Distance learning is a decolonised means of delivering education: the MA Anthrozoology at the University of Exeter as an illustrative example

Image by Martine Auvray from Pixabay

Dr Alexander Badman-King, University of Exeter

For some time now I have been working as a lecturer on the distance learning MA Anthrozoology programme at the University of Exeter. The distance learning nature of this particular programme has been important to me for several reasons. As someone who struggles enormously with being in public places, I find the method of working from home to be of significant benefit (it outright enables me to work). I am also regularly informed by students that they would not have been able to undertake their studies on this programme were it not offered remotely. Additionally, I have experience of being a distance learner myself, having previously completed a distance learning MA in Philosophy (through the University of Wales). In fact, if it were not for the possibility of distance learning I would have been unable to conduct my postgraduate degrees, as it enabled me to manage my capacities, and juggle work and caring responsibilities (I have largely avoided the term ‘disability’ in this blog due to the baggage it carries, which does not mean I think it is a bad term, nor necessarily demeaning, only that it is not one I find useful here). As a result of my experiences both as a student and member of staff, and in light of moves to ‘decolonise the curriculum’ within higher education more generally which have tended to focus on the content of course materials as opposed to mode of delivery, I have made a series of reflections on campus versus distance learning provision which I outline here. This is not, as will be explained further, an argument for a total replacement of campus education with distance learning. Nor is it an argument for ‘decolonisation’ (a term with its own baggage). Instead, it is a reflection on how the ‘one size fits all’ approach of campus-based university education shares crucial characteristics with the colonialism targeted by these ‘decolonisation’ initiatives and a suggestion that distance learning offers a way to mollify that fault.

It is worth stating two key assumptions at the outset which I think link colonialism or colonisation with the campus-based mode of delivery.

Firstly, in many respects colonisation was a process of forcing people around the world to live in a way which was of the coloniser’s design. It is this imposition, and the neglect (or outright abuse) of local interests which I will take as the primary error which can be the legitimate focus of initiatives designed to address the injustices of such colonisation. Furthermore, there’s no doubt that many processes of colonisation, involving that neglect and abuse, were done in part or primarily with the aim of taking wealth from those people and those places and bringing it to the coloniser’s home. I make these qualifications because this blog is not primarily an effort to enter into the discussion of or effort to ‘decolonise’. I recognise that there are and were many kinds of ‘colonisation’ which cannot so easily be tarred with a single brush. This is, rather, an attempt to identify in that initiative a valid ethical premise which may yet be neglected in the curriculum focused way it is frequently employed.

Secondly, British campus-based university education is historically a continuation of the boarding school tradition (itself a continuation of older theological training models) which formed a central part of the machine of Empire. It was the means by which the children of the powerful were formed into future colonisers. In the colonies, colonially established boarding school systems were the means by which indigenous youth were ‘educated’ to think and behave differently, to leave behind their heritage and adopt the cultural and religious beliefs and practices of the colonisers. Again I should clarify that this suggestion does not represent an indictment of residential schooling, I’m leaving plenty of room for it to be a good thing in some cases, I am merely pointing to how it has been used as a tool of abuse (of course there are some ways in which such schooling has been used, and may still be, in very deeply abusive ways; see De Leeuw 2009 for a discussion of abuse in British Columbia; and White 1996 on abuses in ‘French and British Africa’).

I am not making a charge of guilt by association here. While not as extreme as these historical examples, campus-based University education nonetheless demands (or invites) that students leave behind things which were previously theirs to adopt things which are of the university’s (or host culture’s) design – a principle which appears most strikingly colonial. If there are positive aspects to that invitation (or coercion) then that is something with which other treatments of ‘decolonisation’ must grapple.  

By their very nature, and notwithstanding important efforts to widen participation, campus-based degree schemes are limited in the sense that they traditionally cater to a narrow range of people. There is an emphasis on younger and more privileged individuals who can afford to leave their homes, leave their families and their work and relocate. Of course, a significant part of this limitation is the cost of university fees, and distance learning retains much of that. It is also important to recognise that for some students a campus environment offers them freedoms and opportunities (and perhaps even security) which their ‘home’ does not. It is also worth noting that this problem of a wealth barrier may indeed be the most pressing and salient aspect of any form of decolonisation.

Distance learning on the other hand allows students from anywhere in the world to continue in their way of life with far less need to adapt to the university’s way of life. They can keep their jobs, they can stay at their homes and with their families. It embraces this global diversity and does not dictate that its students all live in a single place and in a single way.

It appears that there are, then, broadly two reasons that distance learning is advantageous when compared to campus-based degrees:

1. It is open to a broader range of individuals including those who cannot relocate as well as those who suffer from many physical or mental limitations which impact on their ability to leave home and/or engage in a campus-based education. This openness is, of course, dependent upon the provisions made by the particular distance learning programme and (perhaps most crucially) the university through which that course is taught. Merely being distance learning does not necessarily improve provision for those with differing needs and capacities (on these limitations see Richardson 2009, and Cooper 2014). However, as with a broadening of access to a wider range of people in terms of economic and social backgrounds, the option of distance learning similarly broadens accessibility to those with many different needs and capacities.
2. It is less resource intensive and therefore more environmentally sustainable as staff and students are not required to relocate (Roy et al. 2005). This is particularly significant if we consider environmental sustainability and environmental justice as being inextricably linked to issues surrounding decolonisation.

Of course, this division relies upon some false distinctions. In reality these two aspects are continuous with one another, but they are often discussed as distinct things by those who view distance learning as an inferior or ‘second rate’ alternative to a campus-based education.

However, if we conceive of decolonisation as a reaction to the way in which more powerful groups have unjustly and harmfully imposed their designs upon less powerful groups, then it is easy to see why decolonisation is contiguous with the other goals of distance learning provision and the distance learning Anthrozoology MA on which I teach in particular – see http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/ease/.

The common questions and themes intersecting animal ethics and the ethics of disability, gender, and race are well known and attested (e.g. Deckha, 2013; Nocella and George, 2019; Taylor, 2017), and feature prominently in the MA Anthrozoology curriculum at Exeter. The importance of an anthrozoology programme that is grounded in animal ethics, critical animal studies and the anthropological emphasis of cross-cultural comparison being available to students studying at a distance has been reinforced by our students time and again (and will be the focus of future blog posts). For those of us who teach on the distance learning Anthrozoology MA programme, distance learning and a recognition of the value of every individual (human or otherwise) are a method and theory which flow together.

When we are thinking about the kinds of harms which have been and are done by colonisation and how these might be perpetuated or not appropriately addressed in some curricular content, then we also need to think about how that curriculum is delivered and all of the assumptions which go into that delivery. It is also worth noting that there’s a good deal of room to not only expand all of these thoughts/arguments further, but also develop them in terms of a broader culture of in-person engagement in academia. There is an expectation that excellent research is represented internationally in-person (physically attending conferences at other universities). This kind of expectation has very serious implications for the carbon footprint of academia and distance engagement represents an excellent way to reduce many of the costs whilst retaining most of the benefits (but this should really be developed in a separate blog).

Decolonisation in universities should not just be about ensuring that a diverse range of sources is included in a curriculum, it should be about trying to ensure that a powerful institution is not using that power to narrowly self-serve or force people who do not conform to its model (a model heavily based on traditional colonial activity) to fit in. And given that so many universities proclaim their desire to make their institutions ‘accessible’ and ‘inclusive’ this is ultimately an opportunity for them to put their money where their mouth is.

If you are an older parent or carer who must work full time to care for others (human or otherwise), your voice and your mind does not cease to be valuable in a higher education setting; when you live far from universities of the northern hemisphere and have no means to travel to them your voice and mind are valuable too. If you are already working and do not want (or cannot afford) to jeopardise your career, you can still obtain a valuable education. When the very act of getting out of bed is painful, or the idea of thousands of faces around you every day is terrifying, you are still someone who can and should join our conversations.

It is, nonetheless, vital to recognise that huge disparities in wealth, and the significant fees which universities charge, are still obstacles to a university system which does not replicate significant negative aspects of the colonialism which these institutions now seek to redress; but distance learning can be a step in the right direction.

These thoughts lead us naturally into much bigger questions about what universities do, and what their value is. University management teams are charged with keeping these institutions afloat in a world in which the internet makes information freely available. So, what are universities selling? How can they afford to pay their staff? Does distance learning threaten these institutions because, in removing the trappings and packaging of campus life, in pairing education down to its raw components, it veers dangerously close to questions about what that education is worth?

For me, there is an honesty in this naked education. I have deeper, cynical suspicions that campus-based university populations have served a socioeconomic function. By placing a large section of your young adult population in a non-employed state which accrues cheap debt, and which spends a significant part of its time in recreation, you create a pool of ideal consumers, the kind who are trained to service debt, enjoy life, and get comfortable with not owning their own homes. Unemployed people who are just living in their childhood homes scrabbling to get increasingly scarce minimum wage jobs are a real problem, university delays that problem and stretches it out. And then, of course, there are the foreign students who bring extra money.

It is, however, important to acknowledge that universities, these institutions which are usually amongst the wealthiest and most powerful institutions of those nations which were once the drivers of colonisation, do have valuable things to give the world. If decolonisation is to have value then it should not be about isolationism, it should be about recognising past (and present) harms and injustices and trying to ensure that these are neither repeated nor perpetuated. Universities have much to offer, and much of this is necessarily transformative. Young, affluent people from the global north who represent the ‘traditional’ or model campus-based student (see Chung et al. 2017 for a potential model as to what a ‘traditional student’ might be) can and should be a major recipient of this learning, the learning should transform them, and if it is sustainable and positive for them then they should be able to engage with that learning in a variety of ways (including campus-based, and more or less traditional styles of delivery). I’ll repeat that this is not an argument for abolishing university campuses or in-person lectures, but there is a world of people out there which extends beyond the ‘non-traditional’ students who are also increasingly attending campus-based courses, a world of valuable voices and minds, a world which can and should share in our conversations. Distance learning allows us to broaden our approach to having those conversations in a way which is less elitist, more inclusive and more fruitful.    

Author Bio:

References:

Chung, E., Turnbull, D. and Chur-Hansen, A. (2017). Differences in resilience between ‘traditional’and ‘non-traditional’university students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), pp.77-87.

Cooper, M. (2014). Meeting the needs of disabled students in online distance education–an institutional case study from The Open University, UK. Distance Education in China, 2014(12), pp.18-27.

Deckha, M. (2013). Animal advocacy, feminism and intersectionality. Deportate, esuli, profughe, 23, pp.48-65.

De Leeuw, S. (2009). ‘If anything is to be done with the Indian, we must catch him very young’: colonial constructions of Aboriginal children and the geographies of Indian residential schooling in British Columbia, Canada. Children’s Geographies, 7(2), pp.123-140.

Nocella, A.J., and George, A.E. (2019). Intersectionality of Critical Animal Studies. New York: Peter Lang.

Richardson, J.T. (2009). The attainment and experiences of disabled students in distance education. Distance Education, 30(1), pp.87-102.

Roy, R., Potter, S. and Yarrow, K. (2004). Towards sustainable higher education: environmental impacts of conventional campus, print-based and electronic/open learning systems. https://www3.open.ac.uk/events/3/2005331_47403_o1.pdf

Taylor, S. (2017). Beasts of Burden: Animal and Disability Liberation. The New Press.

White, B.W. (1996). Talk about School: education and the colonial project in French and British Africa (1860-1960). Comparative Education, 32(1), pp.9-26.