Decolonizing the Hegemonic Curriculum: Towards an Inclusive Curriculum from the Global South

Abstract

Achieving social inclusion is one of the significant purposes of education; however, although there are advances in regulations, the persistence of structural inequality in Latin America, and the predominance of colonial approaches in the construction of knowledge, both hinder the achievement of authentic inclusion. In this sense, this research, carried out in a Global South university (Ecuador), analyzes the academic thinking on the issue of inclusion and curricular change as a means of including students in a decolonizing epistemic perspective. From a qualitative perspective, the interpretation and analysis of academic narratives, embedded within the conceptual and contextual framework that determines their experiences, show that academics do not appreciate an adequate gender perspective, an inclusive vision, or decolonized knowledge in current university curricula. Most participants see the need to move toward a curricular vision from the Global South that provides more proximate, contextual, and diverse knowledge—in short, one that is socially inclusive.

1. Introduction

From various international organizations such as the UN, ECLAC, WHO, OECD, UNICEF, and UNESCO, urgent and justified calls for social inclusion have been made for the benefit of divergences, inequalities, and social diversities that escape from the patriarchal and colonial models that the history of privilege and power have established. Inclusion is a complex, deep, and interrelated conceptualization that, in the academic field, has not been fully understood or answered in its full scope, essentially because of its deep interconnections. Social inclusion cannot be subdivided into parcels or compartments, because attention to disability, gender, race, migration, social class, or cultural divergences does not represent isolated social spaces. Social exclusion arises, in the first place, from economic and political structures, which emerged in spaces of power and privilege. Therefore, inequality and patriarchalism underpin exclusion in society, the environment, and culture, and often efforts to suppress them do not go beyond norms and protocols that, descending from higher structures, do not develop. This formal and superficial practice causes the emergence of the so-called microinequalities or microdiscriminations, which manage to pass the filter of political correctness and erode opportunities for inclusion. To conduct the analysis of the causes of exclusion in higher education, among students, and among academics, we have carried out this research. The culture of privilege, the sexual division of labor, the unjust social organization of care, and the concentration of financial power imply that hierarchical relationships are established in the public sphere by diluting opportunities and leading young people to compete for increasingly exploited and disadvantaged career paths. Combating inequality and the lack of opportunities for those who are apart from the neoliberal and patriarchal patterns that are preserved in universities is not a partial mission but must encompass the entire framework of academia.

In the case of the university, social inclusion requires the creation of a welcoming environment where maximum effort can be made to enroll, admit, and guide the person or population to be included. In addition to facilitating access for students without any kind of discrimination, it means providing them with opportunities for performance and success. These opportunities, for their good performance, require coherent and consistent inclusion policies in universities; such policies must converge towards intersectionality. These university policies must affect the entire structure of knowledge that is found in universities. In the case we are focusing on, this analysis seeks to investigate the design of curricula that allow the recognition and respect of identities and differences [1,2], and this places us in the decolonial perspective. This study focuses on the problem of decolonizing the curriculum of the Universidad Central del Ecuador (UCE) in Quito.

The main objective centers on the problem of decolonizing the curriculum of the Universidad Central del Ecuador (UCE) in Quito as a means of achieving a more authentic and contextualized inclusion. For this aim, we intend to understand and analyze, through the voices of academics, what the current academic thinking is on the decolonization of curricula, and which perspectives, identified in the conceptual framework, are most understood and inscribed by academics.

1.1. The Hegemonic Perspectives of the North

In the words of Lander [3], everything that the university offers—knowledge, research, published journals, the system of evaluation, and recognition of academics, standardization—reflects the vision of the North. But what do we mean by the North? Grosfoguel [4] synthesizes the features of the hegemonic North as a capitalist, patriarchal, Eurocentric, Christian, and modernist space; in short, a colonial system. He also warns that “the north is reluctant to share in the concentration and accumulation of wealth produced by the non-European labor of the south after centuries of exploitation and domination of the latter by the former” [5]. The consequences of colonialism have been endured through indigenous genocide, land dispossession, slavery, exploitation, ecocide, white imperialism, heteropatriarchal vision, anti-immigration policies, gender-based violence, war, and continued meddling. In universities, exclusion has remained through the hegemonic knowledge that nourishes and sustains inequality.

Hogan and Patrick [6], presenting Carnegie’s Global Order and Institutions program, highlight the concept of the “Global South” as a descriptor of adherence between postcolonial and developing countries in the world order; although the concept encompasses a series of nations that differ markedly from each other, they are united by being the dispossessed in this international order. The Global South has resonated with governments and citizens in low- and middle-income countries as an expression of perceived exclusion and rejection from the North. This problem arises when capitalist oligarchies are unable to take significant advantage in their own countries by resorting to the subordination structure of the former colonies to continue the destructive process that imposed the force of the colonizers on what was colonized. Based on Hobson’s thesis [7], the end of colonization did not imply altering the structural subordination of the former colonies to the former metropolises, much less returning the stolen wealth and resources. Fanon [8] argued that the dehumanizing process of colonialism had created a world that naturalized the superiority of the colonizer and the inferiority of the colonized. On the other hand, the lack of industrialization and the persistence of poverty in developing countries undoubtedly stemmed from the unequal structure of the world economy. According to this theory, the countries of the “periphery” are in a state of dependency because they mainly export raw materials to the powerful countries of the global “center,” which then export value-added manufactured goods to the periphery. Echoing decades of political activism, leaders in the Global South are forcefully articulating a desire to realign the global order away from Western dominance.

1.2. The Decolonial Turn

According to Abu Moghli and Kadiwal [9], at the beginning of the twenty-first century, decolonial academic thought was intensified in Latin America by configuring a political and epistemological project in the face of global capitalism, which Quijano [10] defines as coloniality. Thanks to the debate between figures such as Dussel [11], Dussel and Fornazzari [12], Quijano and Ennis [13], Maldonado-Torres [14] and others that will be cited, perspectives that shape the intersectionality of decoloniality are being configured. For Mignolo [15], coloniality is a consequence of the negative effects of modernity used by white Europeans in the control of lands and resources, which led to modernism’s knowledge production being stacked on top of racism and epistemic dominance. Mignolo and Walsh [16] refer to decoloniality as the continuous interrogation of the knowledge structures of power to find out who has elaborated them and why. Maldonado-Torres [14] develops the concept, including others, such as the decolonization of knowledge, power, and being, in the process.

Today, universal knowledge represents a Western-centric, objective, and generalizable worldview, often viewed as neutral. But decolonial knowledge challenges this, identifying Western knowledge as a colonial construct that marginalizes indigenous and local perspectives, arguing instead for epistemic pluralism or “pluriversality”—the acknowledgment of multiple valid ways of knowing (Eybers, 2019) [17]. Universal knowledge claims to be independent of context, whereas decolonial thought argues all knowledge is situated, contextual, and deeply linked to power structures.

Decolonial theorists argue that universalism is a Western ideology imposed globally, leading to “epistemicide”—the erasure of non-Western knowledge systems. The democratization of scientific knowledge, as recommended by UNESCO (2017) [18], requires a paradigm shift: justice, inclusion, and human rights must be the foundations of scientific ecosystems. The supposed universalism of knowledge is appreciated as a concentration of knowledge, generated by a small group of countries (G20 countries), as highlighted in UNESCO reports [19].

The crucial issue lies in the continuous interrogation of knowledge structures because when power structures select certain knowledge or pay to produce such knowledge and not other forms, we must confront them with critical thinking that allows us to situate these structures within a space of equity or inequality.

Schultz et al. [20] define their decolonial vision as the achievement of the ontological and epistemic detachment from Western modernity represented by Anglo-Europeanism and capital. It is therefore necessary to become aware of the roots of the epistemological hegemony of the global North. Andreotti et al. [21] argue that only this awareness can lead to the redistribution and reappropriation of human, material and knowledge resources. Finally, the structural view of the current system as “Intrinsically violent, exploitative, and unsustainable” [21] can break the circle and subvert the system through education. We can argue that our conceptual framework is based on the consideration that all social phenomena depend on the political and economic structure of the environment. Since we inhabit a structural and intersectional space, the university reflects the society in which it is immersed, a social structure governed and regulated by economic and political power [22].

From this standpoint, decolonization includes interrelated systems of hegemonic control, such as patriarchy, racism, the control of knowledge, politics, and economics, which sustain colonial institutional structures [15]. North and South positionality allows colonial debates in a joint vision [23,24]. In short, decolonizing is both to subvert and produce contextualized and situated knowledge, positioned as a deconstruction of asymmetrical power relations in academia, resulting in a socio-political movement that can succeed in suppressing a colonial curricular legacy.

Lindsay [25] reminds us that the curriculum has always been manipulated by those who hold power and funding in their own interests. These implicit and hidden decisions are masked as justifiable and naturalized. Therefore, the decolonization of curricula is a task of ideological deconstruction; it is not merely about adding more perspectives, voices, and diversity. It is not even a question of verifying the excesses of patriotic or nationalist narratives in education, but of making a complete revolution in terms of who makes the curricular decisions that affect a nation, and how and why they are made.

Given the complexity of the concept of the decolonial turn, we find it necessary to explain its characteristics in depth and breadth. Depending on the authors and their contexts, perspectives are configured that underline certain characteristics while other visions are grouped around other characteristics.

• The social and inclusive perspective, which is a defender of human rights, social justice, and equal opportunities for all. It does not go so far as to underline a powerful structural and deconstructive decolonial perspective.

Abu Moghli and Kadiwal [9] fear that, while appreciating the intention of European universities to decolonize and diversify the canon, decolonization in the academic environment is becoming an empty, diluted, and depoliticized expression that allows for superficial representations that do not address racial, political, and socio-economic intersections. This requires real political will, a change in the structure and mentality of those in decision-making positions, and a change in the practices of knowledge production. Angyagre and Hannam [26], in the conclusions of the Cultures of Decolonization at UCL group (London), ask themselves whether the efforts at UCL constitute decolonization or if they are more focused on inclusivity in a generic way. We can say that this question is common at the beginning of decolonial processes in Europe.

2.

Perspectives focused on confronting the neoliberal thinking of Europe and the United States mainly and contesting the hegemony of academic and scientific power of the Global North.

For Picoli and Guilherme [27], neoliberalism should be understood as a network of policies, ideologies, values, and rationalities. These policies, characterized by the reduction of taxes, the reduction of public budgets, the privatization of public assets, the commodification of relationships, the deregulation of the banking system, and the relaxation of labor laws, began to be applied with force in the 1980s. Neoliberalism dismantled the welfare state, the system based on state-regulated capitalism, and the basic services that were established after World War II. In the Global South, neoliberalism demolished autonomous economic development strategies by breaking social alliances around them. In the context of the vulnerability of the Global South, it achieved control of the economy (appropriation, exploitation, and control of labor and natural resources), control of authority (institutions, the army), and also interference in the control of gender and sexuality (family, education), and in the regulation of subjectivity and knowledge (epistemology) by controlling educational discourse to inculcate its values regarding individual success (self-determination) and freedom of choice in business relationships between the individual and others. The aforementioned authors Picoli & Guilherme [27] attribute to the neoliberal concept the type of education where citizens accept the system and believe in the opportunities that personal effort will bring them, even though statistics show that the working class, immigrants, and other groups do not achieve the educational goals achieved by the most privileged ones. Thus, through the deregulation, decentralization, and autonomy-privatization of universities, the idea of change towards the flexibility of institutions is sold, and at the same time a standardized evaluation process is instituted through competitive training for privileges [28]. In the case of teachers, the parameters of access and promotion also follow neoliberal patterns: rankings, accreditations by agencies, quantitative evaluations, bibliometrics, and impacts [29]. The identification of redistribution and recognition strategies in institutions, according to Sandoval [1], can help identify false inclusion policies. Thus, neoliberalism, which is present in universities, seeks equal access, but is always limited to the parameters established by the neoliberal system itself.

3.

Perspectives contrary to the perpetuation of colonization and the difficulty of affirming the identity of the subjugated. They include thought in favor of the values of indigenism.

In the Latin American region as a whole, neoliberal policies were applied in Ecuador, although in some cases these were partially slowed down by popular resistance actions. The mark left by the neoliberal period (1980–2006) on the Ecuadorian curriculum has overcome criticism and remains to this day.

4.

The manifest and notorious structural and intersectional perspective.

Structural inequalities come from relations of power inequality in vulnerable contexts and imply a reduction in opportunities for sets of identities different from the identities that occupy power, for example, ethnicity or sexual orientation. The recognition of the inequality of power and privilege is central to the concept of intersectionality. Structural inequality means that in society there are certain groups that have been systematically and historically excluded from their rights, accumulating disadvantages over time. The order established by power in the Global North deepens these conditions of historical exclusion. The structural perspective defines exclusion as a political, economic, and social unwilling, and a dangerous issue. Exclusion as a result of a certain socio-political structure can lead to disaster. The intersectionality of discrimination defines a structure crossed and intertwined by vulnerability gaps and differences through which the opportunities and rights of the dispossessed disappear [23]. The structural perspective applied to the university, its structures, cultures, and practices considers curricular change insufficient and advocates a total intersectional change in universities.

Hall et al. [30] argue that decolonizing work involves acting on the university as a whole. Their argument focuses on “diversifying structures, cultures, and practices: decentralize the production of dominant knowledge; devaluate hierarchies and revaluate relationality; divestment from power structures; attenuate the predominant voices and magnify the silenced ones”. The authors argue that those who work in hegemonic spaces must try to dismantle Eurocentrism and cultures of whiteness without falling into ignorance, inertia, or wasting energy on unprofitable efforts. Hayes, Luckett, and Misiaszekc [31] also denounce the supremacy of Eurocentric epistemologies and the possibilities and complexities of the decolonization process. Currently, there are networks and groups in a position of institutional critique of cultures, curricula, and pedagogical practices that still maintain today a thought inherited from colonization. In an attempt to take a turn that affects the university as an institution, Guzmán Valenzuela [32] identifies six positions in universities in Latin America: economic, political, cultural, epistemological, relational, and ecological. According to the author, all these spaces require high levels of academic reflection to discern the ways in which they are shaped by history, power, culture, and identity of colonization. Critical and situated reading is needed not only for formal knowledge, but it is also necessary to consider tacit, embodied, phenomenological, and experiential knowledge, and it also requires ethical judgments about what is possible and what must be resisted. In short, there are different positions that proclaim the need to deconstruct the current idea of the university and introduce new premises.

Based on the perspectives presented, it has been intended to learn, through the voices of university professors, what the current thinking is on the decolonization of curricula. To this end, a case study has been undertaken in a Latin American university. The purpose has been to analyze which of the perspectives described above is most understood and accepted by faculty. The research questions have thus been formulated as follows:

• Do current curricula include a perspective of social inclusion and gender in the opinion of academics?
• Do the curricula reflect a vision of science from the countries of the Global North (Europe and the United States) too much, according to UCE academics?
• Do UCE faculty members aspire to find the presence of knowledge from the South in their curricula as a support for their cultural identity?
• What changes would UCE academics introduce in university education to contribute to the inclusion of social, ethnic, and gender equity?

2. Materials and Methods

The study analyzes, based on the voluntary voices of a group of UCE academic staff, the issue of curricular change for inclusion in a decolonizing environment. Faculty were invited to participate openly, voluntarily, and anonymously. The participants were 40 academics, including several in executive positions. Participation was agreed to and conditional upon ensuring anonymity. This privacy requirement has limited the demographic presentation. UCE is a historic university, and all academics know each other; we cannot risk disclosing data such as faculty affiliations, years of service, positions, responsibilities, or other relevant information. With a qualitative approach [33], this research has used a guided interview with open questions, in which docents were able to expand their voices, thoughts, and opinions in open responses. Data collection was conducted via the Internet. The researcher from UCE sent us the anonymous participant surveys in a single file, which have been kept at the UA. The fact that the responses collected at UCE were sent to the UA improved privacy. In thesis research or projects with many participants, we have used the AQUAD 7 program for qualitative data management. In this case, that is, not a thesis, we used the Aquad methodology, but we designed an instrument of categorization and codification based not only on participants’ particular answers as the Aquad program does, but also on the specific context and conceptual framework that are inherent in the research questions. Conceptual perspective and specific situation were the key to interpretation, as the foundational authors Denzin and Lincoln [34] recommended.

The interview questions are correlated with the research questions. The key methodological step is to interpret the meanings that arise from personal narratives and to develop an effective and objective tool for categorizing and codifying. In this process, the complete set of stories is systematically reflected by trying to distinguish meanings that allow a coherent structure of categories, codes, and subcodes. Interpretation involves matching the meanings of voices with research questions to shape categories, while established conceptual and contextual frameworks provide guidance in this search for meanings. Both the meanings and the research questions help us develop the codes and establish the subcodes as a researcher’s reflection on the different responses of the participants. Also, the context of the participants has been explored in detail since the interpretation must be situated within the contextual fabric.

In short, the researchers read and reread the interviews, elucidated, and discussed them until they agreed on the interpretations of the voices. It is a triangulation work and a very recursive one. Due to the heuristic nature of the methodology, process revisions are frequent until a perfect consistency between codes and meanings is found [35].

The research enquiries were specified in the following interview questions:

• Do UCE faculty members believe that the curricula they teach include a social perspective?
• Do UCE faculty members consider that the curricula maintain a current gender perspective or are they patriarchal and reinforce traditional gender roles?
• Do UCE faculty members think that the curricula reflect an excessive vision of science from the countries of the Global North (Europe and the United States)?
• Would UCE faculty members appreciate the presence of knowledge from the South in the curricula?
• Do UCE faculty members feel recognized as Latin American in the curricula they teach?
• What changes would UCE academics introduce in education to contribute to social, ethnic, and gender equity?

The themes of each question are used to mark the categories used in the analysis of the participants’ responses to the interview. In this way, each category contains three codes that inscribe (1) the clear and positive presence of the question theme in the participant’s narrative answer, (2) the insufficient and sometimes contradictory presence, or (3) the total absence of the theme.

Category 1. Social perspective of curriculum

In this category, the three codes indicate whether the program contains a social perspective, whether this perspective is incomplete, partial or contradictory, or does not contain it at all. The subcodes show some subtle differences, nuances or gradients; for example, “curriculum does not contain social vision due to lack of critical, intersectional perspective, or by perspectives of liberal capitalism”.

Category 2. Gender-responsive curricula

The three codes inscribe the presence of the gender perspective: partial, contradictory, and the absence of a gender perspective. The partial code contains subcodes that interpret distinctions among the codes.

Category 3. Curriculum vision from the Global North

In this category, three codes are referred to: Code 3.1 Contains the vision of the Global North; Code 3.2 Partially from the North; and Code 3.3 The view of the North is not a negative thing.

Category 4. Curriculum Vision from the Global South

It contains the codes of necessary presence, not necessary, and partial presence.

Category 5. Vision of the South in which I can recognize myself

Three codes emerge: recognition, non-recognition, and partial recognition. The subcodes express the differentiated causes for which the participants subscribe to some code.

Category 6. Proposed changes

It is divided into three codes: 6.1 Political changes, 6.2 Changes towards an inclusive comprehensive perspective, and 6.3 Changes that offer comprehensive teacher education.

3. Results

Once the process of interpretation, codification, and subcoding, by which in each narrative a meaning emerges to be analyzed, is complete, we present the results together. This section shows the narrative-based findings for each of the study’s six categories. In each case, we show the absolute frequency (AF)—which refers to the number of times that the participant narratives fall within a particular code—and its percentage (AF%)—which is calculated using the formula AF × 100/Total AF. The aim is visualized, and the results are presented in the tables (See Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7), but the configuration of results is based on meanings. The narrative units that best exemplified each code were selected and added to the presentation.

Category 1. Social Perspective of Curriculum

Table 1. Category 1.

Category 1. Social Perspective of Curriculum
	AF	AF (%)
Code 1.1 The career contains a social perspective	29	41.43%
Code 1.2 Partial or contradictory social perspective
Subcode 1.2.1 Needs more training in critical and inclusive perspective	16	22.86%
Subcode 1.2.2 Isolated effort in some subjects	5	7.14%
Code 1.3 Does not contain a social perspective	20	28.57%
TOTAL	70	100%

Table 1. Category 1.

Category 1. Social Perspective of Curriculum
	AF	AF (%)
Code 1.1 The career contains a social perspective	29	41.43%
Code 1.2 Partial or contradictory social perspective
Subcode 1.2.1 Needs more training in critical and inclusive perspective	16	22.86%
Subcode 1.2.2 Isolated effort in some subjects	5	7.14%
Code 1.3 Does not contain a social perspective	20	28.57%
TOTAL	70	100%

We can observe that if we combine the narratives of participants who do not observe a social perspective in the programs where they teach with the narratives located in code 1.2 Partial or contradictory social perspective, we find a greater presence of narratives that deny the social vision envisioned by the university.

Code 1.1 Contains social perspective.

Examples:

“Yes, I believe that the curricula plans and curricula of the teaching of English as a foreign language career include a social perspective because the teaching of a language is deeply linked to culture, identity, and social dynamics, which implies constant reflection on social issues, such as diversity, inclusion, and respect for cultural differences.”

P001

Code 1.2 Partial or contradictory social perspective.

Subcode 1.2.1 Greater training of teachers in the critical, inclusive, and comprehensive perspective is needed:

“The depth and focus of this social perspective can vary significantly depending on the institution and the specific context in which it is taught, and even the materials that are used in the teaching-learning processes and the educational philosophy of the teacher.”

P001

“This [social perspective] is not enough because it places a lot of emphasis on theory, forgetting the importance of practice.”

P011

Subcode 1.2.2 Isolated efforts in some subjects (by teachers who are very involved in this):

“However, isolated efforts are made by a few teachers who look at education with a transformative perspective.”

P010

1.2.3 Does not contain mainly due to lack of critical, intersectional/liberal capitalist perspectives:

“… I consider that the curricula plans and curricula do not include reflections on social inequalities, inclusive pedagogical methods, and a decolonizing approach, so I can affirm that curriculum does not include a social or decolonizing perspective.”

P010

“No. Because the critical perspective of the career is increasingly blurred and adjusted to make it more functional both to the business objectives and to those of institutional stability of the system”.

P009

Category 2. Gender-responsive curricula

Table 2. Category 2.

Category 2. Gender-Responsive Curricula
	AF	AF%
Code 2.1 Contains a gender perspective	6	5.13%
Code 2.2 Partial or contradictory perspective
Subcode 2.2.1 Insufficient	7	5.98%
Subcode 2.2.2 Institutionally shaped	10	8.55%
Subcode 2.2.3 No structural perspective	27	23.08%
Subcode 2.2.4 Isolated effort	9	7.69%
Code 2.3 Does not contain
Subcode 2.3.1 Maintain, replicate, strengthen, and naturalize roles and stereotypes	48	41.03%
Subcode 2.3.2 Lack of teacher training and attitudes	10	8.55%
TOTAL	117	100%

Table 2. Category 2.

Category 2. Gender-Responsive Curricula
	AF	AF%
Code 2.1 Contains a gender perspective	6	5.13%
Code 2.2 Partial or contradictory perspective
Subcode 2.2.1 Insufficient	7	5.98%
Subcode 2.2.2 Institutionally shaped	10	8.55%
Subcode 2.2.3 No structural perspective	27	23.08%
Subcode 2.2.4 Isolated effort	9	7.69%
Code 2.3 Does not contain
Subcode 2.3.1 Maintain, replicate, strengthen, and naturalize roles and stereotypes	48	41.03%
Subcode 2.3.2 Lack of teacher training and attitudes	10	8.55%
TOTAL	117	100%

An example of the Code 2.1 Contains a gender perspective.

“It is assumed that “Yes” in Social Sciences, Humanities, and Health Sciences”.

P020

Subcode 2.2.1 Insufficient. More training in critical and equitable perspectives is needed:

“Currently, there is a subject called “Feminist theories”, in which the gender perspective and the various contributions of the feminist movement are discussed and reflected. However, the mere existence of this subject does not transform patriarchal culture and traditional gender roles.”

P011

Subcode 2.2.2 Institutionally (without reaching parity in managerial staff, or institutional practical application):

“I am surprised that gender parity stipulated in the law in the FAG is not respected, since the five authorities of the faculty are men, so it is as if what is taught is not preached.”

P030

“On the one hand, the discourse in favor of women’s rights and other sectors is included much more quickly than a set of practices consistent with it.”

P026

“Although institutions may claim to be addressing gender issues, in many cases, these actions are superficial and do not generate a real change in the mentality or in the educational structure.”

P037

Subcode 2.2.3 No structural or intersectional perspective/naturalization and neoliberal perspective:

“Although gender-responsive content has been introduced, it is not always integrated across all areas of study, limiting the ability to challenge gender-related power structures.”

P028

Subcode 2.2.4 Isolated efforts by committed teachers (inclusion of women scientists in subjects):

“Rather, there are efforts by some teachers to incorporate the gender approach, although I believe that there is no dialogue with the meaning of professional training.”

P027

Subcode 2.3.1 Maintain, replicate, strengthen, and naturalize roles and stereotypes:

“Scientific construction does not question patriarchal relations and reproduce schemes of intercultural, social, and historical inequities where gender inequalities appear invisible.”

P035

Subcode 2.3.2 Lack of teacher training and attitudes:

“Most teachers do not know what gender is, much less are they going to apply a gender perspective in the curriculum. I think it is appropriate to start a debate in the university on the incorporation of the subject of gender perspective”.

P024

Category 3. Vision of the North

The Global North—the United States and Europe—has historically dominated the production of knowledge. This has shaped a colonial vision influenced by structures of power and knowledge. As long as the Global North maintains a monopoly and/or control over science and technology, over financial resources, over natural resources, and over media, the South, so fragmented, will not have the opportunity to dispute the discourse and construction of science.

Table 3. Category 3.

Category 3. Northern Vision
	AF	AF%
Code 3.1 Contains the vision of the Global North.
Subcode 3.1. 1 Hegemony of academic and scientific power of the North.	36	29.51%
Subcode 3.1.2 Biased view. Instrumental, liberal, capitalist vision.	33	27.05%
Subcode 3.1.3 Lack of opportunities in the South to participate in the construction of Knowledge.	46	37.70%
Code 3.2 Not negative.
Subcode 3.2.1 Universality of knowledge.	5	4.10%
Subcode 3.2.2. No vision of the North.	2	1.64%
TOTAL	122	100%

Table 3. Category 3.

Category 3. Northern Vision
	AF	AF%
Code 3.1 Contains the vision of the Global North.
Subcode 3.1. 1 Hegemony of academic and scientific power of the North.	36	29.51%
Subcode 3.1.2 Biased view. Instrumental, liberal, capitalist vision.	33	27.05%
Subcode 3.1.3 Lack of opportunities in the South to participate in the construction of Knowledge.	46	37.70%
Code 3.2 Not negative.
Subcode 3.2.1 Universality of knowledge.	5	4.10%
Subcode 3.2.2. No vision of the North.	2	1.64%
TOTAL	122	100%

Code 3.1 Contains the vision of the Global North.

Examples:

Subcode 3.1.1 Hegemony of academic and scientific power of Northern regions.

“This is due to the academic and scientific hegemony of these regions, which have historically dominated the production of knowledge in many disciplines.”

P001

“On the other hand, it must be identified that the vision of science in the Western world is instrumental, its development is marked by virtue of the flows of capital that derive from financial speculation.”

P009

Subcode 3.1.2 Analyses of the situation in the countries of the Global South are answered from the theories of the North. Biased vision. Instrumental, liberal, capitalist vision.

“Added to this is the fact that, in many institutions, visions of the countries of the Global North are adopted because they are a model to follow, but do not fit with the reality of the contexts and conjunctures of our countries of the south.”

P001

“This indicates a bias towards a Eurocentric perspective, marginalizing and making invisible the ancestral knowledge of our peoples and ethnic groups; ignoring the knowledge generated in the South, as well as local knowledges, imprinting a clear sign of a sectarian vision.”

P010

“This has meant that analyses of the situation in the countries of the Global South tend to respond to or be read from theories of the North.”

P012

Subcode 3.1.3 Lack of opportunities for the South to participate in the construction of knowledge/low level and follow the patterns of the North:

“That the very structure of science has been consolidated in a patriarchal way; therefore, the knowledge associated with the countries of the Global South was relegated to the position of conquered ones, which are third-world countries and labor force for capital. This has meant that analyses of the situation in the countries of the Global South tend to respond to or be read from theories of the North.”

P012

“In many programs, the main bibliography and theoretical references usually come from authors and schools of thought in the Global North. This reflects a historical dependence on the scientific and academic paradigms developed in those contexts, which may limit the inclusion of local or regional perspectives and knowledge.”

P013

“As long as the Global North maintains a monopoly and/or control over science and technology, over financial resources, over natural resources, over weapons of mass destruction, and over the media; unfortunately, the (fragmented) South will not have the possibility of disputing the discourse and construction of science.”

P017

Code 3.2 Not negative.

Subcode 3.2.1 It is necessary for the better scientific development of the North. Universality of knowledge:

“In my opinion, it does not present an excessive Anglo-Saxon or European vision, but rather its content is adjusted to the reality and needs of the country, which does not mean that in the essence, they address the contents of these countries given the nature of the development of science in them.”

P007

“I believe that we review concepts and proposals from the Global North, because we produce very little at the level of the Global South, which is not to say that we do not have essential contributions from the Global South, since our problem is that we do not produce written knowledge for the world.”

P39

3.2.2 No North View (only 1 person).

Category 4. Vision of the Global South

Table 4. Category 4.

Category 4. Vision of the Global South
	AF	AF%
Code 4.1 I would like the vision of the Global South
Subcode 4.1.1 Closer, more contextual and diverse vision	42	41.18%
Subcode 4.1.2 Contribution from the roots	33	32.35%
Subcode 4.1.3 Contributes to questioning the hegemony of the North	17	16.67%
Subcode 4.1.4 Requires debate and commitment of those involved and political will	4	3.92%
Code 4.2 Not required/universal knowledge	6	5.88%
TOTAL	102	100%

Table 4. Category 4.

Category 4. Vision of the Global South
	AF	AF%
Code 4.1 I would like the vision of the Global South
Subcode 4.1.1 Closer, more contextual and diverse vision	42	41.18%
Subcode 4.1.2 Contribution from the roots	33	32.35%
Subcode 4.1.3 Contributes to questioning the hegemony of the North	17	16.67%
Subcode 4.1.4 Requires debate and commitment of those involved and political will	4	3.92%
Code 4.2 Not required/universal knowledge	6	5.88%
TOTAL	102	100%

Code 4.1 I would like the vision of the Global South/I could recognize myself.

Subcode 4.1.1. It would offer a closer, more contextual, and diverse vision.

“Yes, it recognizes the representation and visibility of the cultures of the South, it addresses problems and challenges specific to the regions of the South.”

P004

“Of course it would, since this would allow educational practices to be better aligned with the realities and needs of local communities, thus promoting a greater appreciation of our own cultures and knowledge. In addition, it would be possible to have a more critical and balanced vision of the world based on the reality of our own context.”

P003

“Yes, I think that the very structure of science has been consolidated in a patriarchal way; therefore, the knowledge associated with the countries of the Global South was relegated to the position of conquered, which are third-world countries and labor for capital.”

P012

Subcode 4.1.2 Contribution from the roots (of various ethnic groups, genders, and social classes in Ecuador: indigenous languages, worldviews, and forms of knowledge).

“Yes, I think it is important not only to add the knowledge of the Global South, but to start from it for the understanding of our reality because we are in a country of the Global South, marked by coloniality and racism where social problems are related to our historical and geographical situation”.

P011

“Yes… it is necessary to recover ancestral knowledges that are indispensable at the present time, since the human being has detached himself from nature.”

P002

“There is a strong movement that promotes the decolonization of thought, which implies recognizing new imaginaries related to creativity, affectivity, collectivity, peaceful coexistence, harmony with nature, spirituality, and ethics of life, among others”.

P016

“It is essential that educational processes be carried out in mother tongues, that the particular techniques that our peoples have to provide solutions to the different aspects of daily life be recognized: irrigation systems, agricultural production systems, management of forests and moors, care of water and land, holistic conceptions and practices of health, community, and associative production systems”.

P017

Subcode 4.1.3 I would contribute to questioning and challenging the hegemony of knowledge in the Global North.

“Knowledge from the South should be included as a form of resistance to intellectual colonialism, which has historically imposed a Eurocentric vision of the world, marginalizing other ways of understanding and knowing.”

P010

“However, this happens through the construction of knowledge of thoughts, methodologies, and strategies built from alternative and insurgent paradigms.”

P35

Subcode 4.1.4 It requires political will and resources from governments; it requires debate and commitment from those involved.

“(…) and commitment of those we are currently educating”.

P001

“In internal debates in the program, the need for a decolonial education has been raised, although it remains an aspect on which more work and analysis is required”.

P26

“The essential thing is not to create a contradiction with the North; but to seek mechanisms to dialogue in knowledge from the South with the South and with the North, from the South to produce and share more.”

P39

“(…) However, this depends largely on the commitment of each teacher”.

Subcode 4.1.6 “In the curricula plans as such, a Latin American and national vision is presented in a reduced way. It is an orientation that deserves to be strengthened with greater insistence”. P026.

Code 4.2 Not required. Universal knowledge/we must open ourselves to everyone.

“I think that, in many academic disciplines, including economics, social sciences, and other fields, it is common for curricula to be influenced by the approaches developed in the countries of the North or by the provisions of the supervisory authorities of Higher Education”.

P018

“The world is globalized and today it is important to have a broad vision not only of the knowledge from the South, but from the entire world, there are many positive things to learn from each side.”

P006

Category 5. Recognition. A vision of the South in which I can recognize myself.

Table 5. Category 5.

Category 5. Recognition. A Vision of the South in Which I Can Recognize Myself
	AF	AF%
Code 5.1 I recognize myself
Subcode 5.1.1 I would like and could recognize myself	18	27.27%
Subcode 5.1.2 I appreciate the growing efforts to adapt the curriculum to the vision of the South	7	10.61%
Subcode 5.1.3 I prefer dialogue between knowledges	8	12.12%
Code 5.2 I do not recognize myself
Subcode 5.2.1 Does not answer/does not understand/does not justify	8	12.12%
Subcode 5.2.2 For Eurocentric and liberal perspectives on Northern inclusion	15	22.73%
Subcode 5.2.3 For the perpetuation of colonization and the lack of identity	10	15.15%
TOTAL	66	100%

Table 5. Category 5.

Category 5. Recognition. A Vision of the South in Which I Can Recognize Myself
	AF	AF%
Code 5.1 I recognize myself
Subcode 5.1.1 I would like and could recognize myself	18	27.27%
Subcode 5.1.2 I appreciate the growing efforts to adapt the curriculum to the vision of the South	7	10.61%
Subcode 5.1.3 I prefer dialogue between knowledges	8	12.12%
Code 5.2 I do not recognize myself
Subcode 5.2.1 Does not answer/does not understand/does not justify	8	12.12%
Subcode 5.2.2 For Eurocentric and liberal perspectives on Northern inclusion	15	22.73%
Subcode 5.2.3 For the perpetuation of colonization and the lack of identity	10	15.15%
TOTAL	66	100%

Code Examples 5.1

Subcode 5.1.1 I would like and could recognize myself in an adequate and contextual vision of the South:

“When context and flexibility are important as part of the quality to understand who we are and how to solve problems from us, we are acknowledging our origin.”

P032

Subcode 5.1.2 I see increasing efforts to adapt curricula to the perspectives of the South:

“However, there are growing efforts to integrate more content that addresses issues relevant to Latin America, although there is still a long way to go for these issues to be addressed in a more consistent and in-depth manner.”

P001

“Obviously, as representative figures, at some point their contributions to the educational system and pedagogy are recognized.”

5.1.2

(…) “but, the problem, as in almost all branches of science, its contributions, and its thought are not part of the academic corpus.”

P017

Subcode 5.1.3 I prefer dialogue between knowledges:

“Not to separate ourselves from peoples from other countries of the South or the North, but to establish our cultural essence in a more consolidated way.”

P034

“The world is globalized and today it is important to have a broad vision not only of the knowledge of the South, but of the whole world; there are many positive things to learn from each side.”

P006

“By recognizing and valuing the diversity of knowledge, a fairer education is promoted, which responds to the needs and realities of a globalized and diverse world.”

P010

Code 5.2 I do not recognize myself.

Subcode 5.2.1 Does not answer/does not understand/does not consider it/does not justify:

“I don’t usually consider my recognition as a Latin American in any space.”

P015

Subcode 5.2.2 “No, because of the Eurocentric and liberal perspectives of inclusion from Northern perspectives.”

“Faculty made efforts to include subjects from the Latin American historical context; but the new generations of teachers have been moving them towards a technical and mercantilist approach.”

Pa028

Subcode 5.2.3 Because of the perpetuation of colonization and the lack of identity:

“Although there are efforts to include local case studies and authors, most of the content is still based on alien contexts, making it difficult to develop a sense of identity and belonging.”

P027

As an observation about the curricular vision, Category 3 (Curriculum vision of the Global North), Category 4 (Curriculum vision of the Global South), and Category 5 (Recognition. A vision of the South in which I can recognize myself) contain subcodes relating to the acceptance of the current curriculum, which is very similar to the curricula of the Global North for various reasons, and very low but similar percentages can be observed in the table. We cannot identify the professors’ departments and faculties to protect their anonymity, but we could say that the percentage of participants from the Sciences group compared to the Humanities and Social Sciences was lower. However, we observed consistency in the responses, as we can show:

Table 6. Relational Table.

Subcodes that favor the vision of the North	FA	FA%
Code 3.2 Not negative North vision Subcode 3.2.1 Universality of knowledge	5	4.10%
Category 4 Vision of the Global South Code 4.2 No required change/universal knowledge	6	5.88%
Code 5.1 I recognize myself Subcode 5.1.3 I prefer dialogue between knowledges	8	12.12%

Table 6. Relational Table.

Subcodes that favor the vision of the North	FA	FA%
Code 3.2 Not negative North vision Subcode 3.2.1 Universality of knowledge	5	4.10%
Category 4 Vision of the Global South Code 4.2 No required change/universal knowledge	6	5.88%
Code 5.1 I recognize myself Subcode 5.1.3 I prefer dialogue between knowledges	8	12.12%

Category 6. Proposed changes

Table 7. Category 6.

Category 6. Proposed Changes
	AF	AF%
Code 6.1 Political changes
Subcode 6.1.1 State policy to promote equity	21	11.17%
Subcode 6.1.2 Need for budget and political will	12	6.38%
Subcode 6.1.3 Participation and discussion of all stakeholders in curriculum change design	16	8.51%
Code 6.2 Changes in perspective
Subcode 6.2.1 Curricula from and for diverse indigenous peoples	29	15.43%
Subcode 6.2.2 From a perspective of guarantee and respect for human tights	8	4.26%
Subcode 6.2.3 From a gender perspective	12	6.38%
Subcode 6.2.4 From equal opportunities	10	5.32%
Subcode 6.2.5 From an intersectional structural perspective	17	9.04%
Code 6.3 Changes in comprehensive teacher training
Subcode 6.3.1 Training teachers for communication and participation	13	6.91%
Subcode 6.3.2 Training in social, integrated, and critical construction	20	10.64%
Subcode 6.3.3 Training for research on problems of gender, ethnicity, etc.	20	10.64%
Subcode 6.3.4 Promoting greater university/research/society linkage	10	5.32%
	63	33.51%
TOTAL	188	100%

Table 7. Category 6.

Category 6. Proposed Changes
	AF	AF%
Code 6.1 Political changes
Subcode 6.1.1 State policy to promote equity	21	11.17%
Subcode 6.1.2 Need for budget and political will	12	6.38%
Subcode 6.1.3 Participation and discussion of all stakeholders in curriculum change design	16	8.51%
Code 6.2 Changes in perspective
Subcode 6.2.1 Curricula from and for diverse indigenous peoples	29	15.43%
Subcode 6.2.2 From a perspective of guarantee and respect for human tights	8	4.26%
Subcode 6.2.3 From a gender perspective	12	6.38%
Subcode 6.2.4 From equal opportunities	10	5.32%
Subcode 6.2.5 From an intersectional structural perspective	17	9.04%
Code 6.3 Changes in comprehensive teacher training
Subcode 6.3.1 Training teachers for communication and participation	13	6.91%
Subcode 6.3.2 Training in social, integrated, and critical construction	20	10.64%
Subcode 6.3.3 Training for research on problems of gender, ethnicity, etc.	20	10.64%
Subcode 6.3.4 Promoting greater university/research/society linkage	10	5.32%
	63	33.51%
TOTAL	188	100%

Examples:

Code 6.1 Political changes.

Subcode 6.1.1 A policy from the State to promote equitable public education in the country.

“There must be public policy for all State institutions and provincial and local government to also guide and practice gender, ethnicity, and social equity in these dimensions”.

P39

Subcode 6.1.2 Need for budget and political will.

“Translated into higher education, if we limit ourselves to regulations, if we institutionalize spaces, but we do not deliver budget and political will.”

P012

“To reduce social, economic, ethnic, and gender gaps, it is essential to invest in education.”

P017

Subcode 6.1.3 Participation and discussion by all stakeholders in the design of curricular change. Teacher involvement.

(…) “A clear and committed policy is needed in academia.”

P037

Code 6.2 Inclusive comprehensive curriculum. Intersection of justice, diversity, equality, opportunity, and respect.

Subcode 6.2.1 Curricula from and for the various indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples by incorporating their history, their worldview, and their life project, questioning colonization and power relations.

“This would imply not only teaching in indigenous languages, but also the incorporation of their worldviews and forms of knowledge.”

P013

“Explicitly include in curricula contents that address history, struggles, and contributions of diverse ethnic groups, genders, and social classes in Ecuador.”

P013

Subcode 6.2.2. From a perspective of the guarantee of and respect for human rights (freedom, humanism).

“It is necessary that curricula are designed in such a way that they can train humanistic and non-technical professionals.”

P014

“The curriculum must be pluralistic that includes everyone, and education that includes unrestricted respect for human rights must be incorporated.”

P018

Subcode 6.2.3. From the gender perspective, train students to eradicate manifestations of inequality, violence, and sexual harassment.

“This involves reviewing and updating curricula to ensure that they include an intersectionality and gender perspective in all subjects.”

P028

6.2.4 From equal opportunities and equity.

“Besides, it is essential to adopt inclusive pedagogical models and methodological strategies that favor the equitable participation of students, ensuring that each voice is heard and valued.”

P037

Subcode 6.2.5 From an intersectional structural perspective that questions political, institutional, legal, economic, social, cultural, historical, and environmental power.

… Therefore, if we do not understand social struggles from their historical perspectives, if we do not act from everyday practices, and above all if we do not look at structure as the problem, but individuals, there is not any transformation.

P012

Code 6.3 Changes that offer comprehensive training.

6.3.1 Training teachers for communication and student participation.

“… from the sociological point of view, to understand our reality of inequities and that future graduates are agents of change.”

P032

6.3.2 Train in social, integrated, and critical construction of knowledge, practices and awareness.

“This transformation must be accompanied by continuous training for teachers, in order to ensure that they can apply these approaches effectively in their educational practices; thus, creating an academic environment that not only prepares students for the exercise of their profession, but also fosters a more fair and egalitarian society while respecting cultural diversity and gender differences”.

P037

6.3.3 Training to address and research gender, ethnicity, and social class issues in context.

“That is, to generate and systematize educational practices generated in everyday life and based on the construction of knowledge based on the thinking of the South.”

P035

6.3.4 To promote greater university–research–society linkage.

“These visits to the “realities” in order to deliver elements learned by both teachers and students, are also spaces for listening citizens who can strongly strengthen the University-territory-University relationship.”

P020

4. Conclusions and Discussion

Generally, in our research, we use the convergence of the conceptual framework with the narrative voices to design the categories and codes; then, the conclusions of each category are presented and discussed in parallel to maintain the cohesion of the categorical structure. Although the usual approach is a global conclusion and discussion, in the case of a complex topic, we have used categories to ensure clarity and structure.

4.1. Conclusion: Category 1. Social Perspective of Curriculum

The so-called social vision of the curricula is not clearly perceived by teachers. Although 41.43% (Code 1.1) believe that the program where they teach does contain a social perspective, if we combine the perception code of partial or limited perspective (code 1.2) at 30.00% with code 1.3, without any social perspective, at 28.57%, it results in 58.57%, which means that a majority of curricula are perceived as lacking a social perspective by the participating teachers.

4.2. Discussion: Category 1. Social Perspective of Curriculum

The decolonizing project usually begins with a social intention; therefore, it can be stated that the search for social justice is also the search for decolonization. Universities must assume that social agents have to explore the problems of inequality from a critical perspective and through impact actions that have repercussions on all aspects of the political, social, cultural, and economic spheres, which intervene in the development of sustainability by rescuing from poverty and misery the broad sectors that, to this day, are living in them. Social responsibility (SR) of companies and institutions has been identified as a continuous commitment to ethical actions to contribute to the social and sustainable development of citizens, families, the local community, and society as a whole. If education is considered the most powerful tool that can bring together economic, social, and environmental concerns and sorrows under a sustainable development strategy, social responsibility must permeate the university organization. Institutional policies in some universities in the North and many in the Global South declare their social perspective inclusive, but their faculty do not always see beyond the declarations that this perspective is implemented in the reality of the classroom [36].

4.3. Conclusion: Category 2. Curricula with a Gender Perspective

The view of curricula with an authentic gender perspective (code 2.1) is very low (5.13%). On the other hand, if it is added to code 2.3, “it does not contain” (49.57%), and code 2.2 denoting “insufficient vision” (45.30%), we will obtain an almost unanimous declaration from the teaching staff of not appreciating an adequate gender perspective in the UCE curricula.

4.4. Discussion: Category 2. Curricula with a Gender Perspective

Firstly, it is the governments that must promote equal opportunities with policies, aid, and funding. With extreme poverty, it is very difficult to achieve equal opportunities, since the more poverty, the less culture, and the more gender stereotypes, which make women the weakest group. At universities, the lack of opportunities for insertion into communities of initiates and support from mentors, as well as insecurity and fear, make academics and scientists generally accept the space assigned to them by the scientific community [37]. The underrepresentation of women students in science and technology systems demands greater resistance to exclusion from women themselves. In short, universities cannot be a faithful reflection of social contexts and cultural practices; on the contrary, they must lead the way in equal opportunity issues by changing their culture and practice.

The systematic microaggressions that female students suffer if they depart from social service careers and jobs to which society relegates them have been investigated, and this issue shows that in a neoliberal curriculum, the criteria for access and success in academia and research are designed by male members [22]. The concept of microinequities, which are described as biases that are based on prejudices, stereotypes and preconceptions suffered by women and other nondominant groups in any context, has ethical and social justice implications because gender discrimination is always embedded in social and political structures. There are numerous examples of how biases in evaluation produce microinequalities. For example, there must currently be parity in academic tribunals since statistics show that the absence of female academics leads to a higher success rate for male candidates [37].

In short, gender bias is the conscious or unconscious tendency to favor or disadvantage people based on stereotypes about their gender, creating inequalities in opportunities, evaluations, and treatment. It affects areas such as the workplace (pay gap, promotions), academia (STEM), and society, perpetuating unequal power structures. In gender inequality, there is a hegemonic, sociopolitical structure of male power and a collective of women that is denied its potential and opportunities. It can be said that stereotypical gender role differences are still socially supported. There is also aggressive social support to ensure that women do not break out of their established gender roles. This is a structural and social problem that affects all female students. While political correctness is maintained in governmental structures and university institutions, the notion of entitlement is still understood as being a right, a power and a privilege inherent to the male sex. Human rights include the right to nondiscrimination and equal opportunities, along with physical, economic and decision-making autonomy. Political powers and government institutions such as universities must enforce these rights.

The only way to guarantee women’s right to equal opportunities and freedom from discrimination is to ensure that they can exercise their rights to full social participation. The responsibility and commitment of academia and higher education structures is one of the greatest strengths for overcoming discrimination.

4.5. Conclusion: Category 3. Curriculum Vision of the Global North

The perception of a vision of the Global North in the actual curricular plans in UCE is unanimous, at 94.26% among academics, and therefore they also consider that it causes bias when analyzing local problems with these perspectives from the North. The results show the faculty’s complaint about the instrumental, liberal, and capitalist vision expressed by the curricula, as well as the lack of opportunities in the South to participate in the construction of knowledge; only 5.74% of the narratives justify the hegemonic vision of science.

Contrarily, few UCE academics have advocated for the recognition of the universality of knowledge (Subcode 3.2.1 and Code 4.2), as well as for a dialogue of knowledges (Subcode 5.1.3.1). The reason for this is the difficulty of understanding between the Global North and the Global South. The thinking of the Global North does not question the origin of its own knowledge, which is often based on privilege, capital, and power. Mignolo & Walsh [16] refer to decoloniality as the continuous interrogation of knowledge structures of power to find out who has elaborated them and why, as does Maldonado-Torres [14], among others. This premise is what should be used in a dialogue of knowledges. While the Global South is aware that it has been dispossessed of its culture, knowledge, and identity, the North would have to move away from the arrogance of assuming its knowledge is unique and universal, and the South would have to overcome the fear that the North’s knowledge will impede the development of its own.

Another relevant premise is the fact that universal knowledge claims to be independent of context, but in any case is North-dependent, whereas decolonial thought argues all knowledge is situated, contextual, and deeply linked to power structures. But the problem is not local versus global; it is about the democratization of scientific knowledge, as recommended by UNESCO (2017), and a commitment to an epistemic dialogue towards pluriversality [17].

4.6. Discussion: Category 3. Curriculum Vision of the Global North

According to Enslin & Hedge [38], the pervasive influence of neoliberalism on the university and its practices constrains campus discourse. This structure, which forms the institution’s foundation, is not allowed to be questioned. Consequently, discussions cannot address the essential nature of the problem. The neoliberal structure is the one that promotes “global rankings” and other mercantilist practices in universities. Social justice requires Fraser’s [39] treatment of recognition and distribution to change institutional policies in a structural way and face the mechanical and rigid accountability that science suffers from without considering that research needs a long time and never-ending trials to achieve reliable and renewable knowledge.

Rambaldi [40] reflects on the need for a new economic order that does not benefit only a small percentage of mankind. For the author, a new and more democratic order, willing to free debts and trade systems, could be in favor of less developed countries. Along these lines, Hickel [41] denounces developmentalism as a deception and critiques the neoliberal trading system, national debts, poverty wages, the ecological imperative of degrowth, and false promises by encouraging the Global South not to imitate the North’s growth model based on extraction, consumerism, and excessive growth, and to choose its own, situated, and contextualized path.

4.7. Conclusion: Category 4. Vision of the Global South

The majority of participants accepted the need to move towards a vision of the curricular Global South (94.12%), especially because it provides a closer, more contextual, and diverse vision (Subcode 4.1.1: 40.20%), and provides a contribution from the roots (Subcode 4.1.2: 31.37%):

“It is necessary to leave the narrow geographical framework of the university space to link ourselves to the community, to the neighborhoods, to the unions, to the indigenous peasant communities to learn from them.”

P008

4.8. Discussion: Category 4 Vision of the Global South

It should be noted that despite the manifest decolonial will of the teachers, there is little presence of the conditions of execution of this process, such as in the subcodes “Require political will, and debate, and commitment of those involved”. It can be concluded that the UCE teaching staff would appreciate finding a greater presence of knowledge from the South in the curricula. Only a small number of participants, mainly from pure science majors, argue that knowledge is universal, so curricular changes are not required.

Danica Anne Sims [42] questions the use of evidence and the transfer of indices and evidence from some contexts (Global North) to other ones that are radically opposed (Global South). This transposition may be inappropriate and ineffective depending on the context. For example, the global movement of university accreditation for the modernization, standardization, internationalization, and globalization of education is a form of westernization and neocolonialism. Sociocultural differences in pedagogical practices reveal an erroneous transferability as objective, universal, and generalizable. The idea that “the West is the best” is based on economic descriptors that cannot be explained beyond the power relations that mark the economic structures, which support science.

4.9. Conclusion: Category 5. Teachers Feel Recognized

The question of whether UCE faculty feel recognized as Latin American in the curricula where they teach or if they perceive curricula that are alien to their identity has been answered mostly as a desideratum; that is, that the integration of the curricular perspective of the South would help them in their identity, if it were present or if it were fully implemented. The narratives of those who claim not to recognize themselves justify this by the current presence of Eurocentric and liberal perspectives.

In sum, 50% of the emergence in code 5.1 expresses that the curricular perspective of the South helps them, if present, or it would help them recognize themselves if it were implemented. The other 50% of faculty claim not to be recognized due to the current presence of Eurocentric and liberal perspectives, as well as the perpetuation of colonization, and the lack of current curricular identity produced by the inclusion of the North. Additionally, 12.12% stands out, as these participants prefer dialogue between knowledges rather than rigid decolonization.

4.10. Discussion: Category 5. Teachers Feel Recognized

Moreno Cely et al. [43,44] argue that the Latin American approach to the dialogue of knowledges has proved to be an essential tool for decolonizing knowledge, power, and being through the recognition and revitalization of indigenous and local knowledge by creating new spaces for diversity and transformation. This approach has confirmed that dialogue between different knowledge systems is possible and necessary to transform agroecological education and higher education ensemble. The authors wanted to illustrate how social and political struggles are closely linked to science and how engaged academics can influence not only classroom education, but also policies and society in general. We argue that decolonizing higher education requires structural changes in methodological, epistemological, ontological, ethical, and sociopolitical aspects (Table 1). We recognize that there are many challenges, but the benefits, even the smallest ones, outweigh the efforts. Decolonizing higher education is a process under construction, which requires the participation of collective actions and both individual and collective reflexivity to explore alternative paths that allow its growth. Unangst and Martínez Alemán [45] recommend, in the face of a curriculum that authorizes hegemonic interpretations, the emergence of ethnic, cultural, and gender studies, as well as groups of activists that break and insert themselves into the university organization. Although many might consider this path utopian, we think it is worth a try.

4.11. Conclusion: Category 6. Proposed Changes

We can therefore summarize that the academic voices are very much in favor of decolonizing curricula by bringing them closer to the science of the Global South and suppressing the current curricular bias. The problem that we must highlight is not resistance or negativity but the nonexistence of specific proposals for change, because this absence signifies a lack of immediate action and real purpose. This last category is somewhat disappointing in terms of the low incidence of the need for political changes (code 6.1: 26.06%), since curricular changes require government policy supported by a budget and determined political will; likewise, the even lower presence of the need for participation and debate by all in the design of curricular change.

Regarding which perspective is best for addressing curriculum change (code 6.2), there is an agreement towards the decolonizing perspectives that point out equality and gender and the intersectional structural perspective. With respect to academic staff learning, the narratives propose focusing on the social, integrated, and critical construction of knowledge, and research on gender and ethnic problems is highlighted.

4.12. Discussion: Category 6. Proposed Changes

Depending on the depth of the decolonization perspective, proposals for the functionality of change vary. Wimpenny et al. [46] argue that in the decolonization of the curriculum in the university space, scholars must locate their position and function to verify if it is at the service of the ontological dominance of the Global North in some way, and if it can impede their commitment to inclusion, diversity, and global citizenship, as well as questioning the colonial roots of university practices and curricula plans [47]. All of this requires both a common effort and institutional support by redirecting the injustices carried out [48] and monitoring epistemological spaces.

Comparing the vision of Andreotti et al. [49], which differentiates between (1) soft reform—a reform aimed at social inclusion, (2) radical reform—to make room for difference and for the redistribution of resources, opportunities, and symbolic value, and (3) beyond reforms—a recognition of epistemological dominance where the modern system itself is perceived as inherently violent, exploitative, and unsustainable. The soft reform would correspond to the first perspective presented in the conceptual framework: the social perspective. The radical reform corresponds to the second, anti-liberal perspective and is contrary to the hegemonic thinking of the North, requiring the creation of niches for local and situated knowledge and, therefore, the elimination of the biases produced by valuing the context according to the thoughts and standards of the North. The spaces beyond the reform of the aforementioned authors would coincide in part with the structural perspective that we have brought up [22]. The university is supposed to embrace excellent thinking and disseminate human rights; however, if it maintains a neoliberal mindset inherited from colonization and the privileges of the Global North, the Global South will never be able to assert its identity and its own development. Then, the university must undertake integral decolonization. Although it requires effort, time, and cognitive investment from participants, it should be a worthwhile endeavor. We must not overlook the cognitive capital that university decolonization would represent for the country’s politics and economy. When power structures select knowledge or pay for its production, we must confront them with critical thinking that allows us to situate them within a framework of equity or inequality. Our position is also critical of the current educational system because, as long as the reform is not political and economic, it cannot be intersectional and inclusive.

We can summarize that the voices of the academic members are very favorable to decolonizing the curriculum by bringing it closer to the science of the Global South and by suppressing the bias of the current Northern supremacy. The problem that we want to emphasize is the absence of concrete proposals for carrying out and applying the curriculum change right now, because there could be a risk that a protocol of curricular change will be established, alien to the bases, decreed by the highest power spheres and controlled by Ecuador’s economic thought. For this reason, we are working on a second part of the research regarding the strategies and methodology that UCE should implement to design a coordinated, structured and consistent decolonizing curriculum that forms a joint identifying profile of UCE. First, the proposals and intentions of the academics, students, and administrators must be questioned and considered. A preliminary conversation is necessary so that participants become involved in a common objective and process. Based on this conversation, the management team, with expert advice if necessary, can reach a consensus on guidelines, as a formative and facilitating orientation.

The higher education system in Ecuador has introduced not only changes that affirm the autonomy, decentralization, and flexibility of institutions, but it has also implemented controls through standardized evaluation processes that could be a copy of European models, even though, clearly, the narratives of the participants have expressed their preference for a decolonial model of university and for a contribution to their own knowledge production. Today, decolonial curriculum change requires the drive of academics and students and the necessary institutional resources to carry out this significant and difficult work.

5. Limitations

One limitation was our commitment to ensuring the anonymity of the participants, which prevented us from identifying them by department, faculty, age, job category, or any other contextual data.

On the other hand, qualitative methodology produces some difficulties, which do not reduce its value. Frequently, freedom of expression, as voices disperse, produces an open-ended investigation, and this produces doubts and insecurity during the process, requiring an effort by researchers to maintain coherence and consistency.

This research has six categories derived from the convergence between the conceptual framework and the emergent voices. The codes incorporate the main “possible” differences in the voices, while the subcodes incorporate the nuances or variations in those voices. The examples presented are substantial to appreciate the attitudes that ground the voices of the participating scholars. The meaning of the examples may present difficulties for the readers if they do not know the themes and the contexts. In this sense, qualitative research is undoubtedly a challenge for the audience because meanings are often so dependent on context.

As an observation, we have not used direct quotations or textual citations from the foundational authors that are our conceptual cornerstone for three reasons. First, when dealing with many conceptual threads, intersectionality, nuances, and even uncertain dilemmas, it is more effective to manage the author’s perspective than specific quotations. Second, when attempting to weave an intricate web with highly interconnected elements, direct quotations can sometimes prolong the effort to construct and analyze an integrated and complex conceptual framework for researchers and audiences. Third, qualitative research makes extensive use of participants’ voices, and we must give them prominence, limiting direct quotations, which have been restricted, without limiting the conceptual depth of the cited and referential authors.

As a result of the qualitative research findings, we have decided to continue this project by questioning academics about a more concrete and detailed implementation methodology. By fostering online discussion and analyzing the debates, we can move closer to a participatory methodological process of decolonization and inclusion.

Additionally, the criteria that validate qualitative research have been considered, mainly the validity of conceptual constructs (foundation and theoretical precision), data reliability, credibility, coherence, and internal consistency, with strictness. The reliability of qualitative research depends, in practice, on the researchers’ deep knowledge of the situation and the time and effort they put into understanding the voices of the participants. It is a triangulation work and a very recursive one. Due to the heuristic nature of the methodology, process revisions are frequent until a perfect consistency between codes and meanings is found [22,23]. In this inductive and deductive way, step by step, reality and theory have been questioned to form a conceptual foundation in social reality.

We appreciate the informed consent of the participants, whose absolute anonymity has been guaranteed. We also appreciate their willingness to make thoughtful contributions.

We thank Dr. Marcos Jesús Iglesias-Martínez, who, as Director of the Qualitative Research Group in Education, Teaching, and Learning (GICEDA) at the University of Alicante, signed the approval of the research.