Embracing diversity under isolation and cease-fire: a poststructuralist look at administrators’ policy on multilingualism

Globalization has led to increased linguistic diversity in higher education, posing challenges for universities aiming for international recognition. This study focuses on a unique context: a North Cyprus university, internationally unrecognized yet thriving as a hub for international education. The research explores the perceptions and policies regarding multilingualism among the administrators of an English preparatory school within this university. The researchers investigate the extent to which administrators' views align with their practical engagement with multilingual paradigms in an environment where diversity and internationalism are defining features. The study employs a post-structuralist framework to analyze the complexities of power dynamics, language ideologies, and the construction of identity within this multilingual setting.

Existing research on multilingualism in higher education is scarce, especially concerning school administrators' policies. Studies exploring administrators' attitudes reveal varying levels of support for multilingual practices. Some research indicates strong support for multilingualism as enhancing educational quality and international competitiveness. Other studies highlight the influence of factors such as test-based accountability and institutional pressures on language policies, often leading to a preference for English-only programs. The literature also reveals the complexities of implementing multilingual pedagogies, including challenges related to student integration and teacher training. This study addresses this gap in the literature by investigating the specific context of a North Cyprus university, which presents a unique setting shaped by geopolitical factors and the pursuit of international recognition in higher education.

This qualitative case study utilized a mixed-methods approach. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and informal chats with the school director and two assistant directors of the English preparatory school. Semi-structured interviews provided a structured framework while allowing for flexibility and in-depth exploration. Informal chats facilitated more naturalistic data collection, allowing for richer insights and triangulation of findings. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim using a web-based transcription tool. The transcripts and recordings were then analyzed using NVivo software. The researchers employed a thematic analysis to identify prevalent themes and patterns within the data. To enhance credibility, member checking was conducted by sharing identified themes and relevant interview excerpts with the participants for validation. Each interview lasted approximately 90 minutes and included contextual follow-up questions to elicit more detailed responses. Ethical considerations were addressed through informed consent forms, ensuring participants' right to withdraw and anonymity.

The administrators viewed campus diversity as a significant achievement, a testament to the university's international recognition despite its geopolitical isolation. They expressed pride in the university's multicultural environment and emphasized empathy and tolerance as core values. However, this positive view of diversity did not translate into a full embrace of multilingual pedagogies. The administrators strongly advocated for monolingual English instruction, believing it essential for creating an equitable learning environment and promoting student success. They perceived the use of non-English languages in the classroom as disruptive and potentially hindering to language acquisition. They associated English proficiency with inclusion and success, viewing it as a crucial asset for students' future prospects. While acknowledging the historical context of English dominance and the potential for linguistic inequities, they justified their monolingual approach by emphasizing the importance of English as a global lingua franca and the need to meet international educational standards. Although they expressed support for materials that reflect classroom diversity (topics, names, dialects etc.), the assessment criteria remained largely aligned with native-speaker norms, showing a discrepancy between their stated support for diversity and their actual assessment practices. The study revealed a tension between the administrators' positive rhetoric about diversity and their adherence to a predominantly monolingual English-only approach in teaching and assessment.

The study's findings reveal a complex interplay between the administrators' stated values and their practical implementation of multilingual policies. Their emphasis on English as the primary medium of instruction reflects a broader global trend, but also exposes the potential for perpetuating linguistic inequalities. The post-structuralist framework highlights how language ideologies can shape perceptions of identity and power. The administrators' actions suggest an implicit prioritization of a homogenizing, English-centric model of internationalization, despite their proclaimed commitment to diversity. This highlights the often subtle and pervasive nature of power dynamics in shaping educational policies. The limited engagement with translanguaging practices suggests a need for further research exploring how to better integrate diverse linguistic resources into the teaching and learning process while still fostering the acquisition of English proficiency.

This study contributes to the limited body of research on administrators' perceptions and policies regarding multilingualism in higher education. The findings reveal a gap between the ideal of embracing diversity and the actual practices in this specific context. Future research could investigate similar contexts, broaden the scope of participants, and explore interventions to promote more inclusive and equitable multilingual pedagogies. Specifically, further research should explore the impact of geopolitical context and the pursuit of international recognition on language policy decisions in higher education.

This study is limited by its focus on a single institution in North Cyprus. The findings may not be generalizable to other universities with different contexts and institutional cultures. The small number of participants also limits the generalizability of the findings. Future research should address these limitations by including a larger, more diverse sample of institutions and participants.