Linguistic hegemony in global recognition: English-mediated internationalisation at Indonesian higher education institutions

Abstract

To increase global recognition and quality education, universities in Indonesia establish English-mediated International University Programs (IUPs). Within different capacities and resources, however, internationalisation sometimes preserves inequalities among Indonesian higher education institutions (IHEIs). This study investigates how the practice of English-mediated internationalisation may not only support global recognition and quality education but also perpetuate linguistic hegemony. Framed by Canagarajah’s (1999b) Linguistic Imperialism (LI) and Pennycook’s (2017) critical perspective of English as an international language, government document analysis and semi-structured interviews with lecturers and students reveal different international programs, ranging from deliberation to initial emergence. Most IUPs are deliberately designed to cater for international students by providing high-standard infrastructure, international curriculum and quality human resources in order to increase international admissions and partnerships which are essential for international recognition. Despite these attempts, several have not been successful in attracting international enrolments and recognition. In contrast, other programs are not deliberate but are initially emerging to become international and attract overseas students. The study also discusses some emerging linguistic hegemony between English and maintenance of national language in the internationalisation of the Indonesian tertiary sector.

Promises and realities of foreign language medium instruction in the light of internationalization: A case study on EMI and AMI at an Indonesian Islamic University

“…With such a legal entity status, they could independently manage the funding, program, and resources, and at the same time they were encouraged to improve international reputation and recognition profiles. As a response, these universities accelerate research and publications, attract international students and scholars, and offer English-mediated programs as well as English as a Medium of Instruction (Fitriati and Rata, 2021; Muslim et al, 2022).…”

“…Under the ambition of attaining international reputation and recognition, English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) highlights its critical status, currency, and role (Muslim et al, 2022; Sakhiyya and Rata, 2019). To achieve such goals, many of IHEs introduce English-mediated International University Program (EMIUP) (Muslim et al, 2022) or international class program (ICP) to attract international students, compete for global ranking, and prepare domestic students for the globalized world. The former program typically serves both students from local and overseas, whereas the latter is frequently attended by domestic students per se.…”

“…Muslim et al (2022) also highlight the government’s immense support to the internationalization of higher education and the EMIUP program by offering some scholarships to international students, including short course programs, exchange programs, or undergraduate and postgraduate degree programs. Internationalization of HE and EMI has received critiques because they perpetuate English hegemony and widen inequality and capitalism and neoliberal practices (Pennycook, 2017; Wahyudi, 2018).…”

“…Previous research has focused on EMI and IHE internationalization separately (Dewi, 2017; Floris, 2014; Hamied and Lengkanawati, 2018; Sakhiyya, 2018; Sakhiyya and Rata, 2019). To date, Muslim et al (2022) and Muttaqin (2020) are among the few who examined the intersections of Medium of Instruction (MoI) and internationalization imperative at IHEs. However, these studies have extensively investigated the EMI and internationalization in public and state universities.…”

“…There have been plethora of studies investigating EMI in the light of internationalization in different contexts, for instance, in Korea (Byun et al, 2011), Japan and Saudi Arabia (Phan, 2013; Phan and Barnawi, 2015), and in Indonesia (Muslim et al, 2022; Simbolon et al, 2020). Drawing from surveys and focus group interview with Korean students at higher education, Byun et al (2011) conclude that EMI has brought both positive and negative consequences.…”