Ibtisam Ahmed, Doctoral Researcher
1. What curricular changes did you make?
I was a seminar tutor on the ‘Modern Political Theory’ module in which students are introduced to a different canonical political thinker each week. The thinkers were overwhelmingly Western, white, European and male with two exceptions.
As a seminar tutor, I had limited discretion to introduce other thinkers other than those who were covered in the lectures. The main consideration was about teaching canonical works and preparing students to complete the assignments which centred on these. Within these constraints though, I was able to enable students to engage more critically with the canons by encouraging them to read wider and introducing more diverse global case-studies and country perspectives.
The Brexit referendum at the time created impetus for students to engage more actively and link theory to practice and their own life experiences. This provoked other debates about whether canonical thinkers were mere products of their time or contributors to developments such as scientific racism and colonial expansion.
As a sessional lecturer on the ‘Politics of Utopia’ module, I had greater discretion about what I could deliver and relate to my own academic and research interests on decolonisation, marginalised voices and utopia. I was able also to provide support to students who wanted to write assignments on the subjects of race, racism, colonisation and decolonisation.
2. What challenges and issues did you face?
There was the tension between the pedagogical desire to expose students to a cross-section of perspectives and, the need to support them to complete their assignments based on what they had been taught. Also, the limitation in the word length of assignments constrained how far students could introduce writers beyond the canons that were covered in the module.
There persisted an overwhelming resistance to make fundamental, structural changes to the curriculum framed by the challenges posed to academia by the casualisation of labour, heavy/additional tutor workloads and the marketisation of HE.
3. What can we learn from your experiences about decolonising the curriculum?
Small group sizes in seminars provide the time and space that are needed to have more in-depth discussions on subjects such as decolonisation.
Secondly, awareness of issues can vary between groups and communities of students e.g. when Mary Wollstonecraft’s work was challenged for being racist, students of colour in the group were not surprised but many white students were. Many international students are in a precarious situation because of their legal status and/or concerns about politics back home and this can constrain how far they engage fully with the curricula and extra-curricular activities.
Thirdly, because students have chosen their year three modules, most show greater academic maturity, skills and passion to engage critically with contentious subjects. But this often means that only those who have an interest engage with the subjects. Students should be given stronger foundations about core concepts such as decolonisation, oppression and racism when they first start. Decolonisation is not just an academic exercise – the failure to teach about contested issues will create toxic backflows and generate graduates who will not be prepared intellectually for the real world nor will they have grasped the significance of challenging oppressions and cross-community solidarity.
Fourthly, it is important to be more honest and less ambiguous about how course materials are presented eg if a module is essentially about European political thought, then describe it explicitly as such. Finally, wholesale curricular changes are going to be difficult to achieve – let us at least start with small gains, incremental changes and moments of disruptive joy.