Abstract
Decolonisation of the curriculum has attracted substantial attention from university educators, especially from those based in countries implicated by colonialism. Among academics in schools of business and management, there is increasing recognition of the need to decolonise management knowledge production, pedagogical practice and the development of new knowledge. In recent years, Management Learning has done a lot to explain the need for decolonising business and management knowledge and pedagogy, and to suggest and demonstrate how this could be done. In this short article, we build upon what this journal’s authors have already accomplished and call for further critical and reflexive scholarship of management learning and education that will help bring decolonisation of the curriculum to the mainstream of business schools’ educational activities. Writing from a position of what we refer to as ‘ontological modesty’, we offer reflections on decolonisation of the business school curriculum, along with some practical ideas for how to go about it and a call for development of a constructive conversation about decolonisation of the curriculum.
Keywords
Introduction
Decolonisation of the curriculum (DtC), in recent years, has attracted substantial attention from university educators, especially from those based in countries implicated by colonialism, such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. However, a closer examination of this growing interest in DtC reveals that it has been expressed unevenly across disciplines. In some disciplines, especially within the humanities, the understanding of what DtC efforts entail, and the urgency and importance of engaging with these issues and concerns, have typically been more advanced than in others. While schools of business and management may not have been at the forefront of implementing the DtC agenda, there is increasing recognition of the need to decolonise both management knowledge production, as represented through the current system of journal publication (Barros and Alcadipani, 2023), pedagogical practice (Barros et al., 2024), and the development of new knowledge (Abdallah, 2024).
This ‘unevenness’ in knowledge about and progress towards decolonisation of the curriculum can also be observed in the content of teaching across different business school disciplines. Generally speaking, attempts at DtC are more common among those whose teaching is rooted in the critical management and organisation studies tradition than in other subject areas. Furthermore, beyond disciplinary differences in the level of knowledge about and advancements in DtC, significant variations in pursuing DtC work can also be found among scholars within the same discipline. There may be various reasons behind this, not least the idea of decolonisation as being politically laden. Consequently, the extent of engagement in DtC reflects the political allegiances of individual educators. There is a broader context to the potential apprehension in relation to initiatives associated with decolonising the curriculum: the recent backlash against ‘wokeness’ that a range of societies and, within them, educational institutions, have witnessed, has also included a backlash against university DtC initiatives (e.g. Roberson et al., 2024).
What does all of this mean for Management Learning? When considering the role of this journal in shaping the theory and the practice of business and management education, Management Learning must positively and constructively contribute to raising awareness of the importance of the DtC agenda, and to developing approaches to and examples of its implementation in multiple contexts, subject areas, and levels and types of management education. The journal has already done a lot to explain the need for decolonising business and management knowledge and pedagogy, and to suggest and demonstrate how this could be done (e.g. Abdallah, 2024; Girei, 2017; Harari and Pozzebon, 2024; Spanellis et al., 2024). In this short article, we build upon what Management Learning authors have already accomplished and call for further critical and reflexive scholarship of management learning and education that will help bring DtC to the mainstream of business schools’ educational activities. Our hope is to reach a broader audience of educators across different disciplines and subject areas taught in schools of business and management, particularly those who have not yet had much opportunity to engage with the DtC agenda in their own pedagogical practice. We emphasise that DtC is necessary for the development of managerial knowledge that speaks to the realities of management practice, and is not limited to the idealistic models that often populate our discipline. In what follows, we offer reflections on decolonisation of the business school curriculum, along with some practical ideas for how to go about it and a call for development of a constructive conversation about DtC.
What do we talk about when we talk about decolonising the curriculum?
The legacy of the colonial past persists and continues to affect societies and individuals in myriad ways. Historically sedimented inequalities between the former coloniser and colonised countries bring about differences in terms of, for example, income levels, access to healthcare and education, life expectancy, and exposure to the negative consequences of global heating. How we go about generating and teaching management knowledge is, as we know, also impacted by the remnants of the colonial legacy. For instance, the English language functions as the rarely questioned lingua franca of management research. Also, the career progression of business and management scholars all over the world is often contingent on publishing their research in Anglophone journals owned by business organisations originating in the Global North countries. In addition, while management research produced through empirical studies conducted in the Global North – and especially in the North American – geographical context, tends to be considered universally applicable, studies originating in the so-called Global South are often viewed as ‘context-specific’ and ‘non-generalisable’. Moreover, as business school educators, we often take for granted what we believe to be the canon of – both theoretical and practice-oriented – knowledge about management and organisations that our students are taught. We rarely explicitly discuss this canon’s underlying assumptions, the conditions and trajectory of its development, or the omissions – of events, peoples and perspectives – characterising its underpinning narratives (Mills, 2006; Nkomo, 2011).
Aware of these issues, when we talk about decolonising the curriculum, we refer to the need to reflect on and revise the content of what we teach as educators in schools of business and management – whether in the classroom or other settings. The teaching we engage in, along with our pedagogical approaches and processes, can bring to light and unsettle assumptions behind management knowledge and practice. We also mean the need to think through the implications of where, when, by whom and in whose interest this knowledge and practice have been developed. Finally, we mean the need to build, together with our students, an understanding of management knowledge and practice that is informed by an awareness of the colonial past and its ongoing legacy. Such attempts to address the injustices and inequities that this past gave rise to are important precisely because it continues to be reproduced in contemporary societies, institutions, businesses and other types of organisations.
Decolonising the curriculum: a never-ending task
The task of decolonising the curricula of business school programmes must seem daunting in its enormity and complexity. Indeed, it is a continuous and never-ending task, given the dynamic reflexive dialogue that should allow for constant renewal. This, however, does not mean that DtC efforts are doomed to failure, just because they may include false starts and dead ends like all innovative endeavours do. The way we see this – and put forward as a suggestion to approach the decolonising of the curriculum agenda – is that it is important to undertake and persist with DtC work, without becoming disheartened and discouraged by slow progress, setbacks, criticisms and the sense that there is always much more to be done.
Management Learning has always been concerned with questions pertaining to how we educate and whom we educate. As a journal, it has promoted reflexivity and critique of the dominant approaches to management knowledge and practice. This combination of reflexivity and critique is particularly important in the case of the DtC agenda if we are to be able to resist adopting a (self-)destructive perspective on the decolonisation of management education. There is a strong line of thinking critically about DtC efforts in relation to business school education. After all, at their origin, business schools, especially those developed after the US model (Cooke and Alcadipani, 2015; McLaren, 2020), often advance a version of unfettered capitalism which, arguably, is to blame for the perpetuation of inequalities and a range of socioeconomic and ecological injustices (Ghoshal, 2005), which can be traced back to the colonial past. We also know that some business schools have benefitted from the violence of colonialism, for example, through being a part of universities which received donations from those who made their fortunes through colonial trade, including the slave trade (Brophy, 2018; Mullen, 2019). However, if we do not allow ourselves to think about the historical and present role of business schools in society beyond this highly critical line of thinking, then as management educators, we will only be able to see ourselves as part of the ‘problem’ rather than the ‘solution’, as far as the DtC agenda is concerned.
Adopting a reflexive stance makes it possible for researchers and educators in schools of business and management to take on board criticisms and think about whether and how we might ‘move the dial’ in relation to conversations about and attempts at decolonising the business school curriculum. It opens up an avenue for engagement in a generative critique, whereby we can gather the courage to develop a more constructive way of thinking about and undertaking decolonisation work in the case of management learning and education. Put differently, let’s think critically and honestly about the complex societal role of business schools, both in the past and at present. At the same time, let’s not give in to defeatist thinking that no matter how hard we try, we are destined for failure anyway, and let’s not allow our collective sense of mea culpa to jeopardise the possibilities for constructive thinking and acting about DtC.
Undertaking DtC work from a place of ontological modesty
Following on from the recognition that decolonising the curriculum is an enormous and complex task, and that, historically, business and management education might have contributed to solidifying rather than decolonising management knowledge and practice, we call on Management Learning authors and readers to engage in DtC work from a position that we refer to as ‘ontological modesty’. Ontological modesty assumes our limited ability to decolonise our thinking, and to help students to decolonise theirs, so that collectively we can decolonise how we manage and organise just a little at a time. This realisation can be empowering. It can give rise to a sense of relief and a possibility of getting out of an impasse: when we accept that our capacity to fundamentally and quickly change things is limited, then instead of focusing on these limitations and on the things we cannot do, we can try to think constructively and creatively about what we can do. What if we work towards moving the DtC agenda forward, one step at a time, in the spirit of modesty, critical (self-)reflexivity and understanding that although not everything can be done perfectly, we can make a difference, perhaps only a small one, but this difference is significant and worth making? What if, instead of trying to achieve a ‘DtC mastery’, and demanding a mastery – of understanding and effort – of others – we focus on the extent to which, within our institutions and subject areas, and with the student cohorts we teach, we can undertake DtC work? Viewing the role of business schools and of ourselves as business and management educators through the lens of ontological modesty allows for acknowledging the problems and challenges while, simultaneously, opening ourselves up to the possibility that the role of business and management education in society can and needs to be positive, and that we can contribute to fulfilling this role.
Importantly, pursuing DtC work from a place of ontological modesty requires that we try to understand, in a non-judgmental and nuanced manner, not only ‘where we want to be’ but perhaps more pragmatically and helpfully, ‘where we are’, with implementing the decolonisation of the curriculum agenda. Here, ‘we’ refers to members of the diverse and geographically dispersed community of business and management educators operating in different contexts and teaching different subject areas. A non-judgmental attitude and an awareness that as a result of working in different countries and disciplines, as well as of being at different career stages, academics are likely to have a different level of experience – or even openness towards – the decolonisation of the curriculum agenda is crucial if we are to hope to keep DtC integral to educational endeavours across business schools.
‘Moving the dial’ of how we approach DtC in management learning and education
So how should we, as management scholars, and especially as the editors, authors and readers of Management Learning, go about ‘moving the dial’ of DtC in our own education and research practice and, more broadly, in the institutions we work for? One example of an initiative we wish to highlight is the recent project which two of us led on behalf of the British Academy of Management, namely Decolonising the Curriculum: A British Academy of Management Guide (Śliwa and Decker, 2024). This initiative grew, on one hand, out of the need to attempt to make a positive contribution to implementing the DtC agenda in business schools. On the other, it emerged out of the recognition that DtC is an ongoing process and that, even if our efforts are bound to bring about results that will be imperfect and incomplete, they are still worth making. In the Guide, we provided practical tips, in relation to both ‘what’ and ‘how’ we teach, addressed at any educator wishing to make a start on or deepen their engagement with the DtC agenda in a business school context. For those seasoned in the debates on decolonising management knowledge, many of the tips may sound obvious. For example, the suggestions we put forward include choosing case studies for teaching purposes so that their geographical focus reflects the backgrounds of the students we teach, and in introducing the key ideas used in our disciplines, ‘not only conveying concepts but also highlighting by whom, where and in which contexts they were developed’ (Śliwa and Decker, 2024: 7). But for those less familiar with the DtC agenda, such straightforward and down-to-earth advice will, we hope, be helpful and support them in making a start. Above all, when preparing the Guide, we aimed to offer an alternative to the polarities of approaching the subject of DtC in the case of business and management curricula as either being the target of destructive critique – with paralysing implications – or as irrelevant to the ‘business of business schools’.
It is in this spirit that we would like to encourage community building around – and practical and theoretical advancement of – the DtC agenda in schools of business and management. For meaningful change to happen, we would like this community to bring together both those who are already familiar with and experienced in pursuing DtC in their own educational practice, and those who have little or no experience of doing so, including scholars who specialise in subject areas in which conversations about DtC have been scarce or perhaps even sceptical in tone. Recognising that decolonisation needs to be explained and defined time and time again, we call for translating and popularising theoretical and conceptual knowledge so that the terms associated with decolonisation of the curriculum agenda become widely understood and enter the parlance of business and management school educators across disciplines. But even more urgent are examples of DtC implementation in programmes and subjects taught in business schools, so that we know more about how (not) to approach DtC work, which pedagogical methods are likely (and/or unlikely) to be effective in which contexts, and what challenges are likely to be encountered in which contexts and how these might be overcome. A substantial and nuanced body of theoretically informed and education practice-oriented knowledge about DtC is needed. As experience tells us, as far as decolonisation is concerned, there are no straightforward ways, and the more we try and experiment, the more we can learn, and the more impact our educational practice will have.
Future research questions and agenda
While the current literature on DtC provides a foundation for understanding the challenges and opportunities in business schools, further work is needed to deepen our understanding and expand the scope of these initiatives. At the macro level, future research could explore institutional and societal factors that either enable or inhibit DtC efforts in business schools. We urge scholars to investigate how national policies, societal attitudes and historical contexts shape the decolonisation process across different countries and educational systems. There is also a promising dialogue around how decolonial knowledge can offer lenses to understand other inequalities within countries.
At the meso level, attention should be directed towards the dynamics within individual business schools and academic disciplines. How do the unique organisational cultures of business schools influence DtC adoption? What roles do leadership and governance structures play in supporting or hindering DtC initiatives? Research at this level could also examine how faculty members’ political and ideological stances influence their engagement with DtC, offering insights into the internal tensions that might arise in such efforts.
Finally, at the micro level, there is a need for research that probes into the experiences of educators and students. How do individual educators’ teaching practices evolve in response to DtC? What are the perceptions and experiences of students in classrooms where DtC is integrated? Research could also investigate the pedagogical strategies that work best for implementing DtC and the specific challenges faced by educators when attempting to decolonise content.
These questions, at multiple levels of analysis, offer a framework for further exploration of DtC in management learning and education. Such research can employ a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies, with the goal of informing both theory and practice. On our part, these efforts should provide insights that can lead to changes in how business schools approach knowledge production, pedagogy and curriculum development in the context of decolonisation. Nevertheless, for such research to be not just innovative but also impactful requires the aforementioned ‘ontological modesty’ when tackling the complex and challenging issues that the DtC has raised for our regimes of knowledge production.
Concluding remarks
We conclude with a simple thought, summarising the approach to decolonising the business school curriculum that we have proposed here: that DtC research and practice involve moving the dial on long-running and complex issues in a way that requires patience and forbearance, and that is underpinned by what we have referred to as ‘ontological modesty’. To put it briefly, we need more DtC research and practice in business and management education, grounded in thinking about what is possible rather than what would be the ideal. At Management Learning, we will continue to provide a constructive forum for scholars who seek to engage with these important issues in many different ways.
