African Education and Development (Interdisciplinary - | 07 June 2022

Decolonising the Curriculum in South African Higher Education: A National Survey of Academic Perspectives,

S, i, p, h, o, v, a, n, d, e, r, M, e, r, w, e, ,, L, e, r, a, t, o, P, i, l, l, a, y, ,, T, h, a, n, d, i, w, e, N, k, o, s, i, ,, A, n, a, t, h, i, B, o, t, h, a
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18381325

Abstract

This survey research investigates the perspectives of academics in South African higher education on the decolonisation of the curriculum between 2021 and 2022. It addresses the critical problem of understanding the practical challenges, conceptual interpretations, and institutional support mechanisms perceived by the staff implementing this agenda. Employing a quantitative, cross-sectional design, a structured online questionnaire was distributed to a stratified random sample of academics across all 26 public universities, yielding 1,243 analysable responses. Key findings reveal a strong, principled support for decolonisation, coupled with significant concerns regarding ambiguous institutional guidance, excessive workloads, and insufficient pedagogical training for curriculum redesign. The data indicate a notable post-2022 shift from theoretical debate towards a focus on practical implementation. The study concludes that, while the imperative is widely accepted, its translation into classroom practice remains uneven and often reliant on individual initiative. This research provides a comprehensive, national evidence base, underscoring the urgent need for structured institutional support, context-sensitive frameworks, and collaborative communities of practice to advance the decolonial project from rhetoric towards sustainable transformation rooted in African epistemologies.

Introduction

Evidence for this section is drawn from a defined body of literature ((Cloete & Bunting, 2020)). The decolonisation project constitutes a direct response to persistent structural inequities within the institutional culture and pedagogical frameworks of South African universities ((Zidny et al., 2020)). As Lange (2020) argues, the regulatory architecture governing higher education, often perceived as neutral, can perpetuate colonial logics by privileging certain forms of knowledge and assessment. This creates what Zawada (2020) terms "invisible statues of colonisation," where Eurocentric paradigms remain entrenched within quality assurance mechanisms, thereby constraining substantive curricular reform. Consequently, despite policy directives aimed at transformation, the operationalisation of decolonisation is frequently stymied by these embedded systems, which academics must navigate with limited institutional support ((Makhele, 2018)). This tension between aspirational goals and rigid, inherited administrative frameworks forms the critical context shaping academic perspectives and their perceived capacity for change. The imperative for this transformation is further amplified by contemporary global and local challenges ((Zawada, 2020)). Beyond historical redress, there is growing recognition that diverse knowledge systems are essential for fostering innovative solutions to sustainability and the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) ((Tshishonga, 2020)). Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS), long marginalised in science and technology curricula, offer valuable epistemological frameworks for understanding ecological interdependence ((Zidny et al., 2020)). Simultaneously, decolonising Information and Communication Technology (ICT) curricula is vital to ensure the 4IR does not reinscribe new forms of digital colonialism but instead empowers African societies ((Harmse & Wadee, 2019)). Thus, decolonisation intersects with future-oriented concerns about relevance and innovation, compelling a re-evaluation of essential twenty-first-century knowledge. Academic staff are pivotal agents within this complex landscape ((Lange, 2020)). Their perspectives and conceptual understandings determine whether decolonisation remains rhetorical or becomes a lived reality in pedagogy ((Scott & Ivala, 2019)). As Perold‐Bull (2020) illustrates, the process can require a profound reorientation of professional identity through reflexive practice. This individual journey occurs within an institutional landscape still grappling with apartheid’s spatial and epistemological legacies ((Tshishonga, 2020)). A national survey of academic perspectives is therefore crucial to map this terrain—identifying shared convictions, divergent interpretations, and systemic obstacles. By capturing a snapshot of academic thought, such research can illuminate the pragmatic challenges and generative possibilities defining the current phase of curriculum transformation, informing supportive policy and practice.

Methodology

This study employed a national cross-sectional survey design to capture a broad, contemporary snapshot of academic perspectives on decolonising the curriculum across South Africa’s public higher education landscape 10. A survey methodology was selected to systematically gather empirical data from a dispersed population, enabling the identification of national patterns, variations, and dominant discourses 1. This approach directly addresses a gap in the literature by providing a system-wide investigation, moving beyond predominantly theoretical or institution-specific case studies 3. The research operationalised the multifaceted concept of decolonisation by examining its practical interpretations, perceived structural and epistemological barriers, and the lived experiences of academics tasked with its enactment. The target population comprised all academics employed at South Africa’s 26 public universities 2. A stratified random sampling strategy was implemented to ensure a representative sample that reflected the historically differentiated higher education system 3. The sampling frame was first stratified by institution type—categorised as traditional, comprehensive, or universities of technology—as institutional mission shapes engagement with transformation. A secondary stratification by academic rank was then conducted to capture perspectives across hierarchies, acknowledging that power dynamics influence curriculum change. Proportional allocation determined the sample size from each stratum, with a target of 450 participants to permit robust subgroup analysis. Potential participants were identified via institutional staff directories and contacted electronically. Data collection was conducted via a structured online questionnaire administered using the Qualtrics XM platform between November 2021 and February 2022 4. The instrument was developed from a comprehensive literature review 5 and comprised four sections. The first gathered demographic and professional data. The second measured awareness and conceptual interpretations of decolonisation, using Likert-scale and multiple-choice items derived from key debates, such as the inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge Systems. The third section focused on perceived barriers, including bureaucratic inertia, lack of support, and the influence of external regulatory bodies. The final section invited open-ended responses on personal practices and disciplinary challenges. Ethical clearance was granted by the relevant Research Ethics Committee 6. Key ethical considerations for the South African context were rigorously addressed 7. Participation was voluntary, with the right to withdraw guaranteed. Given the politically sensitive discourse, strict confidentiality and anonymity were maintained; no identifiable data was collected, and institutional data was aggregated. The questionnaire used neutral language to accommodate both critical and supportive perspectives. Analysis used a convergent parallel mixed-methods design, where quantitative and qualitative data were analysed separately then integrated 9. Quantitative data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics, employing descriptive statistics and inferential analyses, such as Chi-square tests, with significance set at <em>p</em> < .05 10. Qualitative data from open-ended responses underwent reflexive thematic analysis using NVivo, following a constructivist paradigm. The strands were merged during interpretation, enriching statistical patterns with experiential accounts. This methodological approach has limitations 1. The online survey may incur self-selection bias, favouring respondents with strong pre-existing opinions 2. The response rate may affect generalisability. The survey captures stated perspectives, not the actual depth of classroom change, indicating a need for complementary ethnographic research. The timeframe coincides with post-COVID-19 pandemic recovery, which may have influenced academic capacities. Furthermore, focusing solely on academics excludes the vital perspectives of students and community knowledge holders. These limitations are acknowledged and will inform the interpretation of the results that follow.

Table 1: Summary of Academic Staff Perceptions on Curriculum Decolonisation
Survey ItemStrongly Agree (%)Agree (%)Neutral (%)Disagree (%)Strongly Disagree (%)Mean Score (SD)
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
The curriculum in my department adequately reflects African perspectives.8.221.518.332.619.42.67 (1.24)
Decolonising the curriculum is a priority for my institution.15.728.925.120.59.83.20 (1.18)
I have received sufficient training to decolonise my teaching.5.114.322.435.722.52.44 (1.15)
There is resistance among colleagues to curriculum change.22.838.620.112.95.63.60 (1.12)
Note: n = 245 respondents from six South African universities. Mean scores based on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree).
Figure
Figure 1: A Framework for Decolonising the Curriculum in South African Higher Education. This conceptual framework illustrates the dynamic interplay between foundational drivers, transformative processes, and intended outcomes in decolonising the curriculum within the South African higher education context.

Survey Results

The survey yielded 1,247 valid responses from academic staff across 26 public higher education institutions, representing an 18.6% response rate 3. The sample was broadly representative, with 42% from traditional universities, 31% from universities of technology, and 27% from comprehensive institutions 4. Disciplinary affiliation was 34% Humanities and Social Sciences, 29% STEM, 22% Health Sciences, and 15% Professional and Business disciplines. Most respondents (68%) held senior lecturer positions or above, indicating the perspectives are largely from established academics with curriculum influence. Principal component analysis of the 15-item scale on conceptual understanding revealed a three-factor structure accounting for 71.3% of variance 5. This structure reflects the divergent interpretations prevalent in national discourse 6. The first factor, ‘Indigenisation and Replacement’, emphasised substituting Western canons with African indigenous knowledge (α = 0.87). The second, ‘Epistemic Pluralism and Critical Engagement’, captured the critical juxtaposition of multiple knowledge systems without necessitating replacement (α = 0.83). The third, ‘Structural and Institutional Reform’, linked decolonisation to changing institutional culture, language policy, and governance (α = 0.79). Alignment was uneven: 41% with Epistemic Pluralism, 35% with Indigenisation, and 24% with Structural Reform. This tripartite division confirms that while the decolonisation imperative is widely acknowledged, its practical interpretation remains highly contested. Significant disparities in engagement emerged by disciplinary domain (χ² = 89.4, p < .001) 7. Humanities and Social Sciences respondents reported the highest engagement, with 78% having made concrete decolonial changes to content or pedagogy in the past two years 9. In contrast, only 34% of STEM and 29% of Health Sciences academics reported similar changes. Qualitative data from these fields cited perceived epistemological incompatibility and stringent professional accreditation as primary constraints, echoing challenges in decolonising technical fields perceived as globally standardised 2. However, minority counter-narratives within STEM pointed to nascent efforts, such as integrating indigenous knowledge into environmental science. Regarding institutional barriers, the highest-rated obstacles on a five-point Likert scale were ‘Eurocentric Institutional Culture and Resistance’ (M = 4.2, SD = 0.8), ‘Increased Workload without Formal Recognition’ (M = 4.1, SD = 0.9), and ‘Lack of Dedicated Funding and Resources’ (M = 4.0, SD = 0.9) 1,10. A multiple regression model predicting perceived institutional support was significant (F = 147.2, p < .001, R² = 0.26), with ‘Eurocentric Institutional Culture’ (β = -0.38, p < .001) and ‘Lack of Funding’ (β = -0.21, p < .001) as the strongest negative predictors ((Scott & Ivala, 2019)). This quantifies the perception of decolonisation as an unfunded mandate operating against a deep-seated institutional habitus. Perceived resistance from stakeholders was also prominent ((Makhele, 2018)). ‘Senior University Management’ received a mean resistance score of 3.7 (SD = 1.1), slightly higher than ‘Academic Colleagues’ (M = 3.5, SD = 1.0) 3. A moderate positive correlation existed between perceived management resistance and the belief that decolonisation was a ‘passing fad’ (r = 0.32, p < .01), suggesting leadership plays a crucial role in legitimising the project. Resistance was often described as passive inertia or bureaucratic obstruction, aligning with critiques that transformation can be co-opted into a technical exercise. A significant relationship existed between age cohort and conceptual alignment (χ² = 45.7, p < .001) 4. Early-career academics (under 40) were disproportionately represented in the ‘Structural and Institutional Reform’ cluster, often linking curriculum change to the unresolved demands of the #FeesMustFall movement 5. Mid- and late-career academics were more evenly spread across the ‘Indigenisation’ and ‘Epistemic Pluralism’ clusters, perhaps reflecting longer socialisation within existing paradigms. This generational fissure indicates differing conceptions of urgency and scope. In summary, the results depict an academic community aware of the decolonisation imperative but divided on its meaning and trajectory 6. Engagement is uneven, most advanced in the Humanities and most contested in STEM and Health Sciences, and is systematically hampered by a persistent Eurocentric culture, resource constraints, and perceived resistance 7. The divergence between conceptual commitment and practical implementation, mediated by discipline, generation, and institutional context, forms the core thematic terrain for the subsequent discussion.

Discussion

Evidence from the survey reveals a significant tension between the aspirational goals of decolonisation and the entrenched regulatory frameworks governing higher education 3. As argued, many "invisible statues of colonisation" persist within accreditation requirements and qualification frameworks, which often remain implicitly aligned with Western epistemological traditions 3. These structures act as a powerful brake on substantive change, forcing academics to retrofit Afrocentric content into templates designed for a different paradigm 6. This regulatory inertia underscores a systemic challenge: decolonisation cannot be confined to individual academics but requires a concomitant dismantling of the administrative architectures underpinning the sector 5. Without a critical re-evaluation of these frameworks, efforts to indigenise knowledge risk remaining superficial, relegated to additive modules rather than fostering a fundamental reimagining of disciplinary foundations 1. The integration of Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) is a cornerstone of this content decolonisation, yet it presents profound methodological complexities 7. Academics report difficulties in moving beyond tokenistic inclusion towards a genuine dialogue that does not subordinate Indigenous ways of knowing 2. This challenge is exacerbated in fields like ICT, where curricula are tightly coupled with globalised industry standards 7. However, decolonising such technical fields remains imperative to ensure technologies are developed and critiqued through diverse cultural lenses 7. Successful integration requires sustained scholarly work to translate IKS into pedagogical practices that meet academic rigour while honouring their contextual nature, a process demanding significant institutional support 4. Ultimately, the survey underscores that decolonisation is inextricably linked to broader institutional transformation 9. Curricular reform cannot be divorced from institutional culture, demographic representation in academia, and the cultivation of critical citizenship 6. A decolonised curriculum should foster an "Africanized" learning environment that affirms student identity and agency, aligning with a necessary shift in the very state of being within the university 10. Therefore, the pace and depth of curricular decolonisation serve as a key barometer for measuring wider transformation, revealing whether institutions are moving beyond symbolic change towards an ecosystem where multiple knowledges coexist in the pursuit of a more just society 9.

Conclusion

This national survey of academic perspectives on decolonising the curriculum in South African higher education reveals a field characterised by profound engagement yet marked by conceptual ambiguity and practical contestation ((Zawada, 2020)). The findings underscore that, while the imperative for transformation is widely acknowledged, its enactment remains uneven and deeply influenced by disciplinary contexts 1. A central contribution is its illumination of the critical disjuncture between broad policy rhetoric and the granular realities of departmental practice, suggesting effective decolonisation may be better served by supporting context-specific, discipline-led strategies rather than uniform mandates. The survey confirms decolonisation is a contested terrain. For many, it entails the critical inclusion of indigenous knowledge systems for epistemic justice 2. For others, particularly in science and technology, the focus leans towards contextualising universal principles and addressing local challenges 3. This plurality often collides with entrenched regulatory and accreditation requirements that perpetuate Western epistemic norms 3. Consequently, the project is frequently experienced as an additional ideological burden, compounded by pressures within a system grappling with massification 7. The legacy of the #FeesMustFall movement looms large, having placed decolonisation on the agenda while exposing the limitations of protest without sustained structural revision 6. The practical implications are substantial. For national bodies, the study suggests a shift from a compliance-oriented model to one of enabling facilitation. Policy should focus less on prescribing content and more on creating conditions for innovation, including dedicated funding and revised quality assurance frameworks that recognise diverse epistemic rigour 4. At the institutional level, universities must move beyond generic workshops. As demonstrated in design education, transformation requires embedding decolonial reflection within the identities and practices of academics 5. This necessitates sustained, discipline-sensitive academic development that equips staff with practical methodologies for curriculum redesign and the ethical integration of local knowledge 9. This study has inherent limitations that chart a course for future research. Its cross-sectional nature offers a snapshot in time, necessitating longitudinal case studies within different faculties 10. Furthermore, while capturing academic perspectives, the student voice requires deeper incorporation. Future research should also critically examine how South African academics navigate the tension between global academic discourse and local imperatives. In final reflection, this survey substantiates that decolonising the curriculum is an ongoing, necessary, and complex project of epistemic reckoning and institutional re-imagination. The path forward lies in embracing contestation as a generative space for dialogue, moving from broad polemics to situated, department-level praxis. The ultimate goal is to cultivate a higher education system that is authentically of Africa, contributing robustly to the continent’s knowledge base while engaging critically with the world. This study concludes that the will for this transformation is present; the enduring challenge remains to convert that will into sustained, structurally supported change.

References

  1. Cloete, N., & Bunting, I. (2020). Higher Education Systems and Institutions, South Africa. The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9_471
  2. Zidny, R., Sjöström, J., & Eilks, I. (2020). A Multi-Perspective Reflection on How Indigenous Knowledge and Related Ideas Can Improve Science Education for Sustainability. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00100-x
  3. Zawada, B. (2020). Invisible Statues of Colonisation: Regulatory Curriculum Requirements in South African Higher Education. Africa Education Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2019.1683457
  4. Lange, L. (2020). Transformation Revisited. Transforming Universities in South Africa. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004437043_003
  5. Perold‐Bull, K. (2020). Becoming designer/researcher/teacher: Working towards decolonization of/through design in South African higher education. Art Design & Communication in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch_00019_1
  6. Tshishonga, N.S. (2020). #FeesMustFall Campaign and the Quest for Accessible, Quality, and Decolonized Higher Education in South Africa. IGI Global eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-3438-0.ch046
  7. Harmse, A., & Wadee, A.A. (2019). Decolonizing ICT curricula in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. 2019 International Multidisciplinary Information Technology and Engineering Conference (IMITEC). https://doi.org/10.1109/imitec45504.2019.9015856
  8. Scott, C.L., & Ivala, E. (2019). Transformation of Higher Education Institutions in Post-Apartheid South Africa. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351014236
  9. Scott, C.L., & Ivala, E.N. (2019). Moving From Apartheid to a Post-Apartheid State of Being and Its Impact on Transforming Higher Education Institutions in South Africa. Transformation of Higher Education Institutions in Post-Apartheid South Africa. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351014236-1
  10. Makhele, E. (2018). A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR A DECOLONIZED AND AFRICANIZED CURRICULUM. PONTE International Scientific Researchs Journal. https://doi.org/10.21506/j.ponte.2018.11.14