How can African higher education genuinely ‘Africanize’ internationalization when foundational initiatives and long-term sustainability are still heavily influenced, if not funded, by external partners?
The call to “Africanize” the internationalization of higher education is a profound and necessary declaration of intent. Articulated with clarity by leaders like Professor Goski Alabi of the African Network for Internationalisation of Education (ANIE), the ambition is to transform the continent’s universities from peripheral participants into co-creators of global knowledge. This represents a critical pivot towards strategic autonomy—a move to embed African values, priorities, and realities into the very fabric of global academic engagement. Yet, a dispassionate analysis of the current landscape reveals a fundamental paradox that threatens to undermine this very ambition. The architecture of self-determination, it appears, is being designed with blueprints and financed by the same external powers from whom epistemic independence is sought. This raises a critical question: Can a system achieve genuine self-determination by adopting the very frameworks and funding mechanisms it aims to transcend?
The vision laid out at the recent ANIE conference in Kampala is both compelling and comprehensive. It calls for a continental strategy, a dedicated fund for cross-border collaboration, and an expansion of intra-African academic mobility. The goal, as articulated, is to reduce dependency on extra-regional partners by strengthening continental cooperation through joint research, dual degrees, and faculty exchanges. This inward-looking, capacity-building approach is precisely the foundation required for a resilient and self-sufficient academic ecosystem. Furthermore, the emphasis on data-driven policy, common evaluation tools, and a continental data repository signals a mature understanding of what is required to manage and steer this transformation effectively. On the surface, these resolutions form a robust roadmap toward a future where African higher education sets its own agenda.
However, beneath this aspirational surface lies a structural dependency that creates a core tension. A principal vehicle for realizing parts of this vision, the newly established Network of Early-Career Researchers on Digitalisation and Internationalisation (NECREDI), is a product of the European Commission-funded DigiGrad program. This initiative, designed to enhance the training of young African researchers and strengthen the continent’s research capacity, is a case study in the development dilemma. While providing essential resources, training, and networking opportunities, its very existence is predicated on European funding and strategic partnership. ANIE itself is responsible for the program’s long-term sustainability, but the initial impetus, framework, and financial scaffolding are external.
This dynamic inadvertently fosters what can be termed “internationalization by invitation.” In this model, African institutions are invited to participate in a global system where the terms of engagement, the key performance indicators, and the strategic priorities are often subtly, if not explicitly, shaped by the funding partners. The European Union’s objectives, while ostensibly aligned with African development, are not identical to Africa’s own strategic imperatives. As Jaume Fortuny of OBREAL Global, a key partner in the DigiGrad program, astutely observed, shifting global power relations and geopolitical interests are reshaping cooperation priorities, frequently leaving African systems to “navigate competing interests and conditionalities.” This exposes the fragility of funding models that, despite their immediate benefits, may not cultivate the “genuine autonomy and long-term sustainability” that African institutions ultimately require.
The issue is not one of malevolent intent but of structural logic. External funding, by its nature, comes with reporting requirements, programmatic constraints, and thematic priorities that reflect the donor’s worldview. An initiative funded to advance global development goals, as defined in Brussels, may not perfectly align with the goal of nurturing epistemic plurality, as defined in Kampala or Accra. The very tools intended to build continental capacity—workshops on internationalization management, digital resource portals, and researcher networks—risk standardizing practices according to a global north template. While these standards may represent best practices, their uncritical adoption can stifle the development of truly endogenous, contextually relevant approaches to research, pedagogy, and collaboration. The architecture of self-determination cannot be durably constructed using the blueprints and funding of external powers, for the simple reason that the design priorities will always be, in some measure, theirs.
The challenge, therefore, is to move beyond a paradigm of dependency, however benevolent, toward one of authentic partnership and, ultimately, self-reliance. ANIE’s own resolutions point toward the solution. The call to collectively develop diversified funding strategies—engaging African governments, the private sector, alumni networks, and development partners—is the most critical imperative. True strategic autonomy will only be achieved when the continent’s intellectual infrastructure is financed primarily by continental resources. This would not only secure financial independence but also ensure that strategic priorities are set by Africans, for Africans. An investment in a continental education fund, for instance, would be a more powerful catalyst for self-determination than a dozen externally funded projects.
Furthermore, the emphasis on deepening intra-African collaboration is not merely a means of reducing dependency; it is the very essence of “Africanizing” internationalization. When African universities build robust networks for joint research and student exchange among themselves, they create a center of gravity that is distinctly continental. This fosters the development of research agendas that address uniquely African challenges and opportunities, cultivated through a shared understanding of local contexts. A continental data repository, coordinated by ANIE, would provide the empirical foundation for this strategy, allowing African leaders to make decisions based on their own data and analysis, rather than relying on external assessments.
In conclusion, the quest for strategic autonomy in African higher education is at a critical juncture. The ambition to shift from the periphery to the core of global knowledge creation is correct and long overdue. However, this ambition is compromised by a persistent reliance on the very external frameworks it seeks to overcome. The path forward does not lie in rejecting global partnerships, but in fundamentally renegotiating their terms. It requires a radical shift from a position of recipient to one of equal partner, and a deliberate, sustained investment in continentally-funded and continentally-driven initiatives. The most profound act of decolonizing education is to build and own the institutional and financial architecture that supports it. Only then can African universities move beyond internationalization by invitation and truly become the architects of their own future.