Internationalisation in HE is not a simple proxy for quality

Shifts in traditional understandings of higher education internationalisation, combined with the increased scale and variety of internationalisation opportunities available to scholars, institutions and students, invite a careful reconsideration of how we understand quality within the increasingly complex process of internationalisation.

The annual International Education Association of South Africa (IEASA) conference, held in Johannesburg in August, and the African Network for Internationalization of Education (ANIE) conference held in Accra in October this year, spotlighted the growing scale of internationalisation and the variety of opportunities it presents for students, staff, institutions and the broader education field.

These two conferences confirmed what we already know: because of such growth and diversification, the traditional view of internationalisation as the movement from one geographical region to another, particularly from the Global South to the Global North, no longer fully captures its complexity.

Today, a significant portion of international students in African higher education come from within the continent itself. This shift invites a reconsideration of how we understand quality within the process, a reflection central to this piece.

Defining internationalisation

In our work and for the purposes of this article, we drew on Savo Heleta and Samia Chasi’s (2023) definition of internationalisation of higher education as “a critical and comparative process of the study of the world and its complexities, past and present inequalities and injustices, and possibilities for a more equitable and just future for all. Through teaching, learning, research, and engagement, internationalisation fosters epistemic plurality and integrates critical, antiracist, and anti-hegemonic learning about the world from diverse global perspectives to enhance the quality and relevance of education”.

This definition is useful because it recognises the complexities inherent in the internationalisation process, which are not adequately captured by traditional definitions (see the work of Simon Marginson, 2023).

We also acknowledge the Report on Internationalisation of Higher Education at Public Universities in South Africa commissioned by IEASA and the British Council (2022-24). The report refers to diverse dimensions that might have implications for internationalisation.

South Africa’s higher education landscape consists of 26 public universities, traditionally categorised as historically disadvantaged (black-majority) or historically advantaged (white-majority).

Since the end of apartheid in 1994, the government has prioritised redressing past inequalities through education reforms.

At the same time, South Africa has integrated its higher education system into the global knowledge economy, a development that can, at times, conflict with the transformation agenda priorities like social justice, epistemic justice, and decolonisation. Movements such as #RhodesMustFall and #FeesMustFall (2015-16) reflect students’ ongoing efforts to refocus on these transformation goals.

It is within this context that universities also feel the pressure to internationalise higher education and participate in global knowledge production and exchange.

Tensions in policy and practice

Scholars such as Jane Knight and Hans de Wit (2018) have framed internationalisation as a process aimed at integrating international, intercultural, or global dimensions into higher education’s goals, functions, and delivery.

Adding these components is essentially seen as enhancing the quality of education and research for all and contributing meaningfully to society.

However, as Russell King and Parvati Raghuram (2013) point out, in the process of recruiting and teaching international students, there is tension in both policy and practice: international students are sought after to fulfil internationalisation agendas and boost economic contributions, yet they can also be seen as an “unwanted” population due to migration control concerns. This tension adds complexity to the experiences of both international students and staff.

Just before the COVID-19 pandemic, South Africa’s Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) introduced the 2019 Policy Framework for the Internationalisation of Higher Education which defines internationalisation as a deliberate process aimed at incorporating intercultural, international and global dimensions into higher education to enhance its quality.

However, while the presence of international students and staff might indicate some level of internationalisation, it cannot, by itself, be co-opted as a measure of quality.

According to the DHET (2020), institutions should prioritise the quality of their internationalisation initiatives, activities and programmes over quantity. The value of student, staff and knowledge exchanges, as well as the content of collaborations, is considered more important than how many international students a university hosts.

Despite this official position, in practice, there is a need for guidelines to ensure the quality of the internationalisation processes and experiences of those involved, beyond the numbers.

This is especially so because internationalisation comprises a range of activities in research, teaching, and learning that are not always assessed nor benchmarked. For example, as part of international student mobility, key factors include how international students experience social networking, pedagogical engagement, curriculum diversity, and available support – elements that are often overlooked in evaluations of quality.

Interviews with international students

To better understand the issue of quality in internationalisation, we conducted a study involving international students and staff at three South African universities – one rural and two urban – in 2021 and 2022.

Funded by the faculty of economic and management sciences at the University of the Free State, the project, which involved interviews with students and lecturers, explored international students’ learning experiences during the lockdown.

We found that responses to the pandemic were illustrative of the limitations in understanding and ensuring quality internationalisation. In line with saving the academic year, there was an emphasis on ensuring teaching and learning for students (local and international) guided by policy.

The Quality Assurance Guidelines for Emergency Remote Teaching, Learning and Assessment during the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020 emphasised the need for: i) clear and regular communication with staff and students; ii) evaluating modules and programmes for emergency remote teaching and learning; iii) staff training in remote teaching, learning, and assessment; iv) access to ICT and data; v) workload management; vi) data on student profiles and access to technology; vii) student support plans; and viii) regular, authentic engagement with students, including emergency remote formative assessments.

While universities tried to adhere to the policy, in practice, some international students who returned to their home countries fell through the cracks. For example, they could not access data provided to facilitate online learning, which could only be accessed within South Africa. While they could join lectures online, they had to pay for their own data, which was unaffordable for many.

Student well-being

One limitation was the limited attention to the quality of international students’ experiences and well-being. Drawing on Amartya Sen’s (1992) capability approach, we believe that the well-being of international students (and staff) should be a key indicator of educational quality. This encompasses, not just economic contributions, but the holistic educational and social experiences of individuals.

Sen emphasises the importance of a person’s overall well-being, arguing against a purely utilitarian perspective. Conversations with international students revealed that various factors, including physical, mental, spiritual, and social influences, contributed to difficulties in learning, reinforcing what other studies have found.

Therefore, these dimensions must be considered in any discussion of internationalisation and quality in higher education. Through the lens of the capability approach, education is fundamentally a social process centred on human interaction and engagement. The quality of education, student performance and overall experience are dependent on the support of both academic and non-academic staff.

Of course, some of the challenges faced by international students predate the pandemic. For example, our findings revealed that many international students struggled intensely due to their inability to socialise due to language barriers.

In addition to language, cultural differences, particularly for students transitioning from rural to urban settings (or vice versa), worsened the sense of isolation. Opportunities to connect and engage with others from different backgrounds were limited and often reliant solely on student initiative.

While higher education internationalisation provides access to international education, there are still challenges to overcome, particularly regarding limited support and social and academic integration for students, which hinders the quality of the experience. These are, to some extent, a result of varying levels of institutional commitment and resources set aside for higher education internationalisation (Chasi and Orla Quinlan, 2023).

Reframing quality in internationalisation

Given the temptation to foreground economic benefits, we argue for the need to humanise the process of internationalisation in higher education, drawing on the work of scholars like Ly Tran (2020) as well as Hannah Soong and Vihara Maheepala (2023).

Humanising internationalisation encourages us, as students, academics, and institutional systems, to view international students, not just as contributors to the economy, but as integral members of the academic community.

This perspective fosters cultural exchange, shared values and global learning that extends beyond the economic imperatives of internationalisation.

We also argue that quality higher education must offer a teaching and learning environment free from fear and anxiety, one that supports student services and extracurricular activities promoting cross-cultural interactions.

To ensure quality, institutions may adopt a contextualised, institution-wide approach that secures buy-in from all stakeholders, including academics and local and international students.

This means that internationalisation activities should be clearly outlined, funded, and regularly evaluated. In addition, internal quality assurance systems should include higher education internationalisation guidelines and not just use internationalisation as an indicator of quality.

Associate Professor Faith Mkwananzi is senior researcher (Higher Education and Human Development Research Group) at the Centre for Development Support, University of the Free State, South Africa. Dr Patience Mukwambo is a lecturer in the School of Education at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, United Kingdom.