Trends between African and European Institutions
Edited by Emnet Tadesse Woldegiorgis and Christine Scherer
Demands and Challenges
Kolawole Samuel Adeyemo
This book examines and analyses the status of education policy in the Philippines and, more particularly, focuses on the issue of the integration of higher education in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). It further examines ASEAN integration policies and what the Philippines could do to underpin these policies. The objective is to better understand the problems of global policy in the context of regionalisation, harmonisation and integration from both an ASEAN and a Philippine perspective. Prospective mechanisms of ASEAN for upgrading the quality of education provision through student mobility, staff exchange, regional accreditation and articulation are succinctly argued in this book. Methodologically, various research designs and methods, including a literature review, as a well as an empirical data and secondary data analysis were used. ASEAN leaders, higher education researchers and policymakers may find the results discussed in this book useful.
Higher Education Institutions Coping with Multiple Challenges
Edited by Pedro N. Teixeira, Amélia Veiga, Maria João Machado Pires da Rosa and António Magalhães
The core business of higher education is being reshaped, challenging institutions’ internal life to strategically respond to the reconfiguration of their role and missions. Topics such as governance and management, strategies and strategizing, budget control, performance and assessment, quality management, local and regional innovation come to the fore front. Under Pressure: Higher Education Institutions Coping with Multiple Challenges addresses these topics by convening approaches to the understanding of the interactions between policy drivers and institutional practices in governance, funding, performance indicators, regional innovation, strategy and strategizing, quality and management, and professionals.
A Critical Reader
Edited by George J. Sefa Dei and Mandeep Jajj
Contributors are: Olivia Aiello, Nana Bediako-Amoah, Shirleen Datt, George J. Sefa Dei, Chisani Doyle-Wood, Candice Griffith, Mandeep Jajj, Wambui Karanja and Lwanga G. Musisi.
Working with the Body as a Healing and Decolonizing Tool
The intention of this chapter is to conceptualize “embodied knowing” as a methodology for healing. It will look critically at the body, in its physical, emotional, and spiritual form as a site of knowing, from an anti-colonial discursive framework. The use of an anti-colonial framework will support to define embodiment practices as ways of healing. It will assist in challenging dominant epistemologies, which do not validate “the body” as a site of knowing, and negates to acknowledge the body as a political site that has been highly impacted spiritually, physically, and emotionally by oppressive societal forces, and overarching colonial systems. In this chapter, I will draw upon Indigenous ways of knowing and non-dominant healing practices such as yoga, to help work through experiences of marginality, spiritual injury, and re-claiming one’s authentic self.
Throughout this chapter, I will ask, what is embodied knowing and Indigenous forms of healing? How has colonization impacted and injured the physical, spiritual, and emotional body? How and why can yoga be utilized as a non-dominant “healing tool”? What are the challenges of infusing Indigenous and embodied ways of knowing into our current academic institutions? How can we subjugate colonial knowledges? How do we define “spirituality”? How can we draw further inwardly in a way that will open up new avenues for learning, healing, and helping? Lastly, how can we utilize embodied knowing to engage in reciprocal healing within our communities?
For this essay, I will contest Western development theorizing, in its construction of the imaginaries of “progress”, specifically through its hierarchal positioning/ranking process of “Othering”. A process and positioning where the West, the Eurocentric, asserts itself as universal and Center. Additionally, I will argue how in this process, alternative knowledges are forcibly dismissed, whilst simultaneously marked as “Other”, as “inferior”, and as “underdeveloped”. As well, the ways in which the language and discourse of development, reproduce colonial hegemony, subjugation, and de-legitimization of Indigenous and racialized peoples. I will draw links to the differences between language and discourse within development theorizing, and its role as a tool for oppression and domination. In taking up the dominant and colonial construction of development, I will insert my own experiences of anti-Blackness, whilst drawing back to Indigeneity and the colonized as a collective. Lastly, I will speak to what I insist is a necessary anti-colonial position, that is, a subversion of and resistance to, discourses and practices of “development” as a necessary component in the process of working towards decolonization.
The fundamental human right of education for all Canadian citizens has often times been inaccessible or used as a source of manipulation, which has caused the institution of education, to become a system of oppression against non-dominant bodies. The phlegmatic effect that permeated all aspects of colonization has endured long after its culmination. The ramifications of colonization as a result have been perpetually experienced inter-generationally, particularly within the Canadian education system. As a result, Canadian pedagogy has become riddled with ideologies and colonial constructions that extend the project of imperialism, and white supremacy. Consequently, Indigenous knowledge has been eliminated, leaving the Canadian education system to be one that thrives on placing significance on Western Eurocentric knowledges, thus only encouraging students and educators to further negate the value of Indigenous knowledge.
As evidenced through theories of an anti-colonial framework, and key concepts such as Oppression Olympics, and land and settler colonialism, this chapter argues the ways in which the Ontario education system delivers colonized education to students. It highlights the importance of understanding the impact of land and settler colonialism within a Canadian context, and why this understanding is an important approach for a decolonizing pedagogy. Using the Ontario secondary school curriculum as a model of analysis, this chapter will exhibit the colonial constructions in the education system, which demonstrates a direct contrast to the curriculum’s mandate that suggests inclusivity is the ultimate goal. As a result of this analysis, the chapter will highlight the ways in which educators can go about creating decolonized classrooms, as well as, suggesting the possibilities of new educational futurities, that has the question of Indigeneity in its midst.
This chapter examines the role of student disengagement, the lack of Indigenous knowledge in the curriculum, and possibilities of infusing Indigeneity in Ontario classrooms. What does Indigeneity look like? What are the challenges that lie ahead? Are we ready for such changes? One has to address the issues surrounding Canada’s history of the colonization of education, and its continued role in the suppression of ideas and knowledges. Erasing educational gentrification, and embracing Indigeneity as a possibility, means embarking on a journey of decolonizing the curriculum, and the classroom.
In the past, Ontario’s curriculum has focused on prescribed racist colonial ideas that accentuate only one way of thinking, that is, western knowledge as the only body and foundation of learning. There are bodies of research within Ontario’s boards of education that suggest that the current system, is simply not working for all. Rather, students of racialized and marginalized bodies are all too often the recipients of ineffective colonial methods, which are pervasive in our secondary institutions. The Canadian schooling system needs to embrace and create space for multiple ways of knowing. This means allowing students to share their experiences, and to gain knowledge outside of the textbook, while exploring the idea of self.
Using an anti-colonial framework, and the Ontario grade 9 and 10 Canadian and World Studies curriculum as a backdrop, I assert that we cannot make clear, concise, and honest changes in education, if we cannot acknowledge that there are some fundamental flaws in what is written on the blackboard. The anti-colonial framework allows one to highlight Ontario’s education policies and curriculum outcomes, which masquerade as inclusive and multicultural. This framework allows one to challenge the status quo, engage in courageous conversations, while questioning policies that have been in place for way too long.
A Case Study on Eurocentric Pedagogy and Curriculums in Canada and South Africa
Shirleen Anushika Datt
This chapter raises issues pertaining to language policies in Canada, as it historically and politically has been used as a tool of erasure, to implement and perpetuate white settler narratives. Canadian language policies inherit colonial perspectives, historically and continuously function to create severe racial divisions through forced assimilation. The conceptualization and current discourses of language policies in Canada can best be understood through an anti-racist and anti-colonial theoretical framework. This chapter explores Canada’s assimilationist laws and policies, which have had profound impacts on Indigenous peoples and their ability to preserve their Indigenous languages. This chapter looks at residential schools as a key part of breaking down communities, and as a direct measure made by the Canadian government, to deteriorate Indigenous peoples’ cultural identities and knowledges, through language erasure. Additionally, this chapter will examine the forced imposition of a Eurocentric curriculum onto Indigenous communities, which continues to divert and disrupt Indigenous languages, as the Eurocentric curriculum inherently embodies neo-colonial narratives that subjugate and disrupt Indigenous knowledge systems. With this, I am declaring that white supremacist ideologies and practices continue to be found in classrooms, despite claims of inclusivity, encompassing multicultural pedagogies in Canada. In the last section of the chapter, I will discuss decolonization as knowledge activism, and how we must work to disrupt colonial and neo-colonial agendas found in current discourses of our education systems, which continue to centralize English as the only formal language, while denouncing all “others”.
It is not contested that from time immemorial, Indigenous peoples all over the world have lived in their traditional lands and have developed an inherent close relationship with their lands, drawing no distinction between themselves and their lands. To Indigenous people, land is a life force and the source of their Indigenous knowledge. From Indigenous philosophies, knowledge comes from people’s experiences as a gift from an external source or power, and can be revealed through dreams and spiritual connections. It is the conceptualization of the people’s relationship with their higher power and with their environment, an environment that includes an authenticity of situatedness, embodiment, ownership and consequently, location. For Indigenous people, the environment includes not only the physical land, plants, all living things, the sky, the universe but also the spirits which all inform the Indigenous worldview and how they come to know. Land, language, and culture are integral to Indigenous knowledge production and its connectedness to the land. Furthermore, the totality and complexity of Indigenous Knowledge defies western notions of definitions, categorizations, tabulations, tangibility and objectification since it encompasses immeasurable and unquantifiable elements such as spirit, dreams, orality, relationality etc. This intricate connection between Indigenous people and their environment as knowledge source has been disrupted by European contact through settlement, colonization, neo-colonialism, neo-liberalism globalization and more recently, modernization. Needless to say, these influences have had negative impact on Indigenous knowledges through the dislocation of knowledge owners and holders from their lands and their environments; their sources of knowledge production. Consequently, the last few years have seen a rising global interest in Indigenous knowledge protection based on perceptions that is it under threat as elders through whom knowledge is transmitted are dying without opportunities for transmitting their knowledge and from western influences and climate change. The international community has proceeded to formulate legal frameworks for the protection of Indigenous knowledge but these frameworks have failed to encompass the totality, texture and dynamism of Indigenous knowledge resulting in the formulation of sui-generis approaches to protection. I argue in this chapter that international legal frameworks rooted in Intellectual Property Law regimes and sui-generis approaches based on western legal frameworks are inadequate protection regimes. I apply an decolonizing theoretical framework to argue that proponents of current protection regimes have failed to acknowledge the primacy and interconnectedness of land and Indigenous knowledge production, that land is central to Indigenous knowledge protection and finally, that any genuine approach to the protection of Indigenous knowledge must start with the reversion of Indigenous land to its pre-European contact land holding condition, a transgressive and decolonizing strategy that engages the doctrine of futurity to restore the pre-colonial symbiotic relationship that existed between land and Indigenous knowledge production and ultimately, preservation.