When we use the same words, do we mean the same things?

This blog by Paola Bullon Pinares, a UniPID intern during summer 2026, reflects on how people may use the same concepts, such as equality, inclusion, or diversity, while attaching very different meanings to them. Drawing on examples from higher education and international collaboration, Paola highlights the importance of dialogue in education and policymaking, particularly in international collaborations where shared vocabulary does not always mean shared understanding. She argues that openly discussing how we interpret key concepts can strengthen partnerships, foster mutual learning, and support more equitable collaboration.

A Reflection on concepts, context and dialogue in higher education

During one of our introductory classes in the MARIHE programme, we were asked to share interesting sayings from our home countries and translate them into English. The exercise sparked a surprisingly meaningful interesting conversation. Many of us realized that we had sayings conveying almost exactly the same idea, but expressed in completely different ways. Where one person might say, “You snooze, you lose,” another might say, “The shrimp that falls asleep is carried away by the current.”

I have found myself thinking about that exercise again recently, but almost in reverse. What happens when we use the same words, but do not necessarily mean the same thing?

This happens perhaps more often than we realize in education, particularly when policymaking or international collaboration comes into play. Representatives from different institutions can sit across the same table agreeing that a policy should promote equality, inclusion, diversity or participation, seemingly pursuing the same goal. But agreement on the word does not necessarily mean agreement on the concept behind it. When those ideas eventually move from discussion to implementation, differences in understanding can become differences in action.

My thinking on this question was further shaped by a research paper that two classmates and I co-authored during our first semester in MARIHE. In our paper, titled Gender Equality Without Transformation? A Comparative Study of University Gender Plans in Mexico, Peru and Italy, we examined how three universities conceptualized and operationalized gender equality in their institutional policies. What interested me afterwards was not simply what the three universities did differently, but something that came before that: they could use similar language while attaching different meanings to it.

Across the three cases, gender equality was formally recognized as an institutional concern, yet what counted as the problem - and consequently what counted as an appropriate solution - varied. In one context, equality was closely connected to institutional procedures, monitoring and governance; elsewhere, greater emphasis was placed on representation, participation, and closing measurable gaps. The same concept could therefore lead institutions toward different priorities and different forms of action.

This observation made me wonder: if this happens with a concept as prominent as gender equality, how often does it happen with the other concepts that have become part of our everyday vocabulary in education and beyond?

Where do our understandings come from?

If concepts such as equality, inclusion, diversity, or participation can carry different meanings, then an important question follows: where do those meanings come from?

Vanessa Andreotti’s (2006) discussion of critical literacy offers one way of approaching this question. She argues that knowledge is always partial and incomplete, constructed through our contexts, cultures, and experiences. From this perspective, none of us enters a conversation about educational policy from an entirely neutral position. The meanings we attach to concepts are influenced by a diverse range of factors, from our educational and institutional contexts to our lived experiences - not simply by the definition displayed in a dictionary.

For me, this idea is particularly relevant in the field of international higher education. When people from different backgrounds work together, sharing the same vocabulary can create the impression that there is already a shared understanding. Yet agreeing that inclusion matters, for example, does not necessarily mean agreeing on what inclusion looks like, what problem it is intended to address, or what actions it requires.

Andreotti also suggests that recognizing the partiality of our knowledge requires engaging with both our own perspectives and those of others. This is an important distinction: the purpose of dialogue is not to identify whose definition is “correct,” but to recognize that our understandings are situated and to be humble enough to remain open to how engaging with other perspectives might transform our own.

Perhaps, then, conceptual dialogue should be understood as part of policymaking rather than something that precedes the “real” work. Before moving from concepts to objectives, indicators or interventions, there may be value in asking seemingly simple questions: What do we mean by this concept? Why do we understand it this way? What might someone else see that we do not?

The purpose of dialogue is not to identify whose definition is “correct,” but to recognize that our understandings are situated and to be humble enough to remain open to how engaging with other perspectives might transform our own.

Dialogue and Co-creation

Respectful and curious communication, if anything, is key to innovation in education. Creating space for open dialogue about how we understand key concepts is therefore essential not only for fruitful discussion, but also for building deeper connections and collaboration between those seated at the table.

This reflection becomes especially relevant when thinking about international higher education partnerships. Eta et al. (2025), examining partnerships between Finnish and African higher education institutions, distinguish between organisational and relational dimensions of good partnerships. Their findings emphasise understanding partners and their contexts, recognising differences in perspectives, valuing different forms of expertise, and maintaining open communication.

What I find particularly relevant is their description of equitable and reciprocal partnerships as relational processes that require genuine interest in learning from one another. This “getting-to-know-you” process, they argue, should extend beyond formal institutional arrangements and involve dialogue that deepens partners' understanding and appreciation of each other's contexts, experiences, and expertise.

For me, understanding how our peers interpret the concepts guiding our work belongs to this getting-to-know-you process. If positionalities, professional backgrounds, institutional affiliations and theoretical frameworks can shape how we understand a “good partnership,” as Eta et al. suggest, they can also invite us to question the assumptions we bring to concepts such as inclusion, equality, or diversity.

And perhaps the goal is not to eliminate these differences. Rather, as Eta et al. describe, dialogue and co-creation create opportunities for encounters with different perspectives that can transform understanding.

Looking back, perhaps that introductory MARIHE exercise taught me something I did not fully appreciate at the time. We were fascinated by how different words could communicate remarkably similar ideas. Now, I find myself equally interested in the reverse: how the same words can carry remarkably different meanings, and how exploring those differences might be crucial when building genuine, equitable collaboration.

References

Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, 3, pp. 40-51.

Eta, E. A., Tiensuu, M., Brito, K.S., Georges, A., Kontio, H., Lehtomäki, E., Oikarinen, M., Nghikembua, T. & Shingenge, F. N. (2025). Towards good higher education partnerships: A co-constructed model. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 9(3), pp. 1-23. https://doi.org/10.7577/NJCIE.6285

Ortega Estrada, B., Bullon, P., & Romano, S. Gender equality without transformation? A comparative study of university gender plans in Mexico, Peru and Italy. Journal of Research and Innovation in Higher Education. (to be published in JRIHE in December 2026)