Internationalisation through research collaboration

ABSTRACT

Universities engage in international collaboration for a number of reasons. In the global North, which is characterised by wealth and power, universities increasingly use international collaboration for competitiveness and marketisation. In contrast, the global South engages in collaboration to strengthen research and build knowledge capacity. Prior studies argue that trust, mutual benefits, and achieving shared understandings and ways of working are important for sustainable collaboration. However, the studies generally examine what makes a “good” collaboration well after collaboration has been initiated. The contribution of this study is therefore to exemplify the relationship-building process between academics from an Ethiopian and Swedish university. The study is based in “co-operative inquiry” and uses data collected in April 2019 from questions composed by each set of academics, which were deliberated during their initial meeting. Their experiences of enablement and constraint in research collaboration and their motivations for pursuing a new collaboration are in focus.

KEYWORDS:

• Internationalisation
• collaboration
• diplomacy
• co-operative inquiry
• Ethiopia
• Sweden

Introduction

International collaboration in higher education is increasingly seen as a key feature of “global” universities. “Global” is often used to signify quality in higher education institutions and to denote the interconnectedness and interdependence of higher education systems (Altbach, 2004). Increasingly it is understood that many societal challenges are similar the world over and that multiple perspectives and players are required to tackle such global challenges, as has been demonstrated by the recent COVID-19 pandemic. International collaboration is one way to approach societal challenges that span the globe. These international collaborations can take a variety of forms and may involve university leadership, researchers, external practitioners, as well as community stakeholders, such as local schools and their teaching staff (Coburn & Penuel, 2016). Some perceive the most advantageous collaborations as those found between universities in the global North and South (Tienda, 2002). This is because international collaboration between universities in the North and South have been perceived as having the greatest potential to generate new knowledge for tackling global challenges and competitive advantage for those institutions involved (Maringe & Foskett, 2010).

In this study, “North” and “South” represent global divisions in wealth and power, particularly in global knowledge systems. In the context of higher education, knowledge systems in the North are perceived as research-oriented, possessing good infrastructure and as central actors in the global knowledge system, while systems in the South are perceived as less well equipped and dependent on the North (Lepori et al., 2013). For example, many higher education institutions in sub-Saharan Africa look to the North for models, curriculum, research, funding, systems, principles and academic culture (Altbach, 2006). These divisions can lead to challenges in knowing the best way forward in initiating and engaging in international collaboration.

Existing literature on the practice of international collaboration has tended to focus on offering advice and highlighting best practices. For example, there is literature offering guidance in co-authorship and data sharing (Kaye et al., 2019) and on how to collaboratively decide on methodology, data collection and analysis approaches, and research dissemination (Secret et al., 2011). Many publications have emphasised the importance of communication (Brew et al., 2013; Delgadillo, 2016; Spencer-Oatey, 2012). For instance, Delgadillo (2016) recommends having frequent communication where meeting agendas are specified in advance and meeting minutes are recorded. Others have emphasised the importance of adaptability and flexibility, as well as working together on the basis of shared decision-making, mutual benefit and reciprocity (Sutton et al., 2012). Collaboration is also understood to require consistent work toward building trust through fairness, integrity and by honouring commitments (Sutton et al., 2012). Developing a personal relationship in addition to a research relationship is also said to set the foundation for well-functioning research collaborations (Delgadillo, 2016).

Considerably less research has focused on initiating collaboration, though some literature points to various aspects that should be considered. For example, the literature points to a need for greater deliberation when forming a collaboration, including clarifying motivations for initiating collaboration (de Grijs, 2015), sharing and reflecting on values (Secret et al., 2011), clarifying goals and creating an environment for candid discussions about disagreement, differences and challenges (Sutton et al., 2012). Clarifying the responsibilities of each partner at the beginning of a collaboration is also important, as well as discussing imbalances in resources and what conditions are needed for a successful collaboration (de Grijs, 2015; Sutton et al., 2012). Sutton et al. (2012) have also emphasised a need for patience during the initiation phase so that relationships and understanding can mature. It is important to note that each of these prior studies on initiating collaboration is retrospective, that is, they are reflections made well after the collaboration was initiated. Given the brevity of research on initiating collaboration, this study contributes to discussions of this stage of research collaboration and depicts reflections made at the time of initiating research collaboration.

As a team of academics from universities in Sweden and Ethiopia, and as authors of this article, we use our experience of initiating a research collaboration in the area of higher education internationalisation to reflect on our concerns, interests and the contextual conditions that may influence our collaboration and the outcomes of the project. We position ourselves in the wider context of North–South collaboration, a place where self-interest and mutual exchange coexists, and draw attention to the structural and cultural conditions specific to our different contexts that we foresee constraining and enabling our collaboration. We use Archer’s (2000, 2003, 2007) ideas on “individual agency”, “corporate agency” and “reflexive deliberation” to understand how we jointly find ways to work with each other and build trust as we initiate our collaboration. It is important to note that our purpose is not to advocate our approach as the best path to initiating collaboration. Our purpose is rather to describe and share our way and experiences of initiating collaboration. Finally, we end with some considerations for the future as we continue to strive for truly collaborative research collaboration.

The research collaboration context

Internationalisation through research collaboration has commonly been viewed as a process where knowledge, values and ideas are exchanged across borders. Despite such potentially advantageous exchanges, international higher education collaborations between the North and South have been perceived as facilitators of “soft power”, where the interests of the North are favoured, and advantages are one-sided. In the context of international collaboration in higher education, “soft power” can refer to higher education institutions and academics promoting their own agenda and interests “through attraction rather than coercion” (Nye, 2004, p. x). In the following sub-sections, soft power in the context of international collaboration in the Ethiopian and Swedish higher education contexts is discussed. This is followed by a discussion of knowledge diplomacy (Knight, 2015), an alternative framework that conceptualises international higher education relations as a “two-way exchange” and puts emphasis on “knowledge sharing and mutual benefits”.

Collaboration in the Ethiopian higher education context

Ethiopian higher education is no stranger to collaboration with the North and to experiences with soft power. International collaboration with the North is one strategy that Ethiopian higher education institutions have used to mitigate challenges relating to educational access, quality, efficiency and relevance. Engagement in international collaboration has been seen as necessary to relieve growth pains brought on by a rapidly expanding higher education sector. To illustrate, the number of public universities expanded from just two in the early 1990s to more than 45 by 2021 (Ministry of Education [MoE], 2021). Coinciding with this growth, Ethiopian higher education has suffered from insufficient equipment and facilities, few lecturers with doctoral degrees and poor governance (Teferra, 2016). Consequently, requests for collaboration with universities in the North have become common practice even though there are indications that Ethiopian academics are less successful than they would like to be in building and sustaining such collaborations (Tesfaye & Alemu, 2019).

Correspondingly, most Ethiopian universities do not have clear strategies for international collaboration, which has led to collaborations with diversified and sometimes conflicting interests. For example, through arrangements with universities in the North, many Ethiopians have left to pursue higher education and not returned home or returned with knowledge that was irrelevant to the Ethiopian context (Haybano et al., 2021). Additionally, collaboration with American and European academics has facilitated the adaptation of educational models and academic practices in Ethiopian universities while simultaneously delegitimising and repressing local knowledge systems (Woldegiorgis, 2021). Tamrat and Teferra (2018) argue that international collaborations do not meet the local needs, priorities and interests of Ethiopian higher education institutions. These examples illustrate how higher education institutions in the North can exert soft power through collaboration by having “the ability to influence the preferences of others” (Nye, 2008, p. 95), in this example preferences for models and practices emanating from higher education institutions in the North. Hence, there is a need for examples of international collaborations in higher education where the influence of soft power is limited.

Collaboration in the Swedish higher education context

From a “soft power” lens (Nye, 2004, 2008), Swedish internationalisation policies in higher education that emphasise competition and self-interest can be viewed as exerting a form of soft power over other countries. For example, national policies on internationalisation point to the importance for higher education institutions to use internationalisation and international collaboration to attract students, faculty and staff (SOU 2018b). By recruiting international students, faculty and staff, Swedish educational culture, ideas and values can be exported to other countries when those individuals leave. According to Nye (2008), part of soft power is making others want what you want or have. Therefore, from a soft power perspective, this sort of exposure to Swedish higher education and the spread of Swedish ideas contribute to securing Sweden’s position and the dominance of systems from the North within the global higher education system. Policy documents also point to how such internationalisation strategies can be used to gain access to knowledge, ideas and expertise beyond Swedish borders in order to raise educational quality and competitiveness (SOU, 2018a). These examples are consistent with Knight’s (2015) arguments that policymakers are “increasingly concerned with justifying international higher education’s contribution to the economic development of a country” (p. 5) and Nye’s (2004, 2008) soft power paradigm.

Collaboration within a framework of diplomacy

In recent years, there have been urgings of a need for a different lens from which to view higher education internationalisation and international collaboration; one that can be used to draw out the good of international collaboration rather than centring on their potential for serving self-interests. Knight (2015, 2017, 2019) has led this initiative by developing a framework for knowledge diplomacy that can be used for such purposes. She argues that while it is important to recognise self-interest as part of international collaboration, there are also mutual interests and benefits for all involved, even if those interests and benefits may differ (Knight, 2015, 2019). Knight (2019) describes a collaboration based in a diplomatic framework as one motivated by addressing common issues and self-interests in a collaborative way. Negotiation, communication, co-operation, reciprocity, mutuality and compromise are further characteristics of a collaboration based in diplomacy (Knight, 2019). Collaborations encompassing such characteristics are needed for bridging divisions and addressing global challenges (Knight, 2015).

Initiating international research collaboration from a knowledge diplomacy framework means recognising and working to prevent power imbalances within the collaboration. This contrasts with a soft power approach to research collaboration where the outcomes and advantages of the collaboration are imbalanced and favour the partners from more powerful universities and regions of the world. It is from a framework of diplomacy that four academics from two universities – Mekelle University in Ethiopia and the University of Gothenburg in Sweden – came together in response to a call from the Swedish Research Council for applications to establish a network relevant to an international development collaboration. The purpose of our collaboration was to identify a common research interest in the area of higher education internationalisation and pursue funding for a research project.

Coming together in research collaboration

As individual academics, we have our own complex array of personal research interests, values and commitments that we strive toward within our university positions. Archer (2000) coined the term “individual agency” to represent this individual pursuit of goals within one’s own social (socio-academic) context and culture. Reflexive deliberation is a key element in Archer’s (2007) understanding of how individuals identify goals and projects that they deem important and the processes by which they pursue those projects. To illustrate, Archer states, “Courses of action are produced through the reflexive deliberations of agents who subjectively determine their practical projects in relation to their objective circumstances” (2003, p. 141). Hence, the reflexive process refers to individuals “ … reflecting upon themselves in relation to their circumstances and vice versa” (Archer, 2007, p. 42). For us as academics, this implies reflecting on our own ideas, values and commitments in relation to the structural and cultural enablements and constraints in the universities and education systems in which we work. It is through these reflexive deliberations that we individually identify projects that we care about and find feasible, given the contextual conditions of our workplaces, and devise ways to realise these projects.

However, our aim was to come together as a team in pursuit of a common goal – a research project on internationalisation. That is, we wished to become “corporate agents” (Archer, 2003, p. 133). In order to come together in this fashion, Kahn et al. (2012) suggest that this does not happen naturally. Rather they suggest that “social interaction is required for a group to identify, prioritise and act on mutual concerns” (Kahn et al., 2012, p. 54). In other words, a group must take part in collective, reflexive deliberation. What this means is that we had to come to an understanding of what motivated us to pursue a collaborative project on internationalisation, and what we hoped to achieve with it, so that we could design the project in a way that made it achievable. Prior research has pointed to the importance of these personal and collective reflexive deliberations for successful research outcomes in collaborative work (Brew et al., 2013). Equally, we had to be aware of our circumstances (i.e. the structural and cultural conditions in which we work) and how they may relate to the design and follow through of a joint research project. As Leibowitz et al. (2017) found, academics’ participation in research collaboration, as well as the overall outcomes of the collaboration, relate to the structural and cultural conditions of the academics’ universities and the research collaboration itself. Archer (2000, 2003, 2007) and Kahn et al. (2012) not only provide the theoretical framing for this study but also put into words the reflective processes we took as a group in “co-operative inquiry” (Heron, 1996; Heron & Reason, 2001) when initiating our research collaboration.

Initiating research collaboration

The steps we took to initiate our collaboration depart from co-operative inquiry (Heron, 1996; Heron & Reason, 2001). This form of inquiry is described as research that is not on people or about people, but rather research with people (Heron & Reason, 2001). This approach involves people coming together as co-researchers and co-subjects to research some agreed upon area. Heron (1996) describes four stages to co-operative inquiry: (1) the reflection stage, (2) the action stage, (3) experiential immersion and (4) the second reflection stage, where co-researchers come together and share the data that were collected. This study focuses on the first and second stages of co-operative inquiry.

Within the first stage, Heron (1996) describes four phases: deliberating on possible focuses of inquiry, agreeing on a focus of inquiry, deciding on a method, and devising and agreeing on a set of procedures for gathering and recording data. The first phase began prior to our initial meeting. We discussed via email the possibility of documenting our process of initiating research collaboration and our reflections thereof. This idea came about through our extensive review of prior literature, which showed that reflecting on the collaboration process is usually an afterthought. We also hoped that in doing this, we would learn about each other, our experiences with international collaboration and our understanding of internationalisation. Then in April 2019, we came together for a six-day meeting at the University of Gothenburg campus. The first day consisted of casual introductions, a campus tour and further discussions on the idea of documenting our process of initiating collaboration. By the end of the day, we agreed that we would document our process and that initiating collaboration would be the focus of our co-operative inquiry. This relates to phase two in Heron’s (1996) model.

Once we made the decision to document our process of initiating collaboration, we turned to discussing how we would document the process. These processes correspond to phases three and four in Heron’s (1996) model, which centre on making an action plan and deciding on a method for data generation. We decided that we would gather data using semi-structured interviews that were recorded and then transcribed. Rather than decide on one set of questions that we each would respond to, each partner devised their own set of semi-structured interview questions to ask the other partner. Heron (1996) has commented that such divergence can be beneficial in the early stages of inquiry because it “encourages individual interest and initiative at the start of the inquiry, and gets everyone motivated and involved” (p. 77). He continues on to say how this is the nature of “true co-operation” (p. 77), which is precisely what we hoped to emulate as we initiated collaboration.

The questions we prepared were comprised of what we found to be most important for gaining an understanding of each other’s prior experiences with internationalisation and international collaboration, our motivations for pursuing this new collaboration, and what we perceived was necessary to achieve our objectives. From the Ethiopian university partners, questions were directed toward gaining an understanding of the Swedish university partners’ knowledge of Africa, particularly their perceptions of internationalisation in Africa and of the African academic environment. The Swedish university partners, candidly aware of their limited knowledge on Ethiopian education, asked about how arguments made in recently published research related to the Ethiopian university partners’ own understandings and experiences of internationalisation at their university. In addition to the questions shown in Table 1, the Swedish university partners drew quotes from Tamrat and Teferra (2018) that were followed by questions. For example, the following quote was read to the Ethiopian university partners, “African higher education is ‘the most internationalized by being the least internationally engaged’” (Teferra, 2008a in Tamrat & Teferra, 2018, p. 435), and was followed-up by asking “Is this true for your university?”.

Table 1. Reflective questions discussed between the partners.

Questions to the Ethiopian university partners
• Can you tell us about your educational background and role at the university?
• How do you define internationalisation?
• What drives internationalisation at your university?
• How have you engaged in internationalisation at your university?
• How would you describe the international experiences that you have had in your current and previous university roles?
• What do you find are the main benefits of internationalisation?
• What do you find are the main challenges of internationalisation?
• What do you want out of this collaboration?
• What challenges do you foresee hindering positive outcomes from this collaboration?
Questions to the Swedish university partners
• What is your perception of Africa and the African academic environment? Do you believe that African professionals can contribute to science? If yes, how? If no, why not?
• How do you describe internationalisation, especially considering partnering with Africa?
• Internationalisation in theory is the process of integrating an international dimension into higher education, but in practice, it is the process of commercialising research and postsecondary education. If you think this is true, what should be done to change practice into theory and equally benefit both partners?
• What lessons have you learned from previous partnerships, and what do you think should be improved when making similar partnerships in the future?
• One of the benefits of internationalisation is exchange of experiences. What kind of experiences do you think a university like yours will gain out of working with a university like ours?
• What are your plans to make sure that the project is successfully implemented, and the outcomes will be sustainable afterwards?

The second stage of co-operative inquiry, that is the action stage, involved each partner interviewing the other. During the second day of our meeting, the Swedish university academics posed questions to the Ethiopian university academics. On the following day, the Ethiopian academics had their opportunity to ask questions. Within these interviews, we inadvertently deliberated on the structural and cultural contexts of our work environments, as well as our motivations for collaboration (Kahn et al., 2012). This brought us closer to becoming corporate agents in pursuit of a research project on internationalisation (Archer, 2003). Through the reflections carried out in this co-operative inquiry (Heron, 1996; Heron & Reason, 2001), we obtained the data used in this study.

Participants

The participants of this study are the authors. Each was working within the field of higher education and researching internationalisation at the time this collaboration was initiated. The participants were two male academics from Mekelle University in Ethiopia and two female academics from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. Despite originating from different geographical locations, the participants are similar in many ways. First, each had the academic rank of assistant professor at the time the collaboration was initiated. Second, they each had extensive international experience and received their doctoral degrees outside their country of origin. Third, each participant had a background in the educational sciences and a strong research interest on internationalisation in higher education.

Prior to the initial meeting, the researchers had not met as a group, neither in-person or digitally. However, the two principal investigators from the Swedish and Ethiopian universities had a prior connection as students in a two-year Erasmus Mundus joint master’s degree programme in Europe. The academic relationship developed through this prior interaction was helpful in building trust (Kahn et al., 2012), which is an important factor in meeting collaborative goals (Dhillon, 2009).

Conditions for research collaboration

The following discussion derives from the reflective processes that we took as a group. We begin by describing the contextual enablements and constraints that, in our view, would have some impact on our ability to achieve positive outcomes in our collaboration. These enablements and constraints are discussed in the frame of structural and cultural conditions. In other words, we reflected on ourselves in relation to our circumstances (Archer, 2007). Then we move on to describe our individual motivations for collaboration.

Structural conditions

An important structural challenge to initiating collaboration was support from university leadership, which mainly came from a lack of understanding the concept of internationalisation. While internationalisation is commonly part of higher education policy in Sweden, and there are often discussions on integrating internationalisation in all aspects of higher education (SOU, 2018a), this is not the case in Ethiopia. As one Ethiopian partner indicated, discussion is needed to build understanding amongst university management, higher education authorities, as well as other important figures such as staff and faculty, which should lead to their increased support.

/ … / people are not conscious about the idea or of the debates in internationalisation. So, lack of knowledge on the management side could be one of the reasons for us to work with, but I don’t think it will completely disadvantage our intentions. But the fact is that the idea is not thoroughly discussed in our education system, it may force us to take a longer time to convince authorities, to convince people who are working with us, you know, to be involved in the project. (Ethiopian university partner)

Despite these perceived structural challenges, some aspects of higher education structures (e.g. publication channels, conferences and symposiums) were viewed positively, as a way to open doors to increased dialogue and understanding of internationalisation.

/ … / I think through publications, through debates, through conferences, the idea will be disseminated sooner or later. And in my university, we have this speakers’ forum. Speakers come and they deliver speeches on various topics. / … / We can use this opportunity to disseminate the idea to the wider community. (Ethiopian university partner)

Through such forums for discussion, support for internationalisation amongst university leaders, faculty and staff can grow and solutions to challenges encountered in international engagements can be negotiated (Criswell & Zhu, 2015). Similar efforts have been taken at the University of Gothenburg through the establishment of the Global Sustainable Futures platform (GSF, 2020).

Support from university leaders by acknowledging a project’s importance and taking an interest in the project has also been shown to contribute toward enabling project members’ participation and positive outcomes from the project (Leibowitz et al., 2017). Hence, the commitment of university leaders is necessary for internationalisation efforts in higher education to be successful (Tamrat & Teferra, 2018), such as the efforts we are making through our collaboration.

A further challenge relates to the specific structural conditions of our collaboration, as pointed out by one Swedish university partner.

We are fortunate, and we have some money. We’ll apply and hopefully get more. But if there isn’t then there becomes a challenge of balancing time and our other obligations. (Swedish university partner)

The grant we received from the Swedish Research Council covered each project member’s travel for meetings, conferences and some research-related costs, but the grant could not be used for our salaries. Without financial support to “buy out” project members from their other teaching and administrative tasks, their commitment to the project was understandably reduced. Further, members from both universities were involved in other research projects that required output on their part, thus limiting the time they could put towards initiating this project. Hence, our efforts to initiate the collaboration had to fit around our other teaching and research obligations. Like other collaborations with limited budgets (Leibowitz et al., 2017), this meant that the time we could dedicate to the project was fragmented.

While having a travel budget for project meetings was seen as advantageous, like many other research collaborations with members spread across large geographical distances (Brew et al., 2013; Leibowitz et al., 2017), opportunities for regular communication were still viewed as a challenge. As one Swedish university partner suggested, frequent communication and modes of communication that allow for in-depth conversation, are important when trying to initiate a collaboration.

I think another part of it is to have close communication and yes, we have virtual resources, but that can only take you so far, I feel. You need to have these in-person connections as well. (Swedish university partner)

These views correspond to Spencer-Oatey’s (2012) argument that agreeing on ways of working, such as the frequency and mode of communication, are important for international research collaboration. Frequent communication and sharing of progress are needed in international collaborations, either in-person or digitally when face-to-face meetings are not possible (Brew et al., 2013).

Cultural conditions

Culture can be enabling or constraining, which can influence the motivations of individual team members and consequently the successful initiation of research collaboration. In this study, “culture” refers to the academic norms, values and ideas that we wanted to strive for within our project team.

From our previous experiences with research collaboration, we learned to value trust. However, trust had different meanings between us. For the Ethiopian university partners, trust meant a two-way exchange where their interests and contributions would be acknowledged, which is consistent with a diplomatic approach to collaboration (Knight, 2015). Comparatively, the Swedish university partners understood trust as an openness to asking questions, stating ideas and negotiating ways forward.

We develop the trust that our northern partners are indeed trying to help us improve the science, improve collaborations, publications, and we also have the trust that we are honestly involved in this project. We believe we can contribute, not just wait for the northern partner to tell us everything. So, I think if there is trust and collaboration, that will be the best project. (Ethiopian university partner)

So, the best partnerships that I’ve had are those where people have felt totally free to express themselves. / … / You know, being able to turn around and say: ‘I don’t understand’. And allowing people to talk. And allowing silence. (Swedish university partner)

These divergent conceptions of trust are likely a result of us being in different positions in the soft power paradigm (Nye, 2004; 2008), where the Ethiopian university partners have experienced being recipients in one-way exchanges with the North and the Swedish university partners have not experienced similar challenges because of their geo-political position. Taking time to discuss individual concerns, needs and priorities and then identifying a project that is of joint interest and can be “owned” by all members is valued and necessary for a collaboration based in diplomacy. Discussion and debate, as one Ethiopian university partner pointed out, is one way to facilitate a reciprocal collaboration where the advantages of the collaboration do not fall disproportionately to one partner.

/ … / successful projects are those planned properly. In particular, where the Southern partner’s priorities are considered and the capacity building is explicitly stated. It is in such cases that projects work very well. If it does not involve both partners’ discussions, debates and “stuff,” then, I do not think it will be very effective. (Ethiopian university partner)

Prior studies on research collaboration found that having knowledge of key concepts addressed in the research project can make some project members more comfortable and able to assume expert roles, thus increasing their likelihood of participation in the project (Leibowitz et al., 2017). Fortunately for our project, we each have prior experience researching and practising internationalisation in our respective higher education contexts. Hence, internationalisation as a concept, and the debates surrounding it, are not unknown to us. Further, since we each shared the same academic rank at the time collaboration was initiated, none of us assumed an “expert role” in relation to the others. Rather, we recognised each other as specialists in internationalisation within our own contexts.

Individual and corporate agency

Our reflections illustrate the reasons why we chose to become involved in the collaboration. Our involvement was greatly influenced by our individual commitments, concerns and perceived advantages in relation to the project. Commitment and concern as driving modes of behaviour (Archer, 2007) were echoed by all project members as we have a shared interest and commitment to researching and practising internationalisation in higher education. As one Ethiopian university partner put it: “I love to look at internationalisation, from internationalisation as a concept to internationalisation as a practice”. Another of us emphasised how seeing value in the work we do is what will keep the collaboration alive: “You never stop. This is something you will never stop. You cannot stop. You will only stop, because you don’t think it’s important” (Swedish university partner). Such commitments to the overarching project goal can override the importance of other aspects, such as trust, that may not have developed yet in the initial stages of initiating collaboration (Dhillon, 2009).

Intrinsic motivations, such as the possibility of learning through new understandings, intercultural exchange and exposure to other countries, have been found to be important drivers for engaging in international research collaboration (Zingerli, 2010). Similar motivations were expressed by each of the team members. Learning from each other and about each other’s educational contexts was an important motivator for participating in this collaboration, as indicated by an Ethiopian and Swedish university partner.

It is really first of all an exchange of ideas. What I know / … / and in my experience, in my exposure, will be either criticised or supported, supplemented, by my partner’s exposure and knowledge. So, I’m really ready to learn from others. (Ethiopian university partner)

I also believe it’s a continuing learning process. So, from this project, I think we all will come out with something. We will learn something. We will learn to be better human beings. (Swedish university partner)

The potential for the students and teaching staff at our respective universities and in our communities to benefit from our collaboration also motivated us, as explained by an Ethiopian and Swedish university partner.

I mean, so many people here, for example, haven’t had the experiences like you have / … / So just understanding difference in terms of the education system is possible. (Swedish university partner)

I think, what we expect is to work together on equal footing and on issues that can interest all of us, that may really benefit our respective universities and colleagues / … / but also the world. (Ethiopian university partner)

Motivations such as these that can advance our home institutions have been found to be strong motivators for participation in international research collaboration (Leibowitz et al., 2017).

Concerns consistent with a soft power approach (Nye, 2004; 2008) to internationalisation and international collaboration (i.e. international relations that are driven by interests emanating from the North) was also mentioned as a motivation for engaging in the collaboration. One Ethiopian university partner raised some important questions with regards to internationalisation in Ethiopian higher education, “Who is benefitting indeed out of this? What should be the basis for collaboration?” Here, the questions raised point to apprehension over the distribution of benefits and about whose agenda is in focus. Like the observations made by Tamrat and Teferra (2018), this Ethiopian university partner suggests that internationalisation and international collaboration do not serve the interests of Ethiopian higher education.

There was also anticipation that our collaboration would lead to positive changes in collaborative processes between the North and South:

So, my expectation is that we’re going to make a significant difference on how things have been performed previously. It could be in terms of the role of both partners in the project, it could be in terms of what will change afterwards. (Ethiopian university partner)

These hopes align with Knight’s (2015) diplomacy framework in that they are focused on the potential good of international research collaboration and point to possibilities for true co-operation and bridging divisions to bring forth positive change.

These reflections resulting from the collective, reflexive deliberations that took place at our initial meeting were important because they formed the basis upon which we decided our future courses of action (Archer, 2007). For example, through our reflections, we became aware of structural constraints present in our work environments, such as having limited time allocated for research collaboration within our university positions. By understanding this constraint, we were better prepared to be understanding when teaching or other research obligations took precedence. This also had implications for how we structured our work, such as agreeing on guidelines and responsibilities when co-writing. Another example is how we came to identify common interests and values in collaboration after sharing our individual interests and values. By identifying these, we were able to prioritise them and include them as part of our collaboration culture. For example, by the Ethiopian university partners describing the conditions of international collaboration that they had experienced previously, and by expressing the importance for our collaboration to be relevant to the needs and interests of their university and higher education system, the Swedish university partners were able to come to a better understanding of the necessity for the collaboration to be applicable to the Ethiopian context. This knowledge and understanding shaped our future discussions and decisions when co-writing and preparing research project applications. These examples illustrate how this process of collective, reflexive deliberation enabled us to “selectively mediate structural and cultural properties and also creatively contribute to their transformation” (Archer, 2003, p. 38) while engaging in the collaboration that is approached from a framework of diplomacy (Knight, 2015).

Engaging in collaboration during uncertain times

Following our initial meeting where these reflections took place, we had a second meeting in Mekelle, Ethiopia during December 2019. At this meeting, we began discussing ideas for this article and for writing a joint research project application. Then by March 2020, COVID-19 took hold of most of the world. For us as academics, this meant changed work routines without forewarning. For the Swedish university partners, campus teaching was moved online with just a day’s notice, access to university buildings and services became limited, and seminars, conferences and work travel were unexpectedly cancelled. The Ethiopian partners also faced similar and even more challenges. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, without prior notice and preparation, lockdown was declared and everyone was obligated to stay home. Universities were closed and students went home. Unlike the Swedish partners, who managed to work from home, the Ethiopian partners did not have such an opportunity. This was due to most residential houses not having an internet connection. Moreover, since November 2020, a political and military conflict in the northern part of Ethiopia (Tigray) totally detached the Ethiopian partners from any kind of communication. Initially, they were without internet services for six consecutive months, and at the time of writing this article, connectivity has remained intermittent. Consequently, many university events, plans and activities were cancelled.

These new work conditions understandably put additional constraints on our efforts to collaborate. Our attention moved from our collaboration to focusing on the implications of the changed routines to our teaching, administrative and other research obligations. Synchronous communication was greatly reduced during spring 2020 and asynchronous communication became more dispersed. As the pandemic dragged on through autumn 2020, it became clear that our planned meeting in Sweden for October 2020 was effectively cancelled due to travel restrictions and the political and military situation in Ethiopia. Despite the setbacks experienced in this period, the pandemic brought new opportunities for collaboration. For example, we were able to jointly present at a conference that was held online, an experience that otherwise would likely not have taken place.

The reflexive deliberations (Archer, 2007) from our initial meeting not only allowed us to learn about the existing enablements and constraints that we anticipated would impact our collaboration, but also prepared us with knowledge and understanding for how to collaborate during these unforeseen and uncertain times. For example, while the completion and publication of this article was delayed due to the above conditions, there was mutual understanding and trust that when conditions improved our work would be taken up again. As Archer (2003) wrote, “Reflexivity tends to be taken for granted that its implications are rarely reflected upon themselves” (p. 19). Our experience of initiating and engaging in collaboration during this period underscores the importance for reflexive deliberation to be practiced from the start of a collaboration.

Final reflections

Successful international research collaborations are those where positive relationship building, trust, a willingness to learn and mutual respect are central. In contrast, unsuccessful collaborations are those where the needs of either partner are neglected. The problems with unsuccessful international research collaborations in higher education relate often to poor relationship building, lack of purpose, planning, leadership and an unwillingness to learn to adapt and to accept new cultures. The main problem underlying these unsuccessful collaborations is that they are often superficially planned and not based on scientific literature, and in particular, there is a lack of understanding about the structural and cultural contexts in which each partner conducts their work. The more serious problem relates to an unwillingness to learn and to listen to each partner’s needs, concerns and motivations, which can impede the successful and sustainable outcome of the collaboration.

Successful collaborations between the North and South involve projects initiated by the South and supported by the North. Such projects are exemplified by their continuity and longevity long after the completion of the project. This study provided an example of the relationship-building process between academics from Swedish and Ethiopian universities towards the development of a research collaboration. By initiating collaboration from a framework of diplomacy, we were able to catch imbalances in structural and cultural supports within our project team and to identify individual and common motivations for initiating collaboration. This gave us the insight and awareness we needed to initiate a research collaboration that served our collective and individual interests and benefitted those of us with the greatest need.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council [grant number 2018-04143].