The Internationalization Policy of Ethiopian Higher Education: A Comprehensive Analysis

Abstract

In this article, we conducted a policy analysis of Ethiopia’s higher education internationalization policy using the Policy Analysis Triangle Framework (Walt and Gilson, 1994) that integrates policy context, actors, process, and text to provide a comprehensive understanding of the policy. These elements supported the study in analyzing the process followed to develop the policy, who were involved in the process and how, the context for the policy, and how the interaction of these elements affected the inclusion and exclusion of policy content. The study employed a qualitative case study approach. Key sectoral documents, including the higher education internationalization policy, education policy, education roadmap, higher education proclamation, and education sector development program, were reviewed. In addition, key informant interviews with policymakers were also used to collect data. The analysis revealed that these documents recognized the need for internationalizing higher education with the Education Sector Development Program V, setting the goal for the policy’s development. The policy agenda was set by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. The policymaking process followed a top-down approach, with limited input from relevant stakeholders. While policy formulation followed the necessary procedures, the process lacked proper context analysis at the global, local, and national levels, relying mainly on international experience. The policy adopted a definition that reflected comprehensive internationalization but overlooked the decolonizing aspect. The policy incorporated all four rationales of internationalization, where more emphasis was given to the academic and economic aspects. Not all dimensions of internationalization were adequately addressed in directions and strategies, and they failed to consider internationalization for society. Furthermore, strategies recommended for developing countries, such as regionalization, South-South cooperation, and intellectual diversity, that help to reduce dominance from the North, were not made mandatory in the policy. In conclusion, the development of the policy played a critical role in strategizing the ad hoc and disorganized efforts of the past. And yet, it had limitations in guiding the internationalization efforts of the country, implying that without contextual relevance and stakeholder involvement, the policy risks would be symbolic rather than transformative in practice.