By Anastasiya Bezborodova (Doctoral Researcher, University of Westminster)
Based on an annual survey of non-native English speakers in 111 countries, Uzbekistan was ranked 89th and labelled a country with very low English proficiency (EF English Proficiency Index, 2022)[1]. Although a small percentage of Uzbekistan’s population knows and uses English, it is widely associated with educational and employment opportunities and carries high prestige. In fact, English is the most widespread foreign language taught at academic institutions across different levels In Uzbekistan. It is also used as a medium to teach different academic subjects. English Medium Education (EME), education carried in English for subjects other than English itself, is pursued with great enthusiasm by the Uzbekistani government and wider society. Connected mainly with the idea of internationalisation, English is used as one of its key symbols to internationalise education. In many respects, EME in itself is viewed as a proxy for internationalisation.
Overall, the idea of internationalising the education sector in the country started to evolve very actively when a new “Strategy of Actions for 2017-2021” (February 7, 2017)[2] was introduced. Among other areas of development, the Strategy emphasised the importance of the country joining the Bologna Declaration, the main guiding document of Europe’s Bologna Process. Including the adoption of a two-cycle system, undergraduate and graduate, universities had to commit to a standardised education scheme with mutually accepted credits across the other countries that follow the Bologna Declaration, European cooperation in quality assurance, and a curriculum that promotes mobility for students and teachers.
Mentioning the word “international” 66 times in a 39-page document, the Presidential Decree of the Republic of Uzbekistan, On Measures for the Further Development of the Higher Education System (April 20, 2017)[3] highlighted the importance of making connections and expanding relationships with foreign institutions and research centres to develop pedagogical practices based on international standards. To promote the idea of international academic mobility even further, President Mirziyoyev signed a Decree On the Organisation of Activities of the El-yurt UMIDI Foundation (September 25, 2018), establishing an organisation which sends students and teachers to study abroad. This decree contributed enormously to developing academic mobility and training national specialists in international settings.
The most potent move towards the internationalisation of the higher education sector is the recent Presidential Decree Concept of Development of Higher Education of the Republic of Uzbekistan until 2030 (April 29, 2019)[4], which specified that at least ten universities in the country should be internationally recognised. These universities should be in the top 1,000 in the ranking of internationally recognised organisations (i.e., Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings, Times Higher Education, and Academic Ranking of World Universities). In addition, two specific universities, the National University of Uzbekistan and Samarkand State University, should aim for a place in the top 500. In 2022, 30 Uzbek HEIs appeared in Times Higher Education ranking but only in the 1001+ list (Samarkand State University and the National University of Uzbekistan are included)[5].
All the developments mentioned above inevitably involve the English language, which is viewed as a tool for reaching internationalisation in education. In response to state policies, many institutions turn to EME and take English language-related measures summarised below. However, these measures do not serve long-term effects and create new challenges. It is fair to note that there are several good examples of internationalisation at well-established international universities with the English language as a medium of instruction, and most of the challenges discussed below relate primarily to state universities. However, some of the international universities springing up in Uzbekistan are not entirely excluded from the discussion.
The first measure is the diversification of the university staff profile, which in theory, brings international experience and expertise and builds stronger professional links. In practice, however, the fact that international universities hire English-speaking teachers from abroad creates more competition and lowers the chances for local staff to be hired. Moreover, since Uzbekistan is a developing country, the salaries offered to international staff members, despite being higher than what the local teachers get, do not attract professionals from developed countries. Thus EME creates inequality of opportunity, which may hypothetically result in bad feelings between local and international academics.
Moreover, teachers are contractually forced to publish in English in peer-reviewed journals with minimal support from the university and a lack of research and language training. This leads to low acceptance rates amongst top journals. The journals many do publish in are sometimes predatory ones, and teachers fall into the loop of posting for the sake of publishing. The phrase “publish or perish” is well-applicable to Uzbekistan because many teachers have to publish under pressure not to be made redundant if they do not fulfil their targets.
The final measure of internationalisation includes active marketing of EME through networking with industries and big businesses, signing memoranda of understanding, and validation courses at universities abroad. Conceptually, this should make internationalisation inevitable, but in practice, it only gives a little to the students or teachers. The institutions themselves also benefit from this only on a superficial level. While they want to give the impression of international links, a sign of development and innovation, local institutions do not benefit from this nominal relationship and do not engage in any international practices. These practices remain symbolic, and universities usually need more funds to engage in a professional exchange actively.
Overall, these three “quick-fix steps” towards internationalisation show that the approach many state universities take is not serving long-term goals. Even though the country is making steps towards the internationalisation of HE, it is a process that needs not only the use of English as its primary tool but also time, effort, and funding to be successful. Bowles and Murphy (2020)[6] argue that the role of English and education does not guarantee internationalisation because the universities need to clearly define their purpose in using English and address the issue of English use in their language policies. They also claim that the universities can be considered international by covering the gap between internationalisation and EME practice through updating curriculum, rethinking assessment, and systematising professional development (ibid). Despite all aspirations of the government to internationalise education with EME, the reality is often different from what is written in the policies. My research shows that EME is sometimes a token gesture, and its complexity and impact on various stakeholders are often misunderstood and simplified, which inevitably results in practice.
[1] https://www.ef.com/wwen/epi/regions/asia/uzbekistan/
[2] https://lex.uz/ru/docs/4168757
[3] https://lex.uz/ru/docs/3171587
[4] https://lex.uz/ru/docs/4312783
[5] https://kun.uz/en/news/2022/04/29/30-universities-of-uzbekistan-included-in-the-impact-ranking-2022
[6] Bowles, H. and Murphy, A. C. (2020). English-Medium Instruction and the Internationalization of Universities (eds.). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.