Decolonising management education? a multi-stakeholder analysis

Abstract

Calls to decolonise the curriculum in South Africa became screams during the #FeesMustFall and #RhodesMustFall movements in 2015 and 2016. Universities superficially scrambled to respond to these screams. However, five years later, many universities, especially in management education1, seem unable to make head or tail of what it means to decolonise the curriculum. The main aim of this research study was to construct theory regarding decolonising management education and thereby contribute to the broader discourse on decolonising higher education in general. Three main objectives were formulated in this study: to conduct qualitative interviews with a range of direct stakeholders of management education; to formulate provisional theories grounded in these inductive interviews; and to critically evaluate and build on existing theories to construct a conceptual framework on decolonising management education. Using Charmaz’s (2006) “constructivist grounded theory” research design, 31 unstructured interviews were conducted with various management education stakeholders. These stakeholders included master’s students, management academics, academic managers, recruitment specialists and three outliers. The following research question was posed to participants: “how might the call to decolonise higher education apply to management education?” Other sub-questions that evolved from the main question revolved around the meaning of decolonisation, how to decolonise, barriers to decolonisation, race, collaboration, globalisation, Africanisation, Western standards and African inferiority. All 31 interviews were conducted using online platforms and they were transcribed thereafter. 1 In this thesis, “management education” is seen as the teaching of management as a particular discipline of higher education. This teaching predominantly takes place in business schools and management faculties. It should not be confused with the management of education or education management.

The data analysis and interpretation were informed by Charmaz’s (2006) three-step process of data coding, which involves initial open coding, focused coding and theoretical coding. Five main themes emerged regarding decolonising management education. These were the meaning of and rationale for decolonising management education; approaches to decolonise management education; impediments of decolonisation; Western standards versus African inferiority; and globalisation versus Africanisation. From these main themes, six key topics were discussed extensively in the following order: globalisation and Africanisation, race, meaning of and rationale for decolonisation, capitalism, Lekgotla, as well as critical pedagogy. The study concluded by constructing a conceptual framework to present substantive theory on how to decolonise management education. Reynolds’s (1999b) definition of critical pedagogy underpinned the development of the conceptual framework, and five steps were proposed to decolonise management. The first step involves questioning assumptions in management education, and the second addresses ‘surfacing’ coloniality and capitalism. Step 3 is related to confronting and revealing the effect of coloniality and capitalism on society, while Step 4 involves conducting Lekgotla to generate solutions. The final step, Step 5, is to Africanise. This framework provides a starting point for management scholars to respond to the call to decolonise the curriculum.