INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS AND NORTH/SOUTH PARTNERSHIPS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A NEW ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR PRACTICE By Jennifer Renee Brewer A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education – Doctor of Philosophy 2024 ABSTRACT This dissertation explores North/South partnerships in higher education, shedding light on their practices and underlying logics. Recognizing the growing importance of these collaborations in addressing global challenges, universities are actively working to strengthen these ties. However, concerns about the potential replication of imperialistic structures in North/South partnerships necessitate a critical examination. This study is a response to these concerns, presenting a new analytical framework for the analysis of collaborative practice within this context that is rooted in the institutional logics perspective. My findings suggest that North/South partnerships are made up of multiple coexisting and competing practice conventions and logics that, once identified, bring the complex social dynamics and cultural contestations of this global academic field to the fore. The study has a twofold purpose: an empirical inquiry into international partnership practices in published articles on North/South collaborations, and a theoretical exploration of the logics underpinning these practices. Analyzing 58 articles published in 2022, the study captures the institutional logics employed by higher education actors to reason different types of partnership practices. Utilizing a constitutive approach within institutional logics and a focus on field-level communication, the study responds to calls by critical scholars to explore how broader cultural structures influences practice, identifying the specific logics and cultural content that define the field. This study makes notable contributions to organizational theory by elucidating the intricate cultural interplay within North/South partnerships and challenges prevailing assumptions of unidirectional trajectories toward cultural hegemony. The findings unveil distinct reasoning schemas and logic-practice combinations, offering a fresh lens to understand the cultural dynamics of North/South partnerships. The proposed analytical framework emerges as a potentially valuable tool for higher education actors seeking to develop more effective strategies for navigating the complexities of these types of collaborations. In the concluding chapter, evidence and practical recommendations tailored for diverse stakeholders are presented, emphasizing the importance of discerning nuanced differences among similar practices and fostering diversity, equity, and innovation. In essence, this dissertation goes beyond a mere exploration of North/South partnership practices; it uncovers a rich tapestry of practices, reasoning schema, logics, and cultural interplay. My findings underscore the spectrum of choices and considerations available to field participants when navigating practice and its expression. The new framework prompts participants to critically reflect on how the language used to explain or reason a practice constitutes its meaning and, consequently, its potential impact. It emphasizes the importance of scrutinizing practice choices, including those often taken for granted. These insights contribute to a nuanced understanding of North/South partnerships in higher education, reconceptualizing them from potential tools of imperialism into a space for actors to collaboratively create more effective partnerships. The outlined analytical framework for practice provides compelling tools to foster a more inclusive and mutually beneficial global higher education landscape. Copyright by JENNIFER RENEE BREWER 2024 This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my beloved parents, Jerry and Judith Brewer. Though they are no longer with me, I carry their unwavering love and boundless encouragement in my heart. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Reflecting on this academic journey, it becomes undeniably evident that my achievement was far from a solo endeavor. It required the support of a dedicated group of individuals and institutions. The unwavering support from my advisor, Dr. Kristen Renn, and the insightful contributions of my dissertation committee—Drs. Robert Glew, Ann Austin, and Brendan Cantwell—coupled with the supportive spirit within the Education Administration Department, all played indispensable roles. Their collective wisdom and encouragement not only enhanced the overall research experience but also cultivated an environment where academic growth could genuinely flourish. A special note of gratitude is extended to Dr. Robert Glew, whose initial encouragement set the stage for this transformative doctoral journey. The steadfast encouragement, love, and understanding I received from family, friends, and other doctoral students, served as unwavering anchors throughout this challenging endeavor. A heartfelt thank you goes to my husband, Hebert Gaylord, and my children, Maxwell and Ben Smedley, who have been consistent sources of strength and motivation. Recognizing that I have spent most of my marriage and my children's childhood as a full-time doctoral student and employee at Michigan State University, their support and patience is deeply appreciated. The investment of Dr. Marvette Lacy and the student members of the Qual Scholars community in my academic success underscored the collaborative roots of scholarly excellence, particularly for first-generation doctoral students like me. To everyone who contributed directly or indirectly to this academic achievement, you were integral to this shared success. It stands as a testament to the strength of collaboration and the collective emotional and intellectual investment in the pursuit of knowledge. Thank you for being the village that made this academic achievement possible. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS ...................................................................... 27 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 47 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 83 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................... 105 APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................................... 116 vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION For more than a decade, my work at a large public research university in the United States (U.S.) has included participating in partnerships with universities located in the Global South. In academe, there is a growing sense that these inter-organizational arrangements are crucial for global collaboration and social innovation (de Wit, 2015; Pherali & Lewis, 2019; Saric et al., 2019). External pressures on higher education (HE) organizations in the global North and South to work together on solutions to the world’s most complex social problems are contributing to an urgency among universities to create more and stronger North/South partnerships. In 2020, the Network of International Education Associations issued a statement affirming international collaboration as “essential to finding solutions to global problems” (NIEA, 2020, p. 1). In 2022, several United Nations entities held a global forum focused on “deepening higher education collaborations” for the “full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (United Nations Development Programme, n.d.). International partnerships are the inter-organizational form through which collaborations between North and South HE actors formally take place. Collaborations in these arrangements have had varying interpretations, including Southern partners cooperating with the more dominant Northern partner’s directives (Kezer, 2005). Today, collaboration among North/South partners is more commonly defined as an active form of working together that enables finding responses and solutions that benefit all participants (Mendoza, 2022). However, a number of critical HE scholars have questioned whether contemporary North/South partnership practices serve partners’ mutual interests (Bleck et al., 2018; Bradley, 2007). Mwangi and Yao (2021) pointed to lingering inequities in Southern actors’ influence on how international partnerships are 1 organized and implemented as a central challenge to Northern universities’ efforts to realize stronger collaborative relationships with Southern partners. Problem Statement Rhoads had long expressed concern that rather than becoming more collaborative, North/South partnerships continue to be organized and practiced in a manner that is consistent with forms of colonialism or a new imperialism (Rhoads & Liu, 2009). In his work, Harvey (2003) defines imperialism as the reproduction of exploitative transnational relations, whether intentional or unintentional, driven by the pursuit of ideological, political, and/or commercial gain. When international HE scholars adopt a macro approach, the notion of isomorphism1 and a global convergence of HE to market principles tends to prevail (Kassen & Sá, 2020; Saari, 2021). The convergence of HE toward a single or world society model2 is critically understood by institutional scholars as the institutionalization of unjust practices associated with a market logic (Lounsbury et. al, 2021). To understand which practices within a field receive attention, researchers in the field of logics examine how these practices relate to the key institutional orders of modern societies: market, corporate, community, profession, religion, state, and family (Thornton et al., 2012; Glynn & Raffaelli, 2013). These orders are conceptualized as separate cultural systems or spheres of activity, each with a distinctive logic for generating practice norms and measuring value (Thornton et al., 2012). Theorists conceptualize logics as macro-structures or taken-forgranted master principles that structure cognition, guide decision making and behaviors, and provide success criteria in a field (Greenwood et al., 2010; Thornton, 2004). For example, in the 1 Isomorphism helps conceptualize the causal power or mechanisms by which organizations in the same field adopt similar structures and practices (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). 2 World society theory occupies a central position in key sociological debates regarding the global diffusion of isomorphic state structures and Western conceptions of rationality (Downey et al., 2020). 2 market as a sphere of activity, the rules of conduct or means to ends are different from those of the family or religion. It falls upon critical scholars in HE to bring to light the specific cultural content and institutional values that shape the behavior and decision-making processes of HE actors. This responsibility includes drawing attention to and contributing to theories that explore how societal-level institutions, such as the market and community, exert influence on organizational practice. Certain international partnership practices have faced criticism for favoring the marketand/or corporate-based interests of Northern actors disproportionately. For example, GuzmanValenzuela (2022) has questioned co-authorship as a practice that primarily serves the competitive interests of Northern universities, potentially overshadowing other collaborative approaches. Practices in HE organizations driven by global rankings are often deemed as closely aligned with the market logic (Locke, 2014). Despite these associations, academic leaders frequently disavow any ideological affiliations (Rhoads, 2009). Saari (2021) underscored the importance of disrupting discourses of global HE as isomorphism, warning that the anticipatory effects of HE becoming increasingly homogenous could contribute to the realization of this future. The field of North/South partnerships contains discourse on practices that forefront logics other than the market. Calls for international collaborations to be guided by Ubuntu-based reasoning and values exist (Takyi-Amoako, 2018; Tavernaro-Haidarian, 2018). Depending on the context, collaborative practices underpinned by Ubuntu reasoning are associated with a religion/spiritual (Makhubu et. al, 2018) or community logic (Molefe, 2019). This research aligns with recent studies by institutional scholars that suggest in complex global fields like HE, practices are shaped by the coexistence of multiple competing logics (Golyagina, 2020; Kezar, 2020; Lepori, 2016). 3 These scholars have expanded their analysis of organizational complexity and practice beyond the structuring power of a single dominant logic. However, non-market logics, which are more inclined to guide HE actors toward practices aligned with a divergent social mission, such as community or religion/spirituality logic, have seldom been subject to empirically investigation. Further, the interplay of logic multiplicity and the heterogeneity of practices within fields has not been theoretically explored in the emerging field of North/South partnerships. To explore the potential for such an approach, in this study, I employed an institutional logics framework to investigate the current practices and logics shaping the field of North/South partnerships. Purpose In light of the likely presence of multiple competing logics in the field of North/South partnerships, the purpose of this study was to provide a better understanding of what international partnership practices are advanced in actors’ field-level communications and what logics underpin these practices. Drawing from developments in institutional and social constructionist theory, I explored the practice conventions expressed in published articles as representations of the logics that structure action and meaning for participating actors. These logics shape field-level constraints on practice and opportunities for change. The study was guided by two complementary research questions: empirical (RQ1) and theoretical (RQ2). RQ1. In peer-reviewed articles on North/South partnerships, what international partnership practices are advanced? RQ2. Which logics underpin the international partnerships practices advanced in peerreviewed articles on North/South partnerships? 4 Defining Institutional Logics Institutional logics is a core concept in sociological theory and organizational studies. Definitions and discussions of institutional logics began with Roger Friedland and Robert Alford. Friedland and Alford (1991) understood institutions as both material and symbolic systems, by which individuals and organizations produce and reproduce ways of ordering reality and thereby, rendering experiences meaningful. In their seminal paper introducing the concept of logics, Friedland and Alford (1991) elaborated that each of the most important institutional orders of contemporary societies has a central logic that constitutes its organizing principles and which is available to organizations and individuals to elaborate. Each central logic is understood as having its own reasons and reasoning, which confers its legitimacy. Yet, logics are not a priori logical but socially created and performed (Gümüsay, 2020). Meaning, while logics provide organizations and individuals with taken-for-granted models of reality and acceptable behavior (Thornton, 2004; Greenwood, Diaz, Li & Lorente, 2010), the exact instantiation of a how a logic materializes in practice is situational and contextual (Lepori, 2016; Mahmood & Uddin, 2021). Thus, fields are likely to have a unique constellation of practices and logics or practice-logic combinations (Thornton et al., 2012). Logic scholars emphasize the nestedness of levels of analysis and the need to understand organizational and individual behavior as always embedded in and influenced by the broader social context (Lepori, 2016; Thornton et al., 2012). The primary goal of the logics perspective is to bring the content of these societal institutions into analyses of individual and organizational behavior (Friedland, & Alford, 1991). Indeed, there is ample empirical evidence that institutional logics can powerfully affect the practices of organizations and individuals (Misangyi, 2016; Reay & Hinings, 2009) and that a failure to use practices advanced by a present logic can have 5 adverse consequences for field participants (Greenwood, 2010). For example, Gugerty et al. (2021) have called out impact evaluation as an institutionalized international partnership practice that funders punish HE organizations for not following. A Focus on Culture and Cognition The institutional logics perspective is part of a theoretical and methodological turn in the social sciences to a focus on the cognitive and cultural. Swidler’s (1986) concept of logics in action developed in parallel to the institutional logics perspective. Both perspectives offer an analysis of multiple and conflicting logics without focusing on isomorphism (i.e., institutional hegemony). Insight on human behavior from institutional studies on cognition and culture departed from the bifurcation of disciplinary theorizing in which an actors’ behavior is either rational or nonrational. Instead, rationality is understood as a relative concept depending upon the location of individuals and organizations. The meaning of an organizational practice is understood as changing with shifts in the referent to different logics (Misangyi, 2016; Smets et. al, 2012). These works revealed that the structuration3 of an institutional field is a contested process between different institutional orders or cultural systems rather than a taken for granted story of diffusion and isomorphism. Studies such as mine, which explore the presence of multiple logics within a single field rather than focusing on a single dominant logic, help bring the contested critical nature of logics and cultural content to the fore (Gümüsay, 2020; Lok, 2009). Study Design Within the institutional logics perspective, a growing number of researchers emphasize the role of discourse or language in constituting logics, highlighting the role of communication in 3 Institutional fields develop through processes of structuration whereby patterns of social action produce and reproduce the institutions and relationships that constitute the field (Barley & Tolbert, 1997; Giddens, 1976). 6 the processes through which logics impact practices (Cornelissen et al, 2015). Communicative institutionalist scholars define the expression of practices and their underlying reasoning as the primary mechanisms through which institutional logics are constructed and mediated at the field level (Cornelissen et al, 2015). Actors’ reasoning encapsulates the words and phrases that bring the different societal values and ideals tacit within a practice to light (Loewenstein et al, 2012; Mills, 1940). For instance, when an international partnership practice like “strategic partner selection” is present in an article, it is the accompanying reasoning schema that constitutes the meaning and value assigned to that action. The schema of “global competitiveness,” strongly associated with a market logic in the literature, may co-occur with the practice “strategic partner selection.” In this scenario, the behavior and decision-making processes of an organizational actor implementing the practice of partner selection may take for granted the value of seeking prestigious or highly ranked Southern partners. However, the same practice may also co-occur in actors’ communications with a reasoning schema strongly linked to a community logic, such as “for the common good.” Existing literature strongly associates the reasoning or rationale of “for the common good” with the community logic. The design of my study is based on a model developed by Salome Zimmerman (2020) on how to analyze the interrelationship of logics, reasoning schema, and practice types (see Figure 1). In this model, reasoning schema are viewed as structures of words or phrases and meaning used to articulate each logic. A practice can co-occur with different reasoning schema that link it to different logics. However, each schema can only be associated with one logic. By analyzing how actors’ reason a practice, I was able to “capture” the different logics dominant within a practice and the broader societal objectives inherent within these logics (Reay & Jones, 2016). 7 From a logics perspective, practice variation at the organizational level is explained in part by the presence of different logic-practice combinations at the field-level. Figure 1: The interrelationship of logics, reasoning schema, and practice types Institutional logic as cultural structure Reasoning Schema Provides social actors with Market State Community Religious Family Profession Practice Type Restrain and motivate Saving costs Unique Fieldlevel logic(s) Investment decisions Global competitiveness Engagement Making positive vs. negative impact Research enhancements For the common good Reproduce & change Achieve deeper human connections Reinforce and change Partner selection Personal growth & development Note. Process of institutional maintenance between institutional logics, reasoning schema for a practice, and types of practices. Adapted from Turn on the Spotlight: How Vocabularies of Motive Shape Sustainable Practices, by S. Zimmermann, 2020, FernUniversität. North/South Partnerships as an Institutional Issue Field. North/South partnerships can be understood as an ‘issue field’ - meaning individuals and entities are brought together to focus and act on a shared goal (Purdy & Gray, 2009). The key issue that brings HE institutions together in partnership is often cited as the need to collaborate in ways that generate impactful and transformative change in how HE is organized (Dentoni & Bitzer, 2015) and practiced 8 (Chankseliani & McCowan, 2021). Issue fields are understood as environments with numerous values, systems of meaning, and norms in conflict and competition. The study context of the field of North/South partnerships thus provided an insightful research setting for the study of institutional logics and the question of how macro cultural influences unequally unfold their effects on practice. To understand the content, multiplicity, and interplay of logics with actors participating in North/South partnerships, the study remains focused at the field level - as the boundaries of fields are important for meaning making (Scott, 2005). Significance of the Study This study contributes to two main areas of research. First, it deepens our understanding of North/South partnership practices in HE by examining how each central logic of society influences organizational practices. The findings illuminate how conflicting logics can lead to contradictory behaviors within organizations. Second, the study underscores the vital role of language in shaping variations in practice within fields. By closely examining the processes of construction or the impact of logics on how field participants communicate about practice, the research advances theories and methodologies on how HE actors engage with, interpret, and reproduce logics as cultural structures of influence. My study provides substantial benefits to various stakeholders in HE and beyond. It equips HE administrators with valuable insights on systematically cultivating and sustaining international partnerships. Faculty members engaged in international partnerships can discover practical strategies for recognizing and navigating cultural differences within the context of intricate practice referents (i.e., logic-practice combinations). Furthermore, they can learn how to foster practices that yield mutual benefits and innovative solutions. Overall, this study can serve as a guide for administrators, faculty, executives, and funders, offering a roadmap to navigate the 9 complex landscape of international partnerships with increased clarity, intentionality, and cultural sensitivity. Positionality Statement From my work experiences with North/South partnerships, I understand collaboration between educators with different cultural backgrounds and organizational environments as having a high potential to lead the collective action necessary to move HE closer toward its social reform goals. Yet, I am apprehensive about how current pressures to better define and standardize practices in the field of international partnerships will play out. This study emerges from a concern about the potential consequences of this push toward convergence, particularly how it may unwittingly steer HE, and the broader realm of international partnerships, towards market-oriented practices. The deliberate choice to analyze practices through the lens of key social institutions is an intentional effort to avoid essentializing HE actors or groups based on specific cultural systems. Through this research, I aim to prompt reflection among fellow participants and stakeholders in the field, encouraging a critical examination of the presumed inevitability of the field's convergence toward market practices. My hope is that the data I gather will not only shed light on existing trends but also highlight opportunities for resistance and transformative practice within the realm of North/South partnerships. Conclusion This introduction chapter delves into the growing importance of international partnerships, especially North/South collaborations, within HE. It underscores the need for global collaboration and innovative approaches to address the world’s most pressing social challenges. The problem statement articulates concerns about tendencies reminiscent of 10 imperialism and the reproduction of economic-based practices within North/South partnerships. My study’s purpose is to provide a better understanding of what international partnership practices are advanced in actors’ field-level communications and what logics underpin these practices. The theoretical framework of institutional logics is introduced, focusing on the cultural and cognitive aspects that shape organizational behavior. Employing a reasoning schema model in the study design underscores the critical role of language in constituting logics and organizational practice. I conclude the chapter by emphasizing the study’s significance of understanding diverse practices within the field, the role of language in shaping practice, and implications for HE stakeholders. My positionality statement highlights my commitment to fostering critical reflection and resistance against the presumed trend toward market-associated practices in the field of North/South partnerships. 11 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW How academics participating in North/South partnerships communicate with one another about practice helps set the boundaries of appropriate action and means to ends for university actors. The purpose of this study was to apply an institutional logics framework to explore what international partnership practices are advanced by field level actors and what logics underpin those practices. An institutional logics perspective allowed me to explore how the content of different core cultural systems of modern society influence North/South collaborative practices. This section will begin with an overview of scholarship on HE international partnerships and practice, with special attention to research on the cultural dynamics of collaborative practices in HE international partnerships. I then turn to the work of institutional logics scholars, especially those focused on the communicative constitution of institutions. These scholars provided the powerful model and set of analytical tools I applied in this study in order to explore the influence of different societal-level cultural systems on practice using language or qualitative document analysis. Higher Education International Partnerships and Practice There is increasing awareness in academia that some of the most urgent social problems of today such as food insecurity, health issues, climate change, and persisting poverty are socalled wicked problems (Levin et.al, 2012; Rittel & Webber, 1974). Due to the inherent complexity of wicked problems, it is widely believed that the actions of individual HE actors will have limited or no impact if uncoordinated from the action of others (Dentoni & Bitzer, 2015). Solutions to these problems are thought to particularly hinge on increased participation from HE actors who have historically been marginalized from HE (Knight, 2012; Stein, et al., 2016). Notably, universities and academics located in the Global South represent a significant group 12 that has been excluded from the discourses shaping participation and partnership in HE (Kok et al., 2017). Indeed, North/South collaborations are central to the efforts of most global universities aimed at promoting research excellence and aligning with the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (NIEA, 2020, United Nations Development Programme, n.d.). Both of these goals - promoting research excellence and aligning with the SDGs - are perceived as advancing HE’s role contributing to social reform (Carli et al, 2019). Defining HE North/South partnerships. In an endeavor to transcend nation-centric viewpoints, this study employs the terminology “Global North” and “Global South” as ‘meta categories’ to map global space (Haug et al, 2021). Global North is used to indicate countries that are more economically developed, such as the USA and various European countries, though some nations within the Global North are actually located in the southern hemisphere, such as Australia and New Zealand. In contrast, “Global South” refers to less economically developed nations such as those found in Africa and some parts of Asia. As relational categories, the North/South frame directs attention to links between sites and across time, such as historically grown patterns of inequality (Haug et al, 2021). HE international partnership types. International partnerships are the interorganizational form through which interactions and collaborative practice between North/South actors in HE is organized and enacted. International partnerships are defined as a partnership between two or more HE organizations located in different world regions. A partnership can emerge from faculty collaborations across institutions (bottom-up) or be initiated by administrative leaders (top-down). Today many Southern-based universities are in partnerships with Northern universities. These partnerships can include a variety of activities including collaborative research, co-teaching, and service learning (Semali et. al., 2013). 13 International partnership practices. Various studies have emphasized the potential for collective learning which arises through international collaboration. Collaborative practice, as I shall refer to it, speaks to the active form of working together (Rosner, 2020) that lies at the heart of international partnerships. Participants in the field of international partnerships are seen as contributors to the generation of new institutional policies and practices by incorporating the diversity they encounter into their beliefs, decision-making, and behaviors (Backstrand, 2006). However, critical HE scholars draw attention to how such endeavors unfold within perceived constraints associated with shared norms and institutional accountabilities - constraints shaped by the unequal powers exercisable by partners (Pashby & Andreotti, 2016; Stein et al, 2019). Lounsbury and Wang (2020) advocated for a more focused constitutive approach to institutional analysis that concentrates attention on the socio-cultural sources of actors’ behavior. to look closely at how different players in international educational partnerships affect the way institutions operate and collaborate on learning. This is essential for understanding the power imbalances that are a concern for scholars in higher education. Cultural analysis of North/South partnerships. Cultural studies of international partnerships often highlight the dominance or hegemony of Northern cultural content in shaping partner interactions and success criteria. More current cultural analyses have focused on the role of “structural power” in North/South partnerships (Menashy, 2019; p. 102). Structural power outlines that hierarchies exist within partnerships and acknowledges that the social structure of the global partnership landscape reinforces: (1) the power of dominant partners (those at the top of the structural hierarchy) and (2) oppression of the partners who are positioned at the bottom of the structural hierarchy (Menashy, 2019). A number of scholars have criticized the trend toward ‘global standards’ as the codification and dissemination of Northern-based norms and values 14 rather than a representation of all stakeholders in the field. The globalization of ideas and practice standards is a key mechanism through which the reproduction of structural Northern dominance occurs in the global HE landscape. While this dissertation employs the terms 'Global North' and 'Global South,' I acknowledge the complexity and the often stereotypic usage of these categorizations in academic discourse. They are not meant to convey a binary or simplistic worldview; instead, their use in this study is critical and deliberate, aiming to question and challenge the taken-for-granted assumptions inherent in such divisions, particularly in the context of university partnerships. My intention is to foster a nuanced understanding that transcends the conventional dichotomy, recognizing that these terms are a starting point for discussion rather than definitive classifications. Globalization. Simply defined, globalization brings diverse systems together into one free market economic structure. At the core, globalization is an expansion of Northern values anchored in market principles of “competition, efficiency, cost effectiveness, accountability, and entrepreneurial growth (Semali, et, al., 2013, pp. 55).” Chasi and Rodny-Gumede argued that the dominant drivers of HE international partnerships positions the Global South to fail (2019). For example, the dependence of many HE institutions in the Global South on international partnerships for access to resources and funds has required them to follow HE guidelines and practices that are exploitative in nature (Chasi & Rodny-Gumede, 2019). As an illustration, Ishengoma (2016) found that due to the inherent inequalities embedded in African universities' partnerships with Northern higher education institutions (HEIs), Northern universities often determine the research agenda. Ishenghoma argued that this alignment may result in some short- 15 term gains, but the misalignment of North/South partnership practices with many Southern actors’ meaning systems limits the strength and potential of the collaboration. North/South Collaboration as Epistemic Struggle. It is common for inequalities in partnership to be acknowledged by internationalization and globalization scholars. The conversation progresses by finding tangible ways to mitigate the effects of structural power and inequality in North/South partnerships (Chasi & Rodny-Gumede, 2019). The ongoing conversations among North/South partnership scholars involve identifying concert theories and methods to examine the impact of structural power and social inequities on these collaborations. However, in these “tangible” solutions it is often the Northern global partners who dominate the conversation and seek to find the answer for their Global South counterparts (Pherali & Lewis, 2019). Jooste (2015) states that a truly collaborative approach to partnerships would have significant influence on not only the effectiveness of the partnership itself but on the effectiveness of partnerships to address current global challenges. Alternative approaches to global HE partnerships call to empower Global South partners to balance the narrative and to inspire the decolonization of the systems in place. Alternative North/South collaborative practices. Robson (2011) provides a conceptual study that explores the potential of North/South HE partnerships to lead to transformational institutional change in HE. Robson (2011) acknowledged that while globalization discourses are significant drivers of North/South HE partnerships, perceiving North/South partnership activity as explicitly commercially driven undermines the deeply personal and ideological commitment of many HE scholars and practitioners to social justice and organizational development for the common good. North/South HE partnerships are understood by Robson as important 16 opportunities to promote cultural diversity and foster intercultural understanding, respect, and tolerance among peoples. There do seem to be alternative systems of meaning influencing organizational practice of North/South partnerships. I have read work by actors in the field who promote changes to partnership practices underpinned by the concept of global interconnectedness. Interconnectedness is associated with a religious or spirituality logic. Crossman (2018) referenced the power of interconnectedness in HE partnerships to associate scholars together to generate progressive change (Crossman, 2018). Partners feeling connected to each other and their work can inspire a capacity to “generate change through collaborative action and behavior” in the globalized HE landscape (Crossman, 2018). Chasi and Rodny-Gumede (2019) argued that the need to maintain a relationship with their colonizers has positioned Africa to work towards the decolonization of their systems (i.e., education, government, economy, etc.) and lead alternative approaches to partnerships, education, and international work (Chasi & Rodny-Gumede, 2019; Takyi-Amoako, 2018). However, most – but not all – of the robust discourses I have read related to alternative international partnership practices have been authored by Southern scholars and published in journals with a low journal impact factor (Lariviere & Sugimoto, 2019). Thus, I understood the meanings of collaborative practice represented in these communications as operating mostly in the margins. This study provided a survey of the field in terms of what practices and logics are present in peer-reviewed articles on North/South partnerships. Highlighting the presence of these alternatives may contribute to challenging a seeming trend in international partnerships toward practices underpinned by a market logic. 17 Institutional Logics Models The institutional logics model is a metatheoretical framework that enables researchers to analyze the linkages between societal-level logics and the behavior of institutional actors operating within organizational fields. The perspective integrates research on culture and cognition to provide an orienting strategy for a theory of how culture shapes action. Drawing on the tradition of social anthropologists and sociologists, scholars understand logics as the elementary building blocks of meaning systems. Organizational theorists have found the concept of institutional logics central for its power to explain the emergence and shaping of organizational practices (Scott, 2015). Grounding my study in an institutional logics framework, allowed me to link the collaborative practices present in published articles on North/South partnerships to the key social institutions of modern societies. A focus on culture and cognition. As noted in chapter one, the institutional logics perspective represents a significant paradigmatic shift within the realm of social sciences, revealing the intricacies of change within fields as a contested process between cultural systems rather than a taken for granted story of isomorphism. However, it was not until the introduction of the institutional logics approach by Friedland and Alford that important theoretical developments began on how to conceptualize and measure the content of institutional culture. Friedland and Alford (1991) offered a new approach, the institutional logics perspective, that conceptualized culture as externalized in practices and vocabularies, rendering norms as measurable facts. Essentially, in the institutional logics framework, culture is externalized, a departure from normative theories that envisage the persistence of norms through mechanisms of internalization. The emphasis of the perspective is to bring ‘society back’ to institutional theory by explaining how individuals and organizations behavior is anchored in different institutional 18 orders. From this perspective, individual and organizational behavior is understood to change in meaning with shifts in the referent to different institutional logics. The logics perspective provides an analysis of conflicting logics and contradictory practices without directing attention to the convergence of fields and organizations toward cultural hegemony. Instead, it highlights the dynamics of divergent logics and practices within an institutional landscape. Conceptualizing institutional logics. Institutional logics comprise the cultural knowledge available to social actors in society, institutional fields, and organizations. Johansen and Waldorff (2017) define institutional logics as “the socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality” (p. 6). Logics guide the allocation of the attention of individuals and organizations by shaping what problems and issues receive consideration and what solutions are likely to be considered in decision making. Logics as a levels approach. The institutional logics perspective recognizes that logics influence behavior and practice at various scales. The key levels within the perspective are: societal, field, organizational, and individual (Zimmerman, 2021). At the societal level, scholars delineate six distinct institutional orders or systems and associated logics: family, community, religion/spirituality, state, market, corporate, and profession (Thorton, 2012). These societal logics manifest in fields with properties unique to the field environment but the instantiation at the field-level remains ‘nested’ these higher order logics. From this perspective, actors’ collaborative practice in the field of international partnerships aligns with a distinct societal-level institutional logic - resting on an instrumental view of partnership as a means to strengthen a specific social domain. For example, in a study of HE publishing, Thornton (2002) described the 19 industry’s editorial practices as derived from profession and market logics. A study by Lounsbury (2007) documented how logics account for practice variation in the financial service industry. Individuals, if only subliminally, are aware that different social institutions are associated with different cultural symbols, norms, and practices. For example, the cornerstone institutional orders of society – the family, state, market, corporate, profession, community, and religion/spirituality – forefront different values, organizing principles, and actions (Friedland & Alford, 1991). Individuals incorporate this institutional diversity into their beliefs, decisionmaking, and behaviors. However, key theoretical questions remain related to how societal-level logics influence the reasoning and behaviors of individuals participating at the field level. As a levels-theory, the logics perspective provides a nuanced framework for understanding the complexities of organizational behavior and societal structures. Defining the specific cultural content of institutional logics. As mentioned in chapter one and above, each logic is defined by a set of cultural content that is the building blocks, or anchoring symbols, particular to that logic. For instance, the ideal market logic is characterized by a focus on competition, market dynamics, and the marketplace- where practice is structured by an economic system of market capitalism. In the context of this study, the notion of market logic is used to refer to broader notions of self-interest, status position in the market and market competitiveness that animate commercially driven action in Western capitalist economies. Driven by this logic, actors participating in HE North/South partnerships view HE as a private good and focus attention on the market dynamics of a partnership. According to this logic, the quality of the North/South partnership is defined by the market with a focus on marketability of partnership programs or outcomes and commercialization of HE. 20 To aid researchers like myself who aim to analyze the way logics are represented in practice, Thornton (2012) produced an outline of the anchoring cultural content of each institutional logic with a focus on sources of legitimacy. Kurlberg (2022) expanded Thorton’s (2012) work listing additional cultural content for four of the societal logics - market, corporate, religion/spirituality, and community - with a focus on the mission and definition of success for each (see Table 1). Specifying the key cultural content for each logic is meant to enable analysis of how societal culture influences practice or how logics can be ‘captured’ in action (Reay & Jones, 2016) - including within-field acts of communication. It is important to note that the 21 Table 1: Anchoring cultural content for the seven societal-level logics Market Corporate Mission Increase income, efficiency, and profit Increase the scale and scope of the organization *** Sources of legitimacy Share price Market position Democratic Unconditional Importance of participation loyalty faith and sacredness in economy and society Definition and Defined by determination return on of success investment and determined by income generated State Defined by *** organizational performance / status within the sector Family *** *** Religion / Spirituality Community Carry out God’s/your higher purpose Action in service of the community *** Unity of will. Belief in trust and reciprocity. Personal expertise Defined and determined by the community *** Defined and determined by ethical precepts Profession Note: *** is missing data. Kurlberg (2022) only expanded Thorton’s (2012) work on legitimacy for four of the seven societal logics. 22 cultural content within Table 1 is not meant to be definitive but to be expanded upon or amended depending on the study context. Logics and organizational change. The institutional logics perspective conforms to the empirical observation that while institutions provide constraints against and opportunities for change by actors, they are also simultaneously in conflict (Friedland & Alford, 1991). Indeed, without multiple institutional logics available to provide alternative meanings, resistance to existing unjust practices would be unthinkable for individuals and organizations. Thus, the institutional logics perspective is a nonfunctionalist conception of society as a contradictory inter-institutional system. A key assumption of the perspective is that individuals and organizations can transform the seven societal logics by exploring how to interpret and manipulate symbols and practices and, thus, contesting inconsistency in the institutions of different institutional orders. The concept of logics has proven useful for institutional and cultural analysis focused on understanding issues of diversity, conflict, and change (Sewell, 2005; Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). Change within institutional fields. The maintenance and evolution of practices in fields takes place through many channels. Field-level institutional change occurs when discourses outside the field start to impact practice and discourse within the field (Cornelissen et. al, 2015). This interdiscursivity4 represents the influence of societal-logics on the field-level logics. A practice contributes to maintaining or changing how a field is organized only after it becomes part of broader field-level conversations (Cornelissen et al, 2015). For instance, at the organizational or micro-level, there may be significant innovation in how a North/South partnership is practiced. However, for these practices to be accessible to HE actors at other 4 Interdiscursivity refers to the mixing of diverse discourses associated with institutional and social meanings in a single text, especially in contemporary institutional settings (Wu, 2011). 23 organizations, they need to be present and advanced in the formal discourse of field professionals (Reay & Jones, 2016). Following this, a practice enters actor communications at the field-level, where it can be disseminated and translated in ways that eventually constitute it as taken for granted or institutionalized (Thornton et al., 2012). In simpler terms, a field-level actor initiates or modifies a practice, writes about it, and eventually, through broader field-level conversations, the practice becomes widely accepted. Logic approaches in HE. A number of HE scholars argue for the use of the institutional logics perspective in HE research because HE increasingly represents a complex institutional system containing plural and even contesting institutional logics (Bastedo 2009, Shields & Watermeyer 2020). Lepori (2016) affirmed the use of an institutional logics approach for the study of HE, concluding that “logics theory could provide a more nuanced and flexible framework, which takes into account the multi-level nature of societal dynamics'' (p. 245). While previous HE studies offer evidence for the conceptual utility of the logics concept, few studies have examined their internal (cultural) properties. Some studies have examined rhetorical processes in the maintenance and change of logics (Dunn & Jones, 2010; Hartmann & Coslor, 2019) with a focus on developing frameworks to address an important unanswered question: How can the content of logics be represented to examine its influence on field-level actors? Golyagina (2020) argued that future research needs to attend to the vocabularies, narratives, and theorizations of HE fields in the context of institutional change. The communicative constitution of institutions. Logics are embodied, reproduced, and evolve through the discourse and interactions of participating individual and organizational actors. The impact of these logics on practice is mediated by the words and phrases used to 24 justify them, giving them specific social meaning. In simpler terms, the ways people talk about and justify their actions contribute to the construction and evolution of logics. The words used play a crucial role in shaping the social meaning of these logics. Scholars in communicative institutionalism highlight that the way practices are expressed and justified plays a central role in how institutional logics are formed and conveyed at the broader field level (adapted from Cornelissen et al., 2015). The reasons given for specific practices not only reveal the underlying values but also associate them with a broader societal purpose or mission. This, in turn, directs organizational attention toward specific types of practice while downplaying others (Thornton et al., 2012). This process leads to the creation of specific combinations or strategies that individuals and organizations use to guide their practices. The concept of reasoning schema. Reasoning schema are viewed as structures of words and meaning used to articulate each logic. The reasoning schema for a field provides participants with a shared knowledge that is essential for the coordination of social action (Loewenstein et al., 2012). These schemas are a lynchpin in meaning-making processes in institutional logics as they mediate the impact at the empirical level of the desirable behaviors, intentions, and ideas (i.e., the cultural content) embedded in institutional logics. Logics, via their reasoning schema, guide the means to ends of practice (Kurlberg, 2021). Reasoning schema and the nuances between them are crucial because they open up and simultaneously limit the institutional framework or what practices and means to end are easily accessible to organizational actors. Conclusion This literature review chapter provides an overview of the critical role of international partnerships in addressing global challenges. It underscores the compelling necessity for heightened involvement of historically marginalized actors in the sphere of HE the Global South. 25 Cultural analysis exposes the predominance of market- and corporate-based culture, prompting concerns about the reproduction of Western-based normative practice in both the Global South and the broader global HE landscape. In this study, I conceptualize North/South collaboration as an epistemic struggle, recognizing inequalities and advocating for alternative approaches to establish mutually beneficial partnerships. The institutional logics model functions as a metatheoretical framework - remarkable for its conceptualization of culture as externalized in practices and actors' communications. This externalization facilitates the examination of cultural dynamics that shape these collaborations and an exploration of how different societal-level cultural systems or logics (i.e., market, community, state, religion/spirituality, corporate, and profession) influence North/South collaborative practices, including how HE actors articulate and justify specific practices within their published communication. This novel analytical framework enriches our understanding of how logics, as representations of culture, can shape collaborative practice and opportunities for innovation in how HE North/South partnerships are organized. 26 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS Given the explanatory power of institutional logics as described in Chapters One and Two, I conducted a qualitative document analysis study to answer the following two research questions: RQ1. In peer-reviewed articles on North/South partnerships, what international partnership practices are advanced? RQ2. Which logics underpin the international partnerships practices advanced in peerreviewed articles on North/South partnerships? I analyzed text in 58 peer-reviewed articles in the field of HE international partnerships that focused on North/South collaboration between organizations of HE. All articles in the data set were published in 2022. By capturing the institutional logics that HE actors used to reason different types of international partnership practices, I gained a better understanding of the cultural content and value struggles that currently define the field. Research Paradigm Epistemology. In this qualitative study I embraced the world view of social constructivism. Rather than pursuing a single truth or reality, social constructivists assert that individuals construct their own realities based on personal history and social context (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). The study places special emphasis on participants collectively constructing knowledge through communication and justification (or reasoning). Participants in an academic field engage in a process where macro social structures are constructed and mediated through communication (Cornelissen et al., 2015). This constructivist driven perspective aligns with the fundamental concept of institutional logics, emphasizing the communicative constitution, maintenance, and transformation of societal institutions. 27 Ontological sensitivities. Critical realist scholars seek to overcome the dualism of objectivist or subjectivist approaches by distinguishing between epistemology (our knowledge of reality) and ontology (the nature of reality). Critical realism, as a philosophy of science, recognizes that knowledge is a social construct but assumes the existence of an objective world that has causal powers and properties that can be more accurately known as a consequence of scientific research (Fletcher, 2017; Vincent & O’Mahoney, 2018). The actualization of a structure's inherent causal power, whether or not it has an observable impact at the empirical level, is understood as dependent on the social context (Roberts, 2014). This means that causal structures, like institutional logics, are social products that can ultimately be understood through and indeed, that exist within phenomena at the empirical level. Human action and ideas are generated by these structures. The centrality of identifying structures to explain human action means that critical realists put theory first (Roberts, 2014). Informed by critical realism thought, I ground this study in the theory of institutional logics, as a way to better understand the causal structures that go beyond participants' individual choice and action in taken for granted ways. Important, while critical realism treats the world as theory-laden, it is not understood as theory-determined (Fletcher, 2017). A critical realism informed methodology facilitates a deeper analysis by researchers that can support, elaborate, or fully deny the usefulness of the starting theory to explain empirical observations (or reality). The following sections outline: 1) the techniques I used to collect and accumulate empirical data, and 2) a data analysis plan that forefronts theoretical contributions on the suitability of institutional logics as robust sources of organizational practice variation and change. 28 Qualitative Analysis of Published Articles as an Independent Research Strategy All documents have potential value as what Prior (2008) has termed ‘generative documents’, which is to say as documents that ‘set out the boundaries in terms of which [we] think and talk and write’ (p. 46). Qualitative document analysis (QDA) is a form of qualitative research that uses a systematic procedure to analyze documentary evidence and answer specific research questions (Gross, 2018). QDA is a viable independent research strategy that should not be considered merely as a supplement to other methods (Gross, 2018). QDA can be conducted as a stand-alone study to answer questions about cultural context, organizational activities, group dynamics and more (Bowen, 2009; Davie, 2021). The design for this study was a QDA. Documents are vital artifacts shaping the socio-cultural landscape and dynamics of fields (Prior, 2008). By examining these generative documents, researchers can uncover the cultural contours that influence what scholars and practitioners think, discuss, and publish about a particular phenomenon. In this study, I understood published articles as more than just repositories of information; they actively contribute to defining and refining discursive boundaries in North/South partnerships. The communications within articles offer insights into the reasoning and logics guiding the actions and decisions of those actively engaged in a field. Scholars and practitioners express and disseminate the logics that inform their perspectives through their publications. By choosing published articles as the primary source, I tap into scholarly discourse where HE actors communicate, debate, and shape practice. Warshaw and Upton (2019) outline the value of utilizing QDA to study institutional logics in HE. They connect phenomena of interest to logic scholars with QDA’s strength as a strategy, providing insight into universities’ organizing principles and the negotiation of competing demands and expectations (Warshaw & Upton, 2019). Recent examples, such as Cai 29 & Mountford (2021) and Warshaw & Upton (2020), illustrate the effectiveness of QDA in studying logics. These examples represent an integration of methodological developments in QDA with an emphasis on answering questions about the structure of broad complex fields. The communications within published articles provided a window into the reasoning and logics guiding the actions and decisions of those actively engaged in a field. Through their publications, scholars and practitioners expressed and disseminated the logics that informed their perspectives and influenced the practices they advocate or critique. Analyzing these documents allows for a nuanced exploration of the complexities inherent in North/South partnerships in HE. It unveils not only the explicit practices articulated by field participants but also the tacit logics underpinning these practices. My study is positioned to capture the multiplicity of voices, the diversity of logics, and the contested nature of practice within the field. The QDA study design and choice of published articles as my primary data set offer an innovative framework for exploring the cultural dynamics of North/South collaborations, providing insights into both intended and potentially unintended consequences of these types of partnerships. The institutional logics concepts and variables relevant to my study align with a QDA study design. Embedded in text are the logics - social structures and cultural influences - guiding action at multiple levels. Document analysis enables researchers to gain a rich and nuanced understanding of the prevailing logics within complex fields. I used QDA to explore the practices present in peer-reviewed articles on North/South partnerships, along with the structuring institutional logics that underpin these practices. Therefore, my choice of a QDA for analyzing published articles serves as a strategic methodological decision to unravel the intricate tapestry of practices and logics shaping the 30 landscape of North/South partnerships. This aligns with the study aim to not only observe but actively engage with the discursive space where field actors contribute to the ongoing construction of knowledge and meaning within these collaborations. My focus on published articles enhances the depth and richness of the study by tapping into the nuanced and contested language within the scholarly community, providing a robust foundation for a QDA approach. Document Selection. In this study, I used the techniques of a semi-systematic literature review (SSR) to identify the peer-reviewed published articles that were the focus of the QDA in relation to the study’s two complementary research questions. SSRs are designed to assist researchers in providing an overview of a topic that has been conceptualized differently and studied by researchers within diverse disciplines (Wong et al., 2013). Given the impracticality of reviewing every single article related to the topic, SSRs combine the rich analytic nature of qualitative research with some processes of a systematic review (Grant & Booth, 2009). This study adhered as much as possible to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines5 for reviews, while also adhering to the analytical principles of qualitative research. PRISMA guidelines offer a structured approach for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Page et al., 2021). They offer researchers a framework for reporting the various stages of the review process, encompassing identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion of studies. By aligning with PRISMA, I ensure methodological rigor and transparency in the review process. This dual approach allowed me to comprehensively and systematically review the relevant literature published in 2022 while maintaining alignment with the analytical principles of qualitative QDA. 5 While PRISMA was created as a checklist for researchers conducting systematic reviews (Page et al., 2021), Wong (2013) argued that following some aspects of PRISMA can help QDA researchers ensure methodological rigor in designing and reporting the study. 31 Qualitative document analysis methods. Similar to other methods of analysis in qualitative research, QDA requires repeated review, examination, and interpretation of the data to derive meaning and empirical knowledge of the construct under study. QDA generates data in the form of words, excerpts, or entire passages, which are then organized into major themes, categories, and examples commonly through content analysis (Labuschagne, 2003). Content analysis, as analytic strategy, involves making inferences about the messages within the texts and their social context (Eisner, 1991), providing valuable insights into complex models of human thought and language that may be difficult for other strategies to analyze (Krippendorff, 2004). Using words and phrases to capture logics. Within the institutional logics perspective, the role of language in constituting logics and the impact of communication on the processes by which logics influence practice have gained prominence among researchers (Cornelissen et al, 2015). Published articles, as communicative events, constitute institutional logics and are particularly useful for studying practices associated with different logics (Ocasio et al. 2015). Reay and Jones (2016) describe the research process of identifying and describing logics ‘capturing,’ emphasizing a qualitative approach to portray a likeness of and reveal a phenomenon through thick description. Warshaw and Upton (2019) argued that HE provides a rich stream of data for capturing institutional logics, given its abundance of published communications. Despite differences in their awareness of logics or structural conditions affecting their actions, HE actors’ discourse can be analyzed using content analysis to trace logics (Mahmood & Uddin, 2021). Zimmerman (2020) suggested an additional avenue for research, proposing an analysis of the reasoning schema that occurs with a practice. This approach aims to discern the internal cultural content 32 intrinsic to different logics that field participants evoke, facilitating the identification of nuanced meanings associated with similar types of practices. Units of analysis and subunits. In institutional logics, reasoning schemas play a crucial role in meaning-making (see Figure 1). For instance, in Zimmerman’s (2020) study on sustainability practices in German banking, some administrators expressed philanthropy as “a form of advertising” or means to gain public attention. Zimmerman categorized “a form of advertising” as part of the reasoning category “differentiation from competitors.” This reasoning schema aligns with the market logic (see Figure 2). Figure 2: Interrelationship of a market logic, the reasoning schema ‘differentiation from competitors,’ and the practice type of ‘philanthropic activities’ Institutional logic as cultural structure Reasoning schema Provides social actors with Market Restrain and motivate Differentiation from competitors (or global competitiveness) Reproduce Category of collaborative practice Philanthropic activities Reinforce and change and change By analyzing how actors’ reason a practice, I can identify the dominant logics represented and the specific reasoning schema inherent to those logics. Building on this, the primary unit of analysis for my study is the logics that underpin advanced practices in North/South research partnerships. The study subunits of analysis include: types of practices and 33 categories of reasoning schemas. Ultimately, the reasoning schema or justification aligned with each field logic represent the boundaries of acceptable practice or practice conventions for this context. Article Selection To develop the final search and selection strategy for my study, I began by conducting a preliminary review of the topic. This preliminary review was based on a predetermined search strategy. I followed Wang et al.’s (2013) suggestions for using SSR techniques to obtain an overview of a specific topic within a field. Determining the scope and keywords. The first step in my review study was to determine the scope and keywords. I selected a preliminary list of keywords by building on the relevance of the topic of international and North/South research partnerships in the context of HE institutions and the study research questions. Taking into account that North/South research partnerships can affect many areas and activities in HE, I defined keywords broadly. Being aware of the synonyms for preliminary keywords ensured the final list comprehensively covered the topic and research questions, identifying the “best evidence” for my study. A HE librarian assisted in developing the preliminary list of keywords and their synonyms. I conducted the literature search using search strings generated from the preliminary keywords and their synonyms, along with Boolean6 search operators. For instance, I combined the term “higher education” with “partnership” and North/South. Key words from the preliminary list that failed to generate new articles were excluded from the final keywords list and search strings. Table 2 displays the final keywords used for my study, and Table 3 lists the final search strings. 6 Boolean Operators are simple words (and, or, not, or and not) used as conjunctions to combine or exclude keywords in a search. 34 Table 2: Final list of keywords and their synonyms Keywords Synonyms Higher education higher education, university, college Partnership partnership, collaboration, alliance North/South North/South, North, South, international, cross-border, global, transnational, Africa, Asia, South America, Central America Table 3: Final Boolean search strings Keywords Boolean Search Operator Content Searched Search Strings Higher education University College “Higher education” AND Partnership Collaboration Alliance “Partnership*” North/South North South International Global Cross-border Transnational Africa Asia South America Central America AND Title or Keywords or Abstract “Higher education” AND “Partnership*” AND “North/South” Following the recommendation of Webster and Watson (2002), I conducted extensive keyword searches in key digital databases for HE and international HE research: Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC. These databases contain a broad selection of peer-reviewed articles specific to the field of HE. To ensure the literature’s accessibility to me as a researcher, I restricted the 35 language to English. Given the study’s focus on peer-reviewed journal articles, I narrowed the search to journals, and only articles were considered. The search covered articles published from January to December of 2022. Using a SSR design (Snyder, 2019), I began by screening titles, abstracts, and keywords. Articles including any of the preliminary terms in these sections were identified as potentially relevant to HE North/South partnerships. Inclusion and exclusion criteria. To confirm that articles tagged in the initial step included relevant, I examined the introduction of each selected article. Articles meeting the criteria for inclusion focused on North/South partnerships between two or more HEIs. Some articles exclusively centered on North/South partnerships between HEIs and nonprofit organizations or corporations. Following the inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined in Table 4, I tagged articles for further review. 36 Table 4: Inclusion and exclusion search criteria ● ● ● ● Inclusion Exclusion ● ● ● ● In English Journal article, review or conference paper Partnering for research collaboration/knowledge production Partnership is between two or more HEIs with at least one located in the global North and one located in the global South Partnership is at the organizational, department/unit, or faculty level Empirical or conceptual A practice is advanced in the text The practice present can be associated with a reasoning schema ● South/South or North/North partnerships ● Studies that used an international data set but the project team did not include faculty from a North- and South-based HE institution. ● Partnerships with for- or non-profit organizations, communities, or K-12 institutions ● Bibliographic studies ● Interviews ● Book reviews ● No practice is advanced in the text ● No reasoning schema can be associated with the practice present The purpose and discussion section of this set of articles was then read to ensure they meet the inclusion criteria. The remaining 58 articles (see Appendix A) constituted the primary data source used to answer the research questions. The final study document selection process is illustrated in Figure 3 using a PRISMA selection diagram. 37 Figure 3: PRISMA flow diagram for the study document selection process Data Abstraction and Analysis Data analysis of the types of advanced practices (RQ1) and logics that underpin practice (RQ2) in the field of North/South research partnerships comprised five analytical steps. This process focuses on capturing the logics as instantiated by multiple field-level actors in order to link these practices to broader cultural structures and explain variation in how North/South 38 partnerships are practiced. I describe each analytical step I used in detail below and outlined the steps in Figure 4. Figure 4: Outline of analytical steps Causation coding (Step 1) Identification of North/South partnership practices and their justification Categorization of reasoning schema (Step 2) Identification of reasoning schema(s) for each practice Assignment of reasoning schema to a logic (Step 3) Based on a thorough consideration of the literature on the anchoring cultural characteristics of each logic Creation of categories of practices (Step 4) Clustering of similar types of practices Causation coding at the aggregated level (Step 5) Analysis of link between a type of practice and each field-level logic Data Analysis - Causation coding (step 1). I started formal data analysis by openly coding the full repertoire of practices mentioned in order to systematically capture what activities are part of legitimate field-level discourse. I read the introduction, purpose, discussion, and 39 conclusion section of each article. I used Dedoose 9.0.17 (2021) to code paragraphs that contained a partnership practice. Drawing on the concepts of reasoning schemas (Thornton et al., 2012), the analysis then focused on the causal relationships between a specific practice and a reason given for that practice by multiple actors – a process referred to as causation coding (Saldana, 2013). Continuing to use Dedoose 9.0.17 (2021), I coded the specific reasoning schema associated with each practice - present within the identified paragraph of text. Words and phrases indicating causality, such as due to, because, as, so since, thus, consequently, that is why, in order to, therefore, if-then (etc.), serve as indicators of such assumptions (Nadkarni & Narayanan, 2005). For example, Kyeremeh and colleagues (2020) discussed the practice of “subverting existing power structures in order to achieve genuinely innovative research” (emphasis mine, p. 258). American Council on Education (ACE) (2015) guidelines for international collaboration list the practice of “ensuring time for building relationships with international partners” as a way to “facilitate good research.” Categorization of reasoning schema (step 2). Second, I grouped the reasoning schema I identified in step 1 to extract the justification(s) for the practice observed in actors’ communications. I derived the names for the reasoning schema categories from the terms used by field actors in their published communications (i.e. published articles). I gave high importance to reasoning schema that appeared in multiple articles. Therefore, I searched for “within-group similarities and across group differences” in the reasons expressed for a given practice (Eisenhardt, 1989: 540). Several practices were linked to more than one reasoning schema. As most HE organizations grapple with institutional complexity (Doty & Glick, 1994), I posit that actors may have mixed motives or justifications for the same international practice. 40 Assignment of reasoning schemas to a logic (step 3). Third, drawing upon the premise that I can infer the meaning of actions from their connection to reasoning schema (Misangyi 2016: p 425), I assigned each reason to a logic. Reasoning schemas do not strictly refer to the use of certain words, rather they denote the innovation of particular institutional reasons used to explain specific practices (Mysangyi, 2016). For instance, I coded text references to profit maximization as associated with the market logic, any reference to religious or spiritual values as associated with the religion/spirituality logic, and so on. The communication of reasoning schema instantiates logics as they draw upon the social conventions or cultural content inherent in a logic (Ocasio & Joseph, 2005). That is, when the reason cited is a clear reference to the motives, values, and aims associated with a given logic. Following the technique outlined by Reay and Jones, I matched each reasoning schema with a logic based on the predetermined key cultural content of each logic (see Table 1 on page 21). Reay and Jones (2016) identified this technique as pattern matching and as a distinct technique that could be used to identify specific instantiations of institutional logics. This approach has been taken in a number of studies, such as Goodrick and Reay’s (2011) research on pharmaceutical practice in the U.S. Pattern matching privileges both theory and previous research and is an important step in the analysis that moved my research from empirical observation to the application of theory. The possibility that during analysis, from the data, a new field-specific logic may emerge remained open. Clarifying the matching criteria. Further elucidating the process of matching each reasoning schema to a logic, I deeply reflected on the cultural content or characteristics distinguishing the six field logics present. This reflection, informed by my researcher memos (as detailed later in this chapter), indicated that assigning reasoning schemas to specific logics was 41 not always straightforward. For instance, practices seemingly related to 'profit maximization' initially appeared to align solely with market logic. However, a deeper examination revealed these practices also involved aspects of professional development, necessitating a nuanced approach. Take, for example, a specific instance within an article where I analyzed a practice initially matched with the corporate logic due to its focus on organizational scaling. Within the same section of text, I identified an additional justification for this practice that fostered communal values and reciprocal relationships within North/South partnerships, aligning it also with the community logic. This discovery, emerging from a meticulous reevaluation of the same text segment, underscored the complexity and dual meaning of the practice. It highlighted the importance of recognizing that multiple reasoning schemas, and hence multiple logics, could be attached to a single practice within the same text. Conversely, the reasoning schema of ‘becoming an agent of change’ demonstrated a different kind of complexity. In one instance within a specific article, this schema referred to tangible outcomes like improved research or teaching methodologies, aligning it with the profession logic. Yet, in different articles across the dataset, this justification transcended the confines of professional development and focused on personal and spiritual growth, aligning with the religion/spirituality logic. These aspects of ‘becoming an agent of change’ are not just about skill development but about a deeper transformation impacting one’s worldview and approach to life and work, promoting values like empathy, compassion, and a sense of connectedness to a larger purpose. This step in the study design ensures a nuanced understanding of the implications and effects of practices that, on the surface, may seem straightforward in terms of their meaning and potential impact. 42 Creation of categories of types for practices (step 4). Fourth, I clustered similar practices in similar types. In analyzing the practices present in the data set into types, I drew on ACE’s widely referenced 2015 report on best practices for international collaboration. However, I quickly felt that these categories did not adequately represent the breath of practices present in the data set and the nuances that differentiated these practices. I kept analytical memos for within-article and across-article memos to help develop an updated set of international collaboration practice types. This allowed me to include additional types of practices that can help explain organizational behavior and change within HE North/South partnerships including practices related to actors’ way of being and mindset. Causation coding at the aggregated level (step 5). Fifth, I repeated the causal coding undertaken in the first step of analysis. This time, however, at the aggregated level. That is, I elaborated on the grouped practices and associated reasoning schema. This step enabled me to compare which logics and their inherent reasonings schema relate to which types of international partnership practices. This step revealed how each logic - via reasoning schema - constructs a different institutional framework, which contains only those practices that are perceived at fieldlevel as appropriate to support that cultural system. Summary of analysis. The analysis process outlined above was aimed at understanding the meanings ascribed to each logic presented by this collection of actors and the types of practices associated with each logic. The process led to the development of a typology of institutional logics unique to the field. This typology delineates the specific combination of logic-practice frameworks for North/South international partnerships. The reasoning schemas serve as a filter for the institutional framework of each logic, aiding in the identification of practices associated with specific field logics. Understanding the reasoning schema for each field 43 logic helps elucidate subtle distinctions among similar practices. For instance, two logics may bring about a similar practice within a field, but it is the distinct reasoning schema provided by field actors that construct diverse cultural or social objectives for the practice and, consequently, different means to end or approaches to implementation. To put it another way, reasoning schema construct the boundaries for the degree to which a practice underpinned by a specific logic gets materialized through actors’ behavior. The analysis was further deepened by critically reflecting on the criteria for matching reasoning schemas to logics. This reflection emphasized the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between logics, as each represents unique social objectives, motives, and values. The distinction ensures that practices are understood in their correct context, providing a comprehensive understanding of the diversity of how practice is conceptualized and implemented both within the same and different situations. This nuanced approach not only aids in contextual accuracy but also contributes to the broader academic discourse on organizational complexity in HE, enriching our understanding of the interplay of the practice-meaning or practice-logic combinations that shape the international partnerships in HE landscape. Furthermore, I must emphasize the distinction between the theoretical underpinnings of institutional logics and their practical application in coding. In this study, institutional logics are not just coding labels; they are theoretical frameworks that aid in interpreting the diverse cultural underpinnings of the identified practices. Each logic encapsulates unique cultural norms, values, and expectations, thereby shaping how we interpret practice meanings within HE North/South partnerships. While grounded in these theoretical frameworks, the coding process is a practical tool for systematic categorization and analysis of practices. This distinction is crucial, highlighting that logics extend beyond mere coding mechanisms; they are foundational concepts 44 driving our comprehension of the intricate interplay between practices, reasoning, and cultural influences in the field. Reflexivity Unlike some quantitative researchers, qualitative scholars reject the idea that external data is simply “given” to us and claim instead that we can gain “qualified objectivity” in research (Roberts, 2014: p. 2). For critical realists, this type of objectivity is a contextual approach based on the assumption that it is possible to make judgements about the research process as long as these are made through “responsible forms of rationality” (Manicas, 2009: p. 35). Throughout the study I was reflexive about the phenomena of study. As defined by Manicas (2009), this involved asking ongoing probing questions during the research process such as whether my interpretation makes sense and indeed is managing to capture some of the unique social relations evident in the context at hand. Reflexivity is what leads to questions about the causal relationships attached to these social relations. It is at this point that a critical realist informed methodology becomes especially useful in contributing to a theory of causality which is compatible with qualitative research methods. I captured my researcher's reflections as part of the process of memo writing as outlined in the next section. Writing researcher memos. Memos are written records of a researcher’s thought, distillation and processes; they illuminate potential gaps and guide where the researcher should seek more empirical data (Birks & Mills, 2011; Glaser, 1978). While initially developed by grounded theory scholars, the method is commonly incorporated into the methodology of critical realists (Roberts, 2014). Memos can vary in the level of coherence, length, and theoretical usefulness to the completed product. However, each memo is equally important, and as a 45 collective, they speak to the usefulness of the starting theory to explain the researchers’ empirical observations. Conclusion This methodology and methods chapter employed a qualitative document analysis approach to investigate international partnership practices within HE North/South collaborations. Drawing on the explanatory power of institutional logics, I conducted a thorough examination of 58 peer-reviewed articles published in 2022, focusing on North/South partnerships. The study embraced a social constructivist epistemology, acknowledging the construction of realities through communication and justification within fields. Grounded in critical realism, the methodology prioritized the theory of institutional logics, emphasizing the social construction of causal structures influencing human action. The research paradigm facilitated a comprehensive analysis, employing QDA as an independent research strategy. The document selection process involved a SSR, while data analysis utilized causation coding, categorization of reasonings, assignment of reasoning schemas to logics, creation of practice types, and causation coding at the aggregated level. This approach led to the development of a new analytical framework for practice within HE North/South partnerships. 46 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS As outlined in Chapter 1, the purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of what international partnership practices are advanced by HE actors participating in North/South partnerships and what logics underpin these practices. These logics shape field-level constraints and opportunities for organizational change and can be captured from actors’ communications about practice. I carried out this qualitative document analysis of articles on North/South higher education partnerships by first identifying the types of practice conventions present in the text. Steps were then taken to capture the logic or cultural system that different types of practices represent and in turn, reproduce. There were two complementary research questions that guided the study: RQ1. In peer-reviewed articles on North/South partnerships, what international partnership practices are advanced? RQ2. Which logics underpin the international partnerships practices advanced in peerreviewed articles on North/South partnerships? In this chapter I provide an overview of study findings, organizing it around the four main findings: 1) types of practices advanced, 2) the institutional logics that underpin these practices, 3) unique reasoning schemas, and 4) frameworks of logic-practice combinations. I address RQ1 directly through finding one and RQ2 through finding two. Finding three was revealed in the analytical steps I employed to answer RQ2. In the final stage of analysis, I unveiled finding four. The results of my study present HE actors an innovative analytical framework to comprehend practice within North/South partnerships. Each main finding is explored below in greater detail via rich description and theory-driven interpretation of the study documents. 47 Overview of findings. The first main finding for the study is the identification of 11 different types of field-level practices. In this study, I understand practice as both a way of doing things or operating (e.g., conducting in-person meetings, incorporating the value of sustainability) and a state of being (Fearon & Viall, 2015) (e.g., be culturally aware, be open). Distilling the complex reality of the diversity of practices present in the field into 11 practice groups creates assemblages of practices that are more manageable from both cognitive and analytics perspectives. Indeed, without clear categories of practices to work with, the final step of the analysis would not have been possible. The second main finding of the study is that five of the seven institutional logics of modern societies were represented in the field of HE North/South partnerships: community, corporate, market, profession, and religious/spiritual. The state and family logic were not represented in the data set. However, I found a sixth field logic underpinning international partnership practices, a social justice logic. This logic is anchored in the value of fairness and forefronts ideals related to a just society. The field-level logics developed through my research are closely related to a traditional societal-level typology but as they relate to a more narrow and specific sphere of action, study findings can include additional logics that emerged as significant during the data collection process (Kurlberg, 2022). The six field logics represented in the study data spotlight the diverse cultural systems competing to shape the behavior of participating individuals and organizations - by representing different frames of reference or expectations for action. Consistent with institutional theory, I found identical field practices were underpinned by different logics. In other words, practices took on a different meaning depending on the textual context or words that co-occurred with the practice. 48 Main finding three spotlights the unique reasoning schema associated with each field logic. Articulating the reasoning for a practice is essential for the coordination of social action (Loewenstein et al., 2012). The reasoning schemas for the field of North/South partnerships are the unique words and meaning employed by field actors to underpin or associate a practice with a specific logic. To put it differently, the meaning of a practice is constructed from the articulated reasoning schema that it co-occurs with within the text. Understanding the reasoning schema associated with a societal logic at the field-level enables researchers to capture logics more effectively and examine more clearly the impact of a specific logic or cultural system (e.g., market, community, profession) on field dynamics. I revealed the fourth main finding of the study through the last analytical step - causation coding at the aggregate level. This step in the analysis sought to learn if different types of practices (Main Finding One) cluster around a specific field logic (Main Finding Two). Using study data, I found the method could help researchers delve deeper into the study of institutional logics and practice by identifying field logic frameworks of practices for each logic. I will discuss these four major findings in more detail below and illustrate each finding using text directly from the study documents. Main Finding One: Types of Practices Present This section will provide an overview of the different types of practices present in the field of North/South partnerships. This finding came out of the first step of the study analysis in which I coded any international collaborative practice present in the introduction, discussion, or conclusion (see Figure 4, Step 1). From the 58 articles analyzed, I coded 402 practices. I later grouped the coded practices by type or practices that share common features and differentiate them from other categories (see Figure 4, Step 4). In forming the practice categories I drew from 49 the existing literature on international partnership practices. The 11 different types of practices found in the data set are detailed below with definitions and illustrative text. I list additional examples for each practice type is Table 5 (on page 52). Create quality international networks. This category refers to practices undertaken to ensure the creation, impact, expansion, and sustainability of international networks in higher education. Illustrated by Loon et al.’s (2022) pursuit of recognized benchmarks to ensure robust academic and research success: “In order to ensure that we are prepared to weather changes in institutional and national leadership, we aim to achieve recognized benchmarks for academic and research success” (p. 103). Other examples directly from the data set include: “have a developed internationalization strategy,” “improve research integrity measures in North/South partnership,” “intentionally incorporate technology,” and “incorporate the value of sustainability.” Integrate equity criteria into decision making. This category focuses on practices involving the consideration and prioritization of inclusivity and equal opportunities in decisionmaking. Mulvey (2022) argued non-transactional practices can help highlight the needs and aspirations of Southern partners: “...partnerships for capacity development must be equitable and transformative rather than transactional, otherwise needs may be ‘constructed’ by Northern partners rather than being accurate reflections of the actual requirements of the beneficiary” (p. 2425). Other examples directly from the data set include: “consider Southern partners in research agenda,” “orient processes toward co-creation,” “satisfy {Southern} partner’s aspirations,” and “jointly develop grant applications.” Tools to ensure alignment with local needs. This category refers to practices to prioritize and adequately address the specific requirements and aspirations of Southern partners. Here local refers to a number of geopolitical levels including national, institutional, community, and 50 individual. Ramaswamy and Kumas (2022) advocate for partnerships that incorporate sustainability practices as a tool to help align these collaborations: “Internationalisation policies should incorporate the value of {local} sustainability. This means that internationalisation activities should lack commercialisation, should value diversity and should avoid the sense of supremacy – that they are the best” (p. 534). Other examples from the data set include “avoid strategic power drivers for partnering,” “focus on South-based country priorities,” “create a strong sense of local ownership,” and “recognize the value of local experience.” Reflection and risk support. This category refers to practices that support critical thinking and encourage innovation including questioning norms and assumptions. Fernandes et al.’s (2022) example highlights the North/South collaborative practice of challenging one anothers’ accepted opinions and ideas: “Constructively challenging accepted opinions and ideas is central to their {partners’} development, and international collaborations can help to facilitate this” (p. 1143). Here Fernandes and his colleagues cited the act of supporting one’s academic partners to constructively challenge accepted opinions and ideas as a legitimate collaborative practice. Other examples directly from the data set include “be critical of power imbalances,” “reflect on one’s ethnocentric assumptions,” “be willing to take risks,” and “lean into the discomfort.” Foster personal connections. This category refers to practices designed to build and strengthen relationships and trust among individuals. Longley & Castro’s (2022) cited action aimed at creating a sense of belonging and support among partners: “the thinking otherwise that we wish to engage in lies in deliberately reorienting our research towards a focus on relationships…practices that value friendship and mutual respect over the status objects of critical work” (p. 85). Other examples from the data set include: “focus on informal 51 relationships,” “incorporate socializing exercises,” “create an open atmosphere,” and “be willing to share vulnerability.” Active engagement. This category refers to practices that encourage and facilitate the active participation, involvement, and contribution of individuals in the partnership. Teunissen et al. (2022) underscores the importance of practicing flexibility and fostering support within North/South partnerships: “It was important for the steering group to exercise flexibility and foster support, across the different levels of the consortium…to ensure participation and joint ownership of the project” (p. 51). Other examples from the data set include: “communicate frequently,” “host in-person visits by both teams,” “schedule the extra time engagement requires,” and “focus on increasing the engagement of Southern partners.” Build consensus and shared understanding. This category refers to practices aimed at prioritizing and fostering collective agreement and a common comprehension among partners. Burr et al. (2022) recommended partners practice evoking a conscious effort towards building shared values: “When developing partnerships, make conscious efforts towards building shared values” (p. 21). Other examples from the data set include: “seek overall agreement on goals,” “keep record of commonly agreed milestones,” “help all partners find a common language and conceptual understanding,” and “cultivate a joint understanding of each partners’ responsibilities.” Offer capacity building. This category refers to practices undertaken to enhance the knowledge, skills, and abilities of a partner at the institutional or individual level. Sun & Kang (2022) recommend Northern partners equip home or Southern students with a global learning mindset: “Our study shed light on the importance of equipping home students with a global 52 learning mindset to counter academic dependency and instructional imperialism” (p. 18). Other examples from the data set include: “equip home students with a global learning mindset,” “invest in building peoples’ skills,” “strengthen mentor-mentee relationships,” and “focus on building institutional capacity.” Intentionally mitigate power and resource inequities. This category refers to practices involving approaches to reduce or redistribute power imbalances and address disparities in access to resources. Teunissen et al. (2022) cited investing in people {Southern partners} as a way for collaborative practice to address resource disparities between North/South partners. “converting a successful grant application into a successful {international} project requires investing in people” (p. 50). Other examples from the data set include: “ensure equal benefits,” “focus on empowerment of Southern institutions,” “equitable cost-sharing,” and “actively share resources with Southern partners.” Integrate reciprocal learning principles. This category refers to practices that foster a mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge, skills, and perspectives between partners. Mwampamba et al. (2022) emphasize the need for partners to act as conduits for knowledge exchange. “They {partnerships} need team members who are motivated to serve as conduits for knowledge exchange.” (p. 2). Other examples from the data set include: “ensure learning is bidirectional,” “orient processes toward learning to work differently,” and “coauthor manuscripts.” Cultural awareness and appreciation support. This category refers to practices involved in the development of an understanding and appreciation of different cultures including Southern partners’ customs and beliefs. Ruyani et al. (2022) cite the need for partners to act respectful of the {Southern} context and partners’ ways of interacting: “When developing international collegial relationships, researchers must respect the context of the culture and the social 53 interactions of the individual members of the cultural group” (p. 1). Other examples from the data set include: “learn the difficulties Southern partners face,” “be culturally sensitive,” “embed intercultural competencies into tasks,” and “promote internationalization as a process to appreciate cultural diversity.” This finding provides a comprehensive understanding of the diverse practices present in North/South partnerships. The 11 types of practices identified provide a direct answer to RQ1: In peer-reviewed articles on North/South partnerships, what international partnership practices are advanced? Study findings offer valuable insights into the intricacies and potential struggles over practice within the field. For example, the illustrative text from Teunissen et al. (2022) emphasized investing in people as an important partnership practice while Loon et al. (2002) emphasized practices directly linked to the pursuit of academic benchmarks. 54 Table 5: Types of practices present in north/south partnerships Type of Practice Category Description Practice Examples from the Data Set practices undertaken to ensure the creation, impact, expansion, and Create quality international sustainability of international networks networks in higher education. have a developed internationalization strategy, improve research integrity measures in North/South partnerships, intentionally incorporate technology, incorporate the value of sustainability practices involving the consideration and Integrate equity criteria into prioritization of inclusivity and equal opportunities when making decisions decision making consider Southern partners in research agenda, orient processes toward co-creation, satisfy partner’s aspirations, jointly develop grant applications practices to prioritize and adequately address the specific requirements and aspirations of Southern partners. avoid strategic power drivers for partnering, focus on South-based country priorities, create a strong sense of local ownership, recognize the value of local experience practices that support critical thinking including questioning norms and Reflection and Risk Support assumptions and that encourages innovation be critical of the power imbalances, reflect on one’s ethnocentric assumptions, be willing to take risks, lean into the discomfort Tools to ensure alignment with local needs practices that aim to build and strengthen focus on informal relationships, incorporate socializing relationships and trust among individuals exercises, create an open atmosphere, be willing to Foster personal connections share vulnerability 55 Table 5 (cont’d) Type of Practice Category Description Practice Examples from the Data Set Active engagement practices that encourage and facilitate the active participation, involvement, and contribution of individuals in the partnership. communicate frequently, host in-person visits by both teams, schedule the extra time engagement requires, focus on increasing the engagement of Southern partners practices aimed at prioritizing and Build consensus and shared fostering collective agreement and a understanding common comprehension among partners seek overall agreement on goals keep record of commonly agreed milestones, help all partners find a common language and conceptual understanding, and cultivate a joint understanding of each partners’ responsibilities Offer capacity building practices undertaken to enhance the knowledge, skills, and abilities of a partner at the institutional or individual level practices involving approaches to reduce Intentionally mitigate power or redistribute power imbalances and and resource inequities address disparities in access to resources equip home students with a global learning mindset, invest in building peoples’ skills, strengthen mentormentee relationships, and focus on building institutional capacity ensure equal benefits, focus on empowerment of Southern institutions, equitable cost-sharing, and actively share resources with Southern partners practices that foster a mutually beneficial ensure learning is bi-directional, be a conduit for Integrate reciprocal learning exchange of knowledge, skills, and knowledge exchange, orient processes toward learning principles perspectives between partners to work differently, and coauthor manuscripts Cultural awareness and appreciation support practices involved in the development of an understanding and appreciation of different cultures including their customs and beliefs 56 learn the difficulties Southern partners face, be culturally sensitive, embed intercultural competencies into tasks, and promote internationalization as a process to appreciate cultural diversity Organizing the practices present in complex fields like international partnerships into distinct groups makes it easier for practitioners and researchers to understand, compare, and study specific practices. This analytical step established a clear basis for the final step in the analysis, which highlighted the fourth main finding. Main finding two, however, required the identification and analysis of the reasoning scheme or justification that co-occurred with each of the 402 practices present. Main Finding Two: Institutional Logics Captured This section will provide an overview of the six logics that underpinned the 11 types of collaborative practices present in peer-reviewed articles on North/South partnerships - RQ2. Capturing field logics required identifying and interpretively analyzing the empirically observable reasoning scheme used to justify each of the 402 practices coded in step one of the analyses (see Chapter 2, Figure 5, Step 1). From the institutional logics perspective, these reasoning schemas represent the “unobservable, but essential, values and ideals anchoring a specific institutional logic” (Friedland, 2014), which confers its legitimacy. Below I provide a detailed overview of the six field logics that were represented in the data set of published articles (see Table 6 on page 57). Community logic. The societal values of the community logic include trust and reciprocity; emotional connection with group; and commitment to community values (Fathallah, 2018). Field specific articulations of the community logic forefronted the value of action in service of the Southern community. For instance, “Meaningful conservation science in Africa requires transdisciplinary models of doing research that are founded on strong North–South collaborations…and respond to locally defined conservation issues” (Mwampamba et al., 2022; p. 2). 57 Corporate logic. The societal values of the corporate logic include increasing the scale and scope of the organization (Fathallah, 2018). Field specific articulations of the corporate logic forefronted the same values. Field-specific instantiations similarly highlight fostering future opportunities to partner. For instance: “Relationships flourish within a framework of mutual trust and transparent communication, fostering additional opportunities for collaboration” (Loon et al., 2022; p. 103). Market logic. The societal values of the market logic include increasing income, proficiency, and profit (Fathallah, 2018), rooted in neoliberalism (Krippner, 2012). Field specific articulations reinforced these values, such as: “To continue competing, universities should invest in cross-cultural university partnerships. The survey has highlighted staff working relationships as the optimal means of forming connections, through meetings, exchanges, and academic events” (Fernandes et al., 2022; p. 1142). Profession logic. The societal values of the profession logic include increasing specialized knowledge and competencies (Fathallah, 2018). Field-specific articulations underscore the importance of respecting cultural contexts within North/South collaborations. For instance: “…researchers are learning from each other about conservation topics which are culturally and socially mediated from intrapersonal and interpersonal perspectives. When developing international collegial relationships, researchers must respect the context of the culture and the social interactions of the individual members of the cultural group” (Ruyani et al., 2022; p. 1). Religion/Spirituality logic. The societal values of the religion/spirituality logic include importance of faith and sacredness and carrying out god’s/a higher purpose (Fathallah, 2018). 58 Field specific articulation of the religion/spirituality logic fore-fronted the value of raising one’s consciousness and developing deep human connections such as: “our {partnership} journey reminds us that when we begin to shift our desires otherwise from outcomes, ego, and/or productivity, to “trust” and “be” in the moment with our writing or research projects and writing partners, something magical and healing emerges” (Edwards & Shahjahan, 2022; p. 771). Social justice logic. The field values of the social justice logic represented in field communications of practice include action in service to create a just and fair global society. For instance: “We suggest, as an area for future development, increased discussion of the deliverables and impact of critical and ethical global engagement - resisting certain metrics of success while also encouraging all partners involved to define what success means to them” (Canas et al., 2022; p. 1363). 59 Table 6: Within-text representations of north/south partnership field logics Corporate Community Field Logic Within-Text Representations Practice Coded Also, international students should be protected by laws made by their home country and their host country, especially during times of displacement, as witnessed during the present uncertain times of the COVID-19 pandemic (Ramaswamy & Kumas, 2022; p. 534). Advocate for protective laws for students from Southern HEI Meaningful conservation science in Africa requires transdisciplinary models of doing research that are founded on strong North–South collaborations…and respond to locally defined conservation issues (Mwampamba et al., 2022; p. 2). Be responsive to locally defined {conservation} issues Although the funding agency in the north had control over funding and provided some leadership, decisions about project strategy and activities were made jointly among partners and submitted to the funders ...to achieved the aim of building an equitable partnership (Hatløy et al., 2022; p. 1999). Make joint decisions about project strategy and activities A number of factors were identified that may be important in the establishment of such {internationally co-taught} courses. These include strong foundational interactions between the two universities…and regular meetings among faculty (Kim et al., 2022; p. 820). Regular meetings among partner faculty the need for flexibility in planning and conducting the work and the vital role of informed and skillful coordination… This framework offers a starting point for an important conversation about the significant investment required for international collaboration in higher education teaching and learning (Joughin et al, 2022; p. 843). Be flexible in planning and conducting the work Relationships flourish within a framework of mutual trust and transparent communication, fostering additional opportunities for collaboration (Loon et al., 2022; p. 103). Create a framework of mutual trust 60 Religion/Spiritual Professional Market Table 6 (cont’d) The greater the push to uplift the shock therapy’s performance, the better the effectiveness of the strategic international strategic alliance (Tlemsani et al, 2022; p. 701). Push to improve product effectiveness To continue competing, universities should invest in cross-cultural university partnerships. The survey has highlighted staff working relationships as the optimal means of forming connections, through meetings, exchanges, and academic events (Fernandes et al., 2022; p. 1142). Promote staff working relationships …meet annually for an in-person scientific symposium to share progress reports and to facilitate cross-communication among different investigator teams within the partnership (Loon et al., 2022; p. 103). Meet in-person annually …researchers are learning from each other about conservation topics which are culturally and socially mediated from intrapersonal and interpersonal perspectives. When developing international collegial relationships, researchers must respect the context of the culture and the social interactions of the individual members of the cultural group (Ruyani et al., 2022; p. 1). Respect the context of the culture and social interactions of members/group Constructively challenging accepted opinions and ideas is central to their {partners’} development, and international collaborations can help to facilitate this (Fernandes et al., 2022; p. 1143). Constructively challenge accepted opinions/ideas Our experiences of collaboration emphasize the importance of sustained partnerships... Only through sustained partnership can the teacher educators realize their full, much needed, potential of being the agents of change in their field and society (Posti-Ahokas et al., 2022; p. 313). Practice sustainable partnerships our {partnership} journey reminds us that when we begin to shift our desires otherwise from outcomes, ego, and/or productivity, to “trust” and “be” in the moment with our writing or research projects and writing partners, something magical and healing emerges (Edwards & Shahjahan, 2022; p. 771). Shift the focus away from outcomes; Trust and be in the moment with our partners 61 Social Justice Table 6 (cont’d) These interactions also prompted deeper awareness of the complexities involved in being a culture bearer…help us recognize our collective responsibility to critically examine our pedagogical choices (Mellizo et al., 2022; p. 98) Critically examine our pedagogical choices We suggest, as an area for future development, increased discussion of the deliverables and impact of critical and ethical global engagement - resisting certain metrics of success while also encouraging all partners involved to define what success means to them (Canas et al., 2022; p. 1363) Ask all partners involved what success means to them resources will sometimes need to be dedicated to strengthening of the institutional and human Institutional capacity for partners to negotiate ‘on a level playing field’ (Scheyvens & Cheer, 2022; p. capacity building, 2279) individual capacity building attention to the discipline’s neo-colonial tendencies and systemic inequities provides opportunities to critically examine practices and partnerships and for new paradigms to emerge that nurture bidirectional flows of knowledge and experience to promote global health equity (Sors et al, 2022; p. 2). 62 Recognize neocolonial tendencies and systemic inequities of discipline The six field logics represented in the data set reveal a complex North/South partnership landscape of collaborative practices - shaped by a number of distinct cultural systems or social domains. My comprehensive analysis of the logics that underpin the 11 field practice types (Main Finding One), demonstrated that each encompassed practices associated with four or more field logics. Similar to Thornton’s (2012) typology of societal-level logics that defined the source of legitimacy for each of these seven logics (see Table 1 on page 21), I was able to use these findings to construct a field-specific typology for North/South partnerships. Table 7 lists the field source of legitimacy for each field logic. These six logics structure action for field participants and offer insight into opportunities for organizational change. The multiple logics and types of practices present offer opportunities for actors to recognize and embrace different cultural content (i.e. values, expectations), that could foster more inclusive partnerships. 63 Table 7: Typology of field logics for north/south partnerships Community Source of legitimacy Action in service of the Southern community Corporate Market Profession Religion / Spirituality Social Justice Increase the scale and scope of the institution Increase income, efficiency, and return on investment Increase specialized knowledge and competencies Attaining a higher consciousness and/or deeper human connections Action in service to create a just and fair global society 64 The analysis process also highlighted that identical or similar practices can take on contradictory meanings based on the underlying logic and its anchoring values and/or ideals (i.e, cultural content) (see Table 8). This made it clear that certain types of practices such as ‘build/deepen trust’ or ‘cultural awareness and appreciation support’ may have divergent meanings and carry different societal purposes and expectations (see Table 8), even when seemingly similar. For instance, the practice of ‘build/deepen trust’ is associated with fostering ‘deep human connection’ in one context and as ‘fostering additional opportunities’ for collaboration in another. In contrast, this analysis spotlighted that actors may be able to leverage types of practices associated with more than one logic to develop novel approaches that foster innovation and flexibility. For example, recognizing the potential tension between the coexisting logics underpinning practices to ‘build/deepen trust’ actors can intentionally develop strategies for partnership that address one or more of the logics associated with the practice. This nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between logics, practices, and their meaning can potentially explain both stark and subtle outcomes differences for HE international partnerships employing similar practices (e.g., active engagement, ensure alignment with local need, offer capacity building). 65 Table 8: Same type of practice associated with different logics Build / Deepen Trust Type of Practice Logic Religion / Spirituality Community Corporate Illustrative Text The data here clearly suggests that the effectiveness of trust building requires an intentional willingness to risk, lean into the discomfort, and a desire to develop deep human connection (Worley et al, 2022; p. 747). Such {community needs focused} collaborations require transparency and accountability, institutional support, resource sharing, good communication, knowledge exchange and investments in trust building (Mwampamba et al., 2022; p. 2). {International} Relationships flourish within a framework of mutual trust and transparent communication, fostering additional opportunities for collaboration (Loon et al., 2022; p. 103). When the {partnership} problem being addressed through action learning is indeed challenging, complex, or uncertain, the accumulation of trust becomes paramount (Worley et al, 2022; p. 745). Cultural Awareness and Appreciation Profession When developing international collegial relationships, researchers must respect the context of the culture and the social interactions of the individual members of the cultural group (Ruyani et al., 2022; p. 1). Social Justice ...learn about the difficulties faced by partners as they seek to conform to working practices determined in very different institutional settings. …key questions recur—who has the power to recognise institutions, expect a predictable future and frame the past? (Axelby et al, 2022; p. 1498). 66 Main Finding Three: Field Categories of Reasoning Schema Practices within fields are grounded in underlying logics, discernible through an analysis of observable text and phrases or reasoning schema found communication of field actors. Institutional theorists interpret and classify reasoning schema into categories called reasoning schema. These schemas are literary constructs understood as carriers of the unobservable core values, beliefs, and societal objective that defines a specific logic (Thornton et al. 2012). While identical practices can be underpinned by different field logics (Table 8 on page 63), reasoning schemas are distinct to a specific logic or cultural belief system. Consistent with institutional theory, the study found that field logics unfolded their effects on practice through different reasoning schema. These reasoning schemas come to light in field practices through within-field agreed upon text or phrases associated with a practice, serving as manifestations of the anchoring values, ideals, and expectations of specific logics (Table 7 on page 61). This section will provide an overview of the eighteen reasoning schema highlighted in the study - organized by the field logic each reasoning schema embodies (Table 9 on page 67). Community logic. I identified four reasoning schema articulations of the community logic: local needs, shared understanding, reciprocity/mutuality, and do no harm. An illustrative reasoning schema for ‘local needs’ is: “Meaningful conservation science in Africa requires transdisciplinary models of doing research that are founded on strong North–South collaborations…and respond to locally defined conservation issues.” Other reasoning schemes associated with this logic include: ‘shared understanding,’ ‘reciprocity/mutuality,’ and ‘do no harm.’ Corporate logic. I identified three reasoning schema articulations of the corporate logic: promote internationalization, managerialism, and expansion. An illustrative reasoning schema 67 for the reasoning schema ‘promote internationalization’ is: “{International} Relationships have flourished with mutual trust and transparent communication, fostering additional opportunities for collaboration.” Other reasoning schemes associated with this logic include: ‘managerialism’ and ‘expansion.’ Market logic. I identified one reasoning schema articulation of the market logic: return on investment. An illustrative reasoning schema for the reasoning schema ‘return on investment’ is: “A number of factors were identified that may be important in the establishment of such {internationally co-taught} courses. These include strong foundational interactions between the two universities…and regular meetings among faculty.” Profession logic. I identified four reasoning schema articulations of the profession logic: professional development, collaborative teams, knowledge translation, and quality research. An illustrative reasoning schema for the reasoning schema ‘professional development’ is: “organizing time for project members to participate in the project, increases personal capacity building.” Other reasoning schemes associated with this logic include: ‘collaborative teams development,’ ‘knowledge translation,’ and ‘quality research.’ Religion/Spirituality logic. I identified two reasoning schema articulations of the religion/spirituality logic: conscious raising and healing. An illustrative reasoning schema for the reasoning schema ‘conscious raising’ is: “Our experiences of collaboration emphasize the importance of sustained partnerships... Only through sustained partnership can the teacher educators realize their full, much needed, potential of being the agents of change in their field and society.” Example text associated with the other reasoning schema for this logic, ‘healing,’ appears in Table 9. 68 Social justice logic. I identified four reasoning schema articulations of the social justice logic: decolonize collaborations, balance power, challenge organizational norms, and societal focus. An illustrative reasoning schema for the practice ‘decolonize collaborations’ is: “Funds and researcher skills development are required to support sustainable southern research centers…and break the cycle of running after funding provided by northern donors at the expense of addressing local research and knowledge gaps.” Other reasoning schema associated with this logic include: ‘balance power,’ ‘challenge organizational norms,’ and ‘societal focus.’ This important main finding discerns the reasoning schemas linked to specific field logics. Grounded in institutional theory, these schemas serve as mechanisms for setting the boundaries of practice for the field. Exemplified by 18 distinct reasoning schemas across each of the six field logics, each schema illuminates the nuanced ways practice in North/South partnerships are influenced by macro societal structures or cultural systems. These schemas further enhance researchers’ ability to analyze how actors’ field-level communication shape practice and North/South partnership dynamics. The findings emphasize the pivotal role language plays in organizational behavior - suggesting reasoning schema are integral components of practice for North/South partnerships. The next section demonstrates the potential of the final step in the analysis to use main finding one, two, and three together to highlight the institutional frameworks of practices for North/South partnerships. 69 Table 9: Field categories of reasoning schema with illustrative text Category of Reasoning Schema Local needs Therefore, face-to-face meetings between team members are important, not only for collaboration…leading to better and mutual understanding on project management, expected output, outcomes, and impact (Teunissen et al., 2022; p. 51). Shared understanding Although the funding agency in the north had control over funding and provided some leadership, decisions about project strategy and activities were made jointly among partners and submitted to the funders…. We therefore feel that we largely achieved the aim of building an equitable partnership (Hatløy et al., 2022; p. 1999). Reciprocity/Mutuality Also, international students should be protected by laws made by their home country and their host country, especially during times of displacement, as witnessed during the present uncertain times of the COVID-19 pandemic (Ramaswamy, 2022; p. 534). Do no harm {International} Relationships have flourished with mutual trust and transparent communication, fostering additional opportunities for collaboration (Loon et al., 2022; p. 103). Internationalization The greater the push to uplift the shock therapy’s performance, the better the effectiveness of the strategic international strategic alliance (Tlemsani et al, 2022; p. 701). Managerialism 70 Community Meaningful conservation science in Africa requires transdisciplinary models of doing research that are founded on strong North–South collaborations…and respond to locally defined conservation issues (Mwampamba et al., 2022; p. 2). Logic Corporate Illustrative Text Table 9 (cont’d) …organizing time for project members to participate in the project increases personal capacity building (Teunissen et al., 2022; p. 51). …researchers are learning from each other about conservation topics which are culturally and socially mediated from intrapersonal and interpersonal perspectives. When developing international collegial relationships, researchers must respect the context of the culture and the social interactions of the individual members of the cultural group (Ruyani et al., 2022; p. 1). Professional development Collaborative Teams …meet annually for an in-person scientific symposium to share progress reports and to facilitate cross-communication among different investigator teams within the partnership (Loon et al., 2022; Knowledge translation p. 103). Constructively challenging accepted opinions and ideas is central to their {academic} development, and international collaborations can help to facilitate this (Fernandes et al., 2022; p. 1142). Quality research Our experiences of collaboration emphasize the importance of sustained partnerships... Only through sustained partnership can the teacher educators realize their full, much needed, potential of being the agents of change in their field and society (Posti-Ahokas et al., 2022; p. 313). Consciousness raising We need to be vigilant about humanizing those we collaborate with, whether they be scholars we are reading or people we are working with…Such networks functioned as healing communities that were not bound to a particular race, national container, or discipline, but to an interdependent community (Edwards & Shahjahan, 2022; p. 771). Healing 71 Market Return on investment Professional A number of factors were identified that may be important in the establishment of such {internationally co-taught} courses. These include strong foundational interactions between the two universities…and regular meetings among faculty (Kim et al., 2022; p. 820). Expansion Religion / Spirituality …allows training of larger and diverse groups of students, development of mentoring and bidirectional research partnerships, and support of the local economy and university ecosystem by conducting training activities in Uganda. …laying the groundwork for new initiatives that cross both disciplinary and geographic boundaries (Perier et al., 2022; p. 10). Funds and research skills development are required to support sustainable southern research centers…and break the cycle of running after funding provided by northern donors at the expense of addressing local research and knowledge gaps (Edwards & Shahjahan, 2022; p. 771). Decolonize collaborations We also need to acknowledge that we are in relationship with others, whether the human world (authors, colleagues, students) or the non-human world (viruses, land, water, plants)...as we {collaboratively} engage in critical whiteness studies (Edwards & Shahjahan, 2022; p. 772). Challenge organizational norms resources will sometimes need to be dedicated to strengthening of the institutional and human capacity for partners to negotiate ‘on a level playing field’ (Scheyvens & Cheer, 2022; p. 2279). Balance power …when western modes of teaching and learning dominate, learning may fail to provide for social justice. Developing an understanding of the views, contexts and diversity of perspectives can enhance learning and challenge the status quo (Hatløy et al., 2022; p. 1997). Societal focus 72 Social Justice Table 9 (cont’d) Main Finding Four: Frameworks of Logic-Practice Combinations This fourth main finding of the study relates to the potential of this analytical process to reveal its capacity to discern whether different types of practices (Main Finding One), via their reasoning schema (Main Finding Three), cluster around specific field logics (Main Finding Two) - a relationship dynamically illustrated in Figure 4, Step 5. This in-depth examination, inspired by Zimmerman (2020), extends the existing conversation beyond the identification of practices associated with each field logic, delving into the nuanced interplay of types of practices, reasoning schemas, and logics that uniquely characterize complex fields. My detailed analysis of the dataset has revealed the implicit frameworks of practice or practice-logic combinations for North/South partnerships actors, making explicit the intricate nuances that Zimmerman alluded to. This finding challenges conventional understandings of reasoning schema as solely ‘carriers of institutional logics’ (Lammers, 2011: 159), elevating them to crucial elements that delineate practice boundaries specific to each logic within this context. Tables 10-14 encapsulate this main finding, offering a granular look at the distinct framework of practice for each field logic. They unveil the mosaic of practice meanings intrinsically defined by their associated reasoning schema and institutional logic. The pilot of analytical step 5 with study data unveils significant disparities in the frameworks of collaborative practice. These disparities are not random or incidental but are characterized by both degree and the nature of included practices, a point laid bare in Tables 1014. The frameworks lay bare that some logics gravitate towards capacity-building practices, while others pivot more towards integrating equity criteria or raising partners' consciousness. 74 Table 10: Framework of practice for the community logic Reasoning Schema Associated with the Community Logic Type of Practice Local Needs Shared Understanding Reciprocity / Mutuality Do no harm Create quality international networks x - x x Integrate equity criteria into decision making x - x - Tools to ensure alignment with local needs x - x x Reflection and Risk Support - x x x Foster personal connections x x x - - x - Build consensus and shared understanding - - x - Offer capacity building - - x x Intentionally mitigate power and resource inequities x - x - Integrate reciprocal learning principles x - x x Cultural awareness and appreciation support x x x - Active engagement 75 Table 11: Framework of practice for the corporate and market logics Reasoning Schema for Corporate & Market Logic Type of Practice Internationalization Create quality international networks x x x x Integrate equity criteria into decision making x - x x Tools to ensure alignment with local needs x - x x Reflection and Risk Support - - - x Foster personal connections x - x - x x x x Build consensus and shared understanding x x x x Offer capacity building x - - - Intentionally mitigate power and resource inequities x - - - Integrate reciprocal learning principles - - - x Cultural awareness and appreciation support x x x x Active engagement 76 Managerial- Expansion Return on ism Investment Table 12: Framework of practice for the profession logic Reasoning Schema for Profession Logic Type of Practice Professional Development Collaborative Teams Knowledge translation Quality Research Create quality international networks x x x x Integrate equity criteria into decision making - x x - Tools to ensure alignment with local needs x x x x Reflection and Risk Support x x x x Foster personal connections x x x x x x x x Build consensus and shared understanding x x - x Offer capacity building - x x x Intentionally mitigate power and resource inequities - x - x Integrate reciprocal learning principles - - x x Cultural awareness and appreciation support x x x x Active engagement 77 Table 13: Framework of practice for the religion/spirituality Logic Reasoning Schema for Religion/Spirituality Logic Type of Practice Consciousness Raising Healing Create quality international networks x - Integrate equity criteria into decision making - x Tools to ensure alignment with local needs x x Reflection and Risk Support x x Foster personal connections x x x - Build consensus and shared understanding - - Offer capacity building x - Intentionally mitigate power and resource inequities - - Integrate reciprocal learning principles - - Cultural awareness and appreciation support x - Active engagement 78 Table 14: Framework of practice for the social justice logic Reasoning Schema for Social Justice Logic Decolonize collaborations Challenge organizational norms Balance power Societal focus Create quality international networks x - x - Integrate equity criteria into decision making x x x x Tools to ensure alignment with local needs x x x x Reflection and Risk Support x x x x Foster personal connections x x x x - - x - Build consensus and shared understanding - - x - Offer capacity building x - x - Intentionally mitigate power and resource inequities x - x x Integrate reciprocal learning principles x x x - Cultural awareness and appreciation support x - x - Type of Practice Active engagement Application of the analytical framework in context. To enhance the transparency and explicitness of the analytical steps and illustrate the practical application of these findings, I 79 present a step-by-step application of the analytical framework using an article from the dataset. In a section of text from Kassie et al. (2022), the authors advanced the practice of ‘consider the partner’s strategic priorities’ in order to ensure the partnership is sustainable. The text that contained this practice and justification is: “ Though many Ethiopian universities have engaged in partnerships, they are not as successful as they would like to be in building and sustaining the partnerships. One explanation for the lack of success could be linked to policy strategies, priorities, and rationales articulated to establish and shape the nature of the partnership. It is argued that partnerships that are established in consideration of the partners’ strategic priorities are likely to be sustained” (p. 448). In the initial step (Step 1), I identified the practice (i.e., consider the partner’s strategic priorities), its justification (i.e., sustainability), and coded each using Dedoose software. Next, I categorized the reasoning schema associated with the practice (Step 2). The key phrase ‘partnerships that are established in consideration of the partners’ strategic priorities are likely to be sustained’ identified in Step 1, indicates an objective or mission to sustain international collaboration. I categorized this justification under the reasoning schema ‘internationalization’ as it aligns with its core characteristic of a global increase in the scale and impact of a HEI’s projects and courses. For the third step, I assigned the reasoning schema associated with the practice to a logic. To do so, I referred to the theoretical underpinnings of institutional logics (see Table 1, p. 22). The category of reasoning schema ‘internationalization’ was assigned to the corporate logic, as it reflects corporate-like actions to ensure ongoing viability and relevance in the global market of international education. Next, I categorized the coded practice ‘consider the partner’s strategic 80 priorities’ into the broader practice type (Step 4) ‘create quality international networks.’ To do so, I started with reference to the ACE 2015 categories of best practices for international partnerships in HE. The group of practices ‘create quality international networks’ share a common theme to contribute to the creation, impact, expansion, and sustainability of international networks in higher education. Finally, in the last step (Step 5), I revisited the causation coding at an aggregated level to understand how the corporate logic constructs a unique framework of practice within the context of North/South partnerships (see Table 11, p. 76). This detailed example of the analytical steps exemplifies how a single practice, embedded in a specific article, can be systematically dissected and understood within the broader context of institutional logics. The example highlights that practice meaning is deeply connected to the theoretical constructs that underpin practice or the referent logic that co-occurs with the practice in actors’ communication. Conclusion This chapter provided a comprehensive exploration of the study’s findings, revealing essential insights into the practices and dynamics of HE North/South partnerships. I identified 11 distinct types of collaborative practices and six field logics that shape the field. The unique reasoning schema associated with each logic highlights the intricate interplay between language and practice, emphasizing the importance of articulating the rationale behind a collaborative action. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of how macro societal structures or logics influence organizational behavior and decision-making within the context of these collaborations. This detailed example highlights the intricate interplay of practices and logics in North/South partnerships, underlining the nuanced understanding I developed through this study. 81 Study findings further underscore the crucial role of language in shaping in maintaining practice differences and outcome disparities within the field. The identified reasoning schema focuses actors’ attention toward specific types of collaborative practices, revealing the nuanced social justifications associated with specific actions. These findings emphasize the need for field actors to not only advocate for an action but also consider the underlying logic co-occurring with the practice in communications. 82 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this study was to explore what international partnership practices are advanced by HE actors participating in North/South partnerships and what logics underpin these practices. To address the aims of the study, I conducted a qualitative document analysis of 58 peer-reviewed articles on HE North/South partnerships. Utilizing an institutional logics perspective, I analyzed the types of international partnership practices present and which societal logics underpinned practice in actors’ published communications. As part of my analysis, I also identified the types of reasoning schema actors used to connect a practice with a specific logic and revealed a framework of practice for each field logic. This chapter consists of four sections and is organized to address the study’s research questions and the four main findings. My study suggests that North/South partnerships are made-up of multiple coexisting and competing practice conventions and logics that, once identified, bring the complex dynamics and cultural contestations of the global field of North/South partnerships to the fore. First, I outline my interpretation of how the four main findings of the study directly answer the study’s two complementary research questions. Second, I address the implications of the study’s findings to scholarship on HE international partnership practice and change - in the context of the study’s theoretical framework. I then associate the study’s findings to institutional logics theory and methods on how societal logics influence the behavior of organizational actors and shape opportunities for change. Third, I outline the boundaries and limitations of the study. Fourth, I present future considerations for researchers interested in the practice of international partnerships and/or the communicative constitution of culture. Lastly, I offer practice recommendations for a range of HE actors that include how study findings can be used to 83 develop and maintain international partnerships that are more inclusive and equitable, and in turn, more effective at generating innovative solutions to today’s global challenges. Interpretation of Findings In this section I outline my interpretation of how the four main findings of the study answer the two complementary research questions that guided the study. My analysis identified 11 types of coexisting practices (Main Finding One) and captured six field logics (Main Finding Two) in competition to influence practice and shape the cultural boundaries of North/South partnerships. I also identified 18 unique types of reasoning schemas (Main Finding Three) used by field actors to link a practice to a specific logic or cultural system and further refine its meaning. The final step in the analysis revealed a framework of practices for each field logic (Main Finding Four). My study suggests a wide-range of diverse practices are present in the field of North/South partnerships and that most practices are underpinned by all six field logics. This means that it is important for field participants to understand not only the practice conventions for the field but the different logics and specific cultural content (or reasoning schema) that give a practice meaning within this field. Interpretation of Main Finding One. My analysis identified 402 partnership practices present in the data set, which I then group into 11 distinct types of practices (see Table 5 on page 52). The types of practices present in the field encompassed various ways of doing and being in a North/South partnership, including networking, professional development, self-reflection, consensus-building, power mitigation, reciprocal learning, and cultural awareness. This means that at the field-level, actors’ communication deems a wide-range and fairly holistic set of practices as acceptable. I was not surprised to find practices understood as revenue generating- or institutional expansion-oriented in the data set. However, what did surprise me was the broad 84 presence of practices commonly recognized as effective tools for ensuring inclusivity and mutuality (de Wit, 2015). Drawing from my personal experience as a field participant, I entered the study with the expectation that these types of practices would be less present in published field-level communications. Study findings also imply that the practices observed in the field of North/South partnerships may represent conflicting social objectives or cultural values. Although practices were similar enough to be organized by type, Main Finding One does not elucidate the specific meaning(s) that within-field actors are constituting for each type of practice. To discern the specific meaning(s) underlying the 11 different types of field practices within this context, it was essential to identify the referent logics present in the data set (see Figure 4, Step 3) and subsequently analyze the interplay between practice and logics at the aggregate level (see Figure 4, Step 5). Interpretation of main finding two. To capture the specific logics that give practice meaning and shape behavior in the field of North/South partnerships, I identified and analyzed the reasoning schema that were associated with each of the 402 practices present. Within the data set, the identification of six logics signifies that practice meanings are constituted from six distinct cultural systems. I discerned these field logics from actors’ communication, encompassing market, corporate, religion/spiritual, community, profession, and social justice logics. These logics are not just abstract; I understand them as culturally near to one another in terms of their anchoring values and mission, as well as culturally distant (see Table 1 on page 21 & Table 7 on page 61). This finding is consistent with Main Finding One, indicating that the field is characterized by both complementary and conflicting practices. 85 The study design is effective at highlighting the diversity of logic-practice combinations or frameworks for practice that are present in the field of North/South partnerships. This finding suggests that within North/South partnerships there can be a high level of conflict over the meaning of a specific practice. For example, depending on the referent logic, the meaning of the practice ‘build trust’ was vastly different (see Table 8 on page 63). This implies complex within field dynamics that can lead to potential conflict between actors over which cultural system should be prioritized when deciding what practices to adopt. While the potential for conflict is high within fields where a wide-range of logic-practice combinations are available, they also create unique environments for innovation and learning (Crossman, 2018; Kurlberg, 2022). I perceived the manifestation of a social justice logic within the field as a response to the evolving demands of participants seeking strategies to enhance their effectiveness in challenging prevailing unjust power structures within the field. This implies that, in order to adeptly navigate the complexities, tensions, and opportunities inherent in North/South partnerships, it is crucial for actors to acquaint themselves with the existing types of practices and logics currently in circulation and at play. Knowing the logic that underpins a practice allows me to illuminate the specific cultural beliefs, values, and ideals or norms that influence the cognition and decisionmaking of actors within this context. In my study design, I go a step further to underscore how the language employed by field actors further refines the meaning of a practice by associating it with specific cultural content internal to a logic. Interpretation of main finding three. The next step of my analysis, I identified the distinct categories of reasoning schema that actors employed in their published communications, illuminating the specific cultural content drawn upon to constitute the meaning, and consequently, the broader societal-level values and associated expectations of a practice. For 86 instance, I associated the religion/spirituality logic with two types of reasoning schema: ‘consciousness raising’ and ‘healing’ (see Table 9 on page 67). At the societal-level the religion/spirituality logic contains a multitude of additional cultural content (i.e., organized worship, religious sacraments/rituals, prayer). Yet, this type of analysis allows us to pinpoint the specific content of a logic that is being evoked at the field-level to associate practices with a specific logic. Using the example of the religion/spirituality logic, my findings make clear that within this context a level of understanding exists among actors that this logic is currently evoked to serve just two ends: ‘consciousness raising’ and ‘healing.’ The schema actors evoked to link a practice with a specific logic informed the development of the Typology of Field Logics for North/South Partnerships (see Table 7 on page 61). I grouped the reasoning schema used to capture the six field logics present within the field of North/South partnerships into 18 distinct categories (see Table 9 on page 67). A reasoning schema, by definition, can only be connected to one logic. For each field logic present in the data set, I identified at least two different reasoning schemas used to constitute practice meaning. The schema employed with a practice elucidates the societal sense of purpose that field actors should derive from that particular logic-practice combination. In a sense, reasoning schemas set more detailed boundaries for field actors’ behavior than just logics because they better define the acceptable end goal for a practice. To understand the specific types of practice associated with logic via their associated reasoning schema, I analyzed types of practice and reasoning schema at the aggregate level (see Table 4 on page 36). Interpretation of main finding four. The final step in the analysis allowed me to elaborate on the intricate weave of relationships among the types of practice (Main Finding One), field logics (Main Finding Two), and reasoning schema (Main Finding Three) that are 87 intrinsic to North/South partnerships. A nuanced look at the data revealed implicit frameworks of practice that I have made explicit, each aligned with specific field logics as depicted in Tables 10-14 on pages 72-76. These are not abstract concepts, but concrete, actionable frameworks intricately tied to broader cultural structures and their internal characteristics. These frameworks, as presented, serve as more than academic constructs; they are pragmatic tools enriched with insights for HE actors, rendering the latent explicit and the abstract tangible. They offer a multifaceted lens through which the ‘ideal’ practices invoked by field actors in their written communications are brought to the fore, reflecting the nuanced ways specific cultural systems and their structures are emphasized and reproduced. From an institutional logics perspective, familiarity with these explicit frameworks equip actors with enriched insights, enhancing their navigation through the complex dynamics of North/South collaborations. This new knowledge serves to deepen HE actors’ comprehension of the diverse cultural systems influencing these collaborative endeavors, shedding light on their casual power to influence meaning and impacts. As illuminated, six of the 11 types of practices advanced in field-level communications are intricately woven into all six field logics. This encompasses practices identified in Main Finding One as tools for fostering mutuality and equitable partnerships. The frameworks of logic-practice combinations provide clarity on how practices like “cultural awareness and appreciation support” and “integrate equity into decision making” are connected, via diverse reasoning schema, to all six logics (see Tables 10-14 on pages 72-76). This finding underscores a crucial insight - the imperative for actors participating in North/South partnerships to exercise heightened vigilance, ensuring the alignment of enacted practices with the intended societal mission and cultural values. It is a complex field where 88 similar practices may yield diverse outcomes from fostering mutual collaborations to inadvertently echoing imperialistic relationships rooted in the unjust logics of the market. This finding helps explain why international partnerships adopting similar practices may yield vastly different outcomes. Main Finding Four also underscores palpable differences across logics. Differences across logics are very evident when looking at the corporate and social justice logic. For instance, the social justice logic anchors on reflection, risk support, and reciprocal learning principles, practice-logic combinations absent within the corporate logic per the data. Although it is conceivable that a corporate logic within North/South partnerships could be associated with these two types of practices, within the data set no reasoning schema was identified that connected these practices to the corporate logic. Together these findings suggest participants in the field of North/South partnerships face a range of choices and considerations between what practice/logic combination to employ in published articles. Implications In this section, I examine the contributions of my findings to HE international partnership scholarship within the context of the theoretical framework. I then connect the study’s findings to institutional logics theory and methods focused on how societal logics influence the behavior of organizational actors and shape field dynamics. Drawing from the study’s insights, I propose potential avenues for international partnership scholars to gain a deeper understanding of how societal-level cultural systems influence organizational practice. This perspective underscores the pivotal role of language in shaping how individuals and organizations operate within a specific academic field and facilitates the interpretation of conflicts over practice as cultural contestations. 89 I argue that my findings challenge prevailing narratives about the presumed natural dominance and convergence of global HE toward practices anchored in Northern-based values anchored in a market system. Within the institutional logics perspective, I utilize key findings from the study’s analysis on institutional complexity and change. My study makes a direct and significant contribution in revealing the relationship between institutional logics, practice heterogeneity, and the transformative currents that shape HE fields. Each field logic transcends geographical boundaries, offering a more nuanced lens through which to explore, understand, and engage in the evolving practices of North/South partnerships. The cultural landscape of international partnerships. Individuals participating in international partnerships are instrumental in evolving new HE policies and practices by assimilating the encountered cultural diversity into their core beliefs, decision making processes, and behaviors. Although some cultural studies suggest international partnerships could be indicative of new imperialism (Harvey 2003; Rhoads & Liu, 2019), my study unveils a multifaceted landscape of practices. The idea for this study stemmed from my desire to capture the influence of different cultural systems on how North/South partnerships are organized and practiced. My background in cultural anthropology guided me beyond conventional examinations of organizational culture in HE, to explore the intricate interplay between macro societal structures of influence and fieldlevel practices. My findings reveal a spectrum of practices within international partnership communications in published articles that challenge the notion of a monolithic expansion of market and/or corporate values. Contrarily, the study underscores a rich landscape of diverse practices, unveiling a dynamic intersection of logic-practice combinations that are as varied as they are nuanced. 90 Globalization and field dynamics. The globalization of HE brings together various cultural systems at the macro-level. Building on the discussion in the ‘Higher Education International Partnership’ section, where international partnerships were critiqued as conduits for new imperialism, this section unveils findings that counteract that narrative. My study unveils a diversity of practices, underscoring the multifaceted nature of globalization beyond the commonly critiqued Northern or Western ideological expansion. While I identified many practices aligned with market and corporate cultural content, I also observed many other practices in the articles that directly contradict the cultural content or values of the market and corporate logics. These findings challenge the perception of international partnerships solely as tools of new imperialism. Instead, they highlight the dynamic nature of these partnerships, providing actors with a diverse array of practices to choose from. This dynamic nature suggests that international partnership can be transformative spaces where actors collaboratively shape a more inclusive global HE. Besides market and corporate logics, practices advanced in my dataset also represented the community, religious/spiritual, and profession logics. The study also identified a new fieldspecific logic, social justice, shaping practices. Multiple logics coexist in the field, giving meaning to practices. These findings challenge perceptions of practice change within international partnerships as the replacement of one logic with another. I introduce a new framework illuminating the complex, contested nature of fields and social dynamics of practice and its meaning, challenging traditional dominance and replacement views. Researchers should employ study designs that recognize the coexistence of multiple and conflicting societal systems of values and beliefs (i.e., cultural content) and remain open theoretically and methodologically to the discovery of new field logics. 91 Structural power. Critical HE scholars emphasize that negotiations within fields over practice conventions occur within an existing context where power is unevenly wielded by partners (Chasi & Rodny-Gumede, 2019; Ishengoma, 2016). In institutional logics studies, it is well-established that actors within complex fields, especially less dominant partners, face a high risk of having the specific cultural content they desire marginalized in service to a competing cultural priority of a more dominant partner. My study addresses the need for a focused analysis of the cultural influences on actors’ behavior, as highlighted by critical scholars (Crossman, 2018, Ishengoma, 2016). Understanding the meaning systems represented within the field is key to developing strategies that bolster collaboration potential. Understanding how language shapes field practice. The study highlights how the language used by actors crucially shapes the meaning of North/South partnership practices. However, this study focused exclusively on one kind of communication: published peerreviewed articles. This form of communication imposes certain vocabularies and argument styles, shaping the way scholars and practitioners express themselves. The dataset reflects the practices present in the field, but also plays a role in influencing practice by providing a framework of logics that shape how stakeholders understand North/South collaborations. Notably, my findings underscore the significant impact of reasoning schema, a linguistic construct, on the meaning and societal objectives associated with different types of practices. Struggles Over Practice as Cultural Contestation. My methodological focus on language and written communication reveals that contestations over practices are rooted in cultural differences. I carefully examined how actors in the North/South partnerships field communicate about practice in the context of published peer-reviewed articles - focusing on the societal-level cultural content associated with each practice. Published articles represent a 92 specific structured and formalized communication channel and framing of field dynamics. In choosing published articles as my primary source, I gained unique insights into the intricate dynamics of cultural contestations that go beyond surface-level actions to explore the underlying meanings and implications associated with each practice. The study delves into the frameworks of action associated with each field logic, revealing the potential for conflict not just over which actions to take, but more profoundly, over the perceived meaning and societal implications of a given practice. The study’s exploration of how field logics and practices are combined within the field further contributes to the literature by illuminating the landscape of cultural interplay within these partnerships. This analytical framework allows for the identification of significant overlap in the types of practices connected to different logics. My findings, therefore, are not simply a product of the method of analysis but are intrinsic to the nature of communication within the field. Practice Diversity and Convergence. Echoing earlier sections, literature often highlights a trend in North/South partnerships towards adopting practices aligned with Northern or Western market and/or corporate culture (Saari, 2021). However, as elaborated in 'Globalization and Field Dynamics,' my research illuminates a diverse array of practices that challenge this convergence theory. I delve deeper into this diversity here, exploring the nuanced interplays of different cultural and institutional logics that shape these partnerships. Study findings challenge this unidirectional assumption by highlighting the coexistence of diverse practices and the interplay of various logics or cultural belief systems within the field. By recognizing the full array of practices and cultural systems at play, a richer understanding of international partnership dynamics emerges, revealing distinct rationales, strategies, and implications for collaboration. My study suggests scholars question this binary classification of 93 North/South partnership practices as imperialistic and transactional or as alternatives. This nuanced understanding encourages a more comprehensive exploration of the complexities of practice dynamics in the context of these collaborations. Institutional logics, complexity, and change. My study significantly enriches the existing theoretical and methodological discourses on the relationship between institutional logics, practice diversity, and change within fields. Drawing inspiration from Thornton and Ocasio (2008), I delve into the dynamics of actors’ communications on North/South partnerships in published articles, unearthing the nuances of logic pluralism and its resultant tensions. This exploration aligns seamlessly with the works of Battilana et al. (2015), who, like Thornton and Ocasio, stress the coexistence of multiple logics within institutional fields. In this context, change is not propelled by the replacement of one logic with another but by the intricate interplay of multiple logics, underscoring my focus on reasoning schema as instrumental in unveiling diverse practice types. Existing literature on institutional complexity resonates with my findings, casting light on the coexistence of logics and their pivotal role in driving change. My approach, centered around communication and the constitution of meaning, unravels the nuanced relationship between field logics and practice. Here, the study underscores that the dominance of a single logic is far from straightforward; actors interweave competing logics and reasoning schema into their communication, echoing the insights of Thornton and Ocasio (2008). My study contributes not only to a deeper understanding of the dynamics at play between multiple institutional logics but also to the discourse on the internal content of these logics and their instantiation at the field level. The study’s insights, grounded in the complex interplay of logics and practice diversity, 94 provide a nuanced lens through which the intricate dance of institutional complexity and change can be comprehended. Logic multiplicity and practice heterogeneity. This study contributes to existing research by examining the coexistence of multiple logics within the same context and the resulting diversity of practices. Study findings demonstrate the explanatory power of a communicative constitution approach to shed light on how the simultaneous presence of diverse logics relates to practice heterogeneity within a field. This assertion aligns with prior research that highlights the marked distinctions in practices foregrounded by different logics within a single field (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Reay & Hinings, 2016; Thornton et al., 2012). Building on existing research, my study, especially Main Finding Four, unveils six distinct logics in North/South partnerships, each with a unique set (i.e. framework) of practices. For instance, the evidence from Main Finding Four indicates that the religious/spirituality logic, in contrast to the corporate logic, forefronts practices that foster reflection and risk-taking, effectively casting a spotlight on the individuality of this logic. Institutional logics methodologies. Institutional logics reveal HE fields as landscapes of competing cultural systems, rather than uniform spaces. This perspective uncovers manifestations of cultural content through practices and language, enabling the empirical study of institutional logics and enhancing understanding of how actors' behavior and decision-making are anchored in macro societal-level structures. My study delves into uncharted territory, exceeding theoretical boundaries to investigate how the specific internal characteristics of a logic materialize in practice. This analytical framework yields a comprehensive understanding of how logics shape field practices. The methodology employed to uncover these logics and their internal cultural content stems from my desire to empirically investigate the influence of broad 95 macro cultural structures on HE international partnerships. While previous studies have explored the relationship between organizational culture and HE actors' decisions and behavior, they often lacked empirical data to support these connections. Seeking to understand and reveal these connections, I turned to the institutional logics approach. My study underscores the logic concept’s value in HE research and enriches theoretical and methodological dialogues. My research outlines steps to analyze logics and their cultural content, enhancing scholars' understanding of these concepts. Additionally, the study offers insights into the identification, description, and measurement of logics through qualitative document analysis techniques. As the realm of HE research continues to explore institutional logics, my study stands as a methodological guidepost, providing valuable insights into capturing and understanding these fundamental cultural structures. A scenario in bridging theory and practice. To illustrate how these theoretical insights translate into practical applications in the field of international HE partnerships, consider the following scenario involving two administrators from different cultural and institutional backgrounds. Jane, an administrator from a U.S.-based university, and Thomas, from a Southernbased university, engage in a dialogue about strategies to build trust in their collaborative education project. Jane initially views trust-building as a strategic practice to facilitate smoother project management and efficient collaboration. She emphasizes the importance of regular status updates and clear accountability mechanisms. Thomas, however, perceives trust-building through a different cultural lens, aligning with a community-focused logic. He advocates for a strategic practice that meets ‘local needs.’ During their planning discussion, Jane is initially surprised to find that Thomas does not place the same emphasis on procedural efficiency as she does. In contrast, Thomas is concerned 96 about the lack of community engagement in Jane’s approach. Jane, recalling the insights from this study—particularly those related to the tension between different practice-logic combinations in trust-building, as outlined in Table 8 on page 66—begins to critically reflect on her practice priorities. She acknowledges that her approach aligns with the corporate logic, whereas Thomas’ aligns with the community logic. In light of this realization, Jane adapts her strategy to include not only regular updates but also community engagement activities, as suggested by Thomas. This revised approach respects both the efficiency valued in corporate logic and the community connection central to community logic. Their mutual understanding and adaptation lead to a nuanced and effective trust-building strategy that incorporates both administrators' perspectives. This scenario demonstrates how understanding the impact of differing logics on practice interpretation can enhance the effectiveness and cultural sensitivity of international partnerships. It exemplifies the practical application of the study’s insights, underscoring the importance of recognizing and adapting to different cultural logics in international HE partnerships for more inclusive and mutually beneficial collaborations. The successful strategy adopted by Jane and Thomas highlights the significance of the recommendations that follow, emphasizing the need for flexibility, cultural sensitivity, and the alignment of diverse logics in international HE partnerships. The forthcoming recommendations, detailed in the next section, offer a comprehensive framework for HE actors. This framework aims to develop and maintain partnerships that are effective, culturally sensitive, and respectful of the diverse landscapes in which they operate. 97 Study Scope and Limitations This section addresses my study’s scope and limitations, highlighting that I refrain from making direct assertions about specific behavioral habits of individual actors or organizations. Instead, based on my study findings, I offer insights into the conceptualization of organizations as "configurations predicated on cultural content of logics," (Reay, 2020). Recognizing certain limitations, my study prompts the need for future research endeavors, acknowledging the potential challenge of seamless generalization to diverse contexts. Additionally, I note that alternative religions or belief systems, not well-represented in my data set, may lead to varied manifestations of practices. Furthermore, my study's emphasis on the role of language in shaping North/South partnerships is evident. However, it is essential for me to acknowledge the specific focus on published peer-reviewed articles, which may limit the diversity of expressions found in other communication forms like organizational documents or partner meeting transcripts. This potential constraint underscores the importance of considering alternative communication sources for a more comprehensive understanding. Moreover, my study acknowledges a limitation related to language, having primarily focused on articles published in English. While this choice facilitated a coherent dataset, it introduces a language bias that may exclude valuable perspectives expressed in other languages, particularly relevant in the global context of North/South partnerships. Different linguistic contexts may introduce diverse cultural nuances and understandings, potentially overlooked in an English-centric focus. Additionally, my study is temporally confined to articles published in the year 2022. This temporal constraint introduces another layer of limitation, considering the possibility of a 98 pandemic influence on the quantity and nature of publications during that specific timeframe. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted within the context of the specific temporal and pandemic-influenced landscape of scholarly discourse in 2022. While these constraints provide a clear scope for my analysis, they introduce biases and contextual influences that should be considered when interpreting my findings. I encourage future research endeavors to broaden the linguistic and temporal scope, ensuring a more comprehensive understanding of cultural dynamics in North/South partnerships, while also considering the broader landscape of academic communications. Future Research This section offers a roadmap for researchers intrigued by the intricate interplay between HE international partnerships and the manifestation of macro cultural structures through language. By illuminating the complex interplay of logics, practices, and the language employed by field actors, I advocate for a more comprehensive understanding of navigating institutional change and the underlying mechanisms facilitating its comprehension. Moving forward, we can amplify the study's implications and delve into more nuanced dimensions. Specifically, we can build on the study's insights regarding the influence of institutional logics on practices at the organizational and micro-level, further emphasizing the communicative constitution of practice. My research injects fresh perspectives into the international partnership literature, complicating prevailing narratives and accentuating the coexistence of diverse practices and logics. These findings call for a deeper exploration of the intricate dynamics that shape partnership practices, opening novel trajectories for subsequent research endeavors. To delve into the coexistence of multiple logics in action, scholars could engage in fieldwork to ascertain if my assessment of logics aligns with North/South partnerships in practice. This investigation 99 could involve conducting case studies to examine evolution of a practice-logic combination within a specific organizational context. Such case studies would provide valuable insights into how these combinations develop, adapt, and potentially are co-opted or appropriated over time. From an organizational standpoint, my analysis sheds light on the ease or compatibility of different practice-logic combinations. This understanding paves the way for addressing questions regarding the specific types of strategies that emanate from various combinations of logics. While the findings do not directly provide insights into the behavioral habits of individual actors or organizations, they serve as a catalyst for the exploration of configurations rooted in different cultural content. This, in turn, prompts inquiries into strategic considerations guided by these configurations, laying the foundation for research on power inequities among actors and the mechanisms by which dominant logics emerge and retain their prominence. In addition to contributing to scholarly discourse, my findings carry practical implications for managers and stakeholders engaged in international partnerships (see Recommendations). The identified reasoning schema of specific logics can be strategically leveraged as persuasive arguments within organizations to bolster the effectiveness of these types of collaborative endeavors. Additionally, this study prompts a reevaluation of practices, sparking contemplation on potential co-optation or appropriation that invites further investigation. Practice Recommendations for Higher Education Actors For all actors within the HE landscape engaged in North/South partnerships, including faculty, administrators, and staff, my study highlights that conflicts over practice choices often arise from cultural contestations. Groups, operating within the same partnership and potentially enacting similar practices, can be aligned with different logics. Individuals may or may not consciously grasp the logics guiding their actions and decision-making processes. 100 It is pivotal to underscore that both Northern and Southern actors are intricately woven into the fabric of their respective cultural landscapes. Northern partners, often perceived as the bearers of ‘universal’ practice standards, are as equally embedded in distinct cultural logics that shape their practices and perspectives as Southern partners. A conscious effort to create mutual beneficial and innovative collaborations in HE involves acknowledging and interrogating the cultural assumptions and biases of all partners involved. Recognizing and addressing the influence of logics and their internal content on practice is foundational. The analytical framework and tools this study offers can serve as a pathway to this acknowledgement and alignment of practice with specific logics or cultural systems. Understanding Logics and Their Alignment. All stakeholders should strive for a comprehensive understanding of the concept of logics and how to identify the logics that materialize in practice. The process involves reflecting on and making explicit the often unconscious reasoning schemas that shape action. While study tools can assist in this, the core of this reflection lies in individual and collective introspection and alignment of practices with desired outcomes. Informed Practice Choices: Leveraging the tools and insights presented in this study, including reasoning schema, practice categories, and frameworks, HE actors can seek to align practices with desired societal logics and their anchoring content (i.e., mission, values, ideals), thereby enhancing organizational change efforts. The explicit frameworks serve as a unique resource, aiding actors in considering the language and reasoning schema used to give nuanced meanings across similar practices. For example, if partners want to promote social justice, guided by the insights from the frameworks, stakeholders could select practices already associated with the social justice logic by at least some actors engaged at the field-level. 101 Co-Optation or Appropriation: While recognizing the potential for the appropriation of the internal cultural content of logics includes transformation of the field and/or the reproduction of existing inequities, vigilance is paramount. All participating HE stakeholders must remain committed to becoming aware of and safeguarding their priority logics and the specific cultural content (i.e., values, ideals) partners want to align with. This ensures the integrity of practices and averts unintended shifts in practice meaning and outcomes. Alternatively, actors can explore ways to introduce and advance new practices by crafting and expressing new practice-logic combinations. Fostering Transformation: By using the analytical and practical tools I developed in this study, stakeholders can strategically navigate field dynamics that direct attention to Northern market- or corporate-associated practices. Supplementing the broader insights from my study, the frameworks serve as an additional resource, providing a clearer understanding of the nuances involved in these dynamics. Stakeholders can seize opportunities for change within the complex interplay of logics and practices available to field participants and create new combinations to promote change. Understanding how different cultural ideologies align with the content of different field logics, will help empower HE actors to drive meaningful transformation within this complex and dynamic field. For instance, HE actors might leverage their understanding of cultural contestations to foster transformation by negotiating with partners and external stakeholders to incorporate community practice-logic elements into their partnership strategy. The scenario involving Jane and Thomas, discussed above, exemplifies how these recommendations can be practically applied, demonstrating the importance of understanding and integrating diverse logics 102 for successful international partnerships. This scenario underscores the need for flexibility, openmindedness, and strategic adaptation in navigating the complex dynamics of this field. A holistic approach. These recommendations encapsulate a diverse array of insights. While the frameworks bridge academic discourse and lived experience, the essence lies in understanding underlying logics, aligning intentions, and guarding against appropriation. The integration of these elements is crucial to fostering equity, innovation, and effective organizational change in the context of international partnerships. This study equips HE actors with new resources, enriching their engagement and practices in the complex field of North/South collaborations. Conclusion The guiding focus of this study considered what international partnership practices are viewed as advanced by HE actors participating in North/South partnerships and what logics underpin these practices. Employing a qualitative document analysis of published articles, I sought to capture the diverse array of practices and logics present in the field. The study design effectively facilitated the identification of practices and logics within the data set of articles published in 2022, offering valuable insights into the intricate interplay between institutional logics and the dynamics of field-level practice. The empirical evidence and interpretations I presented underscore the dynamic nature of the international partnership landscape, revealing a wide array of acceptable practice-logic combinations available to field actors. Importantly, understanding the spectrum of practices and logics present within North/South partnerships serves to elucidate the persistence of diverse strategies among HE actors. It sheds light on the disparities in creating and sustaining inclusive and equitable North/South partnerships. 103 As revealed by my study’s findings, participants in North/South partnerships are engaged in navigating cultural contestations rather than merely encountering conflicts over collaborative practice preferences. Negotiating practice conventions becomes imperative, especially when dealing with actors that hold distant societal priorities. This study contributes to the depth of knowledge available to administrators, faculty, staff, and funders of international partnership. By offering a nuanced understanding of the role of actors’ communication in shaping practice conventions, this study goes beyond an enumeration of conflicts. It provides empirical evidence regarding the socio-cultural systems and specific cultural content that underlie actors’ contests over practice. The tools I developed from study findings are valuable resources for field actors, enabling them to comprehend and negotiate collaborative practices more effectively within this context. In the resources and analytical framework outlined in this study, HE actors can develop more effective strategies for establishing and maintaining inclusive and beneficial international partnerships. This not only fosters inclusivity but also facilitates innovation and the development of solutions to address today’s most challenging global problems. 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY Axelby, R., Worku‐Dix, B., & Crewe, E. (2022). Global partnerships on paper and in practice: Critical observations from inside a Global Challenge Research Fund capacity‐ development project. Journal of International Development, 34(8), 1496-1508. Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Convergent institutional logics in public higher education: State policy making and governing board activism. The Review of Higher Education, 32(2), 209234. Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi‐stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European environment, 16(5), 290-306. Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization studies, 18(1), 93-117. Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A. C., & Model, J. (2015). Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1658-1685. Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2011). Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Bleck, J., Dendere, C., & Sangaré, B. (2018). Making North–South research collaborations work. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 554-558. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40 Bradley, M. (2007). North-South research partnerships: challenges, responses and trends; a literature review and annotated bibliography. Canadian partnerships working paper; 1. Burr, E.M., Kelly, K.A., Murphrey, T.P., & Koswatta, T.J. (2022). An ecological approach to evaluating collaborative practice in NSF sponsored partnership projects: The SPARC model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.751660 Cai, Y., & Mountford, N. (2022). Institutional logics analysis in higher education research. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1627-1651. Canas, E., Gough, R., Smith, M. J., Monette, E. M., McHugh, D. D., Le Ber, M. J., ... & Nouvet, E. (2022). What do we mean by critical and ethical global engagement? Questions from a research partnership between universities in Canada and Rwanda. Global Public Health, 17(7), 1358-1364. Carli, G., Tagliaventi, M. R., & Cutolo, D. (2019). One size does not fit all: the influence of individual and contextual factors on research excellence in academia. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1912-1930. 105 Chankseliani, M., & McCowan, T. (2021). Higher education and the sustainable development goals. Higher Education, 81(1), 1-8. Chasi, C., & Rodny-Gumede, Y. (2019). No pain no gain? Reflections on decolonisation and higher education in South Africa. Africa Education Review, 16(5), 120-133. Cornelissen, J, Durand, R., Fiss, P.C., Lammers, J.C., & Vaara, E. (2015). Putting communication front and center in institutional theory and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 10-27. Crossman, J. E. (2018). Celebrating interconnectedness as a spiritual paradigm for teaching, learning, and the internationalization of higher education. The Palgrave Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Fulfillment, 1013-1031. Davie, G., & Wyatt, D. (2021). Document analysis. In The Routledge handbook of research methods in the study of religion (pp. 245-255). Routledge. Dedoose Version 9.0.17, web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data (2021). Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC www.dedoose.com. Dentoni, D., & Bitzer, V. (2015). The role (s) of universities in dealing with global wicked problems through multi-stakeholder initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 68- 78. de Wit, H. (2015). Partnerships for the future: Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities. In N. Joosete, H. de Wit, & S. Heleta (Eds), High Education Partnerships for the Future (pp. 95-102), Port Elizabeth, South Africa, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 147-160. Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 230-251. Downey, L, Lawrence, E., Pyles, M., & Lee, Derek. (2020). Power, hegemony, and world society theory: A critical evaluation. Socius, 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120920059. Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 114-149. Edwards, K. T., & Shahjahan, R. A. (2022). Lessons on love in collaboration: Black and brown ruminations on global whiteness. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 35(7), 764-774. 106 Eisner, E.W. (1991). The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company. Fernandes, A., Shukla, B., & Fardoun, H. (2022). Fostering reputation of higher education institutions in international ranking by means of diversity of international collaboration. Information Sciences Letters, 11(4), 1137-1143. Fletcher, A. (2017). Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets method. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(2), 181-194. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. IN W. Powell, & P. Dimaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 232- 63 Giddens, A. (1976). Classical social theory and the origins of modern sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4), 703-729. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, California: Sociology Press. Glynn, M. A., & Raffaelli, R. (2013). Logic pluralism, organizational design, and practice adoption: The structural embeddedness of CSR programs. In Institutional Logics in Action, Part B. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Goodrick, E., & Reay, T. (2011). Constellations of institutional logics: Changes in the professional work of pharmacists. Work and Occupations, 38(3), 372-416. Golyagina, A. (2020). Competing logics in university accounting education in postrevolutionary Russia. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 69, 102090. Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108 Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. 2010. The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(2), 521– 539. Gross, J. (2018). Document analysis. In B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation (pp. 545-548). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.n209 Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd edition, (191-215.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gugerty, M. K., Mitchell, G. E., & Santamarina, F. J. (2021). Discourses of evaluation: Institutional logics and organizational practices among international development agencies. World Development, 146, 105596. 107 Gümüsay, A. A., Claus, L., & Amis, J. (2020). Engaging with grand challenges: An institutional logics perspective. Organization Theory, 1(3), 2631787720960487. Guzmán-Valenzuela, C. (2022). Cosmopolitan or Locals: Deconstructing the Patterns of Coauthorship in Studies in. In Partnerships in Education (pp. 101-116). Springer, Cham. Hartman, A. E., & Coslor, E. (2019). Earning while giving: Rhetorical strategies for navigating multiple institutional logics in reproductive commodification. Journal of Business Research, 105, 405-419. Harvey, D. (2003). Accumulation by dispossession. In The new Imperialism. Oxford University Press. International Education Association of South Africa, (2014). Nelson Mandela Bay. Global Dialogue Declaration on the Future of Internationalisation of Higher Education. https://iauaiu.net/IMG/pdf/nelson_mandela_bay_declaration.pdf Hatløy, A., Luthuli, S., John, V., Haskins, L., Mapumulo, S., Mutombo, P., & Mapatano, M. A. (2022). ‘I am not only beneficial to the community but to the entire country, I am trained as a researcher now’: Developing health research skills in low-income countries. Global Public Health, 17(9), 1986-2003. Haug, S., Braveboy-Wagner, J., & Maihold, G. (2021). The ‘Global South’ in the study of world politics: Examining a meta category. Third World Quarterly, 42(9), 1923-1944. Ishengoma, J. M. (2016). North–South research collaborations and their impact on capacity building: A southern perspective. T. Halvorsen and J. Nossum (2016). North–South knowledge networks: Towards equitable collaboration between academics, donors and Universities. African Minds. Cape Town, South Africa. Johansen, C. B., & Waldorff, S. B. (2017). What are institutional logics–and where is the perspective taking us?. In New Themes in Institutional Analysis (pp. 51-76). Edward Elgar Publishing. Jonas, P., Garbey Savigne, E., Koster, M., & Choonara, I. (2022). Lessons from Building a Sustainable Healthcare Exchange between the Netherlands and Cuba. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(18), 11742. Jooste, N. (2015). Higher education partnerships for the future: A view from the south. Higher Education: Partnerships for the Future. Porto Elizabeth: Unit for Higher Education Internationalisation in the Developing World, 11-21. Joughin, G., Bearman, M., Boud, D., Lockyer, J., & Adachi, C. (2022). Creating and sustaining collaborative connections: tensions and enabling factors in joint international programme development. Higher Education, 84(4), 827-844. Kezar, A. (2005). Designing for collaboration within higher education institutions: An exploration into the development process. Research in Higher Education. 46(7), 831860. 108 Kezar, A., & Bernstein-Serra, S. (2020). Scaling culture change through institutional logics: A look at the American Association of Universities (AAU) STEM initiative. Peabody Journal of Education, 95(4), 356-373. Kim, R. E., Church, T. D., Ghate, M., Patel, M., Mehta, T., Naik, M., ... & Haworth, I. S. (2022). A mixed-methods analysis of a collaborative online international pharmacy course. Pharmacy Education, 22(1). Klassen, M., & Sá, C. (2020). Do global norms matter? The new logics of engineering accreditation in Canadian universities. Higher Education, 79(1), 159-174. Knight, J. (2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretive frameworks in the internationalization of higher education. The SAGE handbook of international Higher Education, 27-42. Kok, M. O., Gyapong, J. O., Wolffers, I., Ofori-Adjei, D., & Ruitenberg, E. J. (2017). Towards fair and effective North–South collaboration: realizing a programme for demand-driven and locally led research. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(1), 1-17. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Kurlberg, N. (2022). The ‘Telos’ as a Lens That Illuminates Values in Practice. In Researching Values (pp. 243-261). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Kyeremeh, K., Flint, A., Jaspars, M. et al. (2020). Making North–South Collaborations Work: Facilitating Natural Product Drug Discovery in Africa. In Africa and the Sustainable Development Goals (pp. 257-266). Springer, Cham. Labuschagne, A. (2003). Qualitative research: Airy fairy or fundamental? The Qualitative Report, 8(1), Article 7. Retrieved 5 January 2009, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8- 1/labuschagne.html. Lariviere, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2019). The journal impact factor: A brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effects. In Springer handbook of Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 3-24). Springer, Cham. Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 215-254). Sage Publications. Lepori, B. (2016). Universities as hybrids: Applications of institutional logics theory to higher education. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and Method in Higher Education Research. (Vol. 2, pp. 245264). Bingley: Emerald Publishing. Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123-152. 109 Locke, W. (2014). The intensification of rankings logic in an increasingly marketised higher education environment. European Journal of Education, 49(1), 77-90. Loewenstein, J., Ocasio, W., & Jones, C. (2012). Vocabularies and vocabulary structure: A new approach linking categories, practices, and institutions. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 41-86. Lok, J. (2010). Institutional logics as identity projects. Academy of management Journal, 53(6), 1305-1335. Longley, A., & Castro, F. G. (2022). A manifesto of shambolic form: Approaching creative-critical practice at the intersection where artistic research, the Global South and critical theory coalesce. Knowledge Cultures, 10(3), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.22381/kc10320226 Loon, K. V., Mohar, A., Unger-Saldaña, K., Potter, M. B., Sweet-Cordero, E. A., Breithaupt, L., & Lajous, M. (2022). Developing a collaborative international partnership for cancer control in Mexico. Salud Pública de México, 64(1), 100-104. Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalization of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal. 50, 289-307. Lounsbury, M., Steele, C. W., Wang, M. S., & Toubiana, M. (2021). New directions in the study of institutional logics: From tools to phenomena. Annual Review of Sociology, 47, 261280. Lounsbury, M., & Wang, M. S. (2020). Into the clearing: Back to the future of constitutive institutional analysis. Organization Theory, 1(1), 2631787719891173. Mahmood, Z, & Uddin, S. (2021). Institutional logics and practice variations in sustainability reporting: evidence from an emerging field. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 34(5), 1163-1189 Makhubu, S. S., Hlongwane, M. M., Govender, S., Kent, D., Edwards, S. D., Makhonza, L. O., & Ochiogu, S. N. (2018). African centered investigation into ways in which Ubuntu can promote social coherence. Indilinga African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge Systems, 17(1), 53-66. Manicas, P. T. (2009). Realist metatheory and qualitative methods. Sociological Analysis, 3(1), 3146. Mellizo, J., Cabedo-Mas, A., Joseph, D., & Nethsinghe, R. (2022). An International quartet of voices: sharing songs and culture beyond borders. Music Education Research, 25(1), 88101. Menashy, F. (2019). International aid to education: Power dynamics in an era of partnership. Teachers College Press. 110 Mendoza, P. (2022). Fostering long-lasting international partnerships based on mutuality. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 54(2), 52-58. Mills, C. (1940). Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological Review. 5, 904-909. Misangyi, V. F. (2016). Institutional complexity and the meaning of loose coupling: Connecting institutional sayings and (not) doings. Strategic Organization, 14(4): 407–440. Molefe, M. (2019). Ubuntu and development: An African conception of development. Africa Today, 66(1), 96-115. Mulvey, B. (2022). Participatory parity as a way forward for critical internationalisation studies. Studies in Higher Education, 47(12), 2417-2429. Mwampamba, T. H., Egoh, B. N., Borokini, I., & Njabo, K. (2022). Challenges encountered when doing research back home: Perspectives from African conservation scientists in the diaspora. Conservation Science and Practice, 4(5), e564. Mwangi, C. A., & Yao, C. W. (2021). US higher education internationalization through an equity-driven lens: An analysis of concepts, history, and research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume 36, 549-609. Nadkarni, S., & Narayanan, V. K. (2005). Validity of the structural properties of text-based causal maps: An empirical assessment. Organizational Research Methods, 8(1), 9-40. Nelson Mandela Bay Global Dialogue Declaration on the Future of Internationalisation of Higher Education. (2014). Retrieved from www.ieaa.org.au/documents/item/208 Network of International Education Associations [NIEA]. (2020). Statement on the importance of international higher education and research. Retrieved January 27, 2021, from https://ieasa.studysa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/NIEAStatement-on-theimportance-of-international-higher-education-andresearch.24-July-2020.pdf Ocasio, W., & Joseph, J. (2005). Cultural adaptation and institutional change: The evolution of vocabularies of corporate governance, 1972–2003. Poetics, 33(3-4), 163-178. Ocasio, W., Loewenstein, J., and Nigam, A. (2015) ‘How streams of communication reproduce and change institutional logics: The role of categories’, Academy of Management Review, 40: 28–48. Omazic, A., & Zunk, B. M. (2021). Semi-Systematic Literature Review on Sustainability and Sustainable Development in Higher Education Institutions. Sustainability, 13(14), 7683. Page, M., McKenzi, J. Bossuyt, P. Boutron, I., et al. (2020). The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/v7gm2 (assessed November 10, 2020 111 Parsons, T. (1935). The place of ultimate values in sociological theory. The International Journal of Ethics, 45(3), 282-316. Pashby, K., & de Oliveira Andreotti, V. (2016). Ethical internationalisation in higher education: Interfaces with international development and sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 22(6), 771-787. Perier, C., Nasinghe, E., Charles, I., Ssetaba, L. J., Ahyong, V., Bangs, D., ... & Schaletzky, J. (2022). Workshop-based learning and networking: a scalable model for research capacity strengthening in low-and middle-income countries. Global Health Action, 15(1), 1-11. Pherali, A. & Lewis, A. (2019). Developing global partnerships in higher education for peacebuilding: a strategy for pathways to impact. Higher Education (78), 729-744. Posti-Ahokas, H., Idriss, K., Hassan, M., & Isotalo, S. (2022). Collaborative professional practice for strengthening teacher educator identities in Eritrea. Journal of Education for Teaching, 48(3), 300-315. Prior, L. (2008). Researching documents. Handbook of emergent methods, 111-126. Purdy, J. M., & Gray, B. (2009). Conflicting logics, mechanisms of diffusion, and multilevel dynamics in emerging institutional fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 355380. Ramaswamy, H. H. S., & Kumar, S. (2022). A critical analysis of unsustainable higher education internationalisation policies in developing economies. Policy Futures in Education, 20(4), 524-536. Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629-652. Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2016). Institutional logics in action. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 48, 33-60. Reay, T., & Jones, C. (2016). Qualitatively capturing institutional logics. Strategic Organization. 14(4). 441-454. Rhoads, R. A., & Liu, A. (2009). Globalization, social movements, and the American university: Implications for research and practice. In Higher Education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 273-315). Springer, Dordrecht. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1974). Wicked problems. Man-made Futures, 26(1), 272-280. Roberts, J. (2014). Critical Realism, Dialectics, and Qualitative Research Methods. Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior. 44(1), 1-23. Robson, S. (2011). Internationalization: A transformative agenda for higher education?. Teachers and Teaching, 17(6), 619-630. 112 Rosner, I. D. (2020). Capacity building through knowledge alliances and collaborative Creativity. Bridges/Tiltai, 84(1). Ruyani, A., Parlindungan, D., Patrick, P. G., & Matthews, C. E. (2022). Developing Collegial Relationships to Address Hurdles in Ex Situ Turtle Conservation on an Indonesian University Campus. Case Studies in the Environment, 6(1), 1420816. Saari, A. (2021). Topologies of desire: Fantasies and their symptoms in educational policy futures. European Educational Research Journal, 1474904120988389. Saldana, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Researchers: An Introduction to Codes and Coding. Saric, J., Blaettler, D., Bonfoh, B., Hostettler, S., Jimenez, E., Kiteme, B., & Breu, T. (2019). Leveraging research partnerships to achieve the 2030 Agenda: Experiences from North- South cooperation. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 28(2), 143- 150. Scheyvens, R., & Cheer, J. M. (2022). Tourism, the SDGs and partnerships. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(10), 2271-2281. Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development, 37(2), 460-484. Scott, W.R. (2015). Organizational theory and HE. Journal of Organizational Theory in Education, 1(1), 68-76. Semali, L. M., Baker, R. & Freer, R. (2013). Multi-institutional partnerships for higher education in Africa: A case study of assumptions of international academic collaboration. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(2), 53-66. Sewell Jr, W. H. (2005). Logics of history: Social theory and social transformation. University of Chicago Press. Sharma, H. (2022). Mapping the global edtech revolution during the pandemic: From ‘determinism’ to ‘solutionism’. In E. Mogaji, J. Varsha, F. Maringe, & E. Hinson (Eds.), Re-imagining educational futures in developing countries: Lessons from global health crises. Palgrave. Shields, R., & Watermeyer, R. (2020). Competing institutional logics in universities in the United Kingdom: schism in the church of reason. Studies in Higher Education, 45(1), 3- 17. Smets, M., Morris, T. I. M., & Greenwood, R. (2012). From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change. Academy of management journal, 55(4), 877-904. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research. 104: 333-339. 113 Sors, T. G., O’Brien, R. C., Scanlon, M. L., Bermel, L. Y., Chikowe, I., Gardner, A., ... & Litzelman, D. K. (2022). Reciprocal innovation: A new approach to equitable and mutually beneficial global health partnerships. Global Public Health, 1-13. Stein, S., Andreotti, V., Bruce, J., & Suša, R. (2016). Towards different conversations about the internationalization of higher education. Comparative and international education, 45(1). Stein, S. (2019). Beyond higher education as we know it: Gesturing towards decolonial horizons of possibility. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 38(2), 143-161. Sun, Q., & Kang, H. (2022). Learning Through Academic Collaborations In/With the East: North American Adult Education Scholars’ Insights. Adult Education Quarterly, 72(1), 3-23. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273–286. Takyi-Amoako, E. J. (2018). Towards an alternative approach to education partnerships in Africa: Ubuntu, the confluence and the post-2015 agenda. In Re-Visioning Education in Africa (pp. 205-227). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Tavernaro-Haidarian, L. (2018). Why efforts to decolonise can deepen coloniality and what Ubuntu can do to help. Critical Arts, 32(5-6), 104-118. ). Teunissen, R. A. G., Dierx, J. A., Venter, T., Young, C. T., & Titus, S. (2022). Managing international, intercultural, and interdisciplinary collaboration in health and well-being capacity building: lessons learned within the CASO higher education project. Studies in Higher Education, 48(1), 49-62. Thornton, P. H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 81-101. Thornton, P. (2004). Markets from Culture: Institutional Logics and Organizational Decisions in Higher Education Publishing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process. OUP Oxford. Tlemsani, I., Mohamed Hashim, M. A., & Matthews, R. (2022). Games theory and strategic alliances: Applications to British Russian partnership. Higher Education, Skills and WorkBased Learning, 12(4), 689-704. United Nations Development Programme. (n.d.). Higher Education sustainability initiative. https://sdgs.un.org/HESI 114 Vincent, S., & O’Mahoney, J. (2018). Critical Realism and Qualitative Research: An Introductory Overview. In C. Cassell, A. L. Cunliffe, & G. Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods: History and Traditions. Sage Publications. Warshaw, J. B., & Upton, S. (2018). Capturing Hybrid Institutional Logics in Higher Education: Qualitative Document Analysis as Methodological Approach. In Theory and method in Higher Education research. Emerald Publishing Limited. Warshaw, J. B., & Upton, S. (2020). "Hybrid logics in the resource strategies of US public research universities." Journal of Further and Higher Education 44, no. 9 (2020): 12891303. Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T. Westhorp, G. Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013). RAMESES publication standards: Meta-narrative reviews. BMC Medicine, 11-20. Worley, C. G., Loftis, S., Scheepers, C., Nichols, H., & Parcells, C. (2022). Building trust through action learning in an uncertain transorganizational context. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 58(4), 716-751. Wu, Jianguo. 2011. “Understanding interdiscursivity: A pragmatic model.” Journal of Cambridge Studies 6(2–3): 95–115. Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 189-221. Zimmerman, S. (2020) Turn on the spotlight: How vocabularies of motive shape sustainable practice. Germany. Working Papers. FernUniversität in Hagen. 115 APPENDIX LIST OF REVIEWED ARTICLES (Total 58; Publication Year for all is 2022) Authors Article Title Source Title Sun, Q; Kang, H Learning through academic collaborations in/with the East: North American Adult Education Scholars' Insights. Adult Education Quarterly Muzanyi, G., Nakibuuka, J., & Mayanja, H. Collaborative research to respond to the HIV epidemic: a case of Uganda (Makerere University)-Case Western Reserve University Research Collaboration 19882021. African Health Sciences Ogbenna, A; Drane, D; Crowe, A; Oyedele, O; Hauser, J; Soyannwo, O; Ogunseitan, A; DoobayPersaud, A Building the Nigerian palliative care workforce: An interdisciplinary distance learning training program. Annals of Global Health Noormahomed, E. V., Noormahomed, S., Hlashwayo, D., Martins, E., Ismail, M., Bickler, S. W., & Schooley, R. T. Fostering sustainable biomedical research training in mozambique: a spin-off of the medical education partnership initiative. Annals of Global Health Ma, L., & Subbiondo, J. L. Goals, Models, and Practices of International Beijing Partnerships in Higher Education: Toward International Global Peace and Harmony. Review of Education Liu, C., Wu, Q., Liang, Z., Karimi, L., Ferrier, J. A., Sheats, J., & Khalil, H. Adaptation strategies in transnational education: a case study of an Australian Master of Health Administration Course offered to Chinese managers. 116 BMC Medical Education Brown, R. R., Davies, M. B., Drury, G., Lane, J., Lavy, C., Nungu, S., & Munthali, J. Feasibility of delivering foot and ankle surgical courses in a partnership in Eastern, Central and Southern Africa. Troughton, L., & Obasi, A. An exploration of practices affecting research integrity in global health partnerships. BMC Medical Education BMJ Global Health Richards, H., Staruch, R., King, A., Pugh, C., Kinsella, S., Savović, J., & Young, A. BMJ Open Protocol for a Global Burns Research Priority Setting Partnership to agree the most important unanswered questions in international burns care. Henny, L., Gaudet, L. C., Lupo, K. M., Goods, K., Sanders, S., & Zhang, Y. Recommendations for Interinstitutional and Interdisciplinary Research Informed by a PIRE Graduate Student Cohort Perspective. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Ruyani, A., Parlindungan, D., Patrick, P. G., & Matthews, C. E. Developing Collegial Relationships to Address Hurdles in Ex Situ Turtle Conservation on an Indonesian University Campus. Case Studies in the Environment Ma, J., & Ploner, J. Strategy and sustainability discourses in higher education partnership building between China and UK. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education Mwampamba, T. H., Egoh, B. N., Borokini, I., & Njabo, K. Challenges encountered when doing research Conservation back home: Perspectives from African Science and conservation scientists in the diaspora. Practice Mortimer, C., & Escalante, Response-able pedagogy: teaching through M. A. L. Shakespeare in a Higher Education (HE) transnational partnership. Culture and Organization Kassie, K., & Angervall, P. Education Inquiry Double agendas in international partnership programs: a case study from an Ethiopian university. 117 Haley, A., Alemu, S. K., Zerihun, Z., & Uusimäki, L. Internationalisation through research collaboration. Educational Review Aspler, A., Kegel, F., Beyene, T., Zewdu, T., Tesfaye, B., McKnight, A., & Acton, C. Establishing a Self-sustaining Emergency Medicine Point-of-Care Ultrasound Curriculum in an Academic Teaching Hospital in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences Burr, E. M., Kelly, K. A., Murphrey, T. P., & Koswatta, T. J. An Ecological Approach to Evaluating Collaborative Practice in NSF Sponsored Partnership Projects: The SPARC Model. Frontiers in Psychology Perier, C., Nasinghe, E., Charles, I., Ssetaba, L. J., Ahyong, V., Bangs, D., ... & Schaletzky, J. Workshop-based learning and networking: a scalable model for research capacity strengthening in low-and middle-income countries. Global Health Action Hatløy, A., Luthuli, S., John, V., Haskins, L., Mapumulo, S., Mutombo, P., & Mapatano, M. A. ‘I am not only beneficial to the community but to the entire country, I am trained as a researcher now’: Developing health research skills in low-income countries. Global Public Health Sors, T. G., O’Brien, R. C., Scanlon, M. L., Bermel, L. Y., Chikowe, I., Gardner, A., ... & Litzelman, D. K. Reciprocal innovation: A new approach to equitable and mutually beneficial global health partnerships. Global Public Health Canas, E., Gough, R., Smith, M. J., Monette, E. M., McHugh, D. D., Le Ber, M. J., ... & Nouvet, E. What do we mean by critical and ethical global engagement? Questions from a research partnership between universities in Canada and Rwanda. Global Public Health Joughin, G., Bearman, M., Boud, D., Lockyer, J., & Adachi, C. Creating and sustaining collaborative connections: tensions and enabling factors in joint international programme development. Higher Education 118 Tlemsani, I., Mohamed Hashim, M. A., & Matthews, R. Games theory and strategic alliances: Applications to British Russian partnership. Higher Education Skills and WorkBased Learning Robson, S., Kampff, A. J. C., Morosini, M., & Guilherme, A. A. Internationalization At Home: policies, practices and perspectives from the global north and south. Humanidades & Inovação. Fernandes, A., Shukla, B., & Fardoun, H. Fostering the reputation of higher education Information institutions in international ranking by means Sciences Letters of diversity of international collaboration. Green, G., Koch, H., Kulaba, P., Garner, S. L., George, C. E., Hitchcock, J., & Norman, G. Implementing an mHealth app to combat hypertension in India's vulnerable populations. Information Technology & People Bohonos, J., Chuma, P., Lutomia, A. N., Henderson, E. W., Pittendrigh, B. R., & Bello-Bravo, J. Program planning and animated videos as learning tools in Sub-Saharan Africa: A case study of an international educational collaboration. International Journal of Adult Education and Technology (IJAET) Santiago, A., Rodrigues, C., Diogo, S., & da Silva, J. T. Challenges on the European Union-China cooperation in higher education from ‘people-to-people dialogue’ perspective: The case of health-related joint projects. International Journal of Chinese Education Jonas, P., Garbey Savigne, E., Koster, M., & Choonara, I. Lessons from Building a Sustainable Healthcare Exchange between the Netherlands and Cuba. International Journal of Envir Research and Public Health Raheem, D., Soltermann, A. T., Tamiozzo, L. V., Cogo, A., Favén, L., Punam, N. J., ... & Stammler-Gossmann, A. Partnership for international development: Finland–Argentina conference on circular economy and bioeconomy with emphasis on food sovereignty and sustainability. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 119 Rodriguez Espinosa, P., Found in translation: Reflections and lessons Pichayayothin, N. B., for qualitative research collaborations across Suavansri, P., French, J. J., language and culture. Areekit, P., Nilchantuk, C., ... & Heaney, C. A. International Journal of Qualitative Methods Edwards, K. T., & Shahjahan, R. A. Lessons on love in collaboration: Black and Brown ruminations on global whiteness. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education Roberts, H. J., Coss, N., Urva, M., Haonga, B., Woolley, P. M., Banskota, B., ... & Sabharwal, S. Host Perspectives of High-Income Country Orthopaedic Resident Rotations in Low and Middle-Income Countries. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Lahti, M., Nenonen, S. P., & Sutinen, E. Co-working, co-learning and culture–cocreation of future tech lab in Namibia. Journal of Corporate Real Estate Posti-Ahokas, H., Idriss, K., Hassan, M., & Isotalo, S. Collaborative professional practice for strengthening teacher educator identities in Eritrea. Journal of Education for Teaching R’boul, H. Intercultural philosophy and internationalisation of higher education: epistemologies of the South, geopolitics of knowledge and epistemological polylogue. Journal of Further and Higher Education Axelby, R., Worku‐Dix, B., & Crewe, E. Global partnerships on paper and in practice: Critical observations from inside a Global Challenge Research Fund capacity‐ development project. Journal of International Development Devereux, T., & Glenn, A. Transformational Learning through Shifting Global Perspectives: The Impact of COVID19 on a Global Classroom in the US and Liberia. Journal of International Students 120 Kuzhabekova, A., A critical perspective on short-term Ispambetova, B., international mobility of faculty: an Baigazina, A., & Sparks, J. experience from Kazakhstan. Journal of Studies in International Education Scheyvens, R., & Cheer, J. M. Tourism, the SDGs and partnerships. Journal of Sustainable Tourism González Castro, F. A Manifesto of Shambolic Form: Knowledge Approaching Creative-Critical Practice at the Cultures Intersection Where Artistic Research, the Global South and Critical Theory Coalesce. Holmes, P., Ganassin, S., & Li, S. Reflections on the co-construction of an interpretive approach to interculturality for higher education in China. Language and Intercultural Communication Hoang, C. H., & Dang, T. T. D. A Sociocultural Perspective on Scholars Developing Research Skills via Research Communities in Vietnam. Minerva Mellizo, J., Cabedo-Mas, A., Joseph, D., & Nethsinghe, R. An International quartet of voices: sharing songs and culture beyond borders. Music Education Research Nasr, S. Z., Gökdemir, Y., Erdem, E., Karakoc, F., Ergenekon, P., Tapley, C., ... & Karadag, B. Collaboration between two CF centers; one in USA and one in Turkey before and during CoV2 pandemic. Pediatric Pulmonology Kim, R. E., Church, T. D., Ghate, M., Patel, M., Mehta, T., Naik, M., ... & Haworth, I. S. A mixed-methods analysis of a collaborative online international pharmacy course. Pharmacy Education Zhu, J., & Wang, S. Internationalization, cultural appreciation and institutional governmentality for quality control in transnational higher education cooperation: An empirical assessment. Plos one 121 Ramaswamy, H. H. S., & Kumar, S. A critical analysis of unsustainable higher education internationalisation policies in developing economies. Policy Futures in Education Haack, S. A., Rehuher, D., Implementation of an Adapted Collaborative Ghiasuddin, A., Kiyota, T., Care Model & Alik, T. P. Psychiatric services de Freitas, E., Sinclair, N., New spatial imaginaries for international le Roux, K., Solares-Rojas, curriculum projects: Creative diagrams, A., Coles, A., & Ng, O. L. mapping experiments, and critical cartography. Qualitative Inquiry Loon, K. V., Mohar, A., Unger-Saldaña, K., Potter, M. B., Sweet-Cordero, E. A., Breithaupt, L., ... & Lajous, M. Developing a collaborative international partnership for cancer control in Mexico. salud pública de méxico Thampi, K. Internationalization of social work education in India through student exchanges: challenges and prospects. Social Work Education Teunissen, R. A. G., Dierx, J. A., Venter, T., Young, C. T., & Titus, S. Managing international, intercultural, and Studies in Higher interdisciplinary collaboration in health and Education well-being capacity building: lessons learned within the CASO higher education project. Mulvey, B. Participatory parity as a way forward for critical internationalisation studies. Studies in Higher Education Worley, C. G., Loftis, S., Building Trust Through Action Learning in Scheepers, C., Nichols, H., An Uncertain Transorganizational Context. & Parcells, C. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science Bell, N., Tefera, G., Melone, M., & Bass, B. The Surgeon The American College of Surgeons as an advocate for global surgery awareness. 122 Emanuelsson, J., & Sahlström, F. What does it take to learn about teaching and ZDMMathematics learning in classrooms across cultures?. Education 123