Written by Arushi Aditi
Illustrated by Paavas Bansal
The global Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement facilitated increased advocacy for more diversity and inclusion in all fields, including academic institutions. Inspired by the BLM discourse, students demanded ameliorated inclusivity of all races, genders, and ethnicities – especially minorities – in terms of research, teaching content and educational materials provided by the institutions.
While diversifying research applies to subject matter, voices, methodologies and examples used in academic teaching content, decolonisation also encompasses the epistemological foundations upon which we build intellectual theories. It is crucial that we tackle the multifaceted and intricate nature of decolonisation at international institutions like LSE, which can set a positive example of inclusivity on a global platform.
Decolonisation in Social Policy
At LSE, the conversation has been sparked through reports such as “Decolonising Social Policy: A First Step”, written by staff members and students of the university’s Social Policy department (one of the more vocal departments when it comes to studying the Global South). This project took place during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure the integral inclusion of student perspectives, and highlights both the positive aspects and the ethnic, gendered, and racial disparities within LSE’s Social Policy research.
One professor who contributed to the study stated that several students did not feel that their voices were represented in the so-called “international” course, referring to lecture content, authors studied, and ideas more broadly. The students’ concerns, alongside the global atmosphere of increased advocacy about such kind of inclusivity, motivated them to understand “what the content really looks like”.
While the report highlighted a strong trajectory towards an inclusive pedagogical approach, the aforementioned professor emphasised that “there is still a long way to go.’’ For example, a clear gender disparity was observed, with male authors being disproportionately represented in contributions towards course content.
However, a much more noticeable gap lies between the authors from the Global South and North. According to the data cited in the report, 49.87% of the authors used for the department’s readings are White Men compared to 30.21% being White Women, 10.29% being POC Women and 9.63% being POC Men.
Emma, who studies BSc International Social and Public Policy (ISPP), describes her department’s efforts to decolonise research as effective and commendable for some specific modules (such as SP210). Modules as such tackle multiple global regions from critical perspectives – an approach that dissects and analyses the limitations of the Anglo/Euro-centric policy systems. Yet, there is still a dire need for diversification when it comes to authors in the Development field, especially with regards to Global South-related content. She recounts feeling shocked that “the localized knowledge of researchers and people in academia are from those who do not belong to the country under study.”
However, another ISPP student, Leela, commends the efforts taken by this department to courageously question and critically analyse the degree of inclusivity and diversity. “While there are gaps to fill, I appreciate the space for the conversation to be had. I feel as if this space and even, the subject matter itself, is a lot less accessible in other LSE departments – especially those that are quantitative, from what I have witnessed,” she says.
Other Departments
History
According to Hafiz, the History department provides an immense range of module options, allowing students to specialise in the historic nuances of specific regional discourse. In particular, he appreciated the opportunity to study the impact of power and protests in Latin America and religious, oriental philosophy from around the world.
On the other hand, Hafiz highlights that ‘’a vast majority of the scholarly readings are by Western academics,’’ following Western frameworks. He believes that this ‘’does not necessarily detract from the content, given the nature of the field.’’
International Relations
Similarly, one International Relations student, Jake*, mentioned how several readings stem from theoretical concepts rooted in Western philosophy and further elaborate on ideas that were conceptualised by white male authors from the Global North. He questions the universal applicability of these ideologies in a contemporary context of modern-day geopolitical issues.
He does, however, argue that “there is more research and scholarship available in the West”, especially as a Western institution, possibly making it difficult for the department to diversify resources. There are also certain parts of modules, in his view, that are dedicated to understanding the impact of race, ethnicity, and colonial implication on present-day political matters that are well-discussed and acknowledged.
Politics and Economics
According to Letho, Political Theory modules are taught in a Western context using theories from the Global North, with around nine to ten authors studied during the first year being from the West. Political Science modules (such as GV101), however, do a better job at incorporating examples from Latin America, Africa, Asia and a multitude of diverse regions, nevertheless failing to eradicate the dominance of Western authors.
Letho adds that the context in which developing countries are discussed is rather narrow, solely tackling “ethnic fragmentation, corruption, and issues as such.”
While integrating the concept of ‘decolonisation’ could be challenging within quantitative departments – given that the nature of the academic content is rather objective and may not differ in terms of where the scholarship originate from – and the theory is usually cultivated in the West, the Economics department could be more inclusive when it comes to examples and case studies, according to multiples students in the department. Additionally, the lack of choice of modules one can study in double-degrees makes the academic content less customisable, especially for those who might want to specialise in the Global South as they are offered less of an inclusive foundation over the first two years, with no choice of outside modules.
The only Politics modules available over the first two years that are region-specific focus on Europe, which is “not reflective of the student body”, Letho states, unless one resorts to special requests and undergoes concessions just to be able to study specialised modules based on regions outside Europe.
“It’s not from a lack of great scholars coming from the Global South, it’s because not many of them happen to be publishing at the top Western universities and thus, get institutionally sidelined. As a result, we are never going to think critically about development because we are not dealing with people from those contexts,” Letho comments.
Conclusion
A few interviews represent only a fraction of the degree to which LSE explores, understands, and tackles the subtle neo-colonial influences within its pedagogical foundations. There are many more perspectives to hear.
However, they shed light on firstly, before anything else, the conversation. Where is the conversation being had and by whom? Is it enough? Is it sustainable? Because this conversation is what paves the way for change and hopefully a future where global institutions provide a platform for any and all intellectual voices to be heard, shared, and integrated into a truly international educational system.
It is important to address the impact of colonial legacy on the academic landscape today, no matter what the subject foci (qualitative or quantitative). It sets a foundation for a necessary, diversified knowledge base that every globally proclaimed institution should implement, especially one such as ours with such an emphasis on Political Sciences – a very relevant field of study when it comes to decolonisation.
