International Partnership in Higher Education Between the Global North and Global South: The Challenges and Implications from Uganda

• In Event: International Education: Dynamics, Issues and Explorations

Proposal

The international partnerships between higher education institutions from the Global North and Global South have been expanding over the past decades. However, there is a constant debate about the nature of international partnerships regarding whether they benefit all the partners equitably and equally. For instance, Lee (2021) discusses how institutions from the Global North frequently set the terms of partnership agreements, leaving Global South institutions in a reactive position, where they must align their goals with those of their more powerful counterparts to secure resources and recognition. Moreover, Knight (2013) has pointed out that these partnerships, though framed as mutually beneficial, often prioritize the strategic goals of Global North institutions, such as enhancing global rankings, expanding their influence, and securing intellectual and material resources. Tikly (2016) and Marginson (2016) argue that this unequal dynamic hinders the sustainability of projects in the Global South, as they are often designed to serve the interests of the Global North, with less regard for local context and long-term viability. Furthermore, De Wit and Altbach (2021) state that compared to the collaborators in the Global North, institutions in the Global South are more likely to compromise in negotiations with their partners. Recognizing the debate over the inequity among international partnerships, our study aims to re-examine this issue by focusing on the process of how the partnership ideas of joint projects are formulated and agreed upon.
In line with the core inquiry, we use postcolonial theory as a framework to guide our research. Postcolonial theory critically examines the enduring impacts of colonialism on formerly colonized societies, particularly how power imbalances and hierarchical structures continue to manifest in contemporary global interactions (Said, 1978; Spivak, 1988). It explores how these historical inequalities shape current relationships, often privileging the Global North over the Global South in economic, political, and cultural exchanges (Young, 2003). Within the context of international partnerships, postcolonial theory highlights how Global South institutions are frequently positioned as subordinate, leading to unequal power dynamics in decision-making processes (Loomba, 2015). With the postcolonial perspective, the critical rationale for locating the focus of the study is the belief that if the process of negotiation underlying these partnerships remains blurry and unscrutinized, such partnerships could have long-term undesirable and unintended impacts not only for the projects but also for the institutions. As such, our research questions are formed as follows: 1) In what ways do higher education institutions from the Global South compromise in the process of negotiating for partnership projects with their counterparts from the Global North? 2) What are the impacts of these decisions on sustainability and the long-term outcomes of the collaborative projects?
To ground our inquiries, we took a constructivist approach to conduct a qualitative case study in five universities in Uganda, interviewing ten administrative staff who engaged in work related to collaborative internationalization efforts undertaken in their universities, with more than three years of experience and involved in at least one case of establishing and managing collaborative projects with a partner from the Global North. These staff play central roles in navigating internationalization programming in these universities, and therefore, understanding their perceptions provides valuable insights into constructing international partnerships between institutions in the Global North and Global South. Individual semi-structured interviews were administered in English to all participants, focusing on identifying their perceptions of the experience of negotiating with partners in the planning stages. Meanwhile, the interview centered around their interpretation of the negotiation to determine what they perceived to be crucial to the success and sustainability of the projects.
Our findings reveal that institutionalized power dynamics significantly shape the negotiation processes of international partnerships between higher education institutions in the Global North and Global South, particularly at the level of government and foreign agencies. Interviewees expressed mixed feelings about the role of these agencies in mediating the partnerships. On the one hand, they recognized the benefits of official frameworks established by the Ugandan government and foreign agencies, which help regulate and balance some of the power disparities between institutions from the Global North and South. This institutionalization was seen to reduce harmful discriminations and unnecessary misunderstandings during negotiations, providing a sense of relief for Interviewees as they navigated inter-organizational dynamics. However, interviewees voiced frustration over the passive stance that Ugandan universities are often forced into, as the themes and modes of collaboration are typically predetermined by foreign institutions, leaving the institutions in the Global South with limited decision-making power. The power imbalance was particularly evident in how Global North institutions, often backed by prestigious funding sources such as UNESCO or the World Bank, set the agenda and intellectual direction of projects, positioning Global South institutions as “executors” rather than equal partners who have initiatives and priorities for the trajectory of education and knowledge development. Interviewees reported a sense of fatigue from the unequal footing in determining both the project themes and planning processes, where Global South institutions were often required to make significant compromises to align with the expectations and priorities of Global North donors. Despite their desire to challenge these dynamics, interviewees expressed a feeling of being trapped in a system that perpetuates their subordinate role, particularly in the negotiation stage of international partnerships.
In sum, this study contributes to the understanding of international higher education partnerships by filling a literature gap of lack of voices from administrators and key actors in the Global South about internationalization and its local effects. It also highlights the need to examine how different stages of internationalization initiatives, particularly between initial negotiation and subsequent implementation, are correlated to each other. The topic of the study highlights an aspect of inequality and imbalance in education. Despite the potential of digitalization to enhance educational opportunities and access to many, its expanded use in education will likely deprive many more of access to education, ironically, unless there are appropriate investments and policy interventions to level the opportunities. Thus, parallels exist between the research topic and the theme of CIES 2025.

Authors

• Wuqi Yu, University of Maryland-College Park

• PASCAL PAX ANDEBO, University of Maryland College of Education