Moving Towards Inclusive History Education?

Eurocentrism and androcentrism

According to a growing body of academic research, history teaching continues to be characterised by Eurocentrism (viewing the world from a European perspective) and androcentrism (viewing the world from a male perspective). In addition, history teaching touches on sensitive and controversial topics, such as colonialism, migration and inequality. Both students and staff have expressed concerns about representation, accessibility and classroom dynamics.

Survey among students and lecturers

The researchers analysed the curriculum, conducted interviews with students in focus groups and sent a questionnaire to staff regarding teaching content and practices. In doing so, they looked specifically at: the extent to which perspectives from the Global South are represented, gender diversity, and whether teaching methods are inclusive. The teaching was assessed both in terms of subject content (literature, case studies, examples, discussion questions) and pedagogy (how communication takes place), looking at aspects such as gender-inclusive language, teaching style and how this was experienced by students, and whether they felt safe enough to express themselves.

Little time and little say

The findings confirm a familiar pattern: teaching remains heavily focused on European and American perspectives, and female researchers are under-represented in the research projects allocated. Many lecturers report that they are given too little time to reform or update their courses and their content. Furthermore, seminar tutors are often keen to make their lessons more inclusive, but have little say over the course – the structure has already been determined by the coordinator.

More inclusive history teaching requires more than just good intentions. It requires shared visions and objectives within the programme, practical support for teachers and coordinated leadership. This project was intended to reflect on diversity in history education and the dominant voices within it, but it also served as a mirror: it highlighted that we must also be critical of ourselves and that there is still room for improvement in many areas.

In doing so, this article contributes to discussions on inclusivity and equity and offers useful insights for lecturers and policymakers working towards a more inclusive higher education.