How intercultural education is reshaping higher education

Interculturality in universities is no longer just an aspirational concept but a pressing imperative that is reshaping global higher education. As institutions confront the legacies of colonialism and systemic exclusion, many are rethinking their structures, curricula and engagement with historically marginalised communities.

This shift is not solely about expanding access or representation – it calls for a fundamental transformation in how knowledge is produced, recognised and shared. By integrating diverse epistemologies, universities are expected to redefine their social role, moving beyond Western-centric paradigms.

Several countries in Latin America have made notable progress in this direction. Bolivia and Ecuador have enshrined interculturality in their constitutional frameworks, fostering universities that incorporate indigenous knowledge systems and languages into formal education.

Mexico has developed bilingual and intercultural higher education institutions specifically designed to serve indigenous communities. Brazil and Colombia have expanded affirmative action policies, increasing representation of Afro-descendant and indigenous students and faculty in public universities.

Argentina and Chile, though slower in institutional reforms, have seen growing initiatives that incorporate indigenous perspectives into research and academic programmes. These efforts signal a shift from a monolithic vision of higher education to one that attempts to embrace pluralism, creating spaces where multiple knowledge systems coexist and interact.

Latin America’s long-standing tradition of extensión universitaria (extra-mural education) has positioned its universities as institutions that are deeply connected to society, making intercultural education a natural extension of their role.

Originally designed to disseminate knowledge beyond academic walls, this tradition has shaped expectations around universities as spaces of social engagement. This foundation has made it easier for institutions to embrace interculturality, not as an external demand but as part of their historical mission.

Not surprisingly, Latin American universities are moving beyond hierarchical knowledge structures, recognising indigenous groups as active contributors rather than passive recipients. Through intercultural extension programmes, they integrate traditional knowledge, oral histories and alternative pedagogies, enriching both teaching and research.

Despite these advances, significant challenges remain. Many universities still operate within institutional structures that resist deep curricular reform, relegating indigenous and Afro-descendant knowledge to isolated programmes rather than integrating them into core disciplines.

Language remains a barrier, as most academic work is conducted in Spanish or Portuguese, limiting the inclusion of indigenous languages in research and teaching. Bureaucratic inertia and political instability further threaten the sustainability of intercultural programmes, which often rely on government funding that fluctuates with shifting policy priorities.

Additionally, some sectors within academia, shaped by positivist conceptions of knowledge production, remain sceptical of non-Western epistemologies, often viewing them as incompatible with scientific methodologies.

Global lessons

These tensions offer important lessons for universities worldwide. In North America and Europe, where efforts to decolonise curricula and diversify faculty have gained urgency, Latin America’s experience with interculturality provides both a model for fostering genuine epistemic plurality and a reminder of its challenges.

The emphasis on reciprocal knowledge exchange, rather than mere inclusion, presents an alternative framework for rethinking institutional engagement with historically marginalised groups.

Likewise, universities in Africa and Asia, which face similar challenges in integrating indigenous knowledge systems, can draw from Latin American experiences to develop approaches that move beyond tokenistic inclusion and toward real epistemic transformations.

By embedding interculturality into their core missions, Latin American universities are not only transforming themselves but also unintentionally contributing to a broader global conversation on the future of higher education.

Their efforts demonstrate that universities can serve as sites of epistemic justice, where multiple ways of knowing are not only acknowledged but incorporated into academic life. While challenges persist, the region’s progress in this area illustrates that higher education can – and must – move beyond its colonial legacies to become truly inclusive spaces of learning and knowledge production.

Lessons from Chile

Interculturality remains a significant challenge for Chilean universities. It is often implemented more as a declarative process rather than an integrated practice. The concept of interculturality lacks national conceptual clarity, though our study identified its connections with indigenous studies, multicultural relations, language studies, migration and territorial contexts.

In the northern and southern regions, the term is more strongly associated with native peoples and cultural heritage, reflecting the institutions’ geographical and cultural ties. By contrast, central universities align interculturality with pluralism, respect and social integration.

Our revision highlights a strong correlation between intercultural initiatives and legal mandates imposed on public universities. While these mandates have increased the visibility of interculturality, progress remains slow. To ensure interculturality permeates all institutional activities, a deeper integration into teaching, research and community engagement is essential.

A notable trend is the concentration of intercultural guidelines on students, with less focus on faculty and administrators, except in institutions where intercultural training is a central feature. This highlights a gap in engaging the broader university community, including administrative staff, in intercultural policies.

Addressing this gap is critical for developing comprehensive actions that reflect diverse perspectives within university life.

Moreover, the rise of managerialism in Chilean universities – emphasising market-driven imperatives such as efficiency, profitability and competitiveness – creates a significant tension with the goals of interculturality.

Managerialism often prioritises quantifiable outcomes and financial sustainability, potentially marginalising less commercially viable aspects like intercultural initiatives. This tension is evident as Chilean universities strive to integrate intercultural practices within a framework that predominantly prioritises market-orientated outcomes.

Despite advances in integrating intercultural elements into admission processes, training plans and student coexistence initiatives, there is a need for these efforts to be more strategically aligned with institutional goals. The managerial focus on efficiency and profitability often conflicts with the broader, more holistic objectives of intercultural engagement.

In research, specialised centres focusing on native languages, cultural practices and sustainability represent progress, yet the design of intercultural policies often continues to reflect historical inequities.

This includes a persistent modern colonial mindset that fails to fully engage with alternative knowledge systems and ancestral perspectives. As Stefano Claudio Sartorello notes, a critical approach to multiculturalism is necessary to address welfare-based and paternalistic measures.

Ultimately, interculturality offers an opportunity for situated learning through cultural exchange and interaction, fostering the development of intercultural competencies.

However, universities must navigate the tensions between managerialism and intercultural goals, ensuring that their commitment to diversity is not merely symbolic but integral to their institutional practices and strategic planning.

Julio Labraña is the director of institutional quality and a professor in the department of education at the University of Tarapacá in Chile. His expertise lies in sociological theory and higher education. He holds a Masters in Systemic Analysis Applied to Society from the University of Chile and a PhD in Philosophy from Witten/Herdecke University, Germany. His research explores the intersections of social systems theory, organisational change and the transformation of higher education, with a particular focus on semantics, governance and the impact of digitalisation. He has studied university policies, interdisciplinarity and innovation, as well as emerging challenges in the sociology of education. Labraña has published in international academic journals and actively contributes to discussions on the evolution of organisations in contemporary society.

Paulina Latorre is a scholar practitioner in the internationalisation of higher education. She has worked for more than 11 years in this area in several Chilean universities. She currently serves as director of community engagement at Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Temuco, Chile. She is a doctoral candidate of the Programme in Internationalisation of Higher Education (CHEI) at Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milán, Italy. She is a guest professor at the University of Guadalajara, Mexico, for the Masters in Higher Education, and professor of the Diploma in Management of University Internationalisation with a Latin American perspective organised by the Universidad Nacional del Comahue in Argentina. Paulina has developed research on internationalisation processes in Chilean and Latin American higher education institutions and has supported several Chilean universities in their strategies and policies.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.