INTERNATIONALISATION AT SU

The internationalisation plan of Stellenbosch University (SU) has a very specific objective: for SU to be inclusive, innovative, inviting and inspiring. The process therefore needs to build on 25 years of international relations at SU, to engage with the new SU Vision 2040 and Strategic Framework 2019–2024, to consider the national context, to take note of basic concepts within international higher education and to create a plan that is aspirational but realistic, focused but broadly empowering, challenging but attainable.

SU’s internationalisation plan should be made up of various building blocks. One of these is the existing extensive portfolio of international institutional and faculty or departmental-level partnerships and the recent partnership evaluation report. Another is the already significant engagement with higher education on the continent through, amongst others, the African Doctoral Academy, the European Union Intra-Africa Programmes, consortia like PeriPeriU and the African Research Universities Alliance. Others are the participation of more than 4 000 international students in academic programmes and existing inbound and outbound student and staff mobility programmes. Then there are standing mechanisms like the International Registration Fee (which supplements staff and operational budgets), Study Abroad Fees (which contribute towards sustaining outbound student mobility) and the recently introduced International Tuition Fee (which provides central and faculty budgets with additional income).

In its Vision 2040, SU commits to becoming “Africa’s leading research-intensive University, globally recognised as inclusive and innovative, where we advance knowledge in service of society”. This affirms the existing approach of the SU International Office – “. . . rooted in Africa, global in reach . . .”. The Strategic Framework 2019–2024 articulates SU’s vision and mission. It also articulates SU’s core strategic themes to be used as framework for further planning and implementation: to advance a transformative student experience, networked and collaborative teaching and learning, research for impact, and purposeful partnerships and inclusive networks; and to be the employer of choice and a thriving university.

The national Department of Higher Education and Training is now finalising the first national policy on the internationalisation of higher education. The policy aims to provide high-level principles, guidelines and broad parameters. It also aims to provide a national framework for the internationalisation of higher education within which higher-education institutions can develop and align their institutional internationalisation policies and strategies. The policy is expected to require universities to adhere to the rationale and principles of the policy framework and to the national strategies and priorities of the policy itself. The policy is also expected to require universities to determine their own measurable indicators of internationalisation.

For the internationalisation plan, it might be useful to define “internationalisation” within the SU context, as “an intentional commitment to and comprehensive action plan for integrating an international, intercultural and global dimension into the purpose, functions and programmes for all SU students and staff, in order to advance the quality of education and the impact of research, both in meaningful service of society.”

Defining “internationalisation” as “comprehensive” implies that it is an institutional imperative that should influence all aspects of campus life and that this “commitment” and these actions should be embraced by institutional leadership, faculties, students and all academic service and support units.

Why is SU investing in internationalisation? SU’s internationalisation activities of the past 25 years have contributed to the institution on four levels, usually referred to as the four rationales for internationalisation. These pertain to economic, political, academic and socio-cultural levels.

Economically, benefits to both SU and the local economy include generating income for outbound student mobility through the Study Abroad Programme. This has also attracted international funding for research projects. Politically, SU has contributed to the development of higher education on the continent. Academically, SU has developed joint degree programmes, foreign language programmes and the BCom International Business programme, which includes a compulsory semester abroad. And, socio-culturally, SU has contributed to, for example, Chinese language and cultural programmes being offered in local schools, volunteer community engagement programmes being developed and international students being integrated into student communities. SU has also contributed to creating internationalisation-at-home opportunities to local students, with local students participating in the annual Winter School.

These rationales can also be viewed from a so-called pragmatic-value-based or transactional-transformational continuum. For example, the Study Abroad students contribute not only to SU’s outgoing student mobility fund (the pragmatic/transactional continuum) but they also contribute to an international classroom experience for local students (the value-based/transformational continuum). Similarly, an agreement with a partner institution can be viewed as transactional (when concluded for the sole purpose of supporting a joint funding application or a student mobility programme) or as transformational (when entailing long-term institutional commitment to sharing resources and expanding the capacity of both institutions). The transactional-transformational distinction may also be relevant for measuring internationalisation outcomes.

In developing an internationalisation plan, the framework for mapping internationalisation centring on six dimensions of internationalisation proposed by Yuan Gao (2015) is a useful point of departure. These dimensions include governance and organisational support (human and financial resources) and support of students (numbers and mobility), faculties (the international profile of academic staff), curricula, research and engagement (partnerships and networks).

In view of the feedback on the Concept note on internationalisation at Stellenbosch University, the faculty dimension should include staff from support environments, while two further dimensions should be considered for inclusion – international communication, and innovation and technology transfer. Developing an internationalisation plan in line with these dimensions will also provide a framework for measuring progress in internationalisation from both a transactional (activities-based) perspective and a transformational (impact and quality) perspective.

Developing a first internationalisation plan for SU presents an opportunity to consolidate the University’s standing as a reliable and a significant role-player in international higher education. The plan needs to bring focus to SU’s existing wide range of internationalisation activities, while maintaining a thoughtful degree of suppleness to allow for a high level of responsiveness and agility to respond to opportunities within the dynamic arena of the internationalisation of higher education.