The start of a new journey: Decolonising the Global Mental Health curriculum

Abstract

Intellectual colonisation is defined as the imposition of Western knowledge systems onto non-Western cultures, resulting in the marginalisation and subordination of non-Western beliefs, practices, and technologies. Decolonisation aims to challenge this dominance. Higher Education Institutions play a crucial role in dismantling intellectual colonisation, and sustained efforts are needed to promote diverse perspectives. The authors adopt a critical pedagogy and cyclical improvement approach to develop inclusive and equitable learning environments. They have committed to the process of decolonising the curriculum, acknowledging it as ongoing and multifaceted. A range of staff-led developments have been initiated as understandings of decolonisation have deepened. Alumni have applied review tools related to decolonising the curriculum to identify potential improvement areas. A student workshop was facilitated to overview the initial project developments and gain insight on how to address the issues identified. Feedback from the diverse student cohort indicated this was highly valuable. The potential for student-staff partnerships in driving decolonising efforts has begun to be explored, but key challenges include resource constraints and the need for student upskilling. The project goal is to empower students and staff to acknowledge their positionality, critically engage, and adopt a decolonial lens in both educational and workplace arenas.

Keywords

Decolonising curriculum student-staff partnerships education Western critical pedagogy

Forenote

Within this paper, former colonies are referred to collectively as ‘non-Western’, and colonisers are referred to as ‘Western’. While the use of collective terms to describe diverse geographical and cultural regions is criticised for re-enforcing Eurocentrism (Moosavi, 2020), the authors have been unable to establish alternative acceptable language that concisely distinguishes former colonies from former colonisers in discussions. The adopted terminologies have been engaged to achieve a succinct narrative and are those engaged by respected writers in the field (Bracken et al., 2021; Fernando, 2017).

Colonisation and intellectual colonisation

European or Western colonialism refers to the European expansion of control over foreign territories between the 15th and 20th centuries. Colonialism involved population subjugation, resource and labour exploitation, and the imposition of political, economic, and cultural systems (Kohn and Reddy, 2024). By 1914, most of the world was under European control, and an estimated 10–12 million Africans were enslaved and traded across Europe and the Americas, with devastating humanitarian, cultural, and economic impacts for colonised nations (Lewis, 2024). Colonisers justified their actions by stating they acted in the best interests of those colonised. Through a global ‘civilisation’ project, they aimed to transform conquered territories into a European image (Mamdani, 2019).

During the 18th century, the Enlightenment Movement occurred. It was characterised by the rise of scientific enquiry, faith in reasoning, and attempts to classify the natural and human world. The Enlightenment occurred in the context of colonialism and was led by European intellectuals who centred their perspectives, using them as the benchmark for the rest of the world to be compared against (Lokugamage et al., 2020; Mamdani, 2019). While the Enlightenment challenged superstitions and encouraged methodological research approaches, it contributed to a hierarchical construction of knowledge, where only European epistemologies were considered legitimate.

Intellectual colonisation refers to the process in which the coloniser imposes its beliefs, knowledge systems, languages, and technologies on the colonised people, often at the expense of their identity and autonomy (Littoz-Monnet, 2017; Lokugamage et al., 2020). In the most extreme form, it constitutes cultural genocide (Mosby and Millions, 2021). Despite the dissolution of European colonial territories in the 1940s and 1950s, intellectual colonisation continues (Sharonova et al., 2018). There remains a pervasive discreditation and appropriation of beliefs, ideas, and technologies generated by former colonies (Lokugamage et al., 2020).

Decolonisation and intellectual decolonisation

Higher education institutions (HEI) are recognised as perpetuators of intellectual colonisation through unfair recruitment practices, an unequal distribution of funding and resources for research by Western academics, assessment formats that favour students from White backgrounds over those from ethnic minorities, and the reflection of colonial ideologies in teaching materials and practices (Bhambra et al., 2018; Moosavi, 2020). The legitimisation of Western over non-Western epistemologies arguably reinforces educational attainment inequalities and discrimination experiences (Behari-Leak, 2019). The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) reported that only 67.7% of ethnic minority students were awarded a first- or upper-second-class Honours degree compared to 80.9% of White students (UoG SHW, 2021). Additionally, 50% of surveyed ethnic minority students reported experiencing racial harassment at the University of Glasgow (UoG) (Virdee et al., 2021). This has inspired the UoG, and many other Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), to commit to intellectual decolonisation.

There is no single agreed definition of intellectual decolonisation. However, concepts of increasing representation; creating opportunities for alternative knowledge systems to be created, engaged with, and valued equally; and a critical exploration of dominant schemas and the political motivation(s) behind them are paramount (Bracken et al., 2021; Ferguson et al., 2019; Fernando, 2017). This requires a shift towards a learning culture where the perspective of no single group is more valuable and the provision of opportunities to explore how power relations and cultural exclusion form common knowledge (Keele University, 2018).

Intellectual decolonisation is not a new movement. Recent surges in interest and investment have been inspired by student-led initiatives, including ‘Rhodes Must Fall’, and ‘Why is My Curriculum White?’ (Moosavi, 2020), alongside societal anti-racist campaigns like ‘Black Lives Matter’. Whilst the increased focus on decolonising curricula within HEIs has been largely welcomed by longstanding proponents of intellectual decolonisation, there are concerns the movement is being dominated by Western academics. Critics argue that tokenistic gestures, such as diversifying reading lists, are being mislabelled as acts of decolonisation, and warn that initiatives championed by and benefitting those with power and privilege can translate into neocolonialism and the continued appropriation of funding and research resources (Moosavi, 2020).

Efforts to decolonise curricula using the normal routes of reviewing and modifying teaching materials can result in simply adding more diverse materials, which fails to sufficiently disrupt the curriculum (Behari-Leak, 2019). Intellectual decolonisation encourages academic teams to step back from normal processes, recognise their positionality (especially the power and privilege they hold), and relinquish control over the direction of developments. Students are identified as key collaborators, especially those from ethnic minority groups. Student-led reviews and curriculum modifications put decision-making in their hands, thereby disrupting the status quo and challenging power hierarchies (Bhambra et al., 2018; Hooks, 1996). However, decolonising curricula is time- and resource-intensive, and the labour must not fall on the most disadvantaged. Academic teams must share the workload and provide students with the time and resources they need to inspire change (Arday and Mirza, 2018).

Pedagogical underpinnings: Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy

Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy (CP) is recognised as an appropriate framework for enacting intellectual decolonisation within HEIs (Akoleowo, 2021). CP is a pedagogical approach grounded in critical theory which examines how power structures shape society, aiming to challenge systems of oppression and facilitate a shift away from cultural hegemony in education (Matthews, 2014; Uddin, 2019). Within CP, teaching styles shift from a teacher-centred to a student-centred approach. Students and teachers become co-learners and principles of active learning are incorporated by constructing knowledge and opinions through dialogue and problem-solving (Uddin, 2019). When CP is effectively adopted, students are encouraged to question dominant knowledge schemas and power dynamics within and outside the classroom (Matthews, 2014).

Programmatic context: The flipped classroom

The Global Mental Health (GMH) MSc on-campus programme launched in 2012/13 and adopts a flipped classroom approach whereby the core learning content is delivered outside the classroom via a virtual learning environment (VLE) to both on-campus (OC) and online distance learning (ODL) students (Akçayır and Akçayır, 2018; Sharp et al., 2018). The materials, which students independently progress through, are delivered through Articulate Rise 360 and accessed via Moodle. The ODL programme launched in 2016, and the flipped classroom had been fully adopted for OC students by 2020–21. Flipped classrooms are associated with greater student engagement, performance, and satisfaction. They provide opportunities to create flexible, personalised, interactive, immersive, and interdisciplinary learning experiences and enable students to learn at their own pace (Adedoyin and Soykan, 2023; Akçayır and Akçayır, 2018; Evans et al., 2019; Foster and Shah, 2021). The approach also ensures consistency in the core teaching received by OC and ODL students.

The flipped classroom allows live sessions to become active, collaborative, and focused on peer learning (Akçayır and Akçayır, 2018), as opposed to didactic, in which speakers impart the knowledge they perceive as valuable to attendees (Tierney, 2020). Within GMH, live sessions have become discussion-based, involving guest speakers, teaching staff, and students. Discussions are student-led, enabling teaching faculty to focus on helping students and offering guidance (Akçayır and Akçayır, 2018; Lai and Hwang, 2016). GMH cohorts are diverse (see Table 1), and their different experiences and perspectives make interactions between and with students extremely valuable to learning.

Table 1.

GMH student cohort demographics for the 2023–24 academic year.

	OC (no. of students = 49) (%)	ODL (no. of students = 50) (%)
International students	78	62
UK/EU-based students	22	38
Male	18	12
Female	78	88
Undisclosed gender	4	0

Cyclical improvement approach

The GMH team has implemented a cyclical improvement approach to continually sustain and enhance pedagogically informed teaching approaches (Foley et al., 2024; Sharp et al., 2018, 2022). The projects undertaken range from routine tasks to more substantial scholarship initiatives. Many support decolonisation initiatives by making education more accessible and equitable for marginalised groups. For example, efforts to ensure clear, concise, and consistent use of language across the curriculum are inclusive of students with English as their second language (Wingate, 2015). Additionally, the team’s redesigning of assessments to have authentic formats (Karadzhov et al., 2021) is a recognised methodology for improving degree outcomes for marginalised students (Ajjawi et al., 2023).

Student involvement and feedback are crucial to cyclical improvement (Sharp et al., 2022). Student feedback is collated on an iterative basis, and programme alumni are recruited as teaching assistants (TAs) to support developments. This approach aligns with CP by centring the student in the nature and direction of developments.

Whose W.O.R.D.D. counts? A diversity review

In 2021, as part of the cyclical improvement approach, the teaching team used the Open University’s (2022) Whose W.O.R.D.D. counts? tool to review the diversity of the GMH online learning materials (Foley et al., 2024). The review process identified key strengths of the curriculum, namely, that the materials used inclusive language, represented a range of cultures, and provided multiple opportunities for students to share their prior knowledge and personal experiences.

Several small and large adaptations were progressed in response to the review. Smaller adaptations often involved prompting students to reflect on an issue and discuss their knowledge and experiences with their classmates. Twenty-seven new reflective note-taking activities, assessment tips, and self-care prompts were embedded. Larger developments broadly fell under three themes, detailed in Table 2.

Table 2.

A summary of the three themes of development resulting from the diversity review.

Theme	Summary of issue identified	Action taken
Diversifying case studies of low, middle, and high-income countries	A disproportionate focus on case studies from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) illustrating sub-standard care potentially reinforced stereotypes about healthcare in these regions.	More balanced case studies were integrated that highlighted examples of sub-standard and exemplary mental healthcare across a range of income contexts.
Increasing discussion of gender and sexuality	The materials had a good focus on diverse cultural experiences and their mental health impacts, but there was less discussion of other diversity characteristics, especially issues impacting LGBTQ + communities.	Several new sections of material were developed to highlight LGBTQ + issues within GMH.
Framing Western culture	Discussions around culture and identity largely focused on non-Western contexts or refugee/migrant populations, potentially reinforcing ideas that Western culture is ‘normal’.	The teaching team integrated a narrative throughout the learning materials that recognises Western approaches are culturally informed.

Beyond diversity to decolonisation

The diversity review catalysed the decolonisation of the GMH curricula. CP requires learning materials to include diverse representations so that students can relate the content to their prior knowledge and experiences, and have their presence in and contribution to the field validated (Campbell et al., 2021; Charles, 2019; Foley et al., 2024). However, diversity initiatives are facing increased criticism for failing to address the root causes of systemic inequality. Arguably, they merely accommodate minority groups while still expecting them to conform to Eurocentric frameworks that disadvantage them (Albayrak-Aydemir, 2018; Begum and Saini, 2019). Decolonising the curriculum surpasses diversity projects by acknowledging and challenging colonial constitutions, systems, and practices (University of Essex, 2024).

The importance of decolonising GMH

The psy-disciplines (psychiatry and psychology) emerged during the Enlightenment and were an integral part of the European colonial project (Fernando, 2017). The values and beliefs of that time were White supremacist, heteronormative, ableist, and patriarchal. A well and functioning mind was one that aligned with these ideals, with those who did not conform pathologised and persecuted (Bracken et al., 2021; Fernando, 2017). Given their colonial foundations, the ethics of globally applying the psy-disciplines is questioned. The field of GMH has been criticised for exporting and using the psy-disciplines in non-Western contexts, encouraging cultural blindness amongst practitioners, disregarding local values, and undermining alternative healing systems (Bracken et al., 2021). Furthermore, within mental healthcare presently, racism and other forms of discrimination are prevalent (Fernando, 2017). This contributes to the increased vulnerabilities marginalised communities face in becoming unwell and impedes recovery (Hamed et al., 2022; Michaels et al., 2023; Williams et al., 2019).

To minimise harm, GMH practitioners must understand the historical and socio-political underpinnings of mental health inequalities, know about non-Western knowledge systems, and be able to view mental health experiences and care from diverse perspectives. A decolonised curriculum is essential to achieve this (Meda, 2020).

Initiating the process of decolonising the curriculum

The GMH team have initiated a process of decolonising the curricula underpinned by CP. Within health education, CP stimulates learners to critically question health information, rather than be passive recipients. Students are encouraged to view health as historically embedded and determined by political, economic, socio-cultural, and environmental factors, as well as their interaction (Matthews, 2014). The focus has been on decentering, rather than removing, Western knowledge (Meda, 2020).

Behari-Leak (2019) highlights that intellectual decolonisation cannot be achieved through prescribed, step-by-step guidance. For the GMH team, the endeavour began as we became increasingly familiar with intellectual decolonisation concepts and processes and gained the confidence to initiate changes. As we progressed, the importance of involving others became apparent and is reflected in project directions. Projects can broadly be categorised into staff-led initiatives and collaborative practices. Staff-led initiatives include all projects led and developed by GMH teaching team members. Collaborative practices involve alumni and students.

Staff-led initiatives

Through familiarisation with the decolonisation literature, attending presentations on the topic, and the diversity review, the project team developed skills in applying a decolonial lens to the GMH curricula. This involved creating new sections of material that were integrated early into the student journey to make issues of colonisation and decolonisation apparent. Examples are detailed in Table 3.

Table 3.

Outline of larger staff-led developments.

Introducing colonialism and decolonisation	A section was developed to introduce colonialism, intellectual colonialism, decolonisation, and intellectual decolonisation to students, both in the context of the UoG and the field of GMH more generally.
Racism and mental health	New materials were developed to consider the impact of racism on mental health care, linking issues associated with race to colonialism. Anti-racist and decolonised solutions were considered, with case studies from multiple contexts.
Indigenous knowledge systems	A section on the erasure of Indigenous knowledge systems through colonialism was developed, with a focus on the Tohunga Suppression Act. The teaching team’s reflections on their implicit biases, which had previously resulted in Indigenous perspectives being censored, were offered.

Staff-led changes also included the advent of a new reading list with papers discussing issues of power, difference, and inclusion in GMH care. Many of the cited authors are people with lived experience of mental health difficulties from multiple global contexts. The articles challenge dominant views in psychiatry and health care, giving voice to marginalised communities.

As the curriculum changes and new decolonised materials are embedded, the diversity of scholars and topics across the course reading lists will improve, and the reading list will become surplus to requirement. However, this process is slow, and students should be routinely encouraged to adopt a decolonial stance with access to appropriate materials. This reading list serves as an interim step. Standalone reading lists have been labelled tokenistic when they act to increase the representation of non-Western scholars without meaningful curriculum changes (Moosavi, 2020). However, the GMH team hopes such criticisms do not fully apply to our endeavour, as it is contextualised within several other actions.

Collaborative practices

The Reading review: A question-led approach to decolonising the curriculum

Funding was secured through the UoG’s Learning and Teaching Development Fund (LTDF) to engage an alumna of the GMH MSc for 14 days as a TA to perform a question-led audit of the learning materials with a decolonial focus. This position was open to the OC GMH cohort from 2022–23, with one individual (IC) self-nominating for the position. This approach was adopted based on the success of the diversity review. With support and guidance from colleagues, the TA audited two 20-credit GMH modules: Themes in Global Mental Health (Themes) and Cultural, Social, and Biological Determinants of Mental Health (CSBD).

The University of Reading (n.d.) review tool was used. It consists of 27 questions developed by the university’s Decolonising the Curriculum Working Group. They appointed student inclusion consultants and drew upon diverse student and staff perspectives to inform the development of the questions (University of Reading, n.d.). As this partnership approach is something we wish to emulate, the Reading review tool was deemed valuable for initiating the decolonisation of GMH curricula.

Phase 1. Familiarisation, reflection, and theming

Before commencing, the lead reviewer (IC) familiarised herself with the review tool. She considered her positionality and how it affected her understanding of the questions and recent experiences of the GMH programme as a student. IC is a Caucasian, Scottish, cis-gendered, heterosexual woman. She recognised the need to adopt a critical stance. She considered when her experiences and perspectives were validated or challenged by the review tool questions and learning materials. As she identified discrepancies, she noted these and outlined potential approaches that could be engaged to balance or diversify the issues.

Through this, IC identified that the review questions broadly fell into two categories:

(1) Decolonising Lens Questions: These were questions that directly interrogated curriculum content and teaching strategies.

(2) Theoretical Questions: These were questions pertaining to the field, rather than the curriculum content.

After consulting with GMH colleagues, it was decided that the questions in the first category would be used in the curriculum review, and those in the second would be revisited afterwards. Additionally, of those in the first group, two questions were deemed similar, and a decision was made to combine them, as indicated by the asterisk in Table 4. The theming and streamlining of the Reading review tool resulted in 15 Decolonising Lens Questions and 11 Theoretical Questions, presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Decolonising lens and theoretical questions from Reading review tool.

	Decolonising lens questions	Theoretical questions
1	Are students encouraged and supported to familiarise themselves with the discipline’s origins and past?	1	Who has drawn on the knowledge created by GMH?
2*	Do students have opportunities to reflect on how knowledge in the discipline was defined in the first place, who were considered legitimate producers of knowledge, what knowledge claims were made and what epistemologies were employed? What principles, norms, values and world views inform your selection of knowledge for your curriculum? (think about absences as well as presences, centres as well as margins).	2	How has the knowledge created by GMH been used? How has GMH improved the world?
3	Are there opportunities to interrogate the canon of texts in the discipline – how and why certain bodies of knowledge were identified and marked as foundational?	3	Has GMH knowledge led in any way to further colonialism?
4	What ideas/figures/histories have been hidden/ excluded from the curriculum in this discipline? Why? How has this come about? What agenda has it served?	4	As we create new knowledge in GMH, how can we ensure this knowledge does not contribute to disadvantage or oppression?
5	How has our discipline/global progress been held back/compromised through exclusion?	5	How could you change the world for the better as a practitioner?
6	How will our discipline/global progress be further held back/compromised if we don’t change?	6	Is unequal distribution of power in the discipline explored?
7	What resources within your school/context are available to support decolonising the curriculum activities?	7	Have beliefs linked to white supremacy influenced GMH?
8	How does your teaching content fit within the overall programme structure and do decolonised approaches feature across the whole programme?	8	What changes need to be made and how can they be enacted?
9	What are your social identities and how does it influence your research methodologies and teaching philosophy?	9	Within the scope of your teaching/ subject matter, how might you engage colleagues and/or students to support decolonisation activities?
10	To what extent does your curriculum draw on subjugated histories, voices, cultures and languages?	10	How do your assumptions about curriculum knowledge play out in the criteria that you use to assess students? What can you do to make your assessment practices more fair and valid for all students, without inducing high levels of anxiety? What assessment methods could show what all students are capable of, drawing on their strengths and promoting their agency and creativity? How do you reimagine your assessment practices that will centre critical and decolonial literacies? (e.g. creating art, analysing text or research from your discipline and locating them in a power, socio-political context).
11	How does your teaching recognise and affirm the agency of Black and first-generation students? How does your teaching legitimate and respect their experiences and cultures?	11	For whom do you design your curriculum? Who is your ideal, imagined student and what assumptions do you make about their backgrounds, culture, languages and schooling?
12	Can you speak indigenous or regional languages and relate to the cultures and lived experiences of all students? Do you draw on these valuable resources in your teaching?
13	How does your curriculum level the playing field by requiring traditional/ white students to acquire the intellectual and cultural resources to function effectively in a plural society?
14	How do you build a learning community in your classroom where students learn actively from each other and draw on their own knowledge sources?
15	How far do your teaching and assessment methods allow students to feel included without assuming assimilation?

*Q2 is the combined question.

Phase 2. Applying the decolonising lens questions to themes and CSBD

IC held the 15 questions in mind as she progressed through the 10 weeks of Themes and CSBD online learning materials, documenting examples of good practice and recording issues requiring action. Where appropriate, IC offered potential solutions or signposted areas that could be explored. Ten examples of good practice were identified in the Themes course and 18 in CSBD, which is a testament to the previous work undertaken through the cyclical improvement approach. A total of 26 issues requiring action were identified. Table 5 shows three good practice examples and five issues that required consideration for each course.

Table 5.

Examples of good practice and issues requiring action reported with the associated question numbers.

	Good practice	Decolonising lens question	Issue requiring action	Decolonising lens question
CSBD	Week 1. The whole week discussed the role of unconscious bias in health care in terms of cultural norms.	Q1, Q2, Q10	Week 1. The learning materials highlighted the resilience demonstrated by Indigenous peoples, before discussing future priorities in mental healthcare provision for Indigenous populations. IC identified that specific examples of how Indigenous groups have demonstrated resilience could be acknowledged, with the priorities centred around them.	Q2, Q10
	Week 3. The learning materials discussed the ontology and epistemology of anthropology. The discussion encouraged students to understand which information is deemed foundational in that field and why.	Q2	Week 4. There was written and video content discussing wellbeing in Māori contexts. The videos were from the perspective of a White clinical psychologist, rather than a Māori individual. IC highlighted this should be recognised and reflected on in the learning materials, with an explanation as to why a White medical professional was speaking on behalf of Māori communities.	Q10, Q11
	Week 7. Students were prompted to consider how personal biases impact which information sources they trust. An explanation as to why not everything they read may be reliable was given.	Q2, Q3, Q8, Q9	Week 6. The focus of the week was epigenetics and biological perspectives of mental health disorders. While the last section of the week raised the limitations and biases of the field, it represented a very small proportion of the learning that week and largely consisted of additional reading and note-taking activities. IC suggested this may create the sense that the teaching team acknowledges critiques of epigenetics but ultimately favours its use. IC highlighted that some students may not engage with the tasks and fail to develop sufficient awareness of the criticisms of epigenetics. IC suggested more comprehensive materials on criticisms of epigenetics should be integrated.	Q1, Q2, Q3
			Week 9. An assessment tip encouraged students to reflect on problems surrounding universal definitions of resilience. IC recommended alternative perspectives on resilience be highlighted.	Q2, Q3, Q9
			Whole course. The World Health Organization (WHO) is referenced frequently in the learning materials. IC suggested an exploration of the extent to which the WHO follows Eurocentric paradigms.	Q1, Q2, Q3
Themes	Week 3. The learning materials considered traditional healers’ perspectives on epilepsy.	Q10	Week 3. The WHO’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) was introduced. IC suggested it would be valuable to consider if functioning and health mean the same to everyone and explore the backgrounds of those who created the ICF.	Q8
	Week 5. A note-taking activity on health inequities prompted students to discuss their thoughts with peers in relation to a country of interest. The task promotes dialogue and reflection on different opinions and realities.	Q7, Q8	Week 4. The whole week focuses on the connection between mental and physical health. The content is very medical, and statistics based. IC proposed it could be appropriate to consider the history of dualistically dividing health (i.e. mind/body split).	Q10
	Week 10. The week extensively discussed the knowledge base of the grand challenges in mental health, how they were decided, and highlighted the countries and percentage make-up of the deciding panel.	Q2, Q3	Week 4. An assessment tip challenged students to think about the health impacts of a list of structural issues including discrimination and poverty. However, colonialism was not included.	Q7, Q8
			Week 5. The materials discuss how a country’s wealth directly impacts the health of its population. IC suggested an acknowledgement of the role of colonisation in the creation of wealth and robbing of resources in LMICs.	Q7, Q8
			Week 6. A section introduced minority stress theory, but no lived experience or first-person accounts were provided to support or illustrate it.	Q10

Student workshop

A key strength of this project is that the lead reviewer (IC) was a course alumna. However, IC and all authors are White, female, and Scottish-educated. Decolonisation efforts are not targeted at improving the experiences or amplifying the voices of this demographic. Thus, the GMH team reached out to the diverse student body to garner their insights on tackling the issues identified by the Reading review. This was a deviation from normal curriculum development approaches (typically staff-led) that shifted the balance of power from the teaching team to the students. A further rationale for the workshop was that the staff-led developments had not yet been integrated into the live modules. Given the cruciality of decolonisation within GMH, the team considered it vital that this was incorporated into their curriculum.

A two-hour in-person workshop was scheduled for the seventh week of semester one, and all OC GMH students were invited to attend with a month’s notice. In addition to garnering insights, the workshop aimed to educate students about intellectual decolonisation and help them develop a critical lens so they could address related issues throughout their MSc and after graduation.

Twelve out of 49 students attended, three UK and nine international students. The nationalities reported (in alphabetical order) were American, British, Egyptian, Ghanaian, Indian, Indonesian, Irish, Nigerian, Scottish, and South African. Half spoke English as their first language. Other first languages included Arabic, Ghanaian, Hindi/Urdu, Bahasa Malaysia, and Indonesian native. Eight (66.7%) participants identified as female, three (25.0%) as male, and one (8.3%) as non-binary.

The workshop was planned and co-ordinated by LS, AF, and MW. To miminise potential barriers to students critically engaging with the learning materials, the facilitators were not routinely involved in face-to-face teaching. Staff-led developments introducing intellectual decolonisation and its importance for GMH practitioners were presented, and the Reading review was outlined, with good practice examples highlighted. However, beyond this, to align with CP and active learning principles, the time facilitators spent talking was minimal.

A pedagogical technique called repositioning was utilised to dismantle the power dynamics between the facilitators and attendees (Matthews, 2014). Repositioning involves facilitators relinquishing authority on a topic. Throughout the workshop, the facilitators made our team’s positionalities clear and emphasised our knowledge limitations, the novelty of intellectual decolonisation to us, and our need to learn from attendees. Reflective tasks were incorporated that encouraged students to recognise their positionality and the knowledge and ability they possess to help decolonise the curricula (Uddin, 2019). The facilitators also posed authentic questions, which are ones they do not know the answer to. This is another pedagogical technique that helps alter power relations by positioning the facilitators as co-learners (Matthews, 2014). The facilitators employed this technique by asking the attendees to work in groups to identify innovative ways to address some of the issues revealed by the Reading review. Each group was then asked to share their ideas with and receive feedback from the rest of the room.

To further disrupt the balance of power, the workshop was delivered with input from two Masters of Public Health (MPH) students (OO and AG) who had volunteered to support Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) developments through the School of Health and Wellbeing’s Athena SWAN network (Athena SWAN network, n.d.).

At the end of the workshop, students were invited to develop their ideas with staff support into new learning materials. They were informed that their contribution would be recognised in their university transcript as the EDI Athena SWAN award. Six students registered their interest.

Reflections on the positionality activity – The ideal childhood

One of the positionality activities involved presenting attendees with two hypothetical scenarios. In the first, they were delivered a single infant to raise. In the second, they were given responsibility by the WHO for 10 infants spread across the world. The attendees were instructed to consider how they would ensure each child’s happiness and long-term success. They had time for independent reflection before a group discussion.

Initially, three White students contributed to the discussion. The rest of the class was silent despite engagement prompts from the facilitators. It was noted that the priorities and protections for the 10 infants reported by the contributing students were more basic than those for the single child. The facilitators asked if this may be due to assumptions that the single child was ‘like you’ and the 10 children were from a low- or middle-income environment. Attendees were asked to reflect on why the fundamental needs would be different. It was highlighted that nobody had identified community, land, or spirituality/religion as a priority, yet this may be important to many communities.

At this point, a student who had been quiet expressed that they were from an Indigenous community in Indonesia and that their list had been so different from the contributors’ that they had not felt confident participating in the discussion. They said that it would be important for their child to learn about their culture, religion, and traditions. A second student reiterated this opinion, adding that they were concerned these discussions could homogenise the needs and wants of Indigenous peoples. They asserted also that no matter what they might want for their child to succeed, the impact of imperial powers ensures it is unachievable. These conversations demonstrate the challenges of creating a space where all ideas feel welcome and the difficulties of managing discussions to ensure a minority of voices do not dominate. They also provided the facilitators with first-hand experience of how easily the voices of those impacted by colonialism can be silenced or missed.

Student workshop feedback

Students were presented with a questionnaire at the start of the workshop that collected demographic information and determined their pre-existing knowledge about decolonisation. A second questionnaire at the end (linked by participant number) collected feedback about the workshop and student learning.

Eleven students provided information about their pre-existing knowledge of decolonisation. Before the workshop, four (36.4%) considered themselves to be very familiar, three (27.3%) indicated they had heard of decolonisation but were not overly familiar with it, and four (36.4%) reported being unfamiliar with the concept. The questionnaire prompted students to define decolonisation. Seven students provided a definition. Two definitions (28%) related to traditional ideas of decolonisation such as ‘when a state wants to break away from their colonial master… to gain full control of their legal rights’, and 5 (72%) alluded to processes of intellectual decolonisation in the desire ‘to reconstruct curriculums in a manner that is not euro-centric… account[ing] for cultural influences and alternative ideologies’.

The post-workshop questionnaire was partially completed by 10 attendees. All 10 responded to a question about whether the workshop had highlighted new information or discussed issues they had not previously considered. Of these, 90% indicated it had. Nine attendees responded to a question about the value of the workshop. Of these, 100% specified they found it extremely valuable. Eight participants provided additional written feedback. Common themes included new or deeper understandings of decolonisation, an appreciation of insights into different viewpoints, and opportunities to garner ‘insight into an important topic in education…[and] learn a lot about colonisation and decolonisation [to] challeng[e]… bias and understanding’. A knowledge focused evaluation was chosen as this student cohort had not had any exposure to the newly developed decolonisation materials at that point in their MSc journey. The workshop served as a means of evaluating the staff-led materials by assessing the learning gained, as well as engaging the student body in a novel way to disrupt the power dynamics between student and teacher.

Addressing issues and progressing decolonisation

Since the workshop, the teaching team have endeavoured to address the issues raised through the Reading review. Where possible, this has been achieved through additional student-staff partnerships. Post-workshop reflections have resulted in the categorisation of developments into three groups: Quick Fix, Bigger Fix, and Spotlight. Each type of development is detailed with an example in Table 6.

Table 6.

Definitions and examples of each development type.

Development type	Definition	Example
Quick fix	Quick fixes are small changes that can be efficiently implemented. They might involve changing a word, sentence, or paragraph or adding a task prompting reflection on how colonialism might relate to or influence an issue. Quick fixes reinforce the pervasive negative impacts of colonial ideologies but must occur alongside substantial changes to avoid tokenism (Moosavi, 2020).	In CSBD, the effect of the social determinants of health on child mental health outcomes was outlined. However, there was no overt discussion of the impact of racism. A short paragraph was developed that recognised how racism can affect child mental health outcomes.
Bigger fix	Bigger fixes are changes that require considerable overhaul and effort to be meaningfully implemented. They require planning and research before being integrated into the curriculum. The existing course content may need to be restructured to make space, and the impact of edits on students’ abilities to complete assessments must be considered.	In themes, minority stress theory was introduced and applied to migrant and refugee populations. However, no first-person accounts illustrated the application. A student (AG) collaborated with the teaching team to develop a case study of a migrant worker’s experiences in Qatar. The theory was used to explore how their mental health may have been impacted. Information on global migration trends and a critique of how colonialist practices have contributed to the increased stress experienced by migrants and refugees was also integrated.
Spotlight	The spotlight category includes issues that students should be aware of but that cannot be ‘fixed’ or fully explored within a 20-credit course without compromising the conciseness of the learning materials and the extent to which they align with the intended learning outcomes and support the undertaking of assessments. ‘Addressing’ a spotlight issue might involve adding an information box highlighting the problem to the learning materials.	The biopsychosocial model of health was developed by Western researchers. The appropriateness of applying it in non-Western contexts is questionable, as its core assumptions are likely rooted in knowledge influenced by colonialist ideology. However, to ensure students graduate with a degree that reflects and is relevant to the current field, the model remains a key component of the GMH coursework and assessments. An information box highlighting the likely relationship between colonialism and the model and the rationale for its continued use was embedded in the learning materials. The information box encourages students to critically reflect on the model during discussions and assessments.

Staff have largely actioned quick fixes and spotlights, while students have contributed to bigger fixes. Student-staff partnerships are time- and resource-intensive. Students require to be upskilled in producing materials appropriate for a Masters programme, which requires staff to provide feedback and support. Ideally, students should also be compensated for their time. Following the workshop, funding for this was reduced and the teaching team’s workload increased, diminishing their mentorship capacity. As a result, only the most motivated students contributed to the reported content developments. This included the MPH students who helped deliver the workshop and one workshop attendee assisted with the creation of videos spotlighting issues with mental health and related care in their home country.

Dissemination and partnership with the MPH programme

Intellectual decolonisation cannot be achieved by a single programme, school, or university. Efforts must spread across HEIs through changes in curriculum and assessment design, as well as research practices (Behari-Leak, 2019; Moosavi, 2020). We have endeavoured to inspire colleagues to initiate their own decolonisation journey. We have presented our work and published summaries internally for colleagues at the UoG (Sharp et al., 2024a, 2024c) and presented at national and international conferences (Sharp et al., 2024b, 2024d). Furthermore, we have supported colleagues and students within the MPH programme to commence a review of their curricula and have collated our learning to date into a good practice guide (Sharp et al., nd). The authors are able to provide additional supplementary material for readers detailing how content discussed in the paper has been applied in practice, please contact them directly if this would be helpful.

Future directions and closing reflections

The staff-led initiatives, Reading review, workshop, and student-staff partnerships have been valuable activities and learning experiences for everyone involved. However, limited funds meant the Reading review was confined to two modules, and a notable proportion of the identified issues remain unresolved (20/26 remaining). Future directions involve addressing these, expanding the review to all GMH courses, reflecting on the theoretical questions set aside at the beginning of the review, and refining and integrating the workshop into the core GMH programme, rather than offering it as an optional event.

Reflections on the workshop indicate several ways it could be improved. It was noted that attendees sat in racialised groups, an informal process referred to as micro-segregation within the classroom. Micro-segregation is argued to impede interracial discussions (Alexander and Tredoux, 2006), something paramount to decolonisation efforts and which may have contributed to the dominance of White voices during the positionality activity. Moving forward, we will explore ways of challenging micro-segregation and creating a platform where everyone feels confident contributing. One methodology to support balanced participation is Matthews’ (2014) three-person rule, where attendees are asked to wait until at least three people have spoken before they contribute further. Future feedback will move away from knowledge assessment and will evaluate the workshops’ ability to empower students and shift the balance of power.

Laville (2023), one of the authors of the Reading review tool, argues that decolonising efforts must expand beyond the tool’s focus on teaching and assessment. They identified three themes for future directions: (1) decolonising teaching and learning spaces, (2) promoting student-staff partnerships, and (3) funding decolonised research. Our team has initiated or is considering several scholarship projects that support the first two themes. These include building an online community for ODL students (1), creating an online equivalent of the workshop for ODL students through student consultation and partnership (1, 2), and piloting an Inspiring Movements for Progressive Action and Change Together (IMPACT) workshop to support students to engage in social justice campaigning (1, 2).

We also endeavour to expand the number and scope of student-staff partnerships as well as our partnerships with academics engaged in teaching and decolonising projects. Based on the required time and resources, we need to identify the most effective way to approach this. Funding is inconsistently available to compensate students, and the rapid and iterative nature of content development can make it challenging to involve them at every step. Ideally, students would contribute to several mini-projects to build pedagogical skills. However, their need to study and establish post-degree employment can make this challenging. Their academic and professional journeys should benefit from the experience, rather than being impeded by increased workloads. Additionally, irrespective of whether students collaborate with us on content development, we are cautious of burdening them by expanding the curriculum beyond the limits of an MSc programme. Following the integration of decolonised curricula, there should be a full review and streamlining of the online materials.

While student-staff partnerships are considered best practice, they are not always feasible for the reasons outlined. However, by integrating decolonised materials and running the workshop, it is hoped students will learn how to apply a decolonial lens throughout and beyond their degree so they can support the decolonisation process regardless.

The process of decolonising our curriculum to date has involved multiple strategies, including staff-led initiatives and collaborative practices such as the Reading review, student workshop, and student-staff partnerships. All have yielded valuable insights, but we remain at the start of the journey and must overcome funding limitations and resource constraints to continue and expand the work. The ultimate goal is to establish inclusive and equitable learning environments that empower students and staff to critically engage with the most pressing global health and societal issues. The approaches taken by the GMH team have been and will remain open to experimentation. We embark on them thoughtfully and reflexively and will continue seeking feedback from colleagues and students to ensure best practice.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the support of Dr Dimitar Karadzhov, Isla Campbell (IC – lead Reading Reviewer), Dr Samuel Owusu, Oluwatobi Oni (OO), and Asmita Gaire (AG) who have been hugely supportive in progressing components of the project to date.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors disclose receipt of financial support of £2724.55 from the University of Glasgow’s Learning and Teaching Development Fund to undertake the curriculum review, generation of good practice guide, and dissemination of this project. This was awarded on 18th May 2023.

Ethical statement

ORCID iDs

Laura Sharp

Ailsa Foley

Mia Wilson

Julie Langan Martin

References

Adedoyin

Soykan

(2023) Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments 31(2): 863–875.

Ajjawi

Tai

Boud

, et al. (2023) Assessment for Inclusion in Higher Education: Promoting Equity and Social Justice in Assessment. London and New York: Taylor & Francis.

Akçayır

(2018) The flipped classroom: a review of its advantages and challenges. Computers and Education 126: 334–345.

Akoleowo

VOO

(2021) Critical pedagogy, scholar activism and epistemic decolonisation. South African Journal of Philosophy 40(4): 436–451.

Albayrak-Aydemir

(2018) Diversity helps but decolonisation is the key to equality in higher education. Available at: https://lsepgcertcitl.wordpress.com/2018/04/16/diversity-helps-but-decolonisation-is-the-key-to-equality-in-higher-education/ (accessed 18 November 2024).

Alexander

Tredoux

(2006) The spaces between us: a spatial analysis of racial segregation amongst university students. Journal of Social Issues 60(2): 367–386.

Arday

Mirza

(eds) (2018) Dismantling Race in Higher Education: Racism, Whiteness and Decolonising the Academy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, Vol. 8.

Athena SWAN Network (n.d.) Athena SWAN in the School of Health & Wellbeing. University of Glasgow. Available at: https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/healthwellbeing/athenaswan/ (accessed 18 November 2024).

Begum

Saini

(2019) Decolonising the curriculum. Political Studies Review 17(2): 196–201.

10.

Behari-Leak

(2019) Decolonial turns, postcolonial shifts, and cultural connections: are we there yet? English Academy Review 36(1): 58–68.

11.

Bhambra

Gebrial

Nişancıoğlu

(2018) Decolonising the University. London: Pluto Press.

12.

Bracken

Fernando

Alsaraf

, et al. (2021) Decolonising the medical curriculum: psychiatry faces particular challenges. Anthropology & Medicine 28(4): 420–428.

13.

Campbell

Hawkins

Osman

(2021) Tackling Racial Inequalities in Assessment in Higher Education: A Multi-Disciplinary Case Study. Leicester: University of Leicester.

14.

Charles

(2019) Decolonizing the curriculum. Insights 32(1): 24.

15.

Evans

Vanden Bosch

Harrington

, et al. (2019) Flipping the classroom in health care higher education: a systematic review. Nurse Educator 44(2): 74–78.

16.

Ferguson

Coughlan

Egelandsdal

, et al. (2019) Innovating Pedagogy 2019: Open University Innovation Report 7. Report. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.

17.

Fernando

(2017) Institutional Racism in Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology: Race Matters in Mental Health. London: Palgrave Macmillan Cham.

18.

Foley

Wilson

Langan Martin

, et al. (2024) Ensuring equality, diversity, and inclusion in teaching: a case study of the application of Whose W.O.R.D.D. Counts? A tool to critically assess the diversity of curricula. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 12(3): 110–127.

19.

Foster

Shah

(2021) Framing and studying learning and identity in virtual learning environments: introduction to the special issue. The Journal of Experimental Education 89(3): 445–449.

20.

Hamed

Bradby

Ahlberg

, et al. (2022) Racism in healthcare: a scoping review. BMC Public Health 22(1): 988.

21.

Hooks

(1996) Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom. Journal of Leisure Research 28(4): 316.

22.

Karadzhov

Sharp

Langan Martin

(2021) Integrating disciplinary practices to optimally deliver alternative assessments and embed graduate attributes in a Global Mental Health Master’s programme. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice 9(1): 18–35.

23.

Keele University (2018) Keele decolonising the curriculum network. Available at: https://www.keele.ac.uk/equalitydiversity/equalityframeworksandactivities/equalityawardsandreports/equalityawards/raceequalitycharter/keeledecolonisingthecurriculumnetwork/#keele-manifesto-for-decolonising-the-curriculum (accessed 18 November 2024).

24.

Kohn

Reddy

(2024) Colonialism. In: Zalta

Nodelman

(eds) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Summer 2024 Edition. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/colonialism/ (accessed 18 November 2024).

25.

Lai

Hwang

(2016) A self-regulated flipped classroom approach to improving students’ learning performance in a mathematics course. Computers & Education 100: 126–140.

26.

Laville

(2023) Decolonising the curriculum at the university of Reading. Psychology Teaching Review 29(1): 56–59.

27.

Lewis

(2024) Transatlantic slave trade Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/transatlantic-slave-trade (accessed 18 November 2024).

28.

Littoz-Monnet

(2017) Production and uses of expertise by international bureaucracies. In: Littoz-Monnet

(ed) The Politics of Expertise in International Organizations. London: Routledge, 1–18.

29.

Lokugamage

Ahillan

Pathberiya

SDC

(2020) Decolonising ideas of healing in medical education. Journal of Medical Ethics 46(4): 265–272.

30.

Mamdani

(2019) Decolonising universitie. In: Halvorsen

Skare Orgeret

Krøvel

(eds) Sharing Knowledge Transforming Societies, 48–67.

31.

Matthews

(2014) Critical pedagogy in health education. Health Education Journal 73(5): 600–609.

32.

Meda

(2020) Decolonising the curriculum: students’ perspectives. Africa Education Review 17(2): 88–103.

33.

Michaels

Lam‐Hine

Nguyen

, et al. (2023) The water surrounding the iceberg: cultural racism and health inequities. The Milbank Quarterly 101(3): 768–814.

34.

Moosavi

(2020) The decolonial bandwagon and the dangers of intellectual decolonisation. International Review of Sociology 30(2): 332–354.

35.

Mosby

Millions

(2021) Canada’s residential schools were a horror Scientific American. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/canadas-residential-schools-were-a-horror/ (accessed 18 November 2024).

36.

Open University (2022) Whose W.O.R.D.D. counts? A tool to critically assess the extent to which diversity is embedded in course content. Available at: https://www5.open.ac.uk/equality-diversity/sites/www.open.ac.uk.equality-diversity/files/files/ecms/web-content/whose-word-counts.pdf (accessed 18 November 2024).

37.

Sharonova

Trubnikova

Erokhova

, et al. (2018) Intellectual colonialism and national education systems. European Scientific Language Journal 11(2): 338–351.

38.

Sharp

Langan Martin

Foley

, et al. (2024c) Taking steps to initiate the decolonisation of the global mental health MSc. In: The University of Glasgow Decolonising the Curriculum Community of Practice, Glasgow, UK, 29 January 2024.

39.

Sharp

Langan Martin

Foley

, et al. (2024d) ‘Dare to decolonise: a (rather messy) roadmap for educators’ [conference presentation]. The 5th Barcelona Conference on Education, Barcelona, Spain, 12–16 November 2024.

40.

Sharp

Langan Martin

Foley

, et al. Working document: ‘Good practice guide: initiating the process of decolonising the curriculum’. Available at: https://rise.articulate.com/share/8NmVFv6-MttoUG6-opVAjVSgif-ZeNiQ (accessed 18 November 2024).

41.

Sharp

Karadzhov

Langan Martin

(2018) The curious case of blended learning: an evaluation of a curriculum innovation in the global mental health master’s programme. Journal of Medical Education 17(3): 149–159.

42.

Sharp

Karadzhov

Paterson

(2022) Gathering feedback. In: Hughes

Langan Martin

(eds). Teaching Psychiatry to Undergraduates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 162–167.

43.

Sharp

Foley

Wilson

, et al. (2024a) Initiating the process of decolonising the teaching materials (in Global Mental Health) In: School of Health and Wellbeing Away Day, Glasgow, UK, 25 April 2024.

44.

Sharp

Foley

Wilson

, et al. (2024b) Initiating the process of decolonising the teaching materials (in Global Mental Health) In: Equity in Education and Society Conference, Edinburgh, UK, 2 May 2024.

45.

Tierney

(2020) Who’s in charge? Teacher authority and navigating the dialogical-based classroom. Reinventing pedagogy of the oppressed. In: Kirylo

(ed) Reinventing Pedagogy of the Oppressed: Contemporary Critical Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 105–114.

46.

Uddin

(2019) Critical pedagogy and its implication in the classroom. Journal of Underrepresented & Minority Progress 3(2): 109–119.

47.

University of Essex (2024) Library & cultural services: what is decolonisation? Available at: https://library.essex.ac.uk/edi/whatisdecolonisation (accessed 18 November 2024).

48.

University of Glasgow School of Health & Wellbeing (2021) Improving the Experience of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Students in Higher Education: A Conference Report. Report. Glasgow, UK, August: University of Glasgow.

49.

University of Reading (n.d.) Decolonising the Curriculum resources. University of Reading: Diversity and Inclusion. Available at: https://www.reading.ac.uk/diversity/-/media/project/functions/diversity/documents/resources-to-decolonise-curriculum.pdf?la=en&hash=ECBACCB2F702F549243CAFDABC64F0A3, In press.

50.

Virdee

Taylor

Cassie

(2021) Understanding Racism, Transforming University Cultures. Report. Glasgow, UK: University of Glasgow.

51.

Williams

Lawrence

Davis

(2019) Racism and health: evidence and needed research. Annual Review of Public Health 40(1): 105–125.

52.

Wingate

(2015) Academic literacy and student diversity: the case for inclusive practice. In: Volume 42 of New Perspectives on Language and Education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.