Historically, a ‘disconnection between internationalization and the national higher education policies’ has been observed in South Africa (IEASA 2004). The drive for internationalization was, at least at its early stages, primarily driven by the sector, and particularly by the International Education Association of South Africa (IEASA). As early as 2004, IEASA called for the ‘adoption of a National Policy on Internationalization’ (IEASA 2004).
National Policy Framework
Presently, South Africa is in the process of developing a policy framework for higher education internationalization. Internationalization had already been identified by government as a strategic goal some time ago, for example the DHET Strategic plan 2010/11 – 2014/15 stipulated the strategic goal ‘to promote the internationalization of the university education system, of the African continent in particular, and to support student exchange’ (DHET 2010:74). The 2013 White Paper on Post-School Education and Training recognizes the contribution of international partnerships to ‘knowledge production, intellectual property and innovation in South Africa’ and that ‘research partnerships and exchanges of students and staff can assist in strengthening our institutions, especially those historically disadvantaged institutions which do not have extensive international relations’. (DHET 2013:40) A clear commitment was made towards international collaboration:
‘Given the complex effects of internationalization on the South African system, it is necessary to develop a suitable policy framework for international collaboration in post-school education and training. This type of cooperation can benefit South African universities and other educational institutions, and serve to mitigate negative effects of internationalization, in line with existing bilateral and multilateral agreements, such as the SADC Protocol.’ (DHET 2013: 40).
The existing South African policy framework for higher education is interpreted by the DHET and CHE not to ‘bar knowledge mobility; institutions from entering into collaborative research and teaching; or joint degree/qualification offerings’’ (DHET 2016). However, it is also considered necessary that ‘all programme offerings which are a local component of collaborative offerings and qualifications must be accredited by the HEQC as with all other HE programmes’ (DHET 2016).
Progress has been reported on the development of the policy framework on internationalization, in 2013 a working group was appointed by the DHET to ‘suggest a policy framework on the offering collaborative qualifications/degrees’ [sic] (DHET 2016); another working group has been appointed in November 2014 ‘to assist with the development of the policy framework on internationalization and incorporate the recommendation on collaborative degrees’ (DHET 2016). The DHET aims to have the policy finalized by 2017, and wants it to be ‘overarching, inform and provide for alignment of individual institutional policies’ and to ‘incorporate the offering of collaborate or joint degrees or qualifications’. Furthermore, it is expected that the new framework ‘must facilitate rather than impede knowledge development and mobility’, that it must be ‘transformative with a view to also benefit HDIs, that it must ‘allow for institutions to maintain the independence and autonomy’, ‘guard against potentially negative effects associated with internationalization’, ‘build in measurability of its impact’ on higher education systems in South Africa, and ‘that it must primarily focus on post-graduate studies and knowledge mobility‘ (DHET, 2016).
The sector has through the International Education Association of South Africa (IEASA) and other channels been engaging on the anticipated internationalization policy since 2006 (IEASA 2015:7), and ‘it is anticipated that the final policy will smooth the path for greater student mobility, academic transfers, and inter-university collaborations’ (IEASA 2015:7)
Support structures for internationalization in South Africa
At the national level, the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) and the Council on Higher Education (CHE), an independent statutory body tasked inter alia with aspects of accreditation, quality assurance, monitoring and evaluation of higher education, are core governmental stakeholders in the internationalization process. With regard to internationalization of research, the Department of Science and Technology (DST) also plays a significant role.
IEASA is a non-profit organisation which includes the overwhelming majority of public universities in its membership. Its mission is ‘to advocate, promote and support the internationalization of Higher Education by providing a professional forum for institutions and individuals to address challenges and develop strategic opportunities in international education in Africa and the rest of the developing world’. Directors responsible for internationalization at the country’s 26 public universities converge regularly in the organisation’s ‘Director’s Forum’, which advises its Management Council on strategic matters. It organises annual international conferences on internationalization, was seminally involved in the organisation of a global conference on internationalization in 2016 in the country and drives capacity building for internationalization through a Short Learning Programme on internationalization, which is regularly offered since its inception in 2014.
Internationalization at South African universities
The process of internationalization is at different stages at different South African universities, the observation that one can distinguish between universities which embrace comprehensive internationalization, such which are at the stage of early implementation of internationalization activities and such which take a minimalist approach (Jooste:2006), with various shades between the extremes, is still appropriate.
Many universities still lack internationalization strategies and/or policies. According to the preliminary results of the survey the WG1 is currently conducting, which so far contains responses by 14 South African public universities, out of the 11 respondents to the question of whether their institution has any kind of document or reference to internationalization, 8 answered affirmatively and 3 reports no such document in place.
The respondents mainly account for the lack of such a strategic document by a lack of support and understanding by the decision makers. On a similar note, weak management support is equally seen as one of the main challenges to internationalization even at the institutions with an internationalization policy or statement.
At the same time, all the 14 respondents answered positively to the question as to whether internationalization is considered a priority at their institution. Both the document analysis and the survey results point to the following main rationales for ‘going international’: branding/institutional profiling, capacity building and the cooperation/competition arena (regional, international).
Institutional branding/profiling appears closely linked to the institutions’ goals for national, regional (i.e. in Africa) and global appeal as centres of excellence, for attracting international students and scholars as a means of internationalization at home and for income generation. On a similar note, the stated institutional priorities regarding internationalization of the curriculum are linked to the efforts to attract international staff and students mainly, with the view to exposing domestic students with an international(ized) environment and the development of intercultural and social competencies of domestic students. Cooperation, as stated in the internationalization documents and confirmed by the survey results, is very much focused on the intra-African partnerships and the positioning of South African universities in the continent as well as the BRICS strategic partnership(s). EU-funded cooperation programmes are often mentioned as a means to increase student and staff exchanges and build capacities. Institutional strategic priorities, judging by the findings of the survey, are the pursuit of joint research projects, peer learning and training opportunities.
While the majority of universities has international offices, those vary greatly in size, shape and level of support afforded to the internationalization process. While universities like the University of Cape Town or the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Universities boast international offices with more than 25 staff members, many others are limited to small units.
Differences can also be noted with regard to institutional steering of internationalization. Some institutions have committees in place which are responsible for internationalization and include the major stakeholders in the core academic project (e.g. Deputy Vice Chancellors, Deans, Academic Directors).Others lack such committees, and the involvement of stakeholders from the core business, especially Deputy Vice-Chancellors Academic/ Teaching and Learning/ Research/ Community Engagement as well that of Deans and academic researchers in steering and understanding the institutional steering of internationalization varies greatly. Also, the level of involvement of university leadership, specifically at Vice-Chancellors level, in the process of internationalization varies greatly from institution to institution. Respondents to the survey indicated that in most cases, main responsibility for internationalization is vested in Vice-Chancellors and/or Deputy-Vice Chancellors (Academic, Research, Student affairs, Strategic initiatives, etc.).
Capacity building requirements to support internationalization strategy development in South Africa
Dedicated capacity building for Higher Education Internationalization in South Africa is by and large limited to a short learning programmes offered collaboratively by the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University and IEASA. It presently aims at internationalization stakeholders at all levels, but in practice the majority of participants are administrators in international offices both from South Africa and the SADC region.
Reflective of the different levels of involvement of academic leadership in the internationalization process, there are still shortcomings with regard to understanding of internationalization amongst academic leaders. As already noted above, lack of understanding hand in hand with the lack of support is mentioned as one of the potentially biggest barriers to internationalization. Capacity development for academic leaders remains a priority in order to overcome what one respondent named ‘poor leadership and lack of positive attitude of staff’. Similarly, the capacitation of administrators needs to be strengthened. The opportunities for capacity building identified in the survey mainly pertain to training and mentoring programmes, the empowerment of young, enthusiastic staff and, looking at the bigger picture, and the development of skills to balance different agendas operating within the institution.
Capacity building within the framework of IMPALA – Site visits and workshop
The preliminary findings indicate that there is a need for training and capacity building at different institutional levels. Given the relevance of having supportive decision making structures, the aim of the site visits will be to bring together decision makers and practitioners (e.g. Vice-Chancellors/Deputy Vice-Chancellors and Heads of IROs) from European and South African higher education institutions with the goal of informing South African institutional leaders about and presenting successful examples of internationalization models, approaches and practices at a number of European HEIs. The visits will mainly consist of presentations and discussions on the most relevant topics as identified in relevant documents and from the surveyed public universities in South Africa (some suggestions: strategy development and implementation, partnerships, funding, marketing).
The goal of the workshop will be to facilitate sharing experiences and peer learning between IRO staff on practical, hands-on issues, and developing useful resources, such as best practice guidelines, on internationalization practices based on the information gathered in the research phase. In the first phase WG1 plans to conduct a number of interviews with the Directors of IROs at South African universities in order to get better insight into the training needs of the IRO staff.
Bibliography
Department of Higher Education and Training (2010) ‘Revised Strategic Plan 2010/11 – 2014/15 and Operational Plans for the 2011/12 Financial Year’.
Department of Higher Education and Training (2014) ‘White Paper for Post-Secondary Education’.
International Education Association of South Africa (2004). Towards a Policy on Internationalisation of Higher Education for South Africa: Global, National and Institutional Imperatives
International Education Association of South Africa (2015). International Students in South Africa. Published in Study South Africa (2016) pp 6 – 10
Jooste, N. (2006). Characteristics of an Internationalised University in South Africa, in Nelson Mandela University Colloquium Series vol II (2006).
Mabizela, M. (2016), ‘Draft Policy Framework on Internationalisation of Higher Education in South Africa.