Bhaso Ndzendze

13 November 2025

The Sixth Global Internationalisation Survey conducted by the International Association of Universities (IAU), finds that an increase in “global, international and intercultural knowledge, skills and competences for both students and staff” ranks #2 among the list of institutional benefits of internationalisation for universities around the globe. This is the concept of global citizenship education (GCE). However the idea is open-ended and abstract — and so is subject to debate.

In a new article titled ‘Global citizenship education and the internationalisation of higher education: Critical perspectives from South Africa,’ published by the International Review of Education, Samia Chasi (Rhodes University) and Savo Heleta (Nelson Mandela University) adopt a critical and decolonial approach to GCE. In particular, they take issue with the emergence of this concept in a global structure still defined by global North and Eurocentric dominance in the production of knowledge. In order to put forward a new definition of higher education internationalisation, they draw first from critical diversity learning (CDL), a framework developed in South Africa. They utilise Melissa Steyn’s (2015) ten criteria for CDL:

1. Understanding the role of power in constructing differences that make a difference

2. Recognising the unequal symbolic and material value of different social locations;

3. Having the analytic skill to unpack how systems of oppression intersect, coconstruct and constitute each other, and how they can be reproduced, resisted and reframed;

4. Defining oppressive systems such as racism as current social problems and not only a historical legacy;

5. Understanding that social identities are learned and are an outcome of social practices;

6. Possessing the vocabulary to facilitate discussions of privilege and oppression;

7. Being able to interpret coded hegemonic practices;

8. Analysing the ways in which diversity hierarchies and institutionalised oppressions are inflected through specific social contexts and material arrangements;

9. Understanding the role of emotions, including our own, in all of the above;

10. Working to transform oppressive systems and deepen social justice at all levels of society.

They conclude that the above criteria “can help students critically read, confront and engage with a complex and ever-changing world.”

Overall the article is quite comprehensive and builds on scholarship. A more concise definition of internationalisation -which is what the abstract promises – is hard to come by in the text. But reading between the lines we can conclude that their definition of internationalisation is normative global engagement. By this I mean that their work highlights the important and unique role of South Africa as a historic site and contemporary actor, which compels it to be an advocate of critical global engagement. That is, the point is not merely to engage with the world, but to change it ever so slightly for the better. My own experience – and more importantly the White Paper on Higher Education Internationalisation – cohere with this, given the emphasis on equitable partnerships.