Image: Decolonising and Diversifying the Curriculum with OER
“For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change…I urge each one of us here to reach down into that deep place of knowledge inside herself and touch that terror and loathing of any difference that lives here. See whose face it wears. Then the personal as the political can begin to illuminate all our choices.” Audre Lorde
About this study
This study was part of my research on the PgCert Academic Practice in Art, Design and Communication at UAL.
Rationale and Positionality
This aim of the research is to establish students’ understanding and attitudes towards decolonising and diversifying in the Fine Art curriculum.
Reflecting on my positionality as a Black-African woman practising artist, educator, mother, and student has been paramount to this research. I have lived in the diaspora since age three, residing in various countries. Also, as an individual, I have questioned why the educational system was always taught from Western ‘classical’ canons.
My impetus that led to this research was during my teaching with the undergraduate programme at UAL; I witnessed both heartening and disheartening events with the absence of curriculum planning and the lack of students’ voices and interests in the alternative voices in their curriculum. This was an awakening for me. It was as if the clock was ticking backwards. When looking back in my academic journey in Development Studies/Third World Studies at the age of eighteen, the concept of decoloniality was not centre stage in our discussions on seminal texts like Frantz Fanon’s “Black Skin, White Masks” and “The Wretched of the Earth” or Gayatri Spivak’s “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Instead, the discussions were under the banner of postcolonial theory/studies with a deep awareness of social, psychological and cultural inferiority enforced by being colonised or neo-colonised. Now, nearly thirty years on, the concept of decolonisation has become ubiquitous to the point that it may be losing its intention or, even worse, not being discussed or acknowledged by students. The call for the decolonisation of the educational curricula is a must.
Last year, as part of the PgCert module, I spent a few months researching the best way to decolonise the curriculum for the undergraduate Design Students at LCC. I opted to employ Pecha Kucha to think and review new sources and postulate on new knowledge.
The challenge of decolonising arts and its his-tories in art institutions in its conservative setting is no short of an illusion at times. Partly, not every practitioner embraces decolonial thinking. The struggle lies in acknowledging privilege and complicity in the colonial paradigm, including socioeconomic and cultural practices. Ranjana Thapalyal challenges the status quo in her thought-provoking article in Art Monthly (432: Dec-Jan 19-20), urging for a genuine decolonisation of the curriculum. Thapalyal argues that achieving this requires three fundamental changes:
- Improving representation in teaching staff
- Expanding the curriculum to include more global perspectives – both historical and contemporary
- Broadening the culture of interdisciplinary research.
If one wants to put a bandaid on the problem, UAL has adhered to Thapalyal’s points.
UAL has implemented Teaching Within to introduce and empower PoC to take teaching roles within UAL. However, these associate lecturers are working at the grassroots and don’t have the agency at that level to make an impact at the curriculum development level. The Research Centre for Transnational Art, Identity and Nation (TrAIN) has an interdisciplinary research culture open to PhD and senior staff/students.
UAL may need to consider the Theory of Change (ToC) concepts. Reinholz and Andrews, 2020, state that the ToC is the hypothesis of interventions with roadmaps to create a change. For the sake of this research, I am proposing the ToC in the short term to establish the concept of decolonisation and understanding of the students. For the long term, students should challenge the university for curriculum change if and when needed.
In my role as an educator, this journey takes on a purposeful and exhilarating form. The opportunity to introduce my students to non-Western thinkers and artists feels like a responsibility and a source of empowerment. Each discovery during my research becomes a tool to dismantle preconceived notions and broaden perspectives. In a world where more than half of our students at UAL are international, it is paramount that decolonisation is treated and addressed continually not as a transient response to events like the BLM resurgence but as an ongoing commitment.
My perspective on the (in)active, (non)priority notion of change is conflicted. Having said this, I was pleasantly surprised during the BLM uprising when my son’s conservative school proposed changing the name of one of its houses to Olaudah Equiano. It was a minor yet significant adjustment, marking a step towards recognising the contributions of underrepresented backgrounds. It reminded me that change is possible and necessary even in traditionally conservative environments. Yet, the journey towards a fully decolonised and diversified curriculum still needs to be completed. Blind spots still exist in our curricula, and addressing them is not a task to be accomplished overnight. It requires a collective willingness to confront uncomfortable truths and actively work towards a more inclusive educational landscape.
The beauty and responsibility lies in realising that our students should engage with materials from diverse cultures, including those rooted in their origins. It’s about offering a curriculum that reflects the rich tapestry of human expression, transcending geographical boundaries. Hence, it is imperative to remember that decolonisation is not a one-time event but an ongoing process.
It is essential to acknowledge that the term ‘Decolonisation’ has become a buzzword, and the universities are feeling pressured to be perceived to respond to reports and campaigns to highlight the diverse nature that exists within Higher Education.
Tuck & Yang, 2012 refer to “decolonisation” as a “mere metaphor to bring about the repatriation of Indigenous land and life for other things that need to improve societies and schools”. Does the attempt remain superficial? The UAL declares on paper that:
‘…challenges colonial histories and imperial legacies – disrupting ways of seeing, listening, thinking and making – to drive social, cultural and institutional change.’
It is crucial such claims are practised; at least, I have not witnessed this statement actively within the curriculum formation within the programme I was involved in.
“the ‘decolonise’ mantra has swiftly buzzed its way into acceptable institutional jargon” but “at times, references to ‘decolonising’ seem so capacious as to stand in for any form of critical engagement with race and representation, or indeed, the mildest of curricular reforms” (Gopal,2021, pp. 875-876).
Especially since COVID-19, it is a trend for institutions to make significant commitments to reform and promise the radical changes decolonisation requires. After all, “to truly dismantle the master’s house means to overturn and not redeem it” (Andrews 2018, p. 139). Arguably, Tate & Bagguley, 2017, state that some changes are better than no change for staff and students, even if such initiatives are imperfect.
Fanon 2004/1961 eloquently states that this is not an act of charity but a fulfilment of the responsibility of reparation. We as a society may have lost sight of this.
References
Andrews, K. (2018). The Challenge for Black Studies in the Neoliberal University. In G. K. Bhambra, D. Gebrial, & K. Nişancıoğlu, Decolonising the University (pp. 129-144). London: Pluto Press.
Fanon, F. (2004/1961). The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press.
Gopal, P. (2021). On Decolonisation and the University. Textual Practice, 35(6), 873-899.
Reinholz, D.L. and Andrews, T.C. (2020). Change theory and theory of change: what’s the difference anyway? International Journal of STEM Education, [online] 7(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-0202-3.
Tate, S. A., & Bagguley, P. (2017). Building the Anti-Racist University: Next Steps. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 20(3), 289-299.
Tuck, E. and Yang, K. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, [online] 1(1), pp.1–40. Available at: https://www.latrobe.edu.au/staff-profiles/data/docs/fjcollins.pdf.
Image reference
Anon, (n.d.). Decolonising and Diversifying the Curriculum with OER – Open.Ed. [online] Available at: https://open.ed.ac.uk/decolonising-and-diversifying-the-curriculum-with-oer/.