The Politics of Curriculum in Higher Education: Whose Knowledge Counts?

Written by Dr. Fariha Gul

Researcher and Academician

Curriculum is often perceived as a neutral roadmap of knowledge delivery. However, in the context of higher education, curriculum is a deeply political construct. It reflects and reinforces the ideologies, power relations, and socio-economic agendas of dominant groups. In developing countries like Pakistan, these dynamics are further complicated by colonial legacies, market pressures, and regulatory inefficiencies. This blog examines how curriculum design, content, and implementation in higher education are shaped by politics—both visible and invisible—and discusses who gets to decide what knowledge is worth teaching and learning.

1. Curriculum as a Site of Power

The curriculum in higher education is not simply a collection of subjects or topics. It is a contested space where various stakeholders—state authorities, academic elites, industry partners, and international donors—compete to assert their vision of knowledge and society. According to Apple (2004), curriculum is a form of cultural politics that legitimizes certain ways of knowing while marginalizing others.

In Pakistan, for example, centralized control of curriculum through bodies like the Higher Education Commission (HEC) has often led to homogenization of content. Public and private universities alike are pushed to adopt standardized frameworks that align with global competitiveness rather than local relevance. This raises questions: Whose knowledge is being taught? Whose voices are excluded?

2. The Influence of Neoliberalism

Neoliberal reforms have deeply impacted the higher education curriculum globally. The shift towards employability, market skills, and measurable outcomes has turned universities into service providers and students into customers. Courses in humanities and critical social sciences are being downsized or defunded in favor of STEM and business-related disciplines (Giroux, 2014).

In Pakistan, this manifests in the form of new curriculum guidelines that emphasize technical skills, entrepreneurship, and productivity, while de-emphasizing critical thinking, civic responsibility, or indigenous knowledge systems. Education is redefined as a commodity, not a public good.

3. Colonial Continuities and Epistemic Injustice

Curricula in post-colonial contexts often retain the ideological structure of colonial education systems. Despite decolonization, many higher education institutions in Pakistan still rely on Western canons, theories, and textbooks, sidelining local histories, languages, and epistemologies. This results in what Santos (2014) terms "epistemicide"—the killing of other ways of knowing.

The dominance of English as the medium of instruction and the reliance on Western citation systems reinforce a hierarchy of knowledge, where local scholars must conform to global academic norms to be considered legitimate.

4. Gender, Class, and Curriculum Exclusion

The politics of curriculum also intersect with gender and class. Women, religious minorities, and working-class students often find their lived experiences unrepresented or misrepresented in university syllabi. A lack of inclusive content reinforces social hierarchies rather than dismantling them.

For instance, gender studies departments are often underfunded or politically targeted in conservative societies, limiting their curricular reach. Similarly, rural and first-generation students may struggle to relate to abstract theories that ignore ground realities.

5. Resistance and the Possibility of a Critical Curriculum

Despite these challenges, there are pockets of resistance. Critical pedagogy advocates like Freire (1970) argue for a curriculum that is dialogic, emancipatory, and grounded in students’ real-life experiences. Some universities and faculty members in Pakistan are experimenting with decolonized syllabi, interdisciplinary approaches, and community-based learning models.

Creating a critical curriculum in higher education requires democratic participation in curriculum design, engagement with local knowledge systems, and a commitment to social justice.

Conclusion

Curriculum in higher education is not just a tool for instruction—it is a mechanism for reproducing or challenging dominant ideologies. Understanding the politics of curriculum is essential to reforming higher education in ways that are inclusive, relevant, and transformative. In contexts like Pakistan, this means questioning inherited models, resisting market-driven policies, and reimagining education as a space for critical inquiry and social change.

References

Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and Curriculum (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Herder and Herder.

Giroux, H. A. (2014). Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education. Haymarket Books.

Santos, B. de S. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide. Routledge.

Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing Education Policy. Routledge.

Shah, D. (2019). “Higher Education in Pakistan: Challenges and Way Forward.” Bulletin of Education and Research, 41(2), 1-19.

Hoodbhoy, P. (2009). “Science and the Islamic World – The Quest for Rapprochement.” Physics Today, 62(8), 49–55.

Mirza, Q. (2007). “Gender and Curriculum: A South Asian Perspective.” International Review of Education, 53(3), 283–302.