Content uploaded by Susanne Ress
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Susanne Ress on Dec 07, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ccom20
Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Education
ISSN: 0305-7925 (Print) 1469-3623 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccom20
Colonial legacies in internationalisation of higher
education: racial justice and geopolitical redress in
South Africa and Brazil
Upenyu S. Majee & Susanne B. Ress
To cite this article: Upenyu S. Majee & Susanne B. Ress (2020) Colonial legacies in
internationalisation of higher education: racial justice and geopolitical redress in South Africa
and Brazil, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 50:4, 463-481, DOI:
10.1080/03057925.2018.1521264
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2018.1521264
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 17 Oct 2018.
Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3588
View related articles View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 5 View citing articles
Colonial legacies in internationalisation of higher education:
racial justice and geopolitical redress in South Africa and
Brazil
Upenyu S. Majee
a
and Susanne B. Ress
b
a
Educational Policy Studies, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA;
b
Center for Comparative and International Education, School of Education, Humboldt-Universität Berlin,
Berlin, Germany
ABSTRACT
Internationalisation of higher education has mostly been theorised
from a Euro-American perspective, taking less into account how
legacies of colonial expansion impose unique demands on univer-
sities. This article highlights the tensions that arise when univer-
sities must respond simultaneously to transnational pressures for
internationalisation and local demands for racial justice. Drawing
on insights from two qualitative case studies at public universities
in South Africa and Brazil, it is argued that the inbound mobility of
regional students serves the instrumental purpose of holding
together these conflicting imperatives at the level of the individual
institution without fully accounting for international students in
institutional discourses, policies and structures.
KEYWORDS
higher education;
international student
mobility; Africa; Latin
America; social justice
Introduction
Around the world, university administrators and policy makers increasingly devise
internationalisation policies in response to the proliferation of the knowledge economy
in higher education and to foster national development against the backdrop of
globalisation (Bolsmann and Miller 2008). It is widely acknowledged that internationa-
lisation –that is:
specific policies and initiatives of countries and individual institutions or systems to deal
with global trends [including] policies related to recruitment of international students,
collaborations with academic institutions or systems of other countries, and the establish-
ment of branch campuses abroad. (Altbach 2015,6)
engages a variety of stakeholders: governments, institutions, faculty, and students (de
Wit 2002). Within this broad internationalisation framework, this article focuses on the
understudied phenomena of inbound international student mobility in postcolonial
contexts, and how it intersects with national efforts to reform higher education systems
to democratise access for historically marginalised populations. More precisely, we offer
a conceptual and comparative reflection on the significance of the inbound mobility of
CONTACT Susanne B. Ress susanne.ress@gmx.de Center for Comparative and International Education, School
of Education, Humboldt-Universität Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, Berlin 10099, Germany.
COMPARE, 2020
VOL. 50, NO. 4, 463–481
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2018.1521264
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms ofthe Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
regional students into South Africa (from the Southern African Development
Community [SADC]) and into Brazil (from the Community of Portuguese-language
Countries [CPLP]).
South Africa and Brazil offer compelling cases for comparison because they share
important characteristics: in both countries, histories of colonial occupation (apartheid
and Portuguese colonialism) have provided the grounds for what today are highly
unequal higher education systems (Badat 2008; Schwartzman and Paiva 2014); both
represent attractive study destinations for growing numbers of regional students
(Kotecha 2012; Milani, Da Conceição, and M’Bunde 2016); both aspire to regional
leadership roles (Flemes and Wojczewski 2010), and both countries have made efforts
to improve access to higher education for historically excluded student populations
(Akoojee and Nkomo 2011). Moreover, public universities in both countries must strike
a balance between the imperative of global competition (e.g. university ranking systems)
and domestic demands for institutional transformation.
Drawing on insights from qualitative case studies at two public universities in South
Africa and Brazil, this article illustrates how internationalisation, especially inbound
regional student mobility, intersects with longstanding patterns of racialised educational
inequalities. It examines the two cases across recent efforts to expand, equalise, and
internationalise opportunities for higher education. It is argued that the presence of
regional students gives the impression that universities are undertaking internationali-
sation while simultaneously addressing racial justice demands. At the level of the
individual institution, regional students come to represent both –the increased pre-
sence of non-national and Black students (proxies for internationalisation and for
transformation). This positions regional students at the intersection of the economic
and the sociocultural rationale detailed in Knight’s(1997,2004) well-known typology of
internationalisation. Yet, it requires shifting the theoretical conceptualisations of the
political and the sociocultural rationales –beyond the assertion of national identity and
the promotion of intercultural understandings (de Wit 2002)–to account for inbound
student mobility as a form of geopolitical redress.
To develop this argument, we review the internationalisation literature and explain
the methodology that guided the research, before discussing our findings. At the end,
we summarise the main line of argumentation. The positionality of regional students in
South African and Brazilian universities and the instrumentalisation of their presence
require comparative and international education scholars to grapple more carefully
with the questions of what constitutes a public university (in postcolonial contexts and
beyond) when aspirations to compete in a globalised higher education landscape are in
conflict with demands for redress, educational equity and decolonisation. In the con-
clusion we offer some thoughts regarding these concerns.
Globalisation and internationalisation
Although internationalisation of higher education means many things, scholars often
perceive it as a response to globalisation pressures. ‘Globalisation’has been used to refer
to the social processes that constitute the rapid movement of ideas, goods, and people
around the globe, radically transforming relations among people and communities
across national borders (Cohen and Kennedy 2007). Felix Maringe (2010) characterises
464 U. S. MAJEE AND S. B. RESS
globalisation as a multidimensional concept whereby sociocultural, technological, poli-
tical, and ideological aspects become presumably more and more homogeneous and
driven by free market principles. While people continue to live in particular localities,
globalisation has given rise to new forms of transnational interconnectivity increasingly
integrating the local into larger, globe-spanning networks (Rizvi 2011). Scholars widely
acknowledge that globalisation produces significant repercussions for higher education.
It leads to the emergence of a global knowledge economy characterised by heavy
investment in knowledge industries, dependency on knowledge products for economic
growth, growing demands for highly educated knowledge workers, the spread of
English as lingua franca in research, and the growing relevance of information and
communication technologies (Altbach and Knight 2007).
The more policy makers and university administrators are confronted with an
intensified globalisation, the more they are drawn to internationalisation policies to
meet the challenges and seize the opportunities presented by this global interconnec-
tivity. Scholarly accounts of internationalisation are also surging, covering a wide range
of topics. Knight (1997,2004), who has pioneered internationalisation research, devised
typologies of internationalisation research (see also de Wit 2002; Maringe and
Woodfield 2013). Her initial classification distinguished between the political, the
sociocultural, the academic, and the economic rationales (Knight 1997).
The political rationale pertains to a nationalistic perspective, which links back to
international education as a ‘soft power’tool for nation-states around the world to
assert their influence (Nye 2004). Governments have long been investing in internatio-
nalisation to foster future diplomatic and economic relations. The academic rationale
presents internationalisation as adding value to national higher education systems and
triggering institutional change (Frank and Gabler 2006). This, however, poses concerns
to those who fear that the emphasis on the global might result in uniformity and
homogeneity among tertiary institutions at the local level. Scholarly accounts grouped
under the sociocultural rationale centre on respect for cultural diversity in an effort to
counterbalance these homogenising effects. Universities are viewed as institutions that
emphasise the preservation of national culture while promoting mutual and cross- and
intercultural understanding (de Wit 2002). Lastly, and by far the largest body of work, it
seems, falls within the realm of the economic rationale. It centres on how countries
respond to growing global economic pressures including the global competition for
academic talent (Wildavsky 2012). Yet many scholars are concerned that if the market
logic continues dominating discussions on higher education, university leaders will feel
more and more compelled to prioritise fields directly linked to revenues (e.g. STEM),
leaving fields behind that are central to addressing sociocultural issues but are less
remunerative (e.g. social sciences, humanities) (Kim 2009).
Knight (2004) further differentiated between national-level and institutional-level
rationales, whereby national-level rationales include human resource development,
strategic alliances, commercial trade, nation building, and social/cultural development,
whereas institutional-level rationales include international branding and profile, income
generation, student and staffdevelopment, strategic alliances, and knowledge produc-
tion. This later typology highlights internationalisation at home and abroad as divergent
but interrelated spheres. We contend, however, that neither of these typologies fully
captures the entanglement of democratisation and geopolitical redress in post-
COMPARE 465
apartheid/post-colonial contexts. Very little research has aimed to understand and
conceptualise internationalisation efforts in the context of the historical particularities
of the postcolonial condition. With some notable exceptions –Habib (2016) and Hall
(2004)–scholars have rarely examined the challenges that policy makers and admin-
istrators face, given the demands of local movements for educational equity, in response
to situated histories of colonisation vis-à-vis institutional and economic pressures to
internationalise higher education. The South African and Brazilian case studies featured
in this article spotlight the tensions between justice-oriented goals and processes in
higher education and the internationalisation imperatives of universities as embodied
by the figure of the regional student.
Decoloniality as research framework
The suspicion remains that processes of globalisation and the proliferation of inter-
nationalisation agendas represent yet another vehicle to promote Euro-American logics
in the guise of the ‘global’(Jowi 2012; Leite 2010). A useful framework for under-
standing the complex challenges facing public higher education systems in South Africa
and Brazil as they navigate (post-/neo-) colonial relations is decoloniality. Emerging out
of the struggles of colonised peoples, decoloniality describes a set of diverse approaches
that propose coloniality as the problem in the modern age: there can be no analyses of
Euro-American-centric modernity (and its re-appropriated variants in post-colonial
contexts) without considering the history of the slave trade, empire, colonialism, apart-
heid, neo-colonialism, and underdevelopment (Mignolo 2007; Ndlovu-Gatsheni and
Zondi 2016: Mbembe 2017). A decolonial epistemic perspective allows for the systema-
tic interrogation of the global asymmetries that constituted imperial power by challen-
ging longstanding Euro-American claims to a universal, neutral, objective, and
disembodied epistemology (Grosfoguel 2007; Maldonado-Torres 2007; Ndlovu-
Gatsheni and Zondi 2016; Quijano 2007). The decoloniality framework illuminates
the tensions between internationalisation as conceived in the Euro-American west
and racial justice demands in post-apartheid/post-colonial contexts. However, the
binary cartography of decoloniality fails to take into account regional relations –
South Africa’historical relations with other SADC countries or Brazil, one of
Portugal’s main colonies and importer of more enslaved labourers than any other
country in the world.
In the case of South Africa, the SADC countries played a pivotal role in the struggle
against apartheid, in supplying migrant labour for South African mines and as invest-
ment destinations for South African capital (Saunders 2011). South Africa also owes a
moral debt: the war of terror waged by the apartheid regime in the 1970s and 1980s
against Southern African countries to try and prevent largely anti-apartheid forces from
undertaking operations to end apartheid left more than a million of the region’s people
dead and is estimated to have cost the region more than tens of billions of dollars in
destroyed infrastructure and lack of development opportunities (Booth and Vale 1995;
Hentz 2005; Saunders 2011). Despite the costs of the destabilisation policy, the coun-
tries in the region welcomed South African students, and helped educate and train
many of the professionals who are currently the mainstay of South Africa’s economy.
466 U. S. MAJEE AND S. B. RESS
In the case of Brazil, the Transatlantic Slave Trade provided the foundation for the
economic development of the nation. Between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries,
Portuguese slave traders and their middlemen transported over 5.5 million people from
West-central Africa (e.g. Bight of Benin, Luanda) and Mozambique to Brazil (Lovejoy
2011; Trans-Atlantic-Slave-Trade Database Voyages)
1
to work on farms and in mines
rendering the men, women, and children a commodity in the triangular trade between
Africa, the Americas and Europe. Slavery was abolished only in 1888, yet followed by a
number of evolutionist and determinist theories developed by Europeans and North
Americans and adopted by Brazilian social scientists at the beginning of the twentieth
century, which declared the cultural inferiority of Africans as scientifically proven and
biologically determined (Schwarcz 1999). As a result, a politics of Whitening Brazilian
society ensued, which relegated non-White Brazilians to the poorest segments in the
society (Telles 2004). When the Brazilian government under the presidency of Luis
Inácio Lula da Silva (2003–2010) revived Africa-Brazil relations, it justified its efforts in
the name of solidarity. Lula construed internationalisation of higher education as a
form of reparation (if only symbolically) for the historical debt Brazil accrued from
slavery, and as a form to recognise Afro-Brazilian’s role in building the nation
(Cesarino 2017).
In Europe, internationalisation and international student mobility have also been
approached in terms of regionalisation to foster a regional identity and create European
citizenship in the aftermath of World War II (de Wit 2002). The focus has been on
multicultural dimensions to inspire international tolerance and respect. By contrast, in
South Africa and Brazil international student mobility is framed in terms of develop-
ment and support to other countries in the region as a form of regional cooperation for
development and geopolitical redress that acknowledges the role other countries played
for national economic advancement. These policy efforts are linked to South Africa and
Brazil’s emerging role as regional hegemons (Majee forthcoming; Ress forthcoming).
Selection of case studies
The case studies that inform the discussion have been conducted independently. They
shared as a starting point an interest in international students’experiences in southern,
thus far under-studied, contexts. South Africa and Brazil have become popular study
destinations for a variety of reasons. Both countries are increasingly regarded as leaders
in their respective regions (Flemes and Wojczewski 2010). Their higher educations
systems are relatively well developed and English and Portuguese as languages of
instruction are widely shared within the respective regions. Because of limited higher
education opportunities, the general scarcity of employment, and political instability in
their home countries, many regional students regard South Africa as a coveted study
and work destination (Kotecha 2012; Sehoole 2011). Nearly one-half of SADC’s mobile
students study in South African universities (UNESCO 2012), numbering 52,878 in
2015 (Council on Higher Education 2017). In Brazil, the influx of students from African
countries has also been growing, from 116 students in 2004, to 4264 students in 2009
and to 5202 in 2014.
2
Moreover, the South African and Brazilian governments are
subsidising regional students. Pursuant of the SADC Protocol of 1997, SADC students
are treated as domestic students for purposes of fees and accommodation. In Brazil,
COMPARE 467
public higher education is tuition-free and international students can apply for need-
based stipends (Milani, Da Conceição, and M’Bunde 2016).
Research methodology
The case studies are doubly anchored in: (1) organisational ethnographies (Eberle and
Maeder 2011) and (2) historical reason (Mbembe 2017). Regarding (1), both are
embedded in a critical development studies framework –development as discursive
regime that constructs its objects of interventions (Ferugson 1994; Popkewitz 1998) and
in an understanding of educational policies as processes of vertical interrelations –from
school to mid-level bureaucracies to national policies to global discourses (Bartlett and
Vavrus 2014). Both frameworks regard policies as technologies of power and sense-
making devices by which people organise and justify their everyday practices (Kendall
2007; Shore, Wright, and Però 2011). In this sense, the universities selected as research
sites sit at the intersection of national, regional, and global pressures. Hence, they
afforded an opportunity to study how competing imaginaries of the roles and missions
of public universities are conceptualised, institutionalised, contested, and re-
appropriated.
Regarding (2), we forefront an understanding of history that refuses to gloss over the
fact that the idea of internationalisation of higher education rests on a history longue
durée of colonial expropriation and exploitation of non-Europeans’labour to fuel the
global capitalist logic of progress and modernity. We depart from notions of reliability
and validity in the sense that they carry ideas of allegedly universal understandings of
objectivity, which in fact is only a cultural parochialism invented during the enlight-
enment era in eighteenth-century Europe (Popkewitz 1998). Instead we provide a
narrative that attests to the complexities of educational policy making in post-apart-
heid/post-colonial contexts, which does not gain its strength from ‘methodology’; rather
it is ‘validated’(that is, claimed to be true) by virtue of its situatedness in history
(Mbembe 2017). In short, we found the answers to our questions not so much in
scripted approaches to data analysis (in the traditional sense) rather than in a reading of
universities as relational entities imbued with historical reason (in the decolonial sense),
through which we hope to impart lessons that are relevant for internationalisation
policy concerns more broadly.
South Africa
The South African case study draws on ethnographic research conducted between 2014
and 2016 at one of the country’s public universities. It is among the country’s top-rated,
historically White, research-intensive public universities and has some of the highest
proportions of Black South African and international students. According to institu-
tional records, as of 2013, the university enrolled more than 30,000 students: 68%
undergraduates, 31% postgraduates, 1% non-degree students. Of all students, 10% were
international students, of whom at least 70% come from SADC neighbours (e.g.
Zimbabwe, Swaziland, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Zambia). The
research was conducted in three phases over six months in total, including the collec-
tion of a wide spectrum of policy documents and 90 in-depth interviews with diverse
468 U. S. MAJEE AND S. B. RESS
institutional actors including 26 university administrators, 15 staffand faculty, 30
international students, and 19 South Africa students. A variety of university settings
(e.g. student organisations, hallways, cafeterias, dorms, etc) were observed. To verify
insights gained form this particular case study, five expert interviews with adminis-
trators from other South African universities were conducted. Interviews were audio-
recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed through ‘concept mapping’(Butler-
Kisber 2010), which involves sifting through research texts and documenting emerging
interpretation in a series of visual, relational concepts. The visual mapping technique
allowed for a conceptual understanding and a holistic overview of patterns in the data,
thus helped with the formulation of emerging analytic ideas.
Brazil
The Brazilian case study draws on ethnographic research conducted between 2012 and
2015 at a government-funded international university with the explicit mandate to
foster relations with CPLP countries. Inaugurated in 2011, by 2015, the university
enrolled 2666 undergraduate students, 73% of them Brazilian nationals and 27% non-
Brazilian nationals from Guinea Bissau, Angola, Mozambique, São Tomé e Principe,
Cape Verde, and East Timor. The research involved five months of ethnographic
fieldwork, including repeated and in-depth interviews with 24 professors, 20 students,
and 5 administrators, as well as countless informal conversations with students, pro-
fessors, and administrators who were purposefully selected to reflect the general
demographics (e.g. gender, socioeconomic, ethno-racial, linguistic, national, profes-
sional and disciplinary backgrounds). I conducted 133 hours of in-classroom and
over 400 hours of on-campus (e.g. general assemblies, faculty meetings, library, hall-
ways, university restaurant) and off-campus (e.g. bus stops, market square) observa-
tions. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using MS Office
applications following a Grounded Theory methodology (Clarke 2005) and the first and
second cycle coding procedures suggested by Saldaña (2013).
Terminology
Deploying ethno-racial descriptors as a form of categorisation is always complicated,
therefore a word on terminology. In the South African case the 2011 censuses distin-
guishes between Black Africans (79.2%), Coloured (8.9%), Indian/Asian (2.5%), White
(8.9%), and other (0.5%).
3
In the Brazilian case, the 2010 census distinguishes between
Branco (White, 47.7%), Pardo (mixed-race or Brown, 43.1%), Preto (Black, referring to
the darkest Brazilians, 7.6%), Amarelo (Yellow or of Asian descent, 1.9%), and Indígena
(Indigenous, 0.4%).
4
In everyday interactions, Brazilians use Negro, which also trans-
lates into Black in English. We recognise that classifying populations by race and
ethnicity, through censuses or otherwise, naturalises dividing lines –such as the lines
between who is Black and who is White –while they are in fact socio-historical and
‘cultural impositions upon the natural fact of physical variation among human beings’
(Loveman 2014; xiii [see Christopher 2009)] for similar argument regarding the South
African census). We use the terms Black and White because much of the tension
between internationalisation efforts and domestic demands for redress and educational
COMPARE 469
equity hinges on the racialised inequalities that ensued from apartheid and colonial
history. In South Africa, a White minority exercised complete political power over the
rest of the population until the 1994 transition to democracy. Many Black South
Africans have long been demanding racial justice to mediate the legacies of the apart-
heid era (Badat 2009). In Brazil, White elites have long been denying that racialised
inequalities even exist and Afro-Brazilian activists have long been fighting for the
recognition of race (raça or cor [colour]) as a legitimate political category through
which to advance claims for social justice (Paschel 2016).
Colonial legacies and recent reform efforts
South Africa –apartheid and the decolonial struggle
Higher education in South Africa has been profoundly shaped by the dynamics and
persistent salience of race (Seekings 2008). Apartheid was a comprehensive, state
driven, top-down system premised on the making and remaking of society through
policy formulated by government and implemented by the different government
departments and state apparatuses (Muller, Maassen, and Cloete 2006). In line with
this vision, the South African higher education system was segregated into institutions
reserved for White South Africans and institutions tasked with providing limited
tertiary education to those who were not classified as White (Council on Higher
Education 2010). Intended to ensure that Blacks would have no place in the community
of Euro-descendants, apartheid education limited opportunities for Blacks to semi-
skilled labour force thereby forging inferiority among Blacks and superiority among
Whites, which in turn promoted Black intellectual under-development (Maile 2011).
Due to its historical and contextual peculiarities, South Africa’s higher education
reform agenda is caught between the logic of incorporating within a competitive global
economy and national concerns for redress and racial equity (Cooper 2015; McLellan
2008). A top-level university administrator pointed out that ‘transformation’is the
official word and was part of the anti-apartheid repertoire in South Africa even before
1994 (interview, 6 September 2015). He argued that, in its broad sense, transformation
has to do with empowering the Black South Africans, who were most marginalised
during apartheid. It expresses the need for racial distribution of students and faculty to
mirror the country’s racial demographics, an Africanised curriculum to replace the
dominantly Euro-centric curriculum, and the institutional culture to be responsive to
the academic and other needs of Black South Africans.
The idea of creating a more equitable higher education system that reflects the
country’s diverse society in terms of race, gender, and socioeconomic status found
expression through eight institutional priorities intended to increase diversity and racial
equity on campus. The priorities include: (1) mobilising funds to appoint new African
and Coloured academics, and advance African and Coloured senior/associate professors
into professorship; (2) reforming the curriculum and rethinking pedagogy; (3) re-
naming buildings and statues to strike a balance between names derived from sponsor-
ships and donations and those relevant for institutional identity; and introducing local
languages such as IsiZulu and Suthu to permit multilingual instruction.
470 U. S. MAJEE AND S. B. RESS
To describe this need for sociocultural and epistemological redress, the official
discourse spoke of ‘transformation’, whereas Black student and scholar activists pro-
moted the term ‘decolonisation’. As a Black, non-national professor pointed out, the
notion of decolonisation ‘assumes that the current condition or situation in South
Africa is still a colonial condition, starting with the name of the institutions, culture,
what is being taught and how, and who is teaching’(personal conversation). As
championed by the most radical among Black South African student activists, the
decolonisation discourse agitates against what the students see as institutionalised
racism and Whiteness; confronts hierarchies in institutional governance and other
structures; and puts pressure on the university to transform in more fundamental
and radical ways. As expressed through the 2015 and 2016 #RhodesFeesMustFall
student protests (Booysen 2016; Jansen 2017), the radical decolonisation stance invoked
notions of power and hierarchies and focused on the roles and positionality occupied by
Black person within the university: who taught, what was taught, who got to be
financially excluded.
Brazil –transatlantic slave trade and affirmative action policy
Throughout most of the twentieth century, Brazilian elites upheld the idea of racial
democracy portraying ethno-racial relations in Brazilian society as harmonious and
tolerant. They celebrated cultural mixing (miscenginação) and considered racial cate-
gories fluid along a colour-continuum (especially in comparison to the colour-line
between Blacks and Whites in the USA). At the same time, the belief in the superiority
of Europeans was widespread. Brazilian elites encouraged European immigration to
replace slave labour after the abolition of slavery while obviating questions of discri-
mination and poor socioeconomic integration of freed slaves. These hierarchies dis-
cursively and materially placed Blacks at the bottom and Whites at the top of Brazilian
society (Telles 2004).
Brazil’s educational structures served to maintain these inequalities. Historically, the
educational system has been two-tiered. It combines private and public institutions in
an inverse status position across different levels of education. At the primary and
secondary level, private schools are considered to offer better quality education than
public schools. Therefore, middle- and upper-income families, who can afford to pay
tuition, send their children to private schools. At the tertiary level, on the other hand,
public universities (federal and state institutions), which charge no tuition, rank among
the most elite in the country. Access to these public universities has traditionally been
limited and gated through competitive entrance examinations (vestibular). Often,
though not always, private school students have been better prepared and therefore
have been more likely to pass these examinations. Many low-income, public school
students have been left to the less competitive and mostly less prestigious private
universities because, as in South Africa, they have not been prepared well enough for
either public university entrance examinations or successful completion of their studies
(McCowan 2016a). Long-standing patterns of racialised socioeconomic inequalities
have led to the systematic exclusion of non-White students from higher education
(Bailey and Peria 2010). In 2006 20% of White college-age students attended university,
COMPARE 471
whereas less than 6% of their non-White peers were enrolled (Paixão and Carvano
2008).
As in South Africa, since the beginning of the 2000s and in response to sustained
activism and in collaboration with social movements (e.g. Movimento Negro [Paschel
2016]), the Brazilian government launched a number of reforms to combat these
inequalities. In 2005, the government began giving tax incentives to private institutions
through the Program of University for All to open up slots for low-income students
(Ceaser 2005). In 2007, it implemented the Program of Restructuring and Expansion of
Federal Universities (REUNI) to expand the federal university system, creating evening
courses and opening new campuses (Paiva 2013), including two inter-regional univer-
sities for Latin America and CPLP countries (McCowan 2016b). In 2012, the Supreme
Court declared the affirmative action policy of race-targeting quotas legal, and in 2013,
the government made them mandatory for federal universities (Schwartzman and Paiva
2014). In 2003, Lula da Silva sanctioned Law n°10.639, which mandates the teaching of
the history and culture of Africa and Afro-Brazilians at all levels of education. Taken
together, these policies represent a revolutionary shift in state discourses from racial
democracy to affirmative action (Htun 2004).
Inbound regional student mobility and racial justice
South Africa –the search for regional talent
In contrast to racial justice and educational equity imperatives, internationalisation is
nestled within the orthodoxy of the knowledge economy and places high value on elite,
world-class, and research-intensive universities as dictated by systems of global uni-
versity rankings (Naidoo 2011). As revealed by a high-level administrator, top South
African universities respond to the pressure to benchmark against international norms,
standards and best practices by resorting to highly selective admissions policies: ‘we
take 60,000 applicants . . . we have 5800 places, but the 5800 places mean that we take
the top end of the students’(interview, 9 September 2015). The selective admission is
closely linked with the institution’s internationalisation vision as clearly articulated by
an institutional internationalisation administrator: ‘we want the postgraduate (gradu-
ate) numbers to increase; that’s the university drive right now’(interview, 12 August
2014). The university’s preoccupation with attracting and strategically recruiting inter-
national graduate students to increase research outputs directly contradicts the
demands made by South African student activists to further and deepen the redress
and equity goals of public universities.
Unlike in Brazil, where the government under the Lula-presidency promoted regio-
nal cooperation and student exchange within CPLP countries, in South Africa until very
recently, the internationalisation of public universities was not a government priority,
regionally or otherwise. A former top administrator, who was involved with crafting the
university’s internationalisation policy, indicated very little attention was given to
internationalisation between 2007 and 2012. He said:
we had an international office, but it was really about sort of looking to the interests of the
small number of international students who came to the university and, to some extent,
472 U. S. MAJEE AND S. B. RESS
the international visitors. There wasn’t any particularly sort of strategy –we were taking
things as they came. (interview, 19 August 2015)
Other administrators similarly described internationalisation goals as aspirational, or
as a proxy for excellence, rather than as tangible targets. A mid-level administrator, for
instance, pointed out that the goal of recruiting 50% graduate students (including
international students) seemed rather unlikely since the university needed the revenues
from undergraduate tuition payments (interview, 12 August 2015). Additionally, insti-
tutional administrators worried that they were not getting the kinds of experience they
needed and acknowledged the difficulties of integrating international students on
campus due to bureaucratic processes (e.g. visa issues) and the waves of xenophobia
that have mainly targeted Black international students (Sichone 2006).
The xenophobic rhetorics and actions emanate from the perception among Black South
Africans that they should be the primary beneficiaries of the government’s post-apartheid
efforts of racial justice (Handmaker and Parsley 2001). To compound the situation, South
African higher education is perched above a public school system that is regularly denounced
as failing the nation because under-resourced schools do not sufficiently prepare Black South
African students for university (Ramphele 1999). Thus Black South African students fear that
better-prepared students from neighbouring countries take their seats in public universities
(Prew 2003). These fears are exemplified in the comment made by a South African student
activist who argued that over many years White South Africans:
employ[ed] fellow Africans because the labour employment equity allowed them to tick
the box with non-national Africans as Black. Since 1994, the Whites never bothered to
train Black South Africans to become academics. This is how they starve Black South
Africans’(interview, 21 September 2015)
The student also pointed out that, while almost every department in the university
employs non-national Blacks, some departments do not have a single Black South
African faculty member or PhD student.
These tensions and Black South African students’resentment of regional competition over
resources and opportunities make particularly evident the challenges that higher education
policymakers face in the pursuit of internationalisation. In the case of South Africa, access to
higher education has historically been limited and structured in ways that systematically
excluded large segments of society based on racial difference. As excluded populations
increasingly and rightfully demand inclusion, catering to the needs of non-national students
constitutes hardly a priority even when internationalisation rhetorics seem to suggest that
integration into the global knowledge economy is paramount for national development. Yet,
confronted with critical shortages of Black South African students who are willing and
prepared to pursue graduate and academic careers, the country’s top-rated universities find
that to be relevant in the global higher education marketplace dominated by research-intensity
metrics, they have to attract and recruit better prepared, regional students of whom the
majority comes from the SADC region.
Brazil –cultural and scientific integration
The Brazilian government has launched numerous internationalisation efforts–CAPES and
National Council for Scientific and Technological Development [CNP] programmes, Science
COMPARE 473
without Borders –(Rivas and Mullet 2016; McManus and Nobre 2017;Nery2017). However,
the focus has been on efforts to expand scientific networks and to increase Brazilian student
mobility towards countries in Europe and North America and within Latin America, whereas
academic collaboration and exchange with African countries seemed to be more of a footnote.
Several administrators in international offices at universities in São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and
Campinas had little to say about international students from African countries when asked
about the universities’internationalisation efforts. Yet, they spoke at length about internatio-
nalisation agreements with partner institutions in other parts of the world (observations,
2011). In 2012, when a Brazilian professor at the university under study explained to a roughly
equal mixture of Latin American, Asian, and African students that internationalisation is
studying abroad in Portugal (and did not bring up the international students in her class-
room), the sense that the collaboration with Africa might somehow not constitute interna-
tionalisation repeated itself (observations, 1 October 2012).
Similar to South Africa, the Brazilian government in general lacks a strategic approach to
internationalisation, and tertiary institutions continue to face significant bureaucratic obsta-
cles, for instance in hiring non-national faculty (Schwartzman, Pinheiro, and Pillay 2015).
Only under the presidency of Lula da Silva did regionalisation towards CPLP countries receive
significant attention (Ullrich and Carrion 2012; Milani, Da Conceição, and M’Bunde 2016),
not the least as a tool for southern diplomacy (Abdenur 2015). The university under study was
created from REUNI funds to foster explicitly the cultural and scientific integration between
Brazil and African countries. The government envisioned the university as serving the two
policy objectives of expansion to improve access for previously excluded populations and
internationalisation to strengthen Africa-Brazil relations.
This dual mandate, however, caused tensions in the institutional consolidation of the
young university. To provide an example, initially, the university had planned to admit 50%
Brazilian and 50% non-Brazilian students (document#01). Although the university never
reached the intended goal of parity in enrollment, for some time international enrollment
grew faster than national enrollment allowing the regional student population to expand from
22% in 2011 to 30% in 2014. In 2014, however, the university’s administration capped
international student enrollment at 20%. Moreover, the mechanism to select international
students was designed in a way that allowed unfilled international slots to be redistributed
among Brazilian students, which, in the long run result in more slots for (local) Brazilian
students at the expense of regional students. In response, some faculty and administrators
suspected that the enrollment of regional students was reduced to allow race-targeting quotas
to kick in and provide study opportunities to non-White Brazilian students rather than
regional students of whom many were regarded to be Black in the sociocultural fabric of
Brazilian society (fieldnotes, 9 February 2013; fieldnotes, 27 August, 2014; interview, 9 July
2015).
To provide another example, the university’s purpose to foster scientificexchangewith
African countries and to co-educate Brazilian and non-Brazilian students attracted a growing
number of Afro-Brazilian activist faculty, many of whom (but not all) self-identify as Black
(interviews, 4 and 11 February 2013). Even when they were notably fewer in numbers than
their non-activist Brazilian colleagues, over time, activist faculty became increasingly able to
lobby for an institutional agenda of racial equality (e.g. regarding the hiring of faculty,
leadership responsibilities, and student enrollment). To support this political goal, they called
on non-Brazilian faculty and students in the name of solidarity to mobilise the support they
474 U. S. MAJEE AND S. B. RESS
needed (fieldnotes, 14 July 2015). The call for support was met with hesitation by some of the
international faculty and students because they worried that these domestic struggles over the
recognition of Afro-Brazilian rights did not easily translate into trans-regional issues, parti-
cularly since the university spends its limited resources mostly on domestic research rather
than on fostering a broader, regional research and teaching agenda (interviews, 26 January, 4
and 22 February 2013). Like Afro-Brazilian activists, the university also relied on the presence
of faculty and students from African countries to domestically and internationally project an
image of racial inclusiveness, for instance in publications to promote the university, albeit at a
much smaller scale than in the case of the South Africa university described above.
Discussion and conclusion
Despite being peripheral in the international sense, universities in the developing world are
quite central in their regional contexts (Altbach 1998). Both South Africa and Brazil are key
study destinations for SADC and CPLP students. We have been arguing that internationalisa-
tion and transformation imperatives produce tension in South African and Brazilian uni-
versities. In light of South Africa and Brazil’s regional roles, inbound regional student mobility
holds together the internationalisation and transformation tensions by making universities
appear more internationalised (by including non-national students) and racially integrated
(by including non-White students). In the South African case, the presence of SADC students
on campus serves to level the otherwise barely irreconcilable tension between aspirations for
international recognition and domestic demands for racial justice because regional students
are counted as Black students in statistics that report student demographics. In the Brazilian
case, Afro-Brazilian activists mobilise the sociohistorically perceived Blackness of regional
students from African countries to promote their political agenda. Bringing the two case
studies into conversation highlights that, although South African and Brazilian universities
utilise the regional students to orchestrate a response to conflicting demands, in reality
regional students are not fully accounted for in either of the internationalisation and trans-
formation logics. They are neither the self-funding international customers nor are they the
marginalised national students targeted by affirmative policies. Ultimately, institutional
policies and practices of internationalisation wind up being ad hoc, with low strategic
approach and limited impact.
With the necessity of internationalisation hardly questioned, much of the literature is
preoccupied with best practices of internationalisation (Hudzik 2015). While there is a
growing recognition of the downsides of internationalisation (Larsen 2016), mainly scholars,
who write from within postcolonial contexts, critically question the very logic of internatio-
nalisation (Jowi 2012;Maringe,Foskett,andWoodfield 2013;Singh2010;Maringe2017).
Worldwide-operative discourses, approaches, and frames of reference for internationalisation
privilege the needs and realities of universities in wealthy, industrialised countries in North
America, Europe, and Asia. Thus, depoliticised conceptualisations of internationalisation
hinge on global competition, which disenfranchises historically marginalised Black South
Africans and poor Brazilians (the majority of whom are considered to be mixed or Black), who
–due to exclusionary and elitist policies of apartheid and colonisation –are saddled with
weaker K-12 backgrounds and often face financial limitations. Serving these under-prepared
and non-traditional students well, for instance through remediation programmes and
COMPARE 475
publicly-funded financial support, works against the economic logic, which is premised on
international competition for the brightest minds (Wildavsky 2012).
The insights gained from this comparative analysis highlights that Jane Knight’s(1997,
2004) typology needs to be expanded to factor in the geopolitical redress (that is, regional)
dimension to the understanding of internationalisation’s rationales. The decoloniality frame-
work is useful for challenging the longstanding claims of Euro-American internationalisation
templates to be universal, neutral, objective, disembodied, depoliticised, and ratio-technical
operations. Chika Sehoole (2006)arguesthatKnight’spropositionofthepolitical and the
sociocultural rationales (assuming the primacy of national interests) is not fully applicable in
colonial contexts due to the countries regional entanglements. For instance, in South Africa it
was not possible in colonial and apartheid eras to pursue a national project as a result of
artificial racial and ethnic divisions that characterised the apartheid society.
However, a decoloniality perspective has its limits. Emerging forms of resistance to global
coloniality (i.e. #RhodesMustFall and #FeesMustFall in 2015/16 and student protests in Brazil
in 2013 (Alonso and Mische 2017)) that offer great promise for interrupting Euro-American
dominated models of higher education are all too often undercut by narrowly nationalistic
and re-racialising conceptualisation of the struggle to decolonise higher education. Instead,
the goal could be to foster a ‘third culture learning space’(Maringe 2017,72)and‘diasporic
knowledge networks’(Obamba 2013, 139) for contextualised and dialogical learning and as a
form of regional solidarity. The emergence of South Africa and Brazil as popular study
destinations for students from the respective regions requires that decolonisation and affir-
mative action discourses be brought into conversation with the socioeconomic and ethno-
racial positionalities of the regional students to concomitantly satisfy internationalisation and
racial justice imperatives without it being at the expense of historically marginalised domestic
students. Very generally speaking, Black peoples’multifaceted struggles for redress worldwide
must be recognised as an important political agenda and potentially a mechanism to shift
dynamics in global higher education.
Lastly, we see avenues for future research in how international students interact with
International Offices that do not account for their regional identity. Furthermore, little is
known about regional students’post-graduation trajectories, many of whom based their
education migration decisions on the recognition (or assumption) that South African and
Brazilian degrees carry international currency that make them a better investment than
degrees from their home countries. The findings also bring to the fore the need to engage
much more deeply in conceptualisations of race and Blackness in education research and
theory (Ress 2018). Finally, the competing higher education policy imperatives discussed in
this article trouble the notion of nationally-constituted, nationally-funded, and nationally-
regulated universities, and call for an exploration of de-nationalised higher education models
(cf. Majee forthcoming). These aspects require that researchers and policy makers alike
grapple with the implications of institutionalstructuresaswellasmodesofknowledge
production (e.g. departments and exams), asking themselves: What kinds of politics should
a public university pursue, and what kinds of knowledge should count? After all, universities
have long been and continue to be key sites of social change, including in sub-Saharan Africa
and Latin America (Lebeau 2008).
476 U. S. MAJEE AND S. B. RESS
Notes
1. http://www.slavevoyages.org
2. http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=169
3. http://www.statssa.gov.za/census/census_2011/census_products/Census_2011_Census_in_
brief.pdf
4. ftp://ftp.ibge.gov.br/Censos/Censo_Demografico_2010/Resultados_do_Universo/tabelas_
pdf/tab3.pdf
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the members of their dissertation committees at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison including Nancy Kendall, Gay Seidman, Tom Popkewitz, Lesley Bartlett, Sarah
Goldrich-Rab, and Mark Johnson. The authors further thank two anonymous reviews, the
participants of the Research Seminar at the Center for Comparative and International
Education at Humboldt-Universität Berlin, and Miriam Thangaraj for their constructive feed-
back on earlier drafts.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
Funding for the South Africa arm of the research was provided by The University of Wisconsin-
Madison African Studies Summer Research fellowship and the Institute of Regional and
International Studies Research grant, the Spencer Foundation dissertation completion grant.
Funding for the Brazil arm of the research was provided by The Mellon Foundation (summer
writing grant), Brazilian Initiation Scholarship, Brazilian Studies Association, and the Tinker
Nave Short Term Field Research Award, Latin American, Caribbean and Iberian Studies,
Graduate Student Research Travel Award (Department of Educational Policy Studies,
University of Wisconsin-Madison).
References
Abdenur, A. E. 2015.“Organisation and Politics in South–South Cooperation: Brazil’s Technical
Cooperation in Africa.”Global Society 29 (3): 321–338. doi:10.1080/13600826.2015.1033384.
Akoojee, S., and M. Nkomo. 2011.“Widening Equity and Retaining Efficiency: Considerations
from the IBSA Southern Coalface.”International Journal of Educational Development 31 (2):
118–125. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2010.07.003.
Alonso, A., and A. Mische. 2017.“Changing Repertoires and Partisan Ambivalence in the New
Brazilian Protests.”Bulletin of Latin American Research 36 (2): 144–159. doi:10.1111/
blar.2017.36.issue-2.
Altbach, P. G. 1998.Comparative Higher Education: Knowledge, the University, and Development.
Westport, CO: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Altbach, P. G. 2015.“Perspectives on Internationalizing Higher Education.”International Higher
Education 27: 6–8. doi:10.6017/ihe.2015.79.5837.
Altbach, P. G., and J. Knight. 2007.“The Internationalisation of Higher Education: Motivations
and Realities.”Journal of Studies in International Education 11 (3/4): 290–305. doi:10.1177/
1028315307303542.
COMPARE 477
Badat, S. 2008.“Redressing the Colonial/Apartheid Legacy: Social Equity, Redress and Higher
Education Admissions in Democratic South Africa.”Paper presented at the Conference on
Affirmative Action in Higher Education in India, the United States and South Africa, New
Delhi, India, March 19–21.
Badat, S. 2009.“Theorising Institutional Change: Post-1994 South African Higher Education.”
Studies in Higher Education 34 (4): 455–467. doi:10.1080/03075070902772026.
Bailey, S., and M. Peria. 2010.“Racial Quotas and the Culture War in Brazilian Academia.”
Sociology Compass 4 (8): 592–604. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00295.x.
Bartlett, L., and F. Vavrus. 2014.“Transversing the Vertical Case Study: A Methodological
Approach to Studies of Educational Policy as Practice.”Anthropology & Education Quarterly
45 (2): 131–147. doi:10.1111/aeq.12055.
Bolsmann, C., and H. Miller. 2008.““International Student Recruitment to Universities in
England: Discourse, Rationales and Globalisation.”Globalisation, Societies and Education 6
(1): 75–88. doi:10.1080/14767720701855634.
Booth, K., and P. Vale. 1995.“Security in Southern Africa: After Apartheid, beyond Realism.”
International Affairs 71 (2): 285–304. doi:10.2307/2623435.
Booysen, S., ed. 2016.Fees Must Fall: Student Revolt, Decolonisation and Governance in South
Africa. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.
Butler-Kisber, L. 2010.Qualitative Inquiry: Thematic, Narrative and Arts-Informed Perspectives.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Ceaser, M. 2005.“Brazil Offers Incentives for Private Universities to Give Scholarships to Needy
Students.”Chronicle of Higher Education, April 8.
Cesarino, L. 2017.“Anthropology and the South–South Encounter: On ‘Culture’in Brazil–Africa
Relations.”American Anthropologist 119 (2): 333–341. doi:10.1111/aman.12874.
Christopher, A. J. 2009.“Delineating the Nation: South African Censuses 1865–2007.”Political
Geography 28 (2): 101–109. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2008.12.003.
Clarke, A. 2005.Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cohen, R., and P. Kennedy. 2007.Global Sociology. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cooper, D. 2015.“Social Justice and South African University Student Enrolment Data by ‘Race’,
1998–2012: From “Skewed Revolution “To “Stalled Revolution”.”Higher Education Quarterly
69 (3): 237–262. doi:10.1111/hequ.2015.69.issue-3.
Council on Higher Education. 2010.Access and Throughput in South African Higher Education:
Three Case Studies. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education.
Council on Higher Education. 2017.VitalStats: Public Higher Education. Pretoria: Council on
Higher Education.
de Wit, H. 2002.Internationalisation of Higher Education in the United States of America and
Europe: A Historical, Comparative, and Conceptual Analysis. Westport, CO: Greenwood Press.
Eberle, T. S., and C. Maeder. 2011.“Organizational Ethnograpy.”In Qualitative Research: Issues
of Theory, Method, and Practice,edited by D. Silverman, 53–73. 3rd ed. London: Sage
Publications.
Ferugson, M. 1994.The Anti-politics Machine: ‘Development,’Depoliticization and Bureaucratic
Power in Lesotho. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Flemes, D., and T. Wojczewski. 2010.“Contested Leadership in International Relations: Power
Politics in South America, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.”GIGA Working Paper, 121.
Frank, D. J., and J. Gabler. 2006.Reconstructing the University: Worldwide Shifts in Academia in
the 20th Century. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Grosfoguel, R. 2007.“The Epistemic Decolonial Turn: Beyond Political-Economy Paradigms.”
Cultural Studies 21 (2–3): 211–223. doi:10.1080/09502380601162514.
Habib, A. 2016.“Transcending the past and Reimagining the Future of the South African
University.”Journal of Southern African Studies 42 (1): 35–48. doi:10.1080/
03057070.2016.1121716.
Hall, M. 2004.The Importance of Internationalisation for Higher Education:International
Education Association of South Africa (IEASA). Cape Town: University of Cape Town.
478 U. S. MAJEE AND S. B. RESS
Handmaker, J., and J. Parsley. 2001.“Migration, Refugees, and Racism in South Africa.”Refuge:
Canada’s Journal on Refugees 20 (1): 40–51.
Hentz, J. J. 2005.“South Africa and the Political Economy of Regional Cooperation in Southern
Africa.”The Journal of Modern African Studies 43 (1): 21–51. doi:10.1017/
S0022278X0400059X.
Htun, M. 2004.“From ‘Racial Democracy’to Affirmative Action: Changing State Policy on Race
in Brazil.”Latin American Research Review 39 (1): 60–89. doi:10.1353/lar.2004.0010.
Hudzik, J. K. 2015.Comprehensive Internationalisation: Institutional Pathways to Success.
London and New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Jansen, J. 2017.As by Fire: The End of the South African University. Cape Town: Tafelberg
Publishers.
Jowi, J. O. 2012.“African Universities in the Global Knowledge Economy: The Good and Ugly of
Internationalisation.”Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 22 (1): 153–165. doi:10.1080/
08841241.2012.705799.
Kendall, N. 2007.“Education for All Meets Political Democratization: Free Primary Education
and the Neoliberalization of the Malawian School and State.”Comparative Education Review
51 (3): 281–305. doi:10.1086/518478.
Kim, T. 2009.“Transnational Academic Mobility, Internationalization and Interculturality in
Higher Education.”Intercultural Education 20 (5): 395–405. doi:10.1080/
14675980903371241.
Knight, J. 1997.“AShared Vision? Stakeholders’Perspectives on the Internationalisation of
Higher Education in Canada.”Journal of Studies in International Education 1 (1): 27–44.
doi:10.1177/102831539700100105.
Knight, J. 2004.“Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales.”
Journal of Studies in International Education 8 (1): 5–31. doi:10.1177/1028315303260832.
Kotecha, P. 2012.“Higher Education in the Southern African Region: Current Trends,
Challenges, and Recommendations.”Presentation to the Extraordinary Meeting of
Ministries of Higher Education and Training, Johannesburg, South Africa, Vol. 5.
Larsen, M. A. 2016.Internationalisation of Higher Education: An Analysis through Spatial,
Network, and Mobilities Theories. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lebeau, Y. 2008.“Universities and Social Transformation in sub-Saharan Africa: Global Rhetoric
and Local Contradictions.”Compare 38 (2): 139–153. doi:10.1080/03057920701676905.
Leite, D. 2010.“Brazilian Higher Education from a Post-Colonial Perspective.”Globalisation,
Societies and Education 8 (2): 219–233. doi:10.1080/14767721003779738.
Lovejoy, P. E. 2011.Transformations in Slavery: A History of Slavery in Africa. 3rd ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loveman, M. 2014.National Colors: Racial Classification and the State in Latin America. USA:
Oxford University Press.
Maassen, P., and N. Cloete. 2006.“Global Reform Trends in Higher Education.”In
Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local Realities, edited by N.
Colete, R. Fehnel, T. Gibbon, P. Maassen, and T. Moja, 7–33. Dordrecht: Springer.
Maile, S. 2011.“The Absence of a Home Curriculum in Post-Apartheid Education in South
Africa.”International Journal of African Renaissance Studies 6 (2): 100–117.
Majee, U. S. (forthcoming). “(Re)imagining and (Re)enacting Competing Policy Imperatives: The
Case of Post-Apartheid South African Higher Education.”PhD diss., University of Wisconsin-
Madison, WI.
Maldonado-Torres, N. 2007.“On Coloniality of Being: Contributions to the Development of a
Concept.”Cultural Studies 21 (2–3): 240–270. doi:10.1080/09502380601162548.
Maringe, F. 2010.“The Meanings of Globalization and Internationalisation in HE: Findings from
a World Survey.”In Globalization and Internationalisation in Higher Education: Theoretical,
Strategic and Management Perspectives,edited by F. Maringe and N. Foskett, 17–34. London:
Bloomsbury Publishing.
COMPARE 479
Maringe, F. 2017.“Creating Opportunities for a Socially Just Pedagogy: The Imperatives of
Transformation in Post-Colonial HE Spaces.”In Transforming Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, edited by R. Osman and D. J. Hornsby, 59–78. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Maringe, F., N. Foskett, and S. Woodfield. 2013.“Emerging Internationalisation Models in an
Uneven Global Terrain: Findings from a Global Survey.”Compare: A Journal of Comparative
and International Education 43 (1): 9–36. doi:10.1080/03057925.2013.746548.
Maringe, F., and S. Woodfield. 2013.“Contemporary Issues on the Internationalisation of Higher
Education: Critical and Comparative Perspectives.”Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education 43 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1080/03057925.2013.746545.
Mbembe, A. 2017.Critique of Black Reason. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
McCowan, T. 2016a.“Three Dimensions of Equity of Access to Higher Education.”Compare: A
Journal of Comparative and International Education 46 (4): 645–665. doi:10.1080/
03057925.2015.1043237.
McCowan, T. 2016b.“Forging Radical Alternatives in Higher Education: The Case of Brazil.”
Other Education: the Journal of Educational Alternatives 5 (2): 196–220.
McLellan, C. E. 2008.“Speaking of Internationalisation: An Analysis Policy of Discourses on
Internationalisation of Higher Education in Post-Apartheid South Africa.”Journal of Studies
in International Education 12 (2): 131–147. doi:10.1177/1028315307308735.
McManus, C., and C. A. Nobre. 2017.“Brazilian Scientific Mobility Program –Science without
Borders - Preliminary Results and Perspectives.”Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 89
(1 Suppl): 773–786. doi:10.1590/0001-3765201720160829.
Mignolo, W. D. 2007.“Introduction: Coloniality of Power and De-Colonial Thinking.”Cultural
Studies 21 (2–3): 155–167. doi:10.1080/09502380601162498.
Milani, C. R. S., F. C. Da Conceição, and T. S. M’Bunde. 2016.“Cooperação sul-sul em educação
e relações Brasil-PALOP.”Caderno CRH, Salvador 29 (76): 13–32. doi:10.1590/S0103-
49792016000100002.
Naidoo, R. 2011.“Rethinking Development: Higher Education and the New Imperialism.”In
Handbook on Globalization and Higher Education, edited by R. King, S. Marginson, and R.
Naidoo, 40–58. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J., and S. Zondi, eds. 2016.Decolonizing the University, Knowledge Systems
and Disciplines in Africa. Durnham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Nery, M. B. M. 2017.“Science without Borders’Contributions to Internationalization of
Brazilian Higher Education.”Journal of Studies in International Education. doi:10.1177/
1028315317748526.
Nye, J. S. 2004.Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
Obamba, M. O. 2013.““Transnational Knowledge Partnerships: New Calculus and Politics in
Africa’s Development.”Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 43
(1): 124–145. doi:10.1080/03057925.2013.746576.
Paiva, A. R. 2013.“Políticas públicas, mudanças e desafios no acesso ao ensino superior.”In Ação
Afirmativa em Questão: Brasil, Estados Unidos, África do Sul e França, edited by A. R. Paiva,
40–73. Rio de Janeiro: Pallas Editora.
Paixão, M., and L. M. Carvano. 2008.Relatório Anual das Desigualdades Raciais no Brasil
2007–2008. Rio de Janeiro: Garamond.
Paschel, T. 2016.Becoming Black Political Subjects: Movements and Ethno-Racial Rights in
Colombia and Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Popkewitz, T. S. 1998.Struggling for the Soul. The Politics of Schooling and the Construction of the
Teacher. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Prew, M. 2003.“Transformation and Development of Marginalised Schools in South Africa: A
School and District Development Model.”PhD diss., University of Exeter.
Quijano, A. 2007.“Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality.”Cultural Studies 21 (2–3): 168–178.
doi:10.1080/09502380601164353.
Ramphele, M. 1999.“Immigration and Education: International Students at South African
Universities and Technikons.”Migration Policy Series no. 12, Southern Africa Migration Project.
480 U. S. MAJEE AND S. B. RESS
Ress, S. 2018.“Race as a Political Issue in Brazilian South-South Cooperation in Higher
Education.”Comparative Education Review 62 (3): 409–428. doi:10.1086/698307.
Ress, S. Forthcoming.Internationalization of Higher Education for Development: Blackness and
Postcolonial Solidarity in Africa-Brazil Relations. Durham, NC: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Rivas, R. M., and S. Mullet. 2016.“Countervailing Institutional Forces that Shape Internationalisation
of Science: An Analysis of Brazil’s Science without Borders Program.”RAI Revista de
Administração e Inovação 13 (1): 12–21. doi:10.1016/j.rai.2016.04.001.
Rizvi, F. 2011.“Theorizing Student Mobility in an Era of Globalization.”Teachers and Teaching
17 (6): 693–701. doi:10.1080/13540602.2011.625145.
Saldaña, J. 2013.The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Saunders, C. 2011.“South Africa and Southern Africa: What Relationship in 2011?”In New South
African Review: New Paths, Old Compromises? edited by D. Pillay, J. Daniel, P. Naidoo, and R.
Southall, 142–155. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.
Schwarcz, L. M. 1999.The Spectacle of the Races: Scientists, Institutions, and the Race Question in
Brazil, 1870-1930. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
Schwartzman, L. F., and A. R. Paiva. 2014.“Not Just Racial Quotas: Affirmative Action in Brazilian
Higher Education 10 Years Later.”British Journal of Sociology of Education (Nov.), 37 (4): 548–566.
Schwartzman, S., R. Pinheiro, and P. Pillay, eds.. 2015.Higher Education in the BRICS Countries:
Investigating the Pact between Higher Education and Society, 44. Dordrecht: Springer.
Seekings, J. 2008.“The Continuing Salience of Race: Discrimination and Diversity in South
Africa.”Journal of Contemporary African Studies 26 (1): 1–25. doi:10.1080/
02589000701782612.
Sehoole, C. T. 2006.“Internationalisation of Higher Education in South Africa: A Historical
Review.”Perspectives in Education 24 (4): 1–13.
Sehoole, C. T. 2011.“Student Mobility and Doctoral Education in South Africa.”Perspectives in
Education 29 (1): 53–63.
Shore, C., S. Wright, and D. Però. 2011.Policy Words: Anthropology and the Analysis of
Contemporary Power. New York, NY and London: Berghahn.
Sichone, O. B. 2006.“Globalisation and Internationalisation of Higher Education in South Africa:
The Challenge of Rising Xenophobia.”Journal of Higher Education in Africa/Revue de
l’enseignement supérieur en Afrique 1 (Jan): 33–53.
Singh, M. 2010.“Re-Orienting Internationalisation in African Higher Education.”Globalisation,
Societies & Education 8 (2): 269–282. doi:10.1080/14767721003780439.
Telles, E. 2004.Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Ullrich, D. R., and R. M. Carrion. 2012.“A Cooperação brasileira na área da educação nos
PALOPS no período 2000-2012: Principais atores e projetos.”Sociais e Humanas, Santa Maria
27 (1): 146–160.
UNESCO. 2012.“New Patterns in Student Mobility in the Southern Africa Development
Community.”UIS Information Bulletin 7. Accessed http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/
002170/217095e.pdf.
Wildavsky, B. 2012.The Great Brain Race: How Global Universities are Reshaping the World.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
COMPARE 481
