Internationalization in Kazakhstan Higher Education: Towards Intercultural Competence and Citizenship

Abstract

Kazakhstan has aggressively pursued the internationalization of higher education, evidenced by the strategic Bolashak scholars’ program, adoption of the Bologna Process, and expanded academic mobility. In this paper, we argue that these efforts, while structurally significant, have yielded results that have prioritized institutional outputs over intercultural learning outcomes. To achieve genuine modernization, internationalization must move beyond technical compliance and be grounded in the cultivation of intercultural competence and citizenship. We review the trajectory of Kazakhstan’s educational history, development, and reforms and conclude that current efforts lack the cohesion and theoretical grounding necessary to foster globally engaged, interculturally competent citizenship. We narratively review selected international case studies of higher education institutions that have developed intercultural competence and citizenship programs to develop cross-case themes and practices. Consequently, we suggest a contextualized paradigm for developing intercultural competence within Kazakhstani higher education. We present a series of theoretical, practical, and institutional suggestions tailored for Kazakhstani higher education institutions to consider. Ultimately, intercultural competence in Kazakhstan must begin with a critical exploration of national and local values to engage the global community from a “glocalized,” culturally resonant, and decolonized standpoint.

1. Introduction

At the nexus of intercultural citizenship and internationalization of higher education remains the question of how individuals develop the capabilities to enact change. As (Byram 2008) nudges us beyond foreign language learning towards action citizenship through what he describes as intercultural communicative competence, (Goh 2012) adds that any efforts to develop citizenship education and intercultural capabilities must be driven by intercultural competence. In a rapidly globalizing world, the development of intercultural competence has become a critical priority for higher education institutions worldwide. However, it has been argued that too many internationalization efforts fail to develop the intercultural competence and capabilities of their students (Goh et al. 2025; Deardorff and Jones 2022).

Kazakhstan, with its rich cultural history and strategic geopolitical position, stands at the crossroads of diverse civilizations. Considered an educational hub in Central Asia, Kazakhstan has recognized the need to cultivate globally engaged graduates who can navigate diverse cultural contexts and contribute to the country’s economic and social development—intercultural citizens, so to speak. To do so, we add that to fully leverage its potential on the global stage, the country’s higher education institutions must evolve to equip students with intercultural competence.

In this paper we explore the imperative of infusing intercultural education into the higher education system of Kazakhstan to nurture graduates equipped with the skills necessary for navigating the complexities of our globalized world. We will review the current state of higher education in Kazakhstan, identify the existing gaps in internationalization efforts, explore the current landscape of intercultural competence education integration within the higher education system of Kazakhstan, survey how exemplary institutions around the world may be implementing intercultural education in their internationalization efforts, and propose ideas that can foster intercultural competence in Kazakhstan.

This paper provides a critical historical review of Kazakhstan’s higher education landscape and its internationalization efforts, followed by a narrative review and thematic analysis of 29 international case studies. Recognizing the western-centric nature of concepts, theories, and case examples, we suggest a contextualized paradigm for drawing principles and proposing context-sensitive ideas for integrating intercultural competence within Kazakhstan’s higher education social, cultural, and political context.

2. Concepts and Framework

Three concepts are highlighted in this paper: (1) Internationalization in higher education; (2) Intercultural Competence, and (3) Intercultural Citizenship.

Internationalization in higher education has grown to include multiple facets of higher education’s mission and functions, requiring multiple actors that enact the university’s teaching, research, and service aspirations. It has been defined as comprehensive internationalization when enacted through tangible actions, integrating global perspectives into all aspects of higher education, including teaching, research, and service (Hudzik 2011). (Knight 2006) noted that an indication of internationalization is when institutions integrate international, intercultural, and global dimensions into their mission, execution, and delivery of higher education.

Intercultural competence is the ability to interact effectively, appropriately, and respectfully with people from different cultural backgrounds. It involves a combination of attitudes, knowledge, skills, and reflection that enable individuals to understand and navigate cultural differences and build positive, constructive relationships. Core elements that have been studied about intercultural competence include awareness and respect for cultural differences, communication skills tailored to diverse cultural contexts, empathy, openness, and willingness to learn, and the ability to adapt behavior appropriately in intercultural situations (Leung et al. 2014).

Intercultural Citizenship combines foreign language learning with civic action. It moves beyond the ability to simply communicate with people from other cultures (i.e., intercultural communicative competence) to actively engaging with them to solve problems, address social injustice, or participate in political life across linguistic and political borders. Intercultural citizens have the linguistic and cultural skills to successfully function in international or multicultural groups. By possessing critical situational awareness and the ability to reflect on their own and other societal contexts comparatively and critically, they are compelled to effect change in local and global communities (Byram 2008).

In this paper, we believe that internationalization is the strategic vehicle, while intercultural citizenship and intercultural competence are the functional engines that cultivate globally ready graduates. This framework suggests that internationalization is ineffective if it only focuses on “the international” (partnerships, rankings, and recruitment) without addressing “the intercultural” (internal and developmental changes in the learner).

Intercultural citizenship (Byram 2008) fits within the landscape of intercultural competence as mapped by (Leung et al. 2014) as a shift from “knowledge” to “taking action.”

While (Leung et al. 2014) provide a comprehensive overview of the psychological and behavioral traits needed to function across cultures, Byram’s model adds a layer of political agency and social responsibility.

Hence, we view internationalization as a macro-goal. The process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions, or delivery of post-secondary education.

Intercultural Competence is the skill set that internationalization efforts should cultivate in students. The ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes. This is the individual capacity to navigate differences.

Intercultural Citizenship then provides the moral/civic compass where the intercultural skill set moves from “knowing” to “acting.” It involves taking responsibility for our communities, nations, and world and engaging in social action that contributes to positive change and impact.

We acknowledge that current definitions of these terms often carry a Global North, Western bias (e.g., emphasizing individual agency over collective harmony, or Western democratic norms as the only “civic” standard), and there are no intercultural competence or citizenship models that originate from non-Western scholars. Applying these to Kazakhstan requires a contextual paradigmatic lens that we term “glocalize”, which means to adapt global ideas to the local context.

3. Historical Context and Evolution of Higher Education in Kazakhstan

The evolution of Kazakhstan’s higher education system is inextricably linked to its post-independence trajectory and the ambitious “Kazakhstan 2050” strategy, which aims to position the nation among the world’s top 30 developed economies (Sarsenbayeva and Makarikhina 2020). As the world’s largest landlocked nation, situated at the geopolitical crossroads of Eurasia, Kazakhstan leverages a rich historical heritage—spanning nomadic traditions, Silk Road, and Soviet influence—to inform its modern educational philosophy (Erdener 2017). Today, higher education serves as the primary catalyst for transitioning from a resource-dependent economy to a knowledge-based society capable of navigating an increasingly interconnected global landscape.

3.1. Geopolitical Influence and Strategic Integration

Kazakhstan’s unique demographic profile, comprising over 130 ethnic groups, necessitates an educational framework that fosters intercultural understanding (Jonbekova 2023). This internal diversity is mirrored by the nation’s “multi-vector” foreign policy, which balances relations with Russia, China, the EU, and the United States (Akhmetova et al. 2019). As (Nurgozhayeva 2024; Lee et al. 2020) emphasize, a significant driver of recent educational and economic transformation has been the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Since its announcement at Nazarbayev University in 2013, the BRI has cemented Kazakhstan’s role as a pivotal transit hub, attracting substantial foreign investment and demanding a workforce proficient in complex global business practices and cross-cultural collaboration.

3.2. Modernization and Internationalization Reforms

Following independence in 1991, Kazakhstan prioritized the globalization of higher education to enhance its standing in the international knowledge economy (Gafu et al. 2024). Central to this effort was the nation’s accession to the Bologna Process, which harmonized Kazakhstani degrees with European standards, thereby promoting academic mobility and institutional transparency (Sarsenbayeva and Makarikhina 2020).

The government has implemented several landmark initiatives to institutionalize these reforms:

• Structural Alignment: Adoption of a three-tier (Bachelor-Master-PhD) educational model to facilitate integration with global universities (Moutsios 2014).
• Flagship Institutions: The establishment of Nazarbayev University as a research-intensive leader designed to pilot international best practices.
• Curricular Innovation: Integration of the “4C model”—critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity—alongside Education for Sustainable Development (Salybekova et al. 2023; Yelubayeva et al. 2023).

To sustain these reforms, the state has invested heavily in faculty development and international partnerships. By fostering collaborations with developed nations—particularly within the EU—Kazakhstan has enhanced its technical education and specialized linguistic competencies (Colliander et al. 2016). Furthermore, the government encourages a robust research culture through international grants, aiming to address regional challenges while diversifying the economy beyond its energy sector (Kenebayeva 2020).

Kazakhstan’s higher education system has transitioned from a localized post-Soviet framework to a proactive, internationalized hub in Central Asia. By aligning national development goals with global standards, the state seeks to produce graduates who possess both the technical proficiency and the intercultural competence required to thrive in the competitive 21st-century labor market. This strategic evolution remains a cornerstone of Kazakhstan’s identity as a rising global actor and a nexus for Eurasian trade and innovation.

3.2.1. Enrollment Trends

Kazakhstan has progressively consolidated its role as an emerging educational hub in Eurasia, propelled by deliberate state-led modernization and the internationalization of its higher education system. This transformation is evidenced by a substantial rise in international student enrollment and an increasingly diversified pool of foreign applicants, reflecting the growing integration of Kazakhstani universities into transnational education networks.

According to data reported by Kazakh international news, in the 2025–2026 academic year, Kazakhstan hosted over 35,000 international students from 88 countries, an 11% increase from 2024 (Seilkhanov 2025). This growth reflects a successful “export of education” strategy aimed at attracting foreign capital and integrating into the global knowledge economy.

The appeal of Kazakhstani universities is primarily attributed to:

• Affordability: Competitive tuition fees and living costs compared to other regional centers.
• Strategic Specialization: High demand for programs in Healthcare and Medicine (attracting 12,950 students), followed by Pedagogical Sciences, Business and Law, Engineering, and Information Technology (Birbayeva 2025).
• International Recognition: Participation in the Bologna Process ensures that degrees are comparable and recognized globally, a factor that has become more prominent following Russia’s expulsion from the process in 2022 (ICEF Monitor 2025).

3.2.2. Geographic Origins: A Strategic Shift

Historically, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was the dominant source of foreign students due to cultural proximity and simplified immigration procedures. However, a significant demographic shift has recently occurred. For the first time, students from Asian countries now outnumber those from the CIS (Seilkhanov 2025).

The leading source countries, as reported by Kazakh news, for international students include:

• India (9959): Representing the largest donor group, primarily focused on medical programs.
• Turkmenistan (9089)
• Uzbekistan (4136)
• China (3367)
• Russia (2426): Notably, the conflict in Ukraine has reshaped regional flows, causing a reversal of the traditional trend of Kazakhstani students moving to Russia (The PIE News 2025).

International enrollment is highly concentrated in three major metropolitan areas, with Almaty emerging as the largest educational cluster in Central Asia, hosting over 18,000 students. Astana follows as an intellectual and research core, while Shymkent serves as a southern industrial-educational hub. National universities, such as Al-Farabi Kazakh National University and Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University, remain the top choices for foreign citizens, signaling high trust in their scientific infrastructure.

3.3. Structural Constraints

Despite significant policy efforts, the internationalization of Kazakhstan’s higher education system remains uneven and subject to several structural constraints. Scholars have noted that many reforms have been implemented through strong state steering, which can limit institutional autonomy and academic freedom (Hartley et al. 2015). While centralized governance has enabled rapid modernization, it may also restrict universities’ ability to independently shape curricula or pursue critical research agendas.

Another challenge concerns language policy within higher education. Kazakhstan’s trilingual policy promotes the use of Kazakh, Russian, and English in education, but the balance among these languages remains politically and socially sensitive. (Jonbekova 2023) noted that the expansion of English-medium instruction, despite supporting internationalization efforts, may inadvertently reproduce institutional hierarchies and create unequal learning conditions for students with diverse linguistic backgrounds. At the same time, ongoing efforts to strengthen the Kazakh language as part of nation-building policies sometimes intersect uneasily with the globalizing orientation of English-language higher education.

A further tension lies in the gap between policy rhetoric and institutional practice. (Brito et al. 2025) critically observe that the widespread institutional emphasis on internationalization—manifested through exchange programs, dual degrees, and global partnerships—has not been consistently accompanied by the systematic embedding of intercultural learning within everyday teaching practices. In many cases, internationalization is expressed through symbolic indicators such as rankings, mobility statistics, or English-language programs rather than through systematic pedagogical strategies that foster deep intercultural engagement.

These challenges suggest that Kazakhstan’s higher education internationalization is best understood not simply as a linear modernization process but as a complex interaction between global models and domestic political, linguistic, and institutional contexts.

3.4. Future Outlook

Kazakhstan’s higher education internationalization strategy continues to develop within the framework of its “multi-vector” foreign and educational policy. Recent initiatives include the establishment of branch campuses of foreign universities and the expansion of English-medium programs and international partnerships. These measures aim to increase the country’s attractiveness as a destination for international education and support the government’s ambition to host up to 150,000 foreign students by 2029 (ICEF Monitor 2025).

3.4.1. Strategic Policy Framework

Kazakhstan’s long-term development strategies, including the “Kazakhstan-2050” agenda and related national roadmaps, emphasize the transition toward a knowledge-based economy and deeper integration into global scientific and educational networks. Within these frameworks, internationalization is framed as a mechanism for strengthening the competitiveness of the national education system, attracting foreign talent, and preparing professionals capable of participating in international projects (Sarsenbayeva and Makarikhina 2020).

State programs for the development of education and science further institutionalize these objectives by promoting digitalization, international collaboration, and quality assurance mechanisms within universities (Yembergenova et al. 2020). Ministerial policies encourage the expansion of mobility programs, international research partnerships, and English-language curricula, which collectively aim to foster intercultural competence and global skills among graduates (Doschanov et al. 2023).

3.4.2. International Mobility and Human Capital Development

One of the most visible instruments of Kazakhstan’s internationalization strategy is the Bolashak scholarship program, which funds study and training at leading foreign universities. Since its establishment, the program has supported thousands of students and professionals, representing a substantial state investment in international academic mobility and human capital development.

Some policymakers and critics have questioned whether Bolashak delivers value proportionate to its large public expenditure. One criticism is that Kazakhstan still relies on foreign specialists for key positions despite decades of Bolashak investment, suggesting that the program’s outcomes may not fully align with national development goals (Nakispekova 2024).

3.4.3. Institutional and Labor Market Dynamics

The Ministry of Science and Higher Education plays a central role in regulating and coordinating internationalization policies through accreditation standards, funding mechanisms, and strategic programs supporting international partnerships. Universities have responded by expanding English-medium programs, establishing dual degrees, and strengthening participation in global research networks.

Leading institutions such as Nazarbayev University and other major universities have integrated internationalization into their institutional strategies, emphasizing the preparation of globally competitive graduates and the development of intercultural competencies (Hartley et al. 2015; Ghasab et al. 2022).

3.4.4. Critical Perspectives

Despite significant progress, several challenges complicate the effective implementation of internationalization policies. Research suggests that the integration of intercultural learning within everyday teaching practices remains inconsistent, and the gap between policy rhetoric and classroom practice persists.

Furthermore, the recognition of foreign degrees and international experience within certain public sector institutions remains uneven, which may limit the full utilization of internationally trained human capital (Jonbekova et al. 2021).

Empirical studies also indicate that the benefits of international education programs such as Bolashak are mediated by domestic labor market conditions. Graduates may experience delays in securing employment due to mismatches between foreign-acquired skills and local institutional expectations (Perna et al. 2015; Bokayev et al. 2020).

Research on intellectual migration additionally suggests that some graduates express a desire to remain abroad due to higher living standards and broader professional opportunities. These findings reveal a structural tension within the program: while Bolashak seeks to develop globally competent professionals, its long-term effectiveness depends on institutional receptivity within Kazakhstan and graduates’ willingness to return and apply their expertise domestically.

4. Intercultural Competence in Kazakhstani Higher Education

From the above review, Kazakhstan has aggressively pursued higher education internationalization, successfully positioning itself as a Central Asian education hub through high-profile initiatives like the Bolashak program and the establishment of foreign branch campuses. However, this review also suggests that while the breadth of internationalization is expanding, the depth of intercultural competence development remains largely superficial, and what it means to develop globally engaged intercultural citizens is still ambiguous.

Kazakhstani internationalization is currently characterized by an activity-based approach that curates initiatives and events rather than a comprehensive process. While the Ministry of Science and Higher Education tracks metrics such as the number of international students (with a target of 150,000 by 2029) and faculty mobility rates, these are more institutional outputs rather than intercultural learning outcomes. Simply placing a local student in a foreign classroom or a foreign professor in a Kazakhstani lecture hall does not automatically result in the development of intercultural competence or intercultural citizenship. Research indicates that without intentional intervention, these “contact” moments between students in a pluralistic environment can reinforce stereotypes or lead to “intercultural stress” for faculty who lack the skills to manage diverse classrooms. According to (Kuzhabekova 2025), the intersection of internationalization and sustainability offers significant pedagogical potential. By utilizing study abroad and internationalized curricula, institutions can effectively address global ecological and social concerns, despite broader critiques of internationalization practices.

A significant critique of current efforts appears to be a fragmented understanding of what intercultural competence entails. Many programs in Kazakhstan conflate intercultural competence with “English language skills” or “general knowledge and tolerance.” This is exactly the low bar of intercultural learning that (Byram 2008) was attempting to address by introducing the notion of intercultural citizenship and intercultural communicative competence beyond foreign language learning. Many internationalization programs in Kazakhstan still lack theoretical grounding. Activities such as cultural evenings, short orientation sessions, or ad hoc guest lectures may raise awareness but do not reliably develop intercultural competence as defined in the research.

While some Kazakhstani universities have taken steps to address the need for intercultural education, the implementation has been uneven and often driven by individual faculty and staff members rather than a cohesive, institution-wide approach. Some universities have incorporated intercultural training into their curriculum, while others have sought to create opportunities for international exchange and collaboration. However, these efforts often lack a strong theoretical foundation and coordinated evaluation, limiting their effectiveness in producing truly globally engaged graduates (Abduh and Rosmaladewi 2018; Guillén-Yparrea and Ramírez-Montoya 2023) and intercultural citizens.

In Section 5, Section 6 and Section 7, we review international approaches to intercultural competence in higher education institutions around the world in search of insights that can inform and support efforts in Kazakhstan.

5. Materials and Methods

This paper adopts a qualitative approach consistent with a conceptual essay informed by a narrative review of institutional case studies addressing intercultural competence in higher education. Case study research is appropriate for examining contemporary phenomena within their real-life contexts and for exploring how institutional initiatives operate in practice. (Creswell 2013) describes case study research as an approach in which the researcher examines “a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information” (p. 97).

The cases examined in this paper are drawn from Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment and Application (Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith 2017), an edited volume that presents institutional examples of initiatives designed to foster intercultural learning in higher education contexts. The 29 cases in this volume represented countries from five continents: Asia (China, Hong Kong, Japan, Qatar, Vietnam), Africa (South Africa), Oceania (Australia, New Zealand), Europe (Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Spain, United Kingdom), and North America (Canada, Mexico, USA). As an initial step, all case studies included in the volume were reviewed and mapped in a comparative chart documenting institutional context, program type, assessment tools, and the forms of intercultural engagement described in each case. This preliminary mapping provided an overview of the range of institutional approaches to the development of intercultural competence represented in the volume.

Based on the initial chart, a subset of 7 cases was selected for deeper analysis. Of these seven cases, four were from the United States, and one each from the Netherlands, Hong Kong, and Vietnam. Selection was guided by three considerations: the case study’s explicit focus on initiatives to develop intercultural competence in higher education settings, sufficient descriptive detail on program design and implementation, and the case’s relevance to broader institutional internationalization efforts. Cases that met these criteria were compiled into a second comparative chart capturing key features of each initiative, including institutional context, program structure, learning goals, and the ways intercultural competence was conceptualized within the case.

The unit of analysis for this paper is the institutional initiative described within each selected case study. The comparative chart of selected cases served as an analytical tool for identifying similarities and differences across initiatives. Through an interpretive comparison of these cases, recurring themes related to the development of intercultural competence and the broader concept of intercultural citizenship were identified. Examining multiple cases in this way allows for insights that extend across institutional contexts while preserving the distinctive characteristics of each initiative (Hamilton 2024; Stake 2006).

6. International Institutional Approaches to Intercultural Competence

Across higher education systems worldwide, institutions have adopted diverse strategies to cultivate intercultural competence, frequently embedding global learning within curricular structures, co-curricular initiatives, and broader institutional internationalization frameworks. Although each case reflects distinct cultural, social, and institutional dynamics, the selected examples reviewed here highlight several common approaches through which institutions operationalize intercultural competence development.

One prominent strategy involves integrating intercultural learning directly into the undergraduate curriculum. Agnes Scott College, for example, embeds intercultural learning within the first-year experience through Journeys, a required four-credit course introducing students to global issues such as identity, ethics of travel, globalization, and colonialism (Peifer and Meyer-Lee 2017, p. 239). Drawing on (Braskamp et al. 2014) Global Perspective model as well as Deardorff’s and Bennett’s intercultural competence frameworks, the course incorporates community-based projects, digital storytelling, and facilitated dialogue to cultivate global self-awareness and critical reflection. Longitudinal assessment through the Global Perspectives Inventory enables the institution to track developmental change and refine instructional design accordingly. This case illustrates how intercultural competence can be positioned as a foundational component of undergraduate education rather than an optional enrichment activity.

A similarly comprehensive curricular approach appears at The Hague University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands, where intercultural competence is conceptualized through an “intercultureality” model that spans curriculum, pedagogy, informal learning, and institutional strategy (Bulnes Sánchez and de Louw 2017, pp. 254–55). Coursework takes place within an internationalized, multilingual environment supported by study abroad programs, internships, and structured re-entry preparation. Assessment through portfolios, presentations, and reflective essays helps students articulate their intercultural development. Together, these elements highlight the importance of providing students with both experiential opportunities and conceptual frameworks for interpreting intercultural encounters.

Beyond individual courses, several institutions have pursued campus-wide strategies that integrate intercultural learning across academic and student affairs units. At the University of Minnesota Duluth, intercultural competence is treated as an institutional priority embedded across programs and co-curricular activities (Pedersen 2017, p. 234). Guided by Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) and supported by the American Association of Colleges and Universities VALUE rubrics, the university integrates intercultural learning outcomes throughout the curriculum while also supporting faculty and staff development initiatives. Structured assessment through instruments such as the Intercultural Development Inventory provides insight into students’ developmental trajectories. As (Pedersen 2017) notes, however, achieving meaningful institutional change requires sustained coordination and broad participation across campus units, observing that “a more targeted and strategic approach, with broader buy-in and increased staff support, could have resulted in fewer roadblocks and greater involvement” (p. 238).

Co-curricular and experiential programming represents another pathway through which institutions cultivate intercultural competence. Texas Christian University’s Discovering Global Citizenship initiative exemplifies a transdisciplinary model that integrates coursework with experiential opportunities, including study abroad, virtual immersion programs, global academies, and faculty development initiatives (Hightower 2017). Grounded in Deardorff’s process-oriented framework and Bennett’s DMIS, the initiative reflects the institution’s belief that “global citizenship is an institutional imperative” (Hightower 2017, p. 192). Assessment through e-portfolios and instruments such as the Intercultural Effectiveness Scale illustrates the need for diverse assessment tools capable of capturing students’ evolving intercultural capacities. At the same time, the case highlights challenges associated with decentralized program design, particularly the difficulty of generating institution-wide assessment data that can sustain broader engagement with international education (Hightower 2017, p. 195).

Other cases illustrate how intercultural learning can be supported through targeted pedagogical innovations. At the Chinese University of Hong Kong, a fully online credit-bearing course prepares undergraduates for international exchange through structured intercultural learning and reflection (Jackson 2017, p. 197). Drawing on the Intercultural Development Continuum and Mezirow’s transformative learning theory, the course combines foundational instruction in intercultural communication with reflective dialogue, peer interaction, and fieldwork-based inquiry. Weekly online forums and reflective assignments encourage students to collaboratively interpret intercultural experiences, while pre- and post-course IDI assessments document developmental change (Jackson 2017, p. 199). This case demonstrates how carefully designed digital learning environments can foster intercultural competence even when physical mobility is limited.

Experiential and place-based learning approaches are also prominent. At RMIT University Vietnam, the multidisciplinary course Culture and Context in Vietnam engages international students in structured cultural inquiry (Peck et al. 2017). Integrating Deardorff’s Delphi framework with Byram’s Intercultural Communicative Competence model, the course emphasizes sequential learning through reflection, cultural engagement, and post-learning synthesis (Peck et al. 2017, pp. 230–32). Activities such as critical incident analysis, inquiry projects, and reflective writing encourage students to interpret cultural differences while developing analytical and reflective habits. The case also highlights the importance of faculty preparation and ongoing curricular review to ensure that intercultural learning remains responsive to evolving student experiences and institutional contexts.

Finally, several institutions emphasize global mobility and travel-based learning as catalysts for intercultural development. At Spelman College, structured global travel programs combine pre-departure preparation, reflective journaling during travel, and post-return reintegration sessions to encourage students to examine cultural assumptions and develop intercultural awareness (Togunde and Fall 2017). Reflective essays and blogs allow students to document attitudinal and cognitive shifts over time. According to (Togunde and Fall 2017), such experiences can facilitate “acquisition of knowledge about other cultures, openness to new cultures and ideas, knowledge about the experiences of people…, personal growth, self-discovery, and foreign language development” (p. 272).

Taken together, these cases illustrate the wide range of strategies through which higher education institutions have sought to cultivate intercultural competence. While the initiatives vary in scale and institutional context, they demonstrate how intercultural learning can be integrated into curricular, co-curricular, and experiential programs. Examining these examples comparatively provides a foundation for identifying broader themes and institutional practices that support intercultural competence development.

7. Cross-Case Themes and Institutional Pathways to Intercultural Competence and Citizenship

A review of these international examples reveals several recurring themes that illuminate how higher education institutions conceptualize and implement intercultural competence development. Across the cases, there is a consistent recognition that intercultural education must be approached holistically and intentionally rather than through isolated courses or sporadic programming. Institutions such as the University of Minnesota Duluth, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, and Texas Christian University demonstrate that intercultural competence gains traction when embedded within coordinated, institution-wide frameworks that align curricular design, co-curricular activities, faculty development, and administrative strategy (Pedersen 2017; Bulnes Sánchez and de Louw 2017; Hightower 2017). In many cases, these initiatives operate within broader institutional internationalization strategies that create the structural conditions for intercultural learning opportunities. In such environments, faculty and staff are supported through structured training and collaboration, while programmatic efforts benefit from clear institutional endorsement and resource allocation. This integration helps ensure that intercultural learning is sustained through organizational infrastructure rather than relying solely on the initiative of individual instructors.

Another prominent theme across the cases is the central role of cross-cultural curriculum design as a deliberate pedagogical strategy. Universities such as Agnes Scott College, RMIT Vietnam, and the Chinese University of Hong Kong illustrate how intercultural competence develops most effectively when intercultural learning is embedded directly within the intellectual core of educational programs (Peifer and Meyer-Lee 2017; Peck et al. 2017; Jackson 2017). In these contexts, students engage with global and intercultural themes through inquiry-based learning, guided dialogue, critical incident analysis, and opportunities to connect theory with practice. These pedagogical approaches encourage students to interrogate assumptions, engage with cultural complexity, and develop the cognitive and affective capacities necessary for intercultural interaction. Importantly, these opportunities are not limited to mobility experiences; digital exchanges, online reflection, and community-based learning also provide meaningful pathways for intercultural engagement.

Clear learning outcomes and intentional assessment strategies further contribute to the coherence of these initiatives. In each case, intercultural learning is articulated through explicit outcomes grounded in theoretical models, and assessments are selected to capture both developmental progress and the multidimensional nature of intercultural competence. Institutions employ a combination of measures including reflective essays, e-portfolios, facilitated dialogue, presentations, and formal instruments such as the Intercultural Development Inventory and the Global Perspectives Inventory. These practices reflect a broader commitment to aligning pedagogical activities with desired outcomes and using assessment data to refine programming over time (Pedersen 2017; Peifer and Meyer-Lee 2017). The recurring emphasis on reflection before, during, and after intercultural engagement reinforces its central role as the mechanism through which students interpret cultural encounters and internalize new perspectives.

A final pattern across the cases is the importance of experiential and immersive learning opportunities. Whether through study abroad, community engagement, virtual exchange, or field-based inquiry, institutions consistently find that students deepen their intercultural competence when placed in situations requiring engagement with cultural difference. At the same time, the cases emphasize that experience alone is insufficient. Structured facilitation, guided reflection, and developmental scaffolding are necessary to transform experience into meaningful learning (Togunde and Fall 2017; Peck et al. 2017; Peifer and Meyer-Lee 2017). This emphasis reflects a broader consensus in intercultural education that growth occurs when students are supported in navigating ambiguity, confronting assumptions, and integrating new perspectives into their worldviews.

Taken together, these cases draw upon a shared set of theoretical foundations that inform program design, pedagogy, and assessment. Deardorff’s Process Model of Intercultural Competence is widely referenced for its developmental understanding of intercultural learning, while Byram’s Intercultural Communicative Competence model links language learning, cultural understanding, and critical cultural awareness. Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity provides a framework for understanding shifts in learners’ orientations toward cultural difference, and Kolb’s experiential learning cycle underscores the role of reflection in transforming experience into learning. Fantini’s work on attitudes, awareness, and skills further contributes to the conceptual coherence of these initiatives. Despite operating in diverse institutional contexts, the programs’ reliance on these frameworks suggests a broad international consensus regarding the core dimensions of intercultural competence and the pedagogical conditions that support its development.

This synthesis suggests that effective intercultural education in higher education is characterized by institutional intentionality, theoretically grounded curriculum design, meaningful assessment practices, and structured opportunities for experiential engagement. Initiatives that encourage critical reflection, ethical engagement with global issues, and meaningful interaction across cultural contexts also create pathways toward intercultural citizenship, where intercultural knowledge and skills are translated into socially responsible action. While the institutional contexts examined in these cases differ from those of Kazakhstan, the underlying principles of intentional design, institutional coordination, and reflective learning provide insights that may inform the development of culturally responsive and globally oriented programs within Kazakhstan’s higher education system.

8. Discussion: A Contextualized Paradigm for Intercultural Competence in Kazakhstan

To effectively apply cross-case themes and integrate intercultural competence within Kazakhstani higher education, institutions may transition from merely adopting Western-centric models to actively adapting and co-creating frameworks that reflect the country’s unique Eurasian, trilingual, and multi-ethnic reality. These suggestions are intended to invite dialogue, debate, and deliberation amongst Kazakh scholars and practitioners who wish to transform how intercultural competence is developed, moving from isolated efforts to a cohesive, culturally resonant national and institutional strategy.

Theoretically, universities may “glocalize” established frameworks by weaving in Kazakh epistemologies—such as cultural preservation, language and education, nomadic hospitality, and trilingualism—while navigating the realities of a centralized educational governance structure.

Practically, institutions could pivot toward “internationalization at home” by leveraging local multi-ethnic demographics, implementing contextualized “Eurasian Crossroads” foundational seminars, and investing in faculty training that respects local cultural norms and hierarchies.

Institutionally, leadership may shift financial and strategic priorities away from treating international offices solely as outward mobility “travel agencies.” True progress demands embedding intercultural capacity-building into the domestic curriculum and holding higher education leaders accountable for developing globally aware, yet locally rooted, graduates. Ultimately, this paradigm shift ensures that intercultural competence is not an imported luxury for the few who study abroad, but a foundational, culturally resonant skillset accessible to all students in Kazakhstan.

8.1. Theoretical Suggestions: Focus on Glocalizing Intercultural Competence Frameworks and Conceptual Models to Inform and Guide Strategy

8.1.1. Adapt and Co-Create a Contextualized, Research-Based Framework

Instead of relying on ad hoc activities or directly transplanting Western frameworks, institutions could glocalize established theoretical models. While frameworks like Deardorff’s Process Model of Intercultural Competence and Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity offer valuable baselines, they should be critically adapted. Alternatively, (Earley and Ang 2003) Cultural Intelligence model represents an east–west collaboration that conceptualizes intercultural competence that is not centered on the “western observer” but is fluid, contextual, globally inclusive, malleable, and culturally adaptable. For Kazakhstan, the Ministry and universities may co-create a shared vocabulary that integrates Kazakh epistemologies. While we understand that “Rukhani Zhangyru” (spiritual modernization or modernization of public consciousness), launched in 2017 by Kazakhstan’s First President, Nursultan Nazarbayev, is no longer active today, the ideas of language and education and preserving cultural values remain relevant. Could intercultural frameworks draw from traditional nomadic values of profound hospitality and adaptability and Kazakhstan’s identity as a Eurasian bridge? Furthermore, rather than framing intercultural competence solely through an external, Western-centric lens, a localized framework could account for the country’s internal diversity, multi-ethnic reality, and historical emphasis on interethnic and interreligious harmony.

8.1.2. Conceptualize Intercultural Competence Within Centralized Governance Structures

While Western case studies like the University of Minnesota Duluth demonstrate that intercultural competence cannot be siloed in a single department (like the International Office), applying an “institution-wide” approach in Kazakhstan requires navigating a historically centralized higher education system. Institutions could translate integrated campus priorities to align with state mandates, national funding structures, and Ministry accreditation standards. To frame interculturality as an educational ethos and mission-centered goal, universities could broaden their comparative scope beyond highly autonomous Western institutions to include models from other post-independence nations; Central Asian neighbors; or rapidly developing Asian hubs that share similar transitional, centralized, or multi-ethnic characteristics.

8.1.3. Integrate “Contextualized Global Self-Awareness” into the Core Curriculum

Theoretical education could start with identity and ethics, but it should be grounded in the Kazakhstani worldview. Students may understand their own cultural lens, which requires exploring the complexities of trilingualism (Kazakh, Russian, and English) as a core component of how they navigate cultural spaces. Furthermore, whereas Western curricula often focus on individual identity exploration, Kazakhstan’s modules could reflect a balance between collective responsibility—acknowledging ties to family, community, and nation—and global individual awareness. Universities could design modules that foster critical, localized sense-making of Kazakhstan’s unique position in the global sphere. This means unpacking global power dynamics and globalization through a decolonial lens to foster critical reflection rather than merely teaching cultural facts about the West.

8.2. Practical Suggestions: Actionable Steps for Contextualized Implementation and Curriculum Design

8.2.1. Require a First-Year “Eurasian Crossroads” or Glocalized Seminar

While Western institutions like Agnes Scott College use required “Journeys” courses to introduce global issues, Kazakhstan universities could implement a contextualized “Eurasian Crossroads” first-year seminar. This mandatory course could connect global challenges—such as globalization and the ethics of travel—to local realities, including Kazakhstan’s nomadic heritage, post-independence transition, and role as a geopolitical bridge. Incorporating digital storytelling and community-based projects is highly relevant. Furthermore, utilizing frameworks like UNESCO Story Circles is practical, but these could be intentionally adapted to mirror Kazakh oral traditions (like the “Zhyrau” poets, singers, musicians, advisors to leaders) and communal storytelling, ensuring that foundational intercultural training resonates with local epistemologies.

8.2.2. Create a Campus Intercultural Community via Trilingual and Multi-Ethnic Environments

“Internationalization at home” may leverage Kazakhstan’s existing multi-ethnic demographic as a primary resource, rather than relying solely on imported diversity. Following The Hague University’s emphasis on multilingual environments, campuses could actively mix domestic and international students in collaborative projects, utilizing Kazakhstan’s state-promoted trilingualism (Kazakh, Russian, English). Crucially, structured re-entry programs are vital for returning Bolashak or Erasmus scholars to help them translate their experiences into skills useful for the local economy. This reintegration may also support them culturally, helping them navigate the return to a more collectivist, hierarchical professional culture while acting as innovative bridge-builders. In these multicultural cooperative learning spaces, Kazakhstan can foster collaborative learning experiences co-led by diverse instructors to integrate international and local perspectives.

8.2.3. Invest in Culturally Responsive Faculty and Staff Professional Development

To transition from traditional, often didactic teaching models, the Ministry of Science and Higher Education could fund targeted training for faculty to design culturally responsive, globally relevant curricula. Professional development—similar to the workshops at the University of Minnesota Duluth—may go beyond adopting Western pedagogies. It could equip professors to facilitate difficult cross-cultural dialogues in ways that respect local norms, such as generational respect and inter-ethnic harmony. Institutions could provide seed grants to encourage faculty to internationalize their curriculum and establish intercultural education centers staffed with localized, qualified trainers. Furthermore, beyond incentivizing publications in Scopus and top-tier journals, universities may recognize and reward teaching, research, and service that actively promote localized intercultural competence.

8.2.4. Implement Longitudinal Assessment Using Contextualized Metrics

While institutions like Agnes Scott and UMD utilize standardized data-driven tools such as the Global Perspectives Inventory (GPI) or the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), these metrics often contain inherent Western biases, prioritizing individualistic worldviews. Implementing longitudinal assessment in Kazakhstan requires caution. Institutions may either rigorously validate these Western tools for the local context or, ideally, develop indigenous metrics that accurately measure intercultural growth within a Eurasian, collectivist, and post-independence paradigm.

8.3. Institutional Suggestions: Culturally Responsive Leadership and Institutional Paradigm Shift

8.3.1. Invest in Localized Intercultural Capacity and Expertise

Currently, financial flows in Kazakhstan heavily favor external mobility (sending people out) over internationalization at home, with most international offices functioning primarily as ‘travel agencies’ for this mobility. Resources tend to favor these mobility subsidies and visible infrastructure over genuine capacity building in intercultural pedagogy. Consequently, internationalization is often treated as an add-on responsibility for overburdened staff who lack dedicated expertise, time, or budget. To demonstrate true prioritization of domestic intercultural development, universities may hire or train intercultural practitioners capable of translating theoretical models for the Kazakhstani and broader Eurasian context. These practitioners could provide comprehensive training for faculty and staff, equipping them to integrate contextualized global perspectives and intercultural competence into their research, teaching, and co-curricular programming (Nessipbayeva and Dalayeva 2013).

8.3.2. Embed Intercultural Competence Institution-Wide Within Centralized Frameworks

Intercultural citizenship and competence may transition from an add-on for visibility’s sake to everyday work. Given Kazakhstan’s historically centralized higher education model, it remains unclear if intercultural development is genuinely embedded in institutional culture and valued beyond rhetoric by higher education leaders, administrators, and the government officials spearheading these efforts. To secure this commitment, intercultural competence could be explicitly named in institutional policy. Leaders may champion a pedagogical vision that provides robust, domestic intercultural curricula for the large proportion of students who cannot study abroad. Furthermore, institutions could consider the potentially controversial step of requiring intercultural competence training for all faculty, staff, students, and leadership. This is especially important in disciplines that claim universal laws, as these assumptions can easily obscure the localized cultural nuances and biases that exist everywhere. Crucially, contextualized assessment and evaluation measures may be established to benchmark and advance these objectives.

8.3.3. Tie Rector and Leadership Accountability to Localized Intercultural Outcomes

Fostering an institutional culture dedicated to intercultural citizenship demands that university rectors and administrative leaders progress beyond fulfilling state-mandated rhetoric to establishing actionable, localized practices. Rectors and deans must embed intercultural competence goals into institutional strategic plans, ensuring they align with national modernization initiatives while setting specific, measurable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). If the system is truly serious about cultivating graduates who are globally competitive yet rooted in civic identity, the performance reviews of university leadership—often tied to Ministry targets—must explicitly include these intercultural learning goals. Leaders must evaluate not just incoming and outgoing mobility statistics, but how the campus climate bridges traditional values with global perspectives, fostering meaningful engagement among Kazakhstan’s diverse domestic students and the growing international student population. We are currently unaware that any such campus climate assessments or leadership evaluations exist in Kazakhstan.

9. Conclusions: Toward Decolonized Intercultural Competence and Citizenship in Kazakhstan’s Higher Education

The rapid internationalization of higher education is a global mandate, yet the theoretical frameworks guiding this process remain overwhelmingly Western-centric. For decades, the conceptualization and measurement of “intercultural competence” have been dominated by models developed in the Global North—frameworks that implicitly prioritize individualistic worldviews, agency, and decentralized institutional structures. When these models are transplanted directly into the Global South or Central Asia, the result is often a superficial fit that fails to capture the complex, localized realities of the host country.

The need for a culturally adapted, decolonial approach is certainly apparent in Kazakhstan. As a rapidly developing nation at the geopolitical and cultural crossroads of Eurasia, Kazakhstan possesses a deeply unique societal fabric. Its identity is shaped by a post-independence transitional legacy, traditional nomadic values of radical hospitality, a multi-ethnic demographic of over 130 distinct groups, and state-promoted trilingualism. Furthermore, its higher education system operates within a historically centralized governance structure, blending secular academic mandates with deep-rooted cultural and religious heritage. Attempting to force Western frameworks onto this landscape without critical adaptation not only obscures Kazakhstan’s rich internal diversity but also risks perpetuating a colonial dynamic where “global awareness” is synonymous with “Westernization”.

Regarding intercultural competence, we have suggested that while cross-case themes and principles from international case studies have potential applications for Kazakhstan, Kazakhstani higher education should not merely adopt imported theories but rather actively co-create localized models of interculturality. The objective must be to transform how intercultural competence is developed, moving away from isolated, ad hoc efforts toward a cohesive national and institutional strategy. Instead of viewing internationalization simply as outward student mobility or the recruitment of international students, universities must embrace “glocalization”—anchoring global perspectives within local epistemologies and Eurasian bridge-building.

However, intercultural citizenship as a concept was not well evidenced in the case studies. Even so, we wish to raise a decolonial challenge. The model of intercultural citizenship described by (Byram 2008) explicitly weds communicative competence to civic action, defining success by a student’s capacity to address social injustice, or participate in political life. However, this conceptualization is deeply rooted in liberal-democratic assumptions that equate active citizenship with overt political critique and the compulsion to “effect change”. In Kazakhstan’s post-independence context—characterized by hierarchical social structures, strong state centralization, and traditional cultural values—importing this expectation functions as a form of epistemological colonialism. It creates an inherent paradox wherein structurally significant, state-driven internationalization is evaluated against a framework that expects students to actively subvert those very structures. Therefore, to move beyond mere “technical compliance” without imposing Western political paradigms, higher education institutions in Kazakhstan must decolonize this concept. They must reimagine an intercultural citizenship that channels students’ critical reflection into contextually congruent forms of community development and social cohesion, rather than imported models of political dissent.

Byram’s more recent work shows an evolution of intercultural citizenship into a more practical pedagogy that emphasizes transnational classroom projects, conflict mediation, and a firmer alignment with universal human rights over absolute moral relativism, e.g., (Byram 2022; Byram et al. 2017, 2021; Porto et al. 2025). These shifts make his updated models highly applicable to Kazakhstan, particularly the concept of the intercultural speaker as a “mediator”, which can complement the country’s trilingual education initiatives and its identity as a diverse, globally integrating society. Engaging with “pedagogies of discomfort” requires students to navigate difficult topics through structured role-play that builds empathy and conflict-resolution skills. Because none of the case studies we reviewed have employed any of these ideas, we rely on applications elsewhere, e.g., (Porto et al. 2025) that suggests deliberate and mindful ethical considerations. We can only envision that implementation in Kazakhstan will require careful, culturally sensitive adaptation to align with Kazakhstan’s centralized policies and practices around pedagogy.

While Kazakhstan has made significant structural strides in internationalizing its higher education system, true modernization requires a fundamental shift towards cultivating genuine intercultural competence. Moving beyond mere technical compliance and the prioritization of institutional outputs is essential to foster a truly globally engaged citizenry. As demonstrated through the review of global practices and local educational history, adopting a deeply contextualized paradigm is necessary for lasting behavioral change. Ultimately, for Kazakhstani higher education institutions to succeed on the world stage, they must root their internationalization efforts in a critical exploration of national values, forging a path that thoughtfully accentuates the richness of their national heritage, cultural traditions, incredible ethnic and linguistic diversity, and social and educational aspirations.

Limitations and Future Research

This paper draws on case studies compiled within a single edited volume, which necessarily bounds the range of institutional examples examined. As a result, the cases should be understood as illustrative rather than representative of all approaches to intercultural competence development in higher education. Additionally, the analysis relies on self-reported descriptions provided by the case authors, which may emphasize particular program elements while omitting others.

Building upon the decolonial challenge raised in this paper, future research must prioritize the empirical development and validation of indigenous frameworks for intercultural competence tailored specifically to the Central Asian contexts. Rather than evaluating students against imported Western benchmarks, scholars should investigate how interculturality is naturally understood and practiced within Kazakhstan’s unique matrix of national, cultural, and spiritual heritage; state-promoted trilingualism; and centralized governance. A critical avenue for future study lies in redefining “intercultural citizenship” outside of liberal-democratic assumptions, exploring what civic engagement and global awareness look like in hierarchical societies where overt political subversion is not the cultural or structural norm. Furthermore, applied research is needed to determine how universities can practically operationalize “glocalization”—anchoring internationalization strategies within local epistemologies—to transition institutions from ad hoc, technical compliance to cohesive, culturally meaningful educational practices.