In practice, internationalisation fails to be intentional

It is always difficult to find an agreed definition of a concept, especially when it is broad not only in its connotations but also its geographical scope. Like any other concept 'internationalisation of higher education' has been defined and redefined for the purpose of searching for more comprehensive and inclusive definitions.

Accordingly, De Wit and Hunter (2015) defined internationalisation of higher education as “the intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society”.

In his speech at the Second Higher Education Forum for Africa, Asia and Latin America (HEFAALA) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 25 to 27 July 2019, De Wit elucidated the updated definition of internationalisation of higher education by emphasising its intentionality.

However, in his contribution to University World News, 27 July 2019, Teferra argued that “internationalisation as regards the Global South, particularly Africa, is far from an intentional process”, and many institutions are implementing internationalisation “under coercion and contestation”.

Lively discussion

Subsequently, a lively scholarly discussion ensued between De Wit and Teferra regarding the intentionality of internationalisation of higher education, mainly in Africa. I would like to contribute to this debate, which is crucial to our understanding of how African higher education has been evolving.

I agree with De Wit that internationalisation of higher education should be an intentional process. However, this is 'in principle'. De Wit and Teferra agree that 'in practice' internationalisation of higher education in Africa is “far from an intentional process”.

But based on De Wit’s definition, should we not then logically conclude that in Africa no activity may legitimately be deemed 'internationalisation of higher education'? In fact, the practice of internationalisation in Africa fails to satisfy the condition of intentionality that is so central to De Wit’s definition.

This questions the validity of the term 'intentional' in the updated definition.

I believe that definitions often focus on what a concept or phenomenon looks like or should be (notions and principles), rather than how it is (practice). I also argue that we typically evaluate whether certain activities or practices qualify as something based on a definition. We rarely evaluate the definition based on the practice.

Redefining concepts

Yet, this does not necessarily mean the practice should not inform the definition. Therefore, to be as comprehensive as possible, we must redefine some concepts.

For example, when we think of a human being, what often comes to mind is an individual with two legs, hands, ears, eyes, etc. However, we cannot define a human being merely as an individual with these features. That would not be inclusive.

Likewise, we assume that nations and institutions know what is good for them and what they want to do. Hence, we expect not only internationalisation of higher education but also other strategies, initiatives and activities to be intentional. But including intentionality in the definition excludes ipso facto an extensive array of internationalisation activities in African higher education.

Abebaw Yirga Adamu is an associate professor of education at Addis Ababa University and director of the Ethiopian Institute for Higher Education, Ethiopia. Emails: abebawy2001@yahoo.com and abebaw.yirga@aau.edu.et.