Decolonizing Higher Education in Norway: Critical Collaborative Autoethnographic Reflections on a University Pedagogy Course

Introduction

Globally, there are increasing efforts in academia to centralize the importance of decolonizing curriculum and pedagogical practice in higher education institutions (HEI), where recent work carried out in South Africa, the US, Canada, the UK, and the Netherlands are but a few examples (e.g., Bhambra et al., 2018; Shahjahan et al., 2022; Tight, 2022; Zembylas, 2018). However in Norway, even though internationalization (Gunnes et al., 2017; Statistics Norway, 2023), diversity and inclusion are highly regarded values in higher education (HE) and legislation (e.g., the Norwegian Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act, 2018; the Norwegian University and University Colleges Act, 2005), efforts towards decolonial change and transformation of curriculum and pedagogical practice in HE have been scarce and met with great resistance (cf. Eriksen, 2021; Høiskar, 2020). Important contributions specifically in the area of HE are the pedagogical toolkit of the Norwegian Students’ and Academics’ International Assistance Fund (2020) and the collaborative autoethnography by Eriksen et al. (2023), as well as, in a Nordic context, Velásquez Atehortúa (2020) and Suárez-Krabbe (2012), while within the wider field of education and academia in the Nordic countries there are recent works such as Eriksen and Svendsen (2020b), Dankertsen (2021) and Fjellheim (2020).

Historically, HEIs have had an important role in the grounding of Western systems of knowledge production and thus in the perpetuation of coloniality (Shahjahan et al., 2022). However in Norway, European colonial history is mainly considered something that Norway (and the wider Nordic region) is excepted from (e.g., Dankertsen, 2021; Eriksen & Svendsen, 2020a; Keskinen et al., 2009). Yet the Norwegian state is by no means exempt from the global logic of coloniality. Being a bearer of the colonial Western-modern knowledge tradition, a colonizer both internationally (e.g., Keskinen et al., 2009; Kjerland & Bertelsen, 2014) and domestically—of the Sámi and other colonized or minoritized peoples (i.e. most of the Norwegian national minorities)—and having a legacy of scientifically legitimized state racism through its Norwegianization policy (Minde, 2005; Norwegian Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2023), coloniality is proven to be part of the Norwegian state’s institutionalized national historical legacy. The recent report of the Norwegian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2023) actualizes Tuck and Yang’s (2012) argument that decolonization is not a metaphor but is inseparable from the settler colonial logic. However, this national historical legacy is often obscured in both academic and public debates, contributing to a lack of knowledge about the historical and contemporary continuous colonization and racism in Norwegian society. Recent initiatives have shown the urgency of making Indigenous knowledge and knowledge of the Sámi visible in research and HE (Dankertsen, 2019, 2021; Eriksen, 2021; Fjellheim, 2020; Students’ and Academics’ International Assistance Fund, 2020). Furthermore, Norwegian lecturers remain predominantly white/Western and there is a relative lack of teachers from minority groups in tenured positions and within fields such as educational science (Askvik & Drange, 2019; Thomas & Fylkesnes, forthcoming). A study by Thomas and Fylkesnes (forthcoming) confirms the lack of non-white authors in Norwegian curricula for teacher education. Internationalization of HEIs in Norway (Gunnes et al., 2017) and the increasingly heterogeneous student body (Statistics Norway, 2023) call for meeting students’ demands to recognize epistemic diversity, not only for its own sake (cf. Gopal, 2021), but moreover to meet the decolonial reparative demands of transformation and the inseparable aspects of cognitive and social justice, as well as academic soundness (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2019; Santos, 2014).

Understanding university teacher education (henceforth “learning and teaching in higher education” (LTHE)) as a driver of educational transformation, this article contributes to a new body of research on decolonizing LTHE in Norway, in particular, and decolonizing Norwegian and other Scandinavian HEIs, more generally. Thus, the aim of this article is twofold: (1) to gain critical reflective insight into how our own initial work on the module in decolonizing LTHE itself could possibly have persisting aspects of colonialization; and (2) to initiate a transformation of the module in line with decolonial theory for the inspiration of scholarly colleagues in other HEIs. Taking critical collaborative autoethnographic methodology (Adams, 2017; Chang, 2016; Blalock & Akehi, 2018; Eriksen et al., 2023) and decolonial theory (e.g., Gopal, 2021; Mignolo, 2003; Santos, 2014) as our point of departure for reflecting on the syllabus of the newly developed module on decolonization and pedagogical practice for teaching staff at a Norwegian university college, we critically discuss and question the potency of our own roles—being two middle-aged white cis-men and one middle-aged cis-woman, all lecturers with expertise mainly in decolonial theories, decolonial learning and teaching practices, and critical whiteness and critical discourse analysis perspectives—in changing and transforming the ways that Western ontology and epistemology prevail in our pedagogical practices. We also address the implications for university pedagogy courses with respect to future decolonizing efforts in HEIs in Norway.

The article is structured as follows: First, we outline the Norwegian context of LTHE and briefly describe the university pedagogy module analyzed in the article. Second, we define and discuss decolonial theory related to HE with a point of departure in the concept of modernity/coloniality (Mignolo, 2003; Quijano, 1992), and we support our claim that decolonizing HE is relevant also in a Norwegian context. Third, we discuss critical collaborative autoethnography as our methodology and present the data and the steps we took to critically reflect upon the module syllabus. Fourth, we present the analysis and the findings of our discussion in light of decolonial theory. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings and point to how a LTHE course on decolonization at a Norwegian university college could possibly be translated into a larger process of decolonizing wider curriculum and pedagogical practice in HE, beyond our local context.

Context: University pedagogy in Norway and the local LTHE module

In Norway, as in many other European countries, educational training programs for academics have been offered since the 1960s. LTHE courses are directed towards teaching staff and typically comprise courses in university pedagogy, but may also include workshops, lectures, and other activities on related themes (Lycke & Handal, 2018). The purpose of LTHE courses is typically to enhance the quality of the education and qualify academic staff for their work as lecturers.

While academic development initiatives may take place on different levels of the organization, LTHE courses in Norway are often centralized, focused on ongoing professional development (supporting the process of change through reflection), and on individual practice (cf. Amundsen & Wilson, 2012; Trowler & Bamber, 2005). As such, academic development through LTHE courses can be seen as a two-step process, where individual change in the mind of the lecturer is supposed to lead to a change in the pedagogical practice, which may (or may not) produce enhanced student learning and a change in the students (Amundsen & Wilson, 2012; Trowler & Bamber, 2005).

In early 2023, two of the authors of this article, Fredrik and Jørgen, developed a module in two parts, entitled “Decolonization and Pedagogical Practice, Module I–II”, with Module I ready for launch in autumn 2023 and Module II in spring 2024 at Østfold University College. The aim of the module was to offer pedagogical development for teaching staff, focusing particularly on introducing participants to decolonial theory and encouraging them to incorporate decolonizing pedagogies in their own LTHE practices. Importantly, the module is not part of the compulsory 15 ECTS credit qualification LTHE program for all new teaching staff at the institution (cf. Lycke & Handal, 2018; Trowler & Bamber, 2005), but is offered as an optional course open to academics in Norway. Each part of the module corresponds to a workload of 20 hours and is structured with one on-campus meeting and one webinar. While Module I focuses on the participants’ meta-reflections on their own practice, Module II includes the implementation of a small development project intended to actually create decolonial pedagogical transformation in the participants’ own pedagogical LTHE-related activities.

Decolonial theory and HE

Decolonization has different meanings for different people in different contexts (cf. Shahjahan et al., 2022). Zembylas (2018) points to how two common ideas of decolonization are about (1) the urge to resist Eurocentrism and acknowledge the contributions of colonized peoples, and (2) a moral imperative for righting the wrongs of colonial domination, including social justice for people affected by coloniality. The theoretical framework of this article takes its standpoint in Quijano’s (cf. 1992) concept of modernity/coloniality, as further developed by Mignolo (cf. 2003). The Latin American concept of modernity/coloniality refers to 500 years of unequal power relations, starting with the colonization of the Americas, a process that is seen as inseparable from the formation of European modernity during the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods and the existing capitalist world economy (cf. Maldonado-Torres, 2011). Even though colonialism officially ended with the political liberation of the former European colonies during the 19^th and 20^th centuries, coloniality—the underlying logic or matrix of power (Quijano, 1992)—is still defining the modern world (Maldonado-Torres, 2007; Mignolo, 2003). For Quijano (1992), coloniality is the shadowy side of modernity and its discourse on progress and civilization. The center of the matrix of coloniality is race, racism, and racialization: the modern forms of domination, hierarchization, and the exploitation of some human beings for the benefit of other human beings (Quijano, 1992; Walsh, 2012). A central point concerning the concept of modernity/coloniality is that there is no general epistemology. On the contrary, the production of knowledge is geohistorically grounded in the colonial matrix of power, even if some knowledge has been presented as universal (i.e. Eurocentric rational knowledge) (Quijano, 1992)—as local histories imposed as global designs (Delgado & Romero, 2000; Mignolo, 2003). Based on this colonial worldview, the university is understood as a privileged site for the production of knowledge, with the power to decide what (or whose) knowledge counts as legitimate or not. Ever since the 16^th century, the Western university has been complicit in “epistemicides”—the death of knowledge related to the extermination of subordinated cultures and social groups—of, for instance, Indigenous people, not only in the conquest and colonization of the Americas (Grosfoguel, 2013; Santos, 2012), but worldwide, including the Global North (cf. Minde, 2005).

For Zembylas (2018), decolonization means “challenging all forms of coloniality that still persist in HE and that are complicit in colonial oppression” (p. 3). As Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2019) argues, in line with Santos (2014) and the notion of “epistemologies of the South”, the struggle of social justice is inseparable from the struggle of cognitive justice (decentering the colonial knowledge regimes and recognizing the knowledge production of the dominated) and epistemic diversity (opening up for a plurality of knowledges to co-exist). Cognitive justice can even be seen as a prerequisite for other forms of liberation (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2019). In their review of global interdisciplinary literature on decolonizing HE curriculum and pedagogy, Shahjahan et al. (2022) discern four general ways of carrying out this endeavor: (1) critiquing and probing the positionality of knowledge in educational processes; (2) constructing an inclusive curriculum beyond dominating knowledge systems; (3) creating environments that foster relational teaching and learning; and (4) connecting HEIs with community and socio-political movements. Mindful of not wanting to reproduce the colonial logic of universality, Shahjahan et al. (2022) suggest avoiding “best practices” approaches to decolonizing curriculum and pedagogy, and recommend instead paying attention to the local contexts of diverse disciplinary, cultural, and geographic contexts.

As outlined in the introduction, Norway, as well as the rest of the Nordic states, is in no way peripheral to the colonial logic outlined above (e.g., Eriksen & Svendsen, 2020a; Suárez-Krabbe, 2012). Apart from having established small colonies overseas during the Denmark-Norway union, Norwegian companies participated with success in the profitable colonial trade (Kjerland & Bertelsen, 2014; Norwegian Students’ and Academics’ International Assistance Fund, 2020), which even brought wealth to a small town like Halden—currently home to one of the two campuses of Østfold University College—through its national monopoly, together with Bergen, on the sugar refinery business (Hove, 2017). Domestically, the policy of Norwegianization and its epistemicide of Indigenous and other minoritized groups’ knowledge was at the time viewed as a modernization project, something that highlights how modernity and coloniality are intimately entwined (Minde, 2005; Norwegian Students’ and Academics’ International Assistance Fund, 2020).

Tuck and Yang’s (2012) reminder that decolonization is not a metaphor is useful for understanding the Sámi in their relation to the nation state (cf. Dankertsen, 2021; Norwegian Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2023). From an Indigenous Studies perspective, Tuck and Yang (2012) highlight the dangers of an academic domestication of “decolonization” as it is used metaphorically to describe efforts to promote diversity and inclusion, and clarify how decolonization is not a metaphor of symbolic or rhetorical substance, but something that involves real, tangible anticolonial political and social strategies and actions (cf. Simpson, 2004), such as the restoration of land, knowledge, and other properties to Indigenous peoples, as well as the dismantling of structures that perpetuate colonial dominance. In the light of the Norwegian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2023), Norwegian HEIs could have a role in fostering a reconciled society, embracing a multitude of voices and forms of expression within academic institutions to cultivate an environment that not only seeks knowledge but also values the diverse ways in which that knowledge can be shared, understood, and applied (Jørstad, 2023).

Methodology

In this study, we draw on critical collaborative autoethnography (Adams, 2017; Blalock & Akehi, 2018; Chang, 2016; Eriksen et al., 2023). This methodology allows us to be both researchers and researched, to self-reflect on our emotions, thoughts, and beliefs related to our personal experiences (Keleş, 2022) of decolonizing LTHE, and to enable metacognitive critical reflections of those experiences. Thus, the methodology can to a greater extent ensure a double research process (Delamont, 2009; Eriksen, 2020; Pillow, 2015; Țîștea, 2020), potentially leading to decolonial transformative LTHE practices in our work on the module (Blalock & Akehi, 2018). In the process of working with this methodology, we draw heavily on the framework of Andreotti et al. (2015) which describes four spaces of enunciation as a response to coloniality: (1) “everything is awesome” space; (2) soft-reform space; (3) radical-reform space; and (4) beyond-reform space. While the first space does not recognize decolonization as a desirable project and, thus, no decolonizing practices are needed, the “soft-reform space” suggests the increased and conditional inclusion into mainstream academia of previously underrepresented groups. The “radical-reform space”, which recognizes epistemological dominance, calls for recognition, representation, and redistribution to empower marginalized groups with a voice and resources. The “beyond-reform space”, which brings a recognition of ontological hegemony, demands a dismantling of the systematic violence of the shadowy side of modernity (Mignolo, 2003; Quijano, 1992) through subversive educational use of spaces and resources. In line with these perspectives, we critically reflected on the syllabus of the newly designed LTHE module (Decolonization and Pedagogical Practice, Module I–II). Our aim was twofold yet interconnected. Firstly, we wanted to gain insight into how our own initial work on the module in decolonizing LTHE itself possibly had persisting aspects of colonization. Secondly, we wanted to initiate a decolonial transformation of the module, which, as stated before, is to be implemented in 2023–2024, from a soft-reform space to include a more radical-reform space (Andreotti et al., 2015), with (if possible) elements of beyond-reform space in it.

Analysis

With the module on decolonizing LTHE, and in accordance with the decolonial theory outlined above, we want to challenge the participants to potentially modify their curricula, pedagogical practice and related activities, and work towards more cognitive justice (by decentering the existing colonial knowledge regimes and recognizing the knowledge production of the dominated) and more epistemic diversity (by opening up for a plurality of knowledges to co-exist). Our implicit invitation through the module is to encourage critical reflection on our positionality as educators and even as individuals. When Fredrik and Jørgen initially crafted the module, they intended it to serve as a catalyst for change and personal transformation. The full extent of these ambitions may not have been wholly comprehended during the creation of the module syllabus within the institutional framework. Nonetheless, the module symbolizes a wish to instigate radical change (cf. Andreotti et al., 2015). We resolved to subject our module to the same stringent evaluation we would expect from our future participants.

The conversation between the authors, outlined in the following paragraphs and exemplified by quotes, demonstrated multiple topics simultaneously. It emphasized the diverse viewpoints within our group and the importance of constructively challenging one another to provoke more insightful responses. Jørgen confessed to feeling challenged by several questions, finding them irrelevant or overly theoretical, and at times detached from the purpose of communicating with peers. Meanwhile, Sandra pointed out a series of significant omissions that undermined the goal of initiating change.

In the following paragraphs, the quotes from the syllabus are written with indents only, while the quotes from the written conversation between the authors are written with indents and in italics.

Discussion

In this article, we have discussed the initial process of decolonizing a LTHE module for teaching staff at a Norwegian university college. With a point of departure in decolonial theory and critical collaborative autoethnography, the aim of the article was to gain critical reflective insight into our own work on the module in decolonizing LTHE and how this possibly had persisting aspects of colonization, as well as to initiate a transformation of the module more in line with our decolonial aspirations.

Despite our ambitions for the module to challenge the participants to create pedagogical change and encourage critical reflection on our own colonial positionalities, the critical conversations between Sandra and the two authors responsible for the module (Fredrik and Jørgen) made clear how we, as white academics in Norway, are shaped within a Western tradition and how the institutional frames, local cultures, and disciplinary traditions may be limiting for changes within a radical-reform or beyond-reform space (cf. Andreotti et al., 2015). Two major lacunae in the current syllabus are the rationale for the module and a clear definition of what we mean by decolonizing HE in our local and national context. Besides, the focus on the predominantly white academic’s awareness-raising and introspection needs to be complemented with relational perspectives and the practice of listening to silenced Others through invited lecturers, not least bringing in existing Indigenous Studies from a Sámi context (e.g. Dankertsen, 2019, 2021; Kuokkanen, 2000; Minde, 2005). Furthermore, recognizing how language-use matters in decolonizing attempts and how the conversations enabled Fredrik and Jørgen to initiate critical metacognitive self-reflections on terminology, such as the term “awareness”, ensured not only a double research process (Delamont, 2009; Eriksen, 2020; Pillow, 2015; Țîștea, 2020), but also a LTHE pedagogical process, hopefully leading them towards more decolonial transformative LTHE practices (Blalock & Akehi, 2018), including vocabulary from other knowledge systems.

As the assignment of the second part of the module is to plan and implement a pedagogical change towards decolonization in the participants’ own subjects, the article can potentially serve as an example of how such development work could initially be performed in practice. Thus, the results can be used to further develop the module and serve as inspiration for teaching staff in their attempts to decolonize HE through their own pedagogical practice and related activities. However, as Trowler and Bamber (2005) remind us, the individual teacher may have limited space to implement changes, as the departmental, disciplinary, and institutional contexts tend to constrain new practices. Not all academic development initiatives lead to learning that is subsequently reflected in teaching and student learning, because the process can be seen as “a dynamic interplay, among individual, disciplinary, and organizational elements and mediated by the reflection on action” (Amundsen & Wilson, 2012, p. 110). Furthermore, the development process may result in different outcomes for different faculty members, something that we did not consider when planning the module (Amundsen & Wilson, 2012). The participants may act as precursors in their departments, but we acknowledge that a successful decolonial intervention would also need to be broader (for instance, by incorporating decolonial perspectives into the compulsory LTHE course for newly appointed teaching staff) and aimed at other levels beyond the individual lecturer (for example, as professional development workshops offered to departments, faculties, and institutions).

As a way of undoing coloniality, decolonizing HE means recognizing the constraints of monocultural perspectives and hierarchies in the discipline, constructing an inclusive curriculum beyond Western epistemic hegemony, and creating LTHE environments that encourage more relational pedagogical practices, both on the individual, the disciplinary and the institutional levels, as well as in collaboration with the local community. We argue, along with Gopal (2021), that posing “the right questions for each context is itself part of the work of intellectual decolonisation” (p. 881). Drawing on the distinction between inward and outward-facing strategies (Shahjahan et al., 2022), we suggest that decolonizing curriculum and pedagogy in a Norwegian HEI context will include processes of diversification (including a critical scrutiny of institutionalized Whiteness), and inward-facing Indigenization, that is, strategies targeting changes within HEIs, such as curricular and pedagogical shifts, and bringing in Indigenous knowledge systems.

Author declaration

Fredrik Olsson contributed to the conceptualization of the article, contributed to the investigation and formal analysis and had a lead role in the writing and editing of all parts of the manuscript, including theory development.

Sandra Fylkesnes initiated the idea of the article and its methodology, contributed to its conceptualization and methodological development, and took part in reviewing, critically commenting on, editing and writing all parts of the manuscript.

Jørgen Sørlie Yri contributed to the conceptualization of the formal analysis, participated in the investigation and in writing the analysis. Sørlie Yri initiated, and together with Olsson co-developed the module on decolonizing university pedagogy, which, influenced by Fylkesnes’ critical comments, became the main focus of the article.