Discourses on Global North and Global South Partnerships in Internationalization Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores how international partnerships are conceptualized between core Anglophone, European and African universities. Internationalization strategies are examined from a decolonial lens to situate the findings within a global context that is entangled in the consequences of colonialism and ongoing coloniality that continue to perpetuate global inequities, including devaluing of indigenous and local knowledge. Findings suggest that institutions in the Global North still view Africa, and the Global South in general, from a deficit lens and in need of aid, knowledge and direction. Strategies from the Global North use terms like mentoring, development and poverty reduction when describing their partnerships in the Global South. In contrast, institutions from Africa highlight their desire to be knowledge producers and contribute to research excellence on a global level. Furthermore, institutions in all regions frame strategic international partnerships as those that will boost their reputation or image as they engage in a race for status and global rankings; however, strategies do not describe how they will approach such partnerships in a very uneven global playing field between the Global North and Global South. Finally, the Global South continues to be viewed as a source of international students and as such, partnerships pursued in Africa and the Global South by core-Anglo and European institutions focus on recruitment of students as one of the rationales or benefits of partnerships. Given these findings, international strategies for Global North-South partnerships continue to reproduce colonial hierarchies of privilege, preventing more equitable approaches to partnerships.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".