa, Latin America and Asia as a means to improve higher education quality for more students and encourage a more inclusive interpretation of internationalisation: “Global learning for all.”

Global learning promotes the idea of students as analytical thinkers and global professionals -- learning in a global context. As Beelen and Jones put it: “Learn to be global in your domestic environment. Build global dimensions in the content of the curriculum and learning outcomes, assessment and teaching methods and support services (Leask, 2015).”

Internationalisation in Africa

Reiterating his arguments in a post-symposium discussion, De Wit said for African universities dealing with the issues of decolonisation and Africanisation, internationalisation strategies should be strongly guided by context.

“Africanisation should not be seen as opposite to internationalisation but as two sides of the same coin.

“Exclusive focus on Africanisation would mean isolation while exclusive internationalisation would imply ongoing dependency and copying of Western approaches to internationalisation, not embedded in the local context,” he told University World News. “Internationalisation at home in the African context is in my view exactly that: embedding internationalisation in Africanisation, developing an own approach to internationalisation.”

On the issue of labels such as “international university”, he said such a notion mistakenly assumes a common understanding.

“For some it is the same as ‘world-class universities' and based on reputation, rankings, research profile, whereas for others it is based on number of international students and staff, again for others on high study abroad and exchange performance, etc. So, it lacks a common definition and for that it is better to clarify strengths and weaknesses in international dimensions or activities,” he said.