Curriculum decolonisation: student views need room to differ

Updated Sep 24, 2026

Before asking students whether a curriculum is inclusive, give them room to explain what inclusion means to them. Gisele P. Dias and Brenda P. Williams' study in the Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal offers a useful starting point. For us, the practical question is how to summarise feedback while keeping disagreement visible.

What the researchers asked

The authors explored students' understandings of curriculum decolonisation through 16 complete anonymous survey responses from two online postgraduate programmes in psychology and neuroscience at a London university. Three MSc students helped design the open questions. Recruitment ran from May to June 2023; the authors used thematic analysis.

This was a small, voluntary sample. Low response prompted the researchers to open participation to all ethnic backgrounds. It cannot establish how common each view is across the programmes or whether curriculum changes improve outcomes.

What the comments revealed

A shared term did not mean a shared understanding. Responses ranged from unfamiliarity with decolonisation to accounts of cultural representation and challenges to colonial legacies in knowledge.

Positive accounts sat alongside concerns. Some students identified inclusive practices; others described Western-centred content or could not identify examples of inclusion. The findings resist a single verdict on the curriculum.

Raising a concern could itself be difficult. Accounts included language barriers and fear that challenging white privilege would be held against the student. These are reported experiences, not measured effects of an intervention.

How UK teams could review curriculum feedback

Our suggested starting point is to separate the experience described from the change requested. A comment might identify a missing perspective, describe difficulty following an explanation, or question whose knowledge appears in course materials. Retain those distinctions when developing categories. Programme teams then have a concrete issue to investigate, rather than an unexplained inclusion label.

Keep uncertainty visible too. A response saying the student does not understand a term should prompt a review of the question's language. Avoid coding it automatically as opposition to change. Invite students to test draft questions and explain what they would need to answer them. This gives survey teams a way to check comprehension before collecting more responses.

When reporting a theme, include contrasting interpretations and the context needed to understand them. Ask student partners whether a summary recognises their experience, and record disagreements that remain. Our briefing on trust, expectations and power in student-staff partnerships offers further questions for planning that relationship. The aim is a review process in which students can challenge the interpretation as well as contribute comments.

Connect the discussion to a decision that staff can explain. For example, a programme team could examine a specified reading list or revise guidance, then invite feedback on the result. The Northampton Inclusive Curriculum Toolkit briefing is a separate example of connecting student listening with curriculum review. Record the proposed action, its owner and how it will be evaluated, so contributors can see what happens next.

FAQ

Q: How can we apply this when analysing a large comment collection?

A: Pilot categories on varied examples, including positive, critical and uncertain responses. Check whether a broad curriculum theme hides distinct issues, and retain a route for comments that do not fit. These are our proposed analysis steps; the paper did not evaluate automated categorisation. Review the categories before using them across a larger survey.

Q: What about students who did not respond?

A: Their views remain unknown. Avoid presenting the themes as a vote or assuming that silence signals agreement. Consider a different invitation or feedback route, while being clear about who contributed to each source. A new consultation should address a specific evidence gap rather than repeat the same request without explanation.

Q: What does this mean for student voice beyond curriculum review?

A: Build a way for students to question how their accounts are represented. Agree who can read source comments and how identifying details will be handled before sharing examples; our student comment analysis governance checklist can structure that discussion. Categorisation should support a conversation about decisions, with the limits of the evidence visible throughout.

References

[Paper Source]: Gisele P. Dias and Brenda P. Williams. "Perceptions of curriculum decolonisation and identification of actionable points to decolonise the psychology and neuroscience curriculum: Participatory research with students from around the globe"

DOI: 10.66561/sehej.v7i2.1368

Published: 6 November 2025, Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal.