Search results

Using a decolonial framework for thinking about knowledge, education and internationalisation, this chapter critically unpacks the historical and contemporary complexities in South African higher education, including the colonial roots of higher education and internationalisation, the Eurocentric hegemony and white domination during colonialism and apartheid, and the lack of epistemic decolonisation in post-apartheid South Africa. The chapter shows how the way internationalisation has been practiced by universities since the end of apartheid has contributed to the maintenance of Eurocentric hegemony and coloniality of knowledge. The chapter highlights the need to rethink, reconceptualise and redefine internationalisation, and unpacks a new definition of internationalisation which takes into consideration historical complexities, contemporary realities and challenges, and the need for epistemic transformation and decolonisation in South African higher education. This is in line with Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o’s decolonial ‘quest for relevance’ of education and knowledge to the people, places and regions in which universities operate, while looking outwards at the world and critically engaging with the plurality of worldviews, ideas, knowledges and ways of knowing. Such a quest could allow students to critically interrogate and understand their being and place in the world, as well as their relationships and linkages to others around the globe.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on doctoral education. Pandemics throughout history have generated new educational theories and practices, accelerated some trends and signalled the abrupt end of others. The unpredictable effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have particularly impacted upon First Nations and transcultural communities and People of Colour throughout the globe. A second significant recent global trend that occurred at the height of the pandemic was the reignited #BlackLivesMatter (#BLM) protest campaign. This campaign drew attention to the vast inequities faced by black, transcultural (migrant, refugee, culturally diverse and international) and Indigenous peoples and triggered rapid action in higher education institutions against racism and unconscious bias.

This conceptual paper draws upon postcolonial/decolonial theory to demonstrate how the COVID pandemic and #BLM movement prompts us to revitalise doctoral education.

These two issues have created renewed urgency around the need to decolonise higher education and a desire to transform the “business-as-usual” geopolitical power dynamics that continue to privilege Northern knowledge over culturally diverse knowledge systems from First Nations and transcultural contexts. A key site where special opportunities exist to effect this transformation lies in doctoral education. Doctoral education is a significant location of new knowledge creation and the development of the world’s future researchers.

Applying post/decolonial theory enables one to rethink how doctoral education should be changed to work towards greater decolonisation.

This study applies Santos’ ideas about “the sociologies of emergence” in the global South to think about how doctoral education should be reconstructed as a liberated zone of decolonisation and epistemic justice.

This paper draws on African anti-colonial thought and Black consciousness to propose critical conscious leadership (CCL) as a decolonising leadership approach appropriate for pursuing emancipation, social justice and innovation in a new African university.

I utilised the method of critical discourse analysis to study Ihron Rensburg’s language as he reflected on his leadership at the University of Johannesburg (UJ). The study engaged with Rensburg’s writings and texts on his account of leading the merger and transformation of UJ. The primary text draws from his book “Serving Higher Purposes” (2020).

Through the construction of CCL, the paper proposes alternative tenets for leading transformation towards a new African university. CCL grounds a decolonised and pluriversal new African university’s character premised on a consciously revitalised alternative thinking that will carry the communitarian spirit of Africa in knowledge production, dissemination and consumption in humanising all and serving the greater good. And it operates within the dialectical tensions of the social and economic purpose of higher education (HE), African and global relevance, African and Western paradigms, excellent performance and attainment of social justice.

The proposed CCL offers an alternative leadership approach that responds to the call to “Dethrone the Empire” by centring Blackness in HE leadership, which is crucial for authentic transformation and decolonisation.

The immersion of global higher education in a competitive, economy-oriented paradigm calls for perspectives on internationalisation that are explicitly aimed at shaping cooperative, sustainable and alternative/decolonial futures. The authors of this chapter recognise the relevance of research perspectives that – epistemologically aligned with critical internationalisation studies – emphasise the dilemmas and contradictions of internationalisation of higher education (IHE). In this chapter, the authors therefore present reflections that confront the hegemonic discourse that portrays the phenomenon of IHE as an unconditional good. The authors dialogue with the idea of promoting a perspective of IHE from and for the Global South – that is, one that instead of suppressing, recognises the epistemic plurality of the world. To do so, the authors assume that any critical efforts to address internationalisation in the context of the Global South can be enriched when explicitly situated within colonial history. The authors argue that looking towards the future of IHE requires a look towards its past. Specifically, the authors bring together four interrelated lines of argument: (i) recognising the university as a historical producer and reproducer of colonial hierarchies; (ii) conceiving the Global South as a field of epistemic challenges; (iii) having a non-myopic view of South–South cooperation; and (iv) spreading the epistemological horizon of internationalisation. Such reflections might contribute to envisioning new horizons for IHE in the Global South and its relation with those who have been relegated to a status of invisibility.

This chapter is one of five chapters dedicated to anti-racism, specifically focusing on its conceptual foundations. Drawing from critical scholarship on ideas that have inspired political debates and policies about racism, I address key questions pertaining to anti-racism as an idea, policy framework and as a catalyst for sociopolitical action. This chapter engages with the fundamental principles that underpin anti-racism endeavours, ranging from community engagement to political activism and civil rights movements. It critically examines the ongoing debates on whether the goals of anti-racism, such as racial justice and dismantling of institutional racism/privilege, align with existing sociopolitical order. In addition, this chapter contributes to anti-racism scholarship that has evolved over the past five decades, by synthesising how anti-racism relates to various societal goals. Furthermore, this discussion incorporates themes such as the promotion of tolerance, equality, social justice and recognition within the context of anti-racism.

This paper introduces a new approach to theorising and learning from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) women’s experiences of inequality in academia. It offers a versatile model with which the structure of a particular racist-sexist inequality regime can be theorised from empirical evidence.

The paper presents composite, fictionalised accounts of intersectional discrimination which are then analysed through critical realist frameworks, employing critical race feminist theory insights. This novel “whisper network” method centres the knowledge of BAME women in academia, and is translatable to other marginalised actors, offering a more protective means by which to access their knowledge as a foundation for organisational change.

Through theorising the ontological arrangement of key causal mechanisms responsible for the reproduction of inequality regimes, the paper illuminates links between micro-level intersectional discrimination and meso-level institutional inequality.

In order to preserve anonymity and reduce potential backlash, the vignettes in this paper are not intended to precisely capture specific empirical realities, but instead reflect wider patterns from the author's own whisper network knowledge. Nonetheless, the analytical method developed here could be applied to rigorously collected empirical data, with clear implications for improving organisational practice.

The paper offers a structured and systematic process by which qualitative data on institutional inequality can be analysed and stakeholders engaged to develop and propose solutions, even by individuals new to the field.

A methodical basis for strategic action addressing the issues revealed through such an analysis can be developed in order to galvanise and steer organisational change.

The novelty of the paper is twofold: in its original synthesis of critical realist depth ontology and ontological insights from critical race feminist theory about social structures of oppression, and in the development of the innovative “whisper network” method based upon a critical race theory counter-storytelling epistemology, in conversation with the emergent stream of literature within feminist organisation studies regarding the importance of “writing differently”.

The struggle for racial justice has always faced significant challenges and controversies across interpersonal, intergroup and structural levels. As racism continues to evolve and adapt to new social, political and technological developments, researchers, activists and practitioners grapple with complex and intersecting issues. This chapter discusses some of the ongoing challenges anti-racist endeavours face today. It engages with contemporary global issues, such as international migration, globalisation and the digital revolution that have implications on the fight against racism. The chapter covers topics such as the recent backlashes against anti-racism, the emergence of the ‘colour-blind’ ideology and the challenges anti-racism faces in the realm of technological advance and digital spaces. Additionally, this chapter explores the discourse of decolonisation as a radical approach to anti-racism. It concludes with a critical discussion of the idea that mainstreaming and expanding anti-racism to include racial majorities may enhance its effectiveness.

Responding to the continuing separation of participants and researchers in LIS participatory research, a new methodology is proposed: action partnership research design (APRD). It is asserted that APRD can mitigate or remove the hierarchical structures often inherent in the research process, thus allowing for equal contribution from all.

Building on the bonded design (BD) methodology and informed by a scoping literature review conducted by the same authors, APRD is a human-centered research approach with the goal of empowering and valuing community partnerships. APRD originates from research investigating the use of participatory design methods to foster collaboration between two potentially disparate groups, firstly with adult researchers/designers and elementary school children, and secondly with university faculty and IT professionals.

To achieve this goal, in addition to BD techniques, APRD draws inspiration from elements of indigenous and decolonization research methodologies, particularly those with an emphasis on destabilizing power hierarchies and involving research participants as full partners.

APRD, which emerged from findings from previous participatory design studies, especially those of BD, is based on the premise of partnership, recognizing that each member of a design team, whether researcher or participant/user, has unique expertise to contribute. By considering participants/users as full research partners, APRD aims to flatten the hierarchies exhibited in some LIS participatory research methodologies, where participants are treated more like research subjects than partners.