This article aims at deconstructing the conception of multilingualism developed in mainstream sociolinguistics by critically examining the assumptions underlying this trend of research, which is grounded in the scholarship of Labov (1972), Fishman (1984 and even Gumperz (1972). In order to engage in that discussion, we use the Mauritian sociolinguistic landscape, as described by researchers following that tradition, as a case. We, thus, carry out a meta-analysis of existing sociolinguistic research conducted in Mauritius, which serve to illustrate the extent to which knowledge produced bear the influence of the structuralist approach. Then, we critically discuss and reflect upon the assumptions underpinning such research, and in so doing, challenge key concepts such as language and diglossia.Finally, we open a discussion on the need to adopt an alternative epistemological position in order to construct a different type of interpretation of the phenomenon following the ground-breaking work of scholars such as Makoni and Pennycook

PurposeThe study explores the relational encounters of five higher education tutors and programme leaders, working in collaboration across contrasting institutions: one, a modern, civic university in the Global North, and the other, a parastatal institution in the Global South. The purpose of the study is to deepen the understanding of evolving collegiality within a transnational partnership, stimulated by the COVID-19 pandemic related shift to online teaching and learning.Design/methodology/approachThe inquiry is informed conceptually by the concept of narrative encounter as a site of learning, with inductive, meta-analysis undertaken across our individual reflective narratives.FindingsThe narratives reveal three emergent themes: shared purpose, shared responsibility – through focus, routinised dialogue and concreteness; collective and individual risk-taking – through negotiated decision-making; and trust in self and in peers – through reciprocity, caring, duality and building on stable practices.Research limitations/implicationsThe data from which this paper is developed and its related central thesis of collegial capital are limited and partial. However, when agility within higher education partnerships is at a premium, this paper is a useful touchstone for further reflection.Originality/valueThe paper seeks to further the concept of collegiality and collegial capital, a dialogical affordance which enabled the partnership to build on previous collaborative successes.