The policy framework for international collaborative programmes: Perpetuating outdated prescriptions for joint and double degrees?

Abstract

The Policy Framework on the Internationalisation of Higher Education in South Africa (PF) acknowledges the strategic priority of international research collaboration for the country, and the role of cross-border and collaborative provision of higher education in this. Joint and double degrees are considered effective means for enhancing and expanding international research collaboration. However, implementing these international collaborative degrees is complex. Arranging for joint supervision, examination and award of a joint degree with a global partner institution, or establishing a joint programme by integrating two existing programmes and delivering the offering collaboratively, is intricate because these efforts intersect with countries’ national regulations and policies governing the delivery and award of qualifications. While the PF permits “joint degrees”, it does not allow “double (or dual) degrees”. We assert that the PF exhibits several shortcomings. The parameters for collaborative degrees are challenging to implement due to outdated influences on prescribed definitions and practices, and the ban on all so-called double (or dual) degrees undermines the PF’s goal of strengthening international research collaboration. This article illustrates the value of the “joint programmes” concept to unlock understanding that not all double degrees conform to the PF’s definition. It also demonstrates the utility of ‘integration’ and ‘jointness’ as criteria that can be applied to distinguish a double degree resulting from joint programmes from those that do not, but which may also be identified as double, dual or consecutive degrees. This challenges the exclusion of all so-called “double” degrees from the PF.

Significance:

The Council on Higher Education (CHE) is developing a quality assurance framework for collaborative programmes in South Africa, guided by the PF regulations and definitions. If its shortcomings are not addressed beforehand, the CHE’s framework risks further entrenching the restrictive interpretations of the PF. The desired outcome is a more agile and nuanced framework for the coherent interpretation and implementation of international collaborative degrees that preserves the original intent of the PF and supports its goal of building, expanding and ensuring strong international research partnerships. We offer practical and evidence-informed recommendations to guide a policy review.