Indigenous peoples as objects versus subjects in global higher education: A cross-national study of university structures and policies

• In Event: Humanizing International Higher Education: Decolonial Practices, Indigenous Perspectives, and Collaborative Care

Proposal

[1. Relevance]

Literature highlights higher education’s role in advancing human rights (Suárez & Bromley, 2012) while acknowledging its participation in imperialism (Wilder, 2013). Some universities have tried to address racial oppression (Warikoo & Allen, 2019). However, universities’ colonial legacies persist and perpetuate racial hierarchies (Beardall, 2022). In line with the conference theme, education’s increasing digitization is at risk of perpetuating colonial patterns of knowledge erasure (Carroll et al., 2020). These trends would exacerbate higher education’s participation in cultural imperialism. Scholars must interrogate higher education’s continued coloniality, especially its relationship with Indigenous peoples.

This study examines university-level structures and policies supporting Indigenous communities. Indigenous peoples are uniquely positioned at the juncture of global systems of imperialism and human rights. Though rights-based frameworks are antithetical to Indigenous relational ontologies (Corntassel, 2008), Indigenous communities have engaged in survival and resistance (‘survivance,’ coined by Vizenor, 1999) by leveraging the human rights regime to institutionalize their sovereignties (Lightfoot, 2010), including through education (Cole, 2011; Hailu & Tachine, 2021).

I examine the following research questions: (1) To what extent do universities cross-nationally incorporate different structures and policies for Indigenous peoples? (2) What mechanisms predict whether a university will have these structures/policies?

[2. Theory]

This study integrates theoretical frameworks from global neoinstitutionalism and postcolonial sociology to explore mechanisms predicting university structures and policies which recognize and support Indigenous communities. Global neoinstitutionalism examines how institutions adopt structures in response to cross-national pressures, such as the diffusion of human rights norms. Scholars argue that universities increasingly create structures in response to cultural pressures to support historically marginalized groups, including Indigenous peoples (Frank & Gabler, 2006; Cole, 2011). Mechanisms predicting university-level support structures can include country- and institution-level linkages to the global human rights regime, such as ratifying international agreements on Indigenous rights or engaging with international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) (Tsutsui, 2018). Universities may also respond more to these norms based on their participation in global ranking systems (Ramirez et al., 2016).

However, neoinstitutionalism overlooks the colonial legacies shaping Indigenous experiences. Postcolonial sociology offers a theoretical complement and critique by highlighting colonial dynamics and offering a framework that centers on Indigenous agency (Go, 2018). This approach helps foreground the role of Indigenous populations and Indigenous-led INGOs in shaping university policies. Furthermore, it suggests attention to settler-colonialism—a distinct form of colonialism that seeks to replace or assimilate Indigenous populations—is essential to understanding differences in educational trends (Wolfe, 2006).

[3. Data/Methods]

This study uses data from a cross-national sample of 500 universities across 85 countries. Data were collected on each university to determine whether they have ‘Indigenous-supportive’ structures. The core criteria is that the structure or policy signals recognition of Indigenous peoples as a pan-ethnic identity or in terms of specific local Indigenous communities.

Names of Indigenous populations were identified using reports from the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. Data were collected from university websites by research assistants proficient in the website’s language. The data were coded into multiple binary variables, indicating whether the university has any of five different types of Indigenous-supportive structures: history courses, research centers, cultural support centers, access/pathway policies, and language preservation supports. The first two types tend to position Indigenous peoples as passive objects of study, whereas the latter three types position Indigenous peoples as participatory subjects in higher education.

Using a critical quantitative approach (Gillborn et al., 2017), I first analyze descriptive trends of Indigenous-supportive structures based on countries’ colonial contexts, including different forms of settler-colonialism (e.g., Anglo-settler, Iberian-settler). Next, I perform multilevel logistic regression to test how institution- and country-level mechanisms predict different categories of Indigenous-supportive structures. I include independent variables operationalizing my two frameworks of interest (global neoinstitutionalism and postcolonial sociology) as well as control variables for country- and university-level characteristics.

[4. Findings]

The descriptive findings reveal notable differences in the contexts where universities implement Indigenous-supportive structures. Across the sample, only about 30% of institutions implement Indigenous-supportive structures, and universities are more likely to frame Indigenous peoples as objects of study than as participatory subjects. However, these trends diverge by colonial context. In Anglo-settler contexts (e.g., Canada, U.S.) and European countries, universities are more likely to implement structures that position Indigenous peoples as objects of study. In contrast, in Iberian-settler contexts (e.g., Latin America) and former colonies (e.g., South/Southeast Asia, Africa) of the Global South, universities are more likely to implement structures that position Indigenous peoples as participatory subjects in higher education.

The regression findings offer further nuance. Universities are more likely to include Indigenous-supportive structures if they are in countries which have legally ratified Indigenous rights documents and have a larger Indigenous population. Interestingly, if a country signals symbolic support of Indigenous rights—rather than legally binding ratification—that country’s universities become less likely to have Indigenous-supportive structures. Meanwhile, universities that are more highly ranked in global university rankings are specifically more likely to frame Indigenous peoples as objects of study.

[5. Contributions]

The findings suggest there are important differences between the Global North/South, and symbolic support of Indigenous peoples will not predict advances in higher education. Universities may implement structures/policies to follow norms around what it means to be a legitimate university (Berrey, 2011). Moreover, if Indigenous communities are treated as objects of study rather than participatory subjects in higher education, this undermines Indigenous claims to rights and sovereignty, particularly in settler-colonial contexts where they are uniquely marginalized (Beardall, 2022). Absent intentional participatory support, attempts at inclusion may become new forms of Indigenous assimilation that center the university’s prestige. Universities may receive status-related benefits of acknowledging Indigenous history while marginalizing Indigenous peoples themselves.

This study extends our understanding of cross-national trends in higher education in multiple ways. Conceptually, it points to how global neoinstitutionalism and postcolonial sociology can inform one another when analyzing educational change. Empirically, it establishes context-specific variations in higher education structures and policies, suggesting ways in which legacies of colonialism continue to shape universities’ relationships with Indigenous peoples. Finally, researchers and practitioners can better understand the landscape of university structures supporting Indigenous communities.

Author

• Hannah K D'Apice, Stanford University