The Canadian Journal of Higher Education La revue canadienne d'enseignement supérieur Volume XXIX, No. 2,3 1999 pages 33-62 A Pilot Project on Inclusivity: The Case of the Master of Education Program in Educational Administration at The University of Manitoba1 ROSA BRUNO-JOFRÉ & JON YOUNG The University of Manitoba ABSTRACT The paper focuses on experiences and developments in one of the volunteer sites of the Inclusive Curriculum Project initiated in June 1993 by the University of Manitoba in volunteer departments and faculties. It deals w i t h the M a s t e r s p r o g r a m in E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n in the Department of Educational Administration and Foundations. It opens with an historical background of the debate framing universities' proposals for change and historizing the understanding of academic freedom in relation to equity and inclusivity. In fact, the process generated by the project was by and large conditioned by the dominant set of assumptions about rights, freedom/autonomy. The paper conceptualizes the various responses to the challenges of inclusivity that the Educational Administration group as a whole or as individuals had articulated over time and examined how perceptions and meaning were created, developed and challenged through the dialogue and interventions that took place during the project. In describing the process, the group's concern with evidence is analyzed along with the results of the student survey, and the role of the external "reviewer." It concludes with an account of what was achieved and the thoughts about the politics of the process that was illustrative of the difficulties involved in questioning one's own academic practices and in unveiling relations of power, disentangling one's own system of ideas. 34 R. Bruno-Jofré & J. Young RÉSUMÉ L'étude se concentre sur les expériences et les développements dans un des sites volontaires du Projet sur l'inclusivité dans le p r o g r a m m e d ' é t u d e m i s en a c t i o n d a n s des D é p a r t e m e n t s et d e s F a c u l t é s p a r l'Université du Manitoba en janvier 1993. Cela traite du Programme de m a î t r i s e e n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n s c o l a i r e d a n s le D é p a r t e m e n t d e l ' A d m i n i s t r a t i o n et des F o n d e m e n t s . L ' é t u d e ouvre avec le contexte historique du débat qui encadre les propositions de l'université pour le changement, ainsi rendant historique la compréhension de la liberté de l ' e n s e i g n e m e n t p a r r a p p o r t à l ' é q u i t é et à l ' i n c l u s i v i t é . D e fait, le p r o c e s s u s généré p a r le p r o j e t a été en grand partie conditionné par l ' e n s e m b l e d o m i n a n t d e s u p p o s i t i o n s s u r les d r o i t s , la l i b e r t é et l ' a u t o n o m i e . L ' é t u d e c o n c e p t u a l i s e les diverses r é p o n s e s au défi de l'inclusivité q u ' a v a i e n t exprimées le groupe d'Administration scolaire dans l'ensemble ou des individus dans le groupe au course de débat, et e x a m i n e c o m m e n t o n a c r é é , d é v e l o p p é et m i s e n q u e s t i o n l e s perceptions et les significantions par le truchement du dialogue et des interventions qui ont eu lieu pendant le projet. En décrivant le processus, on analyse l'intérêt du groupe dans la preuve en plus des résultats de l'enquête sur les étudiants et le rôle du "critique" de l'extérieur. L'étude conclut avec une explication de ce q u ' o n a atteint et les pensées sur la politique du processus qui illustre les difficultés impliquées en mettant en question sa propre pratique intellectuelle, en dévoilant les rapports du pouvoir et en se dégageant de son propre système d'idées. INTRODUCTION T h e p u b l i c d e b a t e a b o u t the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n reached Canada and The University of Manitoba some time ago. This debate reflects an organic crisis of the university since the very nature of the institution has come into question. There is an urgency to reach points of equilibrium, a n e w c o m p r o m i s e with the various interested parties including the state, the business community, and specifically the university's constituencies. The process calls for negotiation and must take into account the fundamental role of the university as creator of knowledge that goes beyond immediate economic and parochial needs. Inclusivity and equity have had, and still have, a central place in this debate. The Canadian journal ofHigher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2,3 1999 A Pilot Project on Inclusivity 35 Inclusivity and equity have been addressed at T h e University of Manitoba by m a n y groups, organizations, committees, offices, and individuals within the University and outside the University. One m a j o r institutional effort was a two year Pilot Inclusive Curriculum Project initiated by the University in January 1993. The project was designed to develop and implement gender and racially sensitive curricula and classr o o m practices. It w a s a pilot p r o j e c t w h i c h w o r k e d with v o l u n t e e r D e p a r t m e n t s and Faculties and was directed by an A c a d e m i c Senior Fellow from the Office of the Vice-President, Academic, and Provost. This paper focuses on experiences and developments in one of the volunteer sites of the Inclusive Curriculum Project at The University of Manitoba namely the Master's Program in Educational Administration in the Department of Educational Administration and Foundations. 2 A small group of faculty members, including the authors of this paper, worked on a review of the program and a critique of their practice with a view to creating a more inclusive program. Jon Young, was at the time Acting Head of the Department and Rosa Bruno-Jofré, Academic Senior Fellow, and member of the Department working in the Foundations area. The agenda of critical action research embedded in this project was a challenging one. The process we undertook required that all of us within the group subject our practice, our thinking, and indeed our careers to the critical scrutiny of our colleagues and students. The process implied a challenge to the norms underlying academic freedom as commonly understood. Writing about the process provoked participants to ask whether they were engaging in a self-study process or providing data for the authors' research. After completion of the draft we requested our colleagues' opinion. They mostly agreed that our description had successfully captured what the group was trying to do and how the group moved to that end. Regarding the analysis, our colleagues' reactions were more varied. This was not indeed the paper any of them would have written. It is certainly "our" paper and our critical reflections on the process with no claim of "truth." We hope it is insightful and thoughtful within the context of the dual agenda of conceptualizing and actualizing a goal of inclusion and equity within the Department. In attempting to analyze and theorize about this process the paper seeks: (a) to provide an historical background of the debate f r a m i n g universities' proposals for change and historize the understanding of The Canadian journal of Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2,3 1999 36 R. Bruno-Jofré & J. Young academic f r e e d o m in relation to equity and inclusivity; (b) to use the Educational Administration M a s t e r ' s Program as a case study of some of the c o m p l e x w a y s in which faculty members conceptualize, or make sense of, their meanings of educational administration and their roles as p r o f e s s o r s , thereby defining what constitutes a legitimate curriculum and an appropriate or acceptable pedagogy; (c) to examine the discursive practices and the values and assumptions underlying those practices, t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s of p o w e r i n h e r e n t in an a l t e r n a t i v e discourse, the differential entitlements, obligations, and abilities to participate in the exchange; (d) to conceptualize the various responses to the challenges of inclusivity that the group as a whole or as individuals articulated; (e) to examine, specifically, how perceptions and meanings are created, d e v e l o p e d and are c h a l l e n g e d through the d i a l o g u e and interventions that took place in this project; and (f) to assess what w e actually achieved. Basically this paper considers university departments and other structures not primarily as objective structures of university administration (the formal provisions laid out in the policies of the university), but rather as social constructions, as social, cultural and political sites, and as complex webs of socially constructed meanings and relationships. This pers p e c t i v e is also c o m p a t i b l e with the u n d e r s t a n d i n g that the c o n c e p t organizational structure refers to: "the procedures that define the ways in which the organization acts to meet its goals, the technology and activities by which purposes are met" (Chesler & Crowfoot, 1987, p. 204). HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: HISTORIZING ACADEMIC FREEDOM 3 The organic crisis affecting universities has its roots in social movements, economic pressures and changes in the post-industrial society, in intellectual and ideological transformations and consequent struggles over social meanings, in international political changes, in the shifting of dominant arguments in education f r o m liberal to conservative, and, more recently in developments in high technology. Meanwhile, the debate on the content of the curriculum has centered on the value of the canon, the heritage of humankind as well as on the understanding of civic virtues. The debate emerged out of the struggles of women and minorities for a m e a n i n g f u l role and representation in their education and in public life. The Canadian journal of Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2,3 1999 A Pilot Project on Inclusivity 37 The questioning of what is taught, the selection, arrangement, and specific content of the curriculum, reached some initial m o m e n t u m with the strength gained by the civil rights movement and the w o m e n ' s movement both in the U.S. and Canada as well as in m a n y other parts of the world. Notably, various state agencies, especially in the United States, dealt with the discontent of the 60s and 70s by using force and then by n e g o t i a t i n g and a c c o m m o d a t i n g to. generate a n e w equilibrium. T h e social and educational agencies, including universities, put emphasis on c h a l l e n g i n g w h i t e r a c i s m and s e x i s m ; the r a t i o n a l e f o r c h a n g e w a s placed, for the most part however, at the level of culture with little or no consideration of issues of power and political economy. For more than two decades, the curricular debate was determined largely by that rationale. During the last ten years there have been important developments in w o m e n ' s studies, A f r o - A m e r i c a n studies, A b o r i g i n a l studies and cross-cultural/anti-racist education that have m a d e clear the need for structural changes, and the understanding of the systemic character of various forms of discrimination. The university crisis and the curricular debate are also linked to the c h a n g e s in t h e c a p i t a l i s t s y s t e m in its m o v e m e n t t o w a r d s a p o s t industrial paradigm. This paradigm has been described by Lash and Urry (Harvey, 1990, p. 175) as disorganized capitalism characterized by its déconcentration of rapidly increasing corporate power away from national markets, internationalization o f capital a n d production, decline of national collective bargaining and the decline of class-based politics and institutions (Harvey, 1990, p. 124). The university crisis is also related to the setting of conservative economic policies and the parallel discourse on higher education. This discourse blames education for econ o m i c decline. It largely develops around a notion of accountability w h i c h m a y imply various degrees of interference in internal c a m p u s affairs, emphasis on privatization (e.g., industries more able to choose which research to support) and on the application of business techniques to the university setting (House, 1994, p. 29). This approach has the potential to seriously diminish the role of the university as social critic. There has been a shift in the intellectual configuration that challenges the w a y of constructing social meanings, of m a k i n g sense of reality. Perhaps the most relevant change from the perspective of critical social theory is the questioning of the "philosophy of consciousness" that paid The Canadianjournalof Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2,3 1999 38 R. Bruno-Jofré & J. Young particular attention to the subject as an agent included or excluded in social practices while neglecting the linguistic impact on the construction of the subject (Popkewitz & Brennan, 1997, p. 291). The "linguistic turn" m o v e d the emphasis to the systems of reasoning through which the subject is constructed, and focuses historically on pattern relations, organizations of perceptions, and the conception of self. The point made by the authors and others is that when we "use language, it may not be us speaking" nor the speaker defining all the meaning (p. 293). Since knowledge is understood as a material practice it is certainly articulated with other practices and hence the possibility of historizing the conceptions held by academics, in particular, academic freedom. Popkewitz and Brennan's thesis has interesting implications for the debate around inclusivity in particular in relation to the understanding of academic freedom. This issue of academic freedom is also linked to the notion of authority, expertise, autonomy, and in an open or hidden manner, has been at the core of any process of curricular change. Most current conceptions of academic freedom stress freedom of the professor to investigate, teach, and publish, subject only to scholarly standards and professional ethics. Other restrictions on the choice of research or on the e x p r e s s i o n o f scholarly v i e w s , whatever their source, violate a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m ( E i s e n b e r g , 1988, p. 1408; R a b b a n , 1988, pp. 1431-1439). Historically there have been two overlapping dimensions of academic f r e e d o m , on the o n e h a n d the rights of the individual a c a d e m i c i a n s within the limits set by professional norms and on the other, issues of university autonomy. Both dimensions are relevant to curricular change in terms of who is dictating change and in terms of adherence to norms regulating academic life perceived as neutral or at best universable. Two historical examples serve to illustrate the classical conception of a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m and p r o v i d e the p a r a m e t e r s f o r the a r g u m e n t expounded here. O n e example has to do with the historical contextuality of concepts like f r e e d o m , democracy, equality, citizenship, a m o n g others. In other words, it has to do with the understanding of statements as social practices that generate actions, as integral part of systems of reasoning through which people construe their roles. W h e n the American Constitution took effect," We, the people" meant we, white males, and our white male posterity. The 1791 A m e n d m e n t known as the Bill of Rights provided more protection for white males' f r e e d o m The CanadianjournalofHigher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2,3 1999 A Pilot Project on Inclusivity 39 (Leahy, 1994. pp. 4 4 7 - 4 4 9 ) . This social contract was based on an ethic of a u t o n o m y that did not recognize w o m e n , Black people (in slavery), a n d A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s as p a r t i c i p a n t s in the p u b l i c s p h e r e in p a r t b e c a u s e w o m e n and slaves w e r e considered unable to reason and the A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e w e r e viewed as colonized. T h e point here is that the o r i g i n a l v i s i o n w a s e x t e n d e d a n d t r a n s f o r m e d a l o n g w i t h the social d e m o c r a t i c struggles including the civil w a r and the w o m e n ' s struggle for political and social rights. Concepts such as f r e e d o m m u s t always be contextualized and m u s t be understood fully as social constructions. T h e second example deals with the contextuality of the understanding of a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m and the f u n c t i o n i n g of political r e g i m e s of truth/systems of reasoning. Most of the definitions of academic f r e e d o m d r e w directly or indirectly f r o m the 1915 Declaration of Principles of the A m e r i c a n Association of University Professors on a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m . T h e declaration and subsequent c o m m e n t s m a k e clear that "professors must use the m e t h o d s and spirit of a scholar" (Rabban, 1988, p. 1409). T h e immediate question is w h o defined the methods and the spirit of a s c h o l a r ? H o w w a s this r e a s o n i n g c o n s t r u e d ? T h e p o i n t h e r e is that Professor L o v e j o y and Professor Sidney Hook, two of the most prominent proponents of dismissing m e m b e r s of the C o m m u n i s t Party during the M c C a r t h y period, used the language of the Declaration in claiming that C o m m u n i s t professors had violated academic freedom, more specifically f r e e inquiry, by reaching conclusions tainted by the party line. T h e L o v e j o y - H o o k p o s i t i o n p r e v a i l e d in the a c a d e m i c w o r l d d u r i n g the M c C a r t h y period (Rabban, 1988). Similar arguments were used in some Latin A m e r i c a n countries, most particularly Argentina, to purge the university of the so-called subversive elements and feminist w o m e n w h e n the doctrine of national security, p r o m o t e d by the U n i t e d States, w a s i m p l e m e n t e d in the 1970s. These attacks w e r e carried out in the n a m e of scholarship, standards, ethics, political bias, ideological bias. Feminist scholars, scholars f r o m the third world, scholars of color, gays and lesbians, and other subordinated groups w h o create self-defined k n o w l e d g e still have difficulties, because they expand the classic discussion of acad e m i c f r e e d o m to question w a y s of perceiving, w a y s of reasoning, parad i g m s , in a different way. T h e y pose questions such as: " W h y are w e asking only this one question," a narrowness that led to the preeminence of s p e c i f i c d i s c o u r s e s and p a r a d i g m s ( M o r g a n , 1995, p. 29). W o m e n The Canadian journal ofHigher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2,3 1999 40 R. Bruno-Jofré & J. Young b e c a m e "epistemological heretics" to borrow Kathryn M o r g a n ' s expression (p. 33). A s it h a p p e n e d in M c C a r t h y ' s time the limits to p r o f e s sional a u t o n o m y w e r e set b y a d h e r e n c e to u n q u e s t i o n e d p r o f e s s i o n a l n o r m s and w e need to m a k e t h e m problematic. W h e n the m e c h a n i s m s to s e c u r e a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m w e r e set, the A m e r i c a n u n i v e r s i t y w a s a n e x c l u s i v e p l a c e . T h e p a r a m e t e r s of a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m as e s t a b l i s h e d through the understanding of expertise, peer reviewed publications, definition o f scholarship w e r e set by white m i d d l e class men. T h e unders t a n d i n g o f a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m a n d equity/inclusivity as c o n t r a d i c t o r y solitudes represents an incongruence in academic life. This incongruence is implicit in the often expressed assumption that equity and inclusivity e m b o d y a threat to academic f r e e d o m and to the integrity of research. H o w e v e r , if the university's obligation is to search for k n o w l e d g e , i n c l u s i v i t y m a k e s s e n s e f r o m an e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . T h e already classical breakthrough b y Gilligan (1982) in the area of moral d e v e l o p m e n t is still a good example. Lawrence Kohlberg's stage theory of m o r a l d e v e l o p m e n t , that p r e s u m e d to b e universal, w a s t a u g h t f o r m a n y years without m u c h concern for the fact that w o m e n seemed to fall on a stage b e l o w men. The w a y Gilligan challenged Kohlberg's assumptions is instructive. She did not simply present a moral d i l e m m a to the subjects of her research, but instead she asked w h a t a m o r a l d i l e m m a was. She asked questions to k n o w w h e n a situation took on moral significance f o r the girls and boys. She asked boys and girls what morality was. In light of these questions Gilligan perceived two voices, one that h a d b e e n s i l e n c e d , t h e o t h e r t h a t h a d b e e n l e g i t i m i z e d in W e s t e r n thought (Kasprisin, 1991). W o m e n biologists such as Bleir, F o x Keller, Rose, Harding, etc. have b e c o m e highly critical of contemporary biological theory and the inadequate treatment of questions involving sex, gender, race, and class. M a n y of them have pointed out "the devastating and lethal c o n s e q u e n c e s " of biological t h e o r i z i n g and m e d i c i n e b a s e d on exclusion (Morgan, 1995, p. 30). T h e rethinking of established k n o w l e d g e goes hand in hand with the rethinking of the basic systems of thought regulating universities. In the p r o c e s s of curricular c h a n g e and r e v i e w of the t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g processes, a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m appears expressed in relation to requests for evidence of lack of inclusion (or of unequitable situations), to claims of expertise, and free choice within scholarly parameters. The Pilot The Canadian journal ofHigher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 A Pilot Project on Inclusivity Project on Inclusive Curriculum at The University of Manitoba and the Department of Educational Administration and Foundations tried make problematic and rethink academic freedom and related notions universal fairness in an attempt to initiate an agenda that would m o v e toward a more equitable and inclusive institution. 41 in to of us THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND FOUNDATIONS The focus of the project described in the rest of this paper was the M a s t e r ' s D e g r e e p r o g r a m in Educational Administration based within the Department of Educational Administration and Foundations (which also houses a small Adult Education program). Although almost all of the students are part-time and take around 4-6 y e a r s to c o m p l e t e their p r o g r a m , the M a s t e r ' s p r o g r a m is n o r m a l l y described as a two year, 48 credit hour program. Included in it are 12 credit h o u r s of F o u n d a t i o n a l Studies ( S o c i o l o g y of E d u c a t i o n , P h i l o s o p h y of E d u c a t i o n , H i s t o r y o f E d u c a t i o n in M a n i t o b a , a n d Theoretical Perspectives in Educational Administration); 12 credit hours of Specialized Educational Administration courses; 6 credit hours of Research Methods, a number of Elective courses, and either a thesis or a comprehensive examination. Throughout the duration of the project, approximately a year and a half d u r i n g 1992 and 1993, the E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n F a c u l t y G r o u p met regularly and consisted of the four E d u c a t i o n a l Administration male professors, who regularly taught most of the specialized educational administration courses, and one female professor f r o m the Foundation area who, as Senior Academic Fellow responsible for a University-wide initiative on Inclusive Curriculum, played a central r o l e in initiating and s u s t a i n i n g the w h o l e p r o c e s s . T h e i n t e r a c t i v e process of these five academics is of primary interest in this study. A m o n g the characteristics of the Group several appeared particularly salient to our understanding of the process of change as it evolved in relation to this inclusivity project. First, like most of the professorate in Educational Administration the group was predominantly male, m a d e up of middle-aged white men. 4 The only female member of the group taught primarily in the Foundations area. Second, all members of the group had The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 42 R. Bruno-Jofré & J. Young a longstanding interest in issues of equity, albeit with quite different foci, f r o m Aboriginal education, multicultural and anti-racist education, gender studies, as religion and education. T h e y also brought different ideological orientations to the Group. N o t all m e m b e r s had similar concerns with the integration of the analysis of race, gender, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and body ableness. There was some fragmentation grounded in notions of expertise and personal interest. Third, the four m e n of the group shared, in their view, a strong sense of collegiality and energy that had been built over time. While the two senior m e m b e r s of the group had been in the Department some 20 years the other two and the female m e m b e r had been together some 5-8 years. This sense of collegiality w a s assumed to b e extended to the female coll e a g u e w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f an i n t e r a c t i o n a l c o d e that n o n e t h e l e s s t e n d e d to s u p p r e s s the d i f f e r e n c e she could bring to the group. E a c h m e m b e r , except for the f e m a l e one, had worked collaboratively and writt e n c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y w i t h at l e a s t o n e o t h e r m e m b e r o f t h e G r o u p . Collegiality as described here often did not equate with easy consensus within the m a l e group or in interaction with the female colleague. N o r did it limit the struggle for control of the agenda in order to f r a m e the discussion of inclusivity. P o w e r configurations constrained the discursive practice. T h e f e m a l e faculty felt often positioned in a differential relation of p o w e r and, in spite of her being the A c a d e m i c Senior Fellow, had to continually struggle to claim her space. T h e d e c i s i o n to m a k e this g r o u p of f a c u l t y a n d the E d u c a t i o n a l Administration M a s t e r ' s p r o g r a m the focus of this change process was m a d e quickly a f t e r the D e p a r t m e n t C o u n c i l voted to be a site for the study within the overall university Inclusive Curriculum Project. It was b a s e d u p o n t w o k e y s t r a t e g i c issues of c o n t r o l and c o m m i t m e n t . In choosing to focus on the graduate p r o g r a m rather than all or part of the u n d e r g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m the A c t i n g H e a d of the D e p a r t m e n t a n d the A c a d e m i c Senior F e l l o w chose to w o r k with a program over which the G r o u p collectively exercised a considerable degree of control. Choosing to limit the attention to the Educational Administration M a s t e r ' s degree w a s another strategic decision. It w a s based on the perceived degree of c o m m o n understanding and c o m m i t m e n t to exploring the issues. The Canadian journal of Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 A Pilot Project on Inclusivity 43 THE PROCESS Over the course of the 1993-94 academic year the project took on a variety of different activities. However, the central unifying element was the m o n t h l y G r o u p m e e t i n g s that the G r o u p m e m b e r s c o m m i t t e d to holding, a commitment which was observed with considerable fidelity. It w a s at these meetings that the G r o u p struggled to establish a shared u n d e r s t a n d i n g of inclusivity and its relevance and application to the Educational Administration graduate program. Out of these discussions came other Group activities: a survey of our graduate students past and present and a review of our program by an external colleague conversant with inclusivity issues; the development of a new pilot course; the preparation of a series of recommendations for Departmental Council, as well as individual activities. GETTING STARTED: BEGINNING TO DEFINE INCLUSIVITY AND MAKE IT OPERATIONAL Each member of the Group brought to the discussions her/ his particular understanding of and commitment to issues of equity, justice and diversity. T h e r e s e e m e d to be no shared u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the c o n c e p t of inclusivity nor of what an inclusive graduate educational administration program might look like. The struggle to establish these meanings for the Group was by and large what the project was about and it reflected the attachment to well established ideas about academic freedom and professional autonomy as a basis to deal with inclusivity. The group did not have a model to look at in terms of an inclusive project in administration but there were enough models in other fields emerging from the American p r o j e c t s a n d s y l l a b i to e x a m i n e . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e s e t t i n g u p of a Clearinghouse on Inclusive Curriculum facilitated the process of acquiring materials. The Group, however, made limited use of the Clearinghouse. 5 On the one hand, there was concern that the Group might follow the so-called "party line," in particular a radical feminist agenda that could be imposed upon the group and the students. On the other hand, there was considerable discomfort with the lack of a well defined concept of inclusivity but also resistance to depart from intellectual constructions such as clarification of the concept in light of other inclusive projects. The Group tried to frame the discourse and to assert its own definition of inclusivity The CanadianJournalof Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 44 R. Bruno-Jofré & J. Young in light of the administration p r o g r a m . Theories of leadership dealing with c a r i n g and nurturing b e c a m e important point of reference. W h e n disagreements emerged, the group tended to revert to areas of previous agreement. It appeared to be easier to arrive at agreement on m a n y of the elements of an inclusive program than it was to arrive at consensus on the reconceptualization of the program as a whole. A fragmented approach w a s less threatening to individual entitlements and ways of doing things. T h e s e negotiations w e r e not simply an intellectual process of developing meanings. T h e y also tended to b e c o m e political as individuals and groups of individuals struggled to h a v e specific meanings, priorities, and agendas accepted as " c o m m o n m e a n i n g s " or perhaps more correctly as group sanctioned m e a n i n g s . S o m e degree of consensus w a s obviously necessary to avoid individual faculty retreating to a practice of isolationism and individualism. Within the ideological context described above, the f o l l o w i n g questions acquired a central place in the process: " W h a t w a s the p r o b l e m h e r e ? " , " W h o s e e v i d e n c e should b e a c c e p t e d that a p r o b l e m exists that requires the G r o u p to think about and to do things d i f f e r e n t l y ? " , a n d , finally, " W h o s e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y s h o u l d it b e to get things d o n e differently?" W h i l e recognizing the intersection of sex, gender, race, class (heterosexism w a s not readily discussed), gender issues provided a starting point for the discussions. A n existing feminist literature in educational administration with which the G r o u p was at least partly familiar added to the appeal of such an initial focus. At its first meeting, on September 10th 1992, the G r o u p m a d e an initial effort at n a m i n g the focus of the project. It w a s a c k n o w l e d g e d that the Educational Administration prog r a m w a s staffed primarily by white m a l e professors and that without injection of f u n d s and the will to hire a w o m a n faculty member, that situation could stay for another ten years. Three questions b e c a m e a pragmatic statement of the project and provided an initial focus: " H o w did students feel about the relevance of inclusivity?" " H o w did they feel in the classroom and in the Department?", and " W h a t might w e be doing to c h a n g e this situation if necessary?" These questions provided a comfortable space allowing the m e m b e r s of the group to have a f r a m e of reference to deal w i t h f u n d a m e n t a l issues of autonomy in their o w n terms. The Canadian journal of Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 A Pilot Project on Inclusivity 1. WHAT IS THE "PROBLEM"? - 45 MEANING AND LEGITIMACY T h e p r o c e s s of c u r r i c u l u m t r a n s f o r m a t i o n generated tensions by challenging professorial entitlements, breaking routine patterns and dislodging situational power. It forced m e m b e r s of the t e a m to open to scrutiny the content of the courses they taught and the methods they used to teach. There were also pressures on participants to do things differently, requiring effort not only in terms of reworking their practices but also in terms of psychological energy to re-examine the value base of their work. Furthermore, such discussions had the potential of disrupting existing relationships and statuses within the group. Such tensions may to various degrees be ameliorated or ' m a n a g e d ' but they are unlikely ever to be completely avoided. Drawing on the work of Lynch (1986), Mcintosh (1983), and Patricia Hill Collins (1991) a m o n g others, we, the authors of this paper, try to conceptualize the responses to the challenges of inclusivity. This conceptualization seeks to capture the range of perspectives that might be manifested in specific contexts and in relation to specific elements of inclusion by the group as a whole and by individuals within the group. The point of departure here was the personal experience of Group members. 1. The courses beyond gender, universalizable paradigms, and the instructor knowledge base In as much as the discussions focused upon curriculum content and drew upon the existing literature within educational administration, the centrality of different aspects and issues of inclusivity were less unproblematic in some courses and areas of the program than in others. For courses such as "Educational Administration as a Field of Study and Practice," "The Politics of Education," or "Theoretical Perspectives in Educational Administration" connections were generally more apparent and wide ranging than in courses such as "School Law," about which there w e r e questions such as " W h a t is inclusive l a w ? " There w a s an a r g u m e n t t h a t the i s s u e s w e r e b e y o n d g e n d e r , r a c e , e t h n i c i t y a n d throughout there was the requirement of proof. The question of construction of knowledge beyond gender or race, and the related assumption that there are universalizable paradigms are linked to w h e t h e r f a c u l t y m e m b e r s a c k n o w l e d g e or not the n e e d to The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 46 R. Bruno-Jofré & J. Young rearticulate knowledge and reconceptualize the field. Within the Group, one of our colleagues expressed a great concern for the place of expertise and the need to do what he knew well. "What is it," "I don't do it," "I need to do what I ' m good at...I need to change." Since the Group was aware of his strong commitment to the students, these questions raised the i s s u e of institutional s u p p o r t — i l l u s t r a t i n g clearly to us that the process of changing curriculum implies time and resources. Patricia R. Schroeder in Reconstructing American Ongoing Process addressed this point when she wrote: Literature: An Revising the canon poses n e w challenges in the classroom beyond mere syllabus reconstruction. What in the world do you talk about when your class reads noncanonical literature in perhaps nontraditional forms, and you haven't spent eight years in graduate school studying it? Constructing creative solutions to this problem has provided me with some of my most rewarding classroom experiences, despite the pre-class panic I sometimes feel. (p. 12) Morgan lists among what she calls "dangerous equivocations," "the equation of "qualifications" and "expertise." In her view unproblematized reliance on credentials creates "justifiable" grounds for exclusionary practices (Morgan, 1995, p. 29). This equivocation is part of what she considers "dubious dualisms" such as universality and particularity, expert and amateur, rationally justified truths and social justice and transformation (Morgan, p. 31). Expertise should be critically explored when dealing with inclusivity. Morgan points out the danger of denying relevance, in the name of universality, to standpoints which embody epistemic particularity, f o r e x a m p l e , g e n d e r r e l a t e d or b a s e d o n the l i v e d e x p e r i e n c e s of Aboriginal Peoples or Afro-Americans. Morgan maintains that it is important to problematize universality as an epistemological ideal. 2. The enabling approach/orientation: Accommodating students' needs This orientation, while silent on the responsibilities or commitment of the program to make inclusivity a focus of what is taught, did provide some space for students to explore for themselves select issues of inclusivity (although most often without a conceptual framework grounded in educational administration). The presence of colleagues from W o m e n ' s The Canadianjournalof Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 A Pilot Project on Inclusivity 1249 Studies and feminist specialists f r o m other Faculties in the students' a d v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e s b r o u g h t into the D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n a l Foundations and Administration alternative paradigms and expanded the knowledge base of the faculty members involved. Within the Department a considerable number of Master's (as well as some Ph.D.) theses have focused on equity topics, and while some have clearly been 'sparked' and nurtured by instructors and by course content others have drawn their primary inspiration and direction from sources outside of the Department. One of the comments written by a f e m a l e student w h o responded to the survey conducted with graduate students in Educational Administration captured a general tendency of the program: Although inclusivity is mentioned in courses, there are only a few (2 or 3) courses that actually study the concept in its own right! T h e r e f o r e , in d e s i g n i n g c o u r s e w o r k , a c o n s c i o u s attempt must be put forward to include at least one specific l e c t u r e a n d / o r a s s i g n m e n t in this area. T h i s w o u l d a l s o include 'readings'. 3. Inclusivity as a topic This third orientation/perspective resembles a mix of M c i n t o s h ' s phases three, " w o m e n as a problem, anomaly, or absence," and four, " w o m e n on their own terms" in the sense that there is a recognition that w o m e n as a group are not in the curriculum and that it is necessary to include their experiences and perspectives in educational administration. Issues of inclusivity and equity are parceled off within particular courses in the form of a "topic" in educational administration, a "recent developm e n t " or "one of several emergent theoretical perspectives." Issues of inclusivity and equity are sometimes recognized as a body of knowledge to w h i c h students either should (required course) or m i g h t (elective course) be introduced. In the latter case students may take courses in W o m e n ' s Studies, Native Studies, or in any other Department. This orie n t a t i o n m a y easily lead to w h a t M o r g a n calls " p s e u d o - i n c l u s i o n , " because the inclusion involves the appropriation, exploitation, and the explicit denial of originary epistemic subjectivity of women and men of color and members of other systemically excluded groups" (1995, p. 33). The CanadianJournalof Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 48 4. R. Bruno-Jofré & J. Young Systemic Integration/Programatic Focus This orientation is close to Mcintosh's "reconstructed knowledge." Its implementation would articulate an over-arching framework for thinking, talking, and doing in the educational administration program that takes into account gender, sex, ethnicity, race, class, sexual orientation. Systemic integration aims at decentering the curriculum and the program by integrating epistemologies that come from the knowledge and standpoints of previously excluded groups (Collins, 1991). Not being confined to curriculum content, pedagogical, climate, university structure, and personnel would be seen as equally important issues. The statement in the Departmental brochure attempts to provide a tentative basis for this orientation, an orientation that w a s never fully embraced. It reads: Inclusivity is a goal and a central t h e m e for the M a s t e r ' s Program in Educational Administration. We believe that our m a t e r i a l s , p e d a g o g y , and p o l i c i e s should p r o v i d e f o r the a u t h e n t i c p r e s e n c e of multiple perspectives and voices in Educational Administration, including feminist perspectives and the Perspectives of Aboriginal peoples of Canada. 6 While the w o r k of the Group over the year and a half served to make inclusivity a more explicit and coherent theme for its members, the program remains, perhaps like most other graduate programs, a largely fragmented package of courses. The limits to change were set by both the resilience of well established frames of reference regarding the role of the scholar, her/his entitlements, and by structural constraints. N o t only is inclusivity not the unifying theme of the program, there is n o u n i f y i n g t h e m e in the program. W h e n the current p r o g r a m was designed some nine years ago the Department was committed to integ r a t i n g t h e F o u n d a t i o n s and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n s a r e a s , n o t p r i m a r i l y because of the pragmatics of having the two areas placed geographically and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y t o g e t h e r , but b e c a u s e the m e m b e r s of the E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n area shared a c o m m o n view of Administration as a moral, ethical, political and educative process that necessarily rested upon a Foundational basis. The result was a program that included a four half course "Foundational Core" and an Introductory course, Educational Administration as a Field of Study and Practice that sought to lay out this perspective on E d u c a t i o n a l Administration. In The Canadian journal of Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 A Pilot Project on Inclusivity 49 addition there was a Departmental commitment to work toward the integration of the two content areas. For example, the Department offered a L a w a n d E t h i c s S u m m e r I n s t i t u t e a n d H i s t o r y of E d u c a t i o n w a s designed in relation to Politics of Education. However, several factors contributed to the fact that integration has been limited. Students m a y and do take the introductory courses at any point in their program. Many, especially part time graduate students, take the bulk of their courses over summers with sessional instructors. As the results of the graduate survey undertaken clearly indicated different students experienced the program in q u i t e d i f f e r e n t w a y s d e p e n d i n g on the c o u r s e s t h e y c h o s e , t h e sequence in which they took their courses, and the instructors they had for them. The students' observations in relation to inclusivity and the program in general made clear the need for a plan of action. 2. WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE? The concern with evidence shows the limits to the understanding of systemic integration and reconceptualization of the academic enterprise i n c l u d i n g our e n t i t l e m e n t s as p r o f e s s o r s . T h e r e w a s suspicion of an alledged radical feminist agenda. It was necessary to show that our students were not happy with the program as it was. Early on in the Group's discussions of "how we might do things differently" and "whose definition of the situation would become the group sanctioned definition," the issue of what could/should/would constitute appropriate " e v i d e n c e " surfaced as an important issue, expressed, for example, in the following observations among the group: I am m u c h more interested in addressing seriously problems that our students identify with our curriculum and our behaviours than I am in holding an ideological mirror up to our practice. We need to start with systematic and neutral inquiry into our students experience. We need to ask whether is there something that h a p p e n e d here w h i c h m a k e s t h e m feel left out, e x c l u d e d or on the positive side b r o u g h t in. ( M e e t i n g of N o v e m b e r 4, 1993). These questions and concerns had deep roots. The Group as a whole did not deal with the outpouring of critical analysis of Western science, The Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2,31999 50 R. Bruno-Jofré & J. Young t e c h n o l o g y and e p i s t e m o l o g y specially, f r o m a feminist perspective. Some m e m b e r s of the Group expected that women would be fully aware of their own subordination if there was any and assumed that students would k n o w what is absent (race, ethnicity, gender, etc). The Group dealt with concerns in a number of different ways: they discussed and debated, in a limited manner, some of the literature on inclusivity within universities and within educational administration. They considered materials f r o m other Canadian universities. There was, however, reluctance/resistance to working with what was construed as external a g e n d a and supervision. Again this is an issue of a c a d e m i c autonomy/freedom. There was also resistance to an external evaluation/ assessment. Two of the main activities undertaken by the Group to provide the " e v i d e n c e " w e r e (a) a survey of our graduate students, and (b) a visit and 'evaluation' of the program by a female colleague from another university. THE STUDENT SURVEY The inclusion of students' voices in the process of self-study w a s generally recognized as being of central importance. Unfortunately, the b a s i c m e c h a n i s m o f the r e v i e w t h a t w a s c h o s e n , the A r e a G r o u p Meetings, did not encourage any direct student participation. The Group a g r e e d to u n d e r t a k e a s u r v e y o f s t u d e n t e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h i n t h e Department. (Please refer to Appendix 1.) A f t e r some initial discussions of the format and substance of the survey a short, semi-structured, fifteen item questionnaire was designed and mailed in January 1994 to a total of 123 students either currently registered in the Masters program or recent graduates from it. The questionnaire w a s divided into five sections dealing with: P r o g r a m Content; Teaching Methods/Classroom Interactions; General Departmental Climate; General C o m m e n t s , and Personal Demographics. Of the 123 questionnaires mailed out, seven were returned because the person no longer lived at the address used, and a total of 52 completed questionnaires were received and analyzed (see Table 1). O f the 52 questionnaires that w e r e received 37 w e r e returned b y female graduate students and 15 by male students, representing a female response rate of 54% and a 2 7 % male response rate. Without reporting on all of the data from the survey (Bruno-Jofré & Young, 1994), Tables 2 to 5 The Canadianjournalof Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 A Pilot Project on Inclusivity 51 Table 1 Responses by Gender Students Questionnaires Response in P r o g r a m Returned Rate Female 68 (55%) 37 (71%) 54% Male 55 ( 4 5 % ) 15 ( 2 9 % ) 27% Total 123 (100%) 52 (100%) 42% s u m m a r i z e r e s p o n s e s to t h o s e q u e s t i o n s that r e f e r r e d to student e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e p r o g r a m as a w h o l e . T h e data in t h e s e Tables, w e s u g g e s t e d , i n d i c a t e d that: s t u d e n t s g e n e r a l l y a p p e a r e d to h a v e quite w i d e l y d i f f e r i n g e x p e r i e n c e s in the E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n p r o g r a m d e p e n d i n g u p o n t h e c o u r s e s t h e y t o o k , w h e n t h e y t o o k t h e m a n d w h o t a u g h t t h e m , as w e l l as on t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s that t h e y b r o u g h t to their p r o g r a m s . F u r t h e r m o r e t h e r e a p p e a r e d to b e s o m e quite distinct d i f f e r e n c e s in the w a y s in w h i c h w o m e n a n d m e n e x p e r i e n c e d the p r o g r a m and life in the graduate classroom. Inclusivity w a s s e e n to be " v e r y i m p o r t a n t " to m o r e than half of the w o m e n r e s p o n d i n g to the survey a n d slightly less than o n e - q u a r t e r o f the m e n (Table 2). W h i l e there w a s g e n e r a l s u p p o r t f o r the s t a t e m e n t that i n c l u s i v i t y in all c o u r s e s w a s i m p o r t a n t , t h i s w a s e x p r e s s e d m o r e s t r o n g l y by w o m e n students. F o r a p r o p o r t i o n o f both m a l e ( 1 4 % ) and f e m a l e s t u d e n t s ( 8 % ) the issue w a s seen as u n i m p o r t a n t . W h e n a s k e d h o w a d e q u a t e l y their courses to date had i n v o l v e d the w o r k and experiences of W o m e n , Aboriginal Peoples, and Minority E t h n o - c u l t u r a l g r o u p s (Table 3), m a l e r e s p o n s e s w e r e again m o r e positive than the f e m a l e r e s p o n s e s . In Tables 4 and 5 a distinction w a s m a d e b e t w e e n t h e extent to w h i c h the p r o g r a m a l l o w e d students to d e v e l o p a k n o w l e d g e o f issues of inclusivity as distinct f r o m r e q u i r i n g that t h e y d e v e l o p this k n o w l e d g e as a central part of their c o u r s e w o r k . S t u d e n t r e s p o n s e s s u m m a r i z e d in Tables 4 and 5 s u g g e s t e d that w e d o better in a l l o w i n g a n d s u p p o r t i n g student interests in inclusivity than b u i l d i n g it into the c o r e r e q u i r e m e n t s of the p r o g r a m . The survey provided the Group with some important "evidence" b o t h in t e r m s o f t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e t a b l e s t h a t w e r e p r o d u c e d a n d t h e The CanadianJournalof Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 52 R. Bruno-Jofré & J. Young Table 2 Question 1: How important do you feel it is that all courses in the program include material that involves and affects Women, Aboriginal People, and Minority Ethno-cultural Groups? Very Important Female Male Total Quite Important Important Unimportant Total 19(51%) 12 ( 3 2 % ) 3 (8%) 3 (8%) 37 (100%) 3 (21%) 8 (57%) 1 (7%) 2(14%) 14 (100%) 22 (43%) 20 (39%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 51 (100%) Table 3 Question 2: How adequately do you feel that the courses you have taken to date have involved the work and experiences of Women, Aboriginal People, and Minority Ethno-cultural Groups? Very Well Female 1 (3%) Male 3 (21%) Total 4 (9%) Quite Well Poorly 17 ( 5 3 % ) 11 ( 3 4 % ) 7 (50%) 24 (52%) Poorly Total 3 (9%) 32 (100%) 2 (14%) 2 (14%) 14 (100%) 13 (28%) 5(11%) 46 (100%) Table 4 Question 3: How well do you feel that the program has allowed you to develop your knowledge of issues of inclusivity in Educational Administration? Very Well Quite Well Poorly Poorly Total 3 (9%) 33 (100%) Female 6(18%) 15 ( 4 5 % ) 9 (27%) Male 5 (33%) 8 (53%) 2(13%) Total 11 (21%) 23 (52%) The CanadianjournalofHigher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 11 (21%) — 3 (6%) 15 (100%) 48 (100%) A Pilot Project on Inclusivity 53 Table 5 Question 4: How well do you feel that the program has required aH students to become more knowledgeable about inclusivity in Educational Administration? Very Well Quite Well Poorly Poorly Total 6(18%) 33 (100%) Female 2 (6%) 9 (27%) 16(49%) Male 4 (27%) 8 (53%) 3 (20%) Total 6 (13%) 17 (35%) 19 (40%) — 6 (13%) 15 (100%) 48 (100%) anecdotal c o m m e n t s compiled f r o m the open-ended questions included in t h e s u r v e y . T h e s e d a t a w e r e n o t p r e s e n t e d as an u n a m b i g u o u s assessment of our p r o g r a m and its strengths and weaknesses. Each set of data was open to a quite lively interpretation as to its meaning, sign i f i c a n c e and i m p l i c a t i o n s as a n o t h e r part of the g r o u p ' s o n g o i n g struggle to develop meanings and strategies. The survey, in spite of its limitations, did h o w e v e r provide an important input into our group discussions as well as student input, and a n u m b e r of concrete suggestions as to h o w we might to do things differently. The point was to i n f o r m our discussions rather than to be "the perfect questionnaire." Perhaps the most contentious issue when even dealing with the informal interpretation of the questionnaire was the possibility that an overall positive response could serve to downplay the importance of the need to do things differently. THE EXTERNAL VISIT AND REVIEW T h e group agreed to invite a f e m a l e colleague to review outlines and s y l l a b i and to m e e t w i t h m e m b e r s of the E d u c a t i o n a l Administration Group and graduate students. A f t e r a two day visit with the Department she prepared a two part report in which she made general c o m m e n t s and recommendations and provided very useful bibliographical references to work toward the transformation of the curricula in e d u c a t i o n a l administration. Our guest suggested that the "syllabi should legitimate a wide range of personal and professional experience The Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 54 R. Bruno-Jofré & J. Young as c o n t r i b u t i n g to t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of k n o w l e d g e . " S h e u r g e d the g r o u p (a) to e x p a n d the u s e of m a t e r i a l s to b r i n g a variety of v o i c e s and multiple p e r s p e c t i v e s on issues into e v e r y c o u r s e and suggested w a y s to do that; ( b ) to l e g i t i m a t e d i f f e r e n c e s a m o n g w o m e n , to a c k n o w l e d g e that t h e r e is n o o n e f e m i n i s t p e r s p e c t i v e ; (c) to build that into the readings; (d) to r e c o g n i z e t h a t p r o v i d i n g m o r e p e r s p e c t i v e s o n a n y o n e c o u r s e t o p i c / i s s u e m e a n s r e d u c i n g t h e n u m b e r of t o p i c s or i s s u e s to b e a d d r e s s e d ; (e) to r e v i e w e x i s t i n g c o u r s e s y l l a b i w i t h r e s p e c t to t h e i r ' t o n e ' , " m a k i n g t h e m m o r e inviting b y c l a r i f y i n g that s o m e aspects of the c o u r s e are m o r e f l e x i b l e or n e g o t i a b l e than w h a t w a s indicated; (f) to u s e an i n c l u s i v e l a n g u a g e a n d discuss the rationale for its use. W i t h r e f e r e n c e to t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e s t h e r e v i e w e r e n c o u r a g e d t h e g r o u p to (a) s e e k o u t a n d i n v o l v e m o r e w o m e n as g u e s t s p e a k e r s and c o u r s e instructors; (b) attend to the interactive p r o c e s s in class w o r k " t o create or p r o t e c t s p a c e f o r m o r e tentative or m i n o r i t y v o i c e s a n d v i e w points; (c) r e c o g n i z e that i n t r o d u c i n g and " c r e a t i n g s p a c e " for d i f f e r i n g p e r s p e c t i v e s will meet resistance f r o m some of the students. She a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t b e i n g r e s p e c t f u l a n d e n c o u r a g i n g o t h e r s to b e r e s p e c t f u l of d i f f e r e n c e s , w i t h o u t g i v i n g u p all h o p e of critical d i s c u s sion, is n o t an e a s y task. The reviewer r e c o m m e n d e d that the group develop a collection including books, articles, n o n - a c a d e m i c writings, videos, alternative e x p e r i e n t i a l and analytical p e r s p e c t i v e s ; and m a d e the p o i n t that faculty m e m b e r s b e e n c o u r a g e d to u s e the C l e a r i n g h o u s e on I n c l u s i v e C u r r i c u l u m that h a d b e e n established as part of the I n c l u s i v e C u r r i c u l u m P r o j e c t . T h e r e v i e w e r e c h o e d c o m m e n t s f r o m the students to s e e k o u t m o r e w o m e n faculty. S h e w r o t e : " N o m a t t e r w h a t e f f o r t s t o w a r d equity a n d inclusivity m a l e p r o f e s s o r s m a k e , t h e r e are a l w a y s s o m e constraints associated with cross-gender dealings, especially when students' pers o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s m a y b e i m p i n g i n g o n t h e i r a c a d e m i c p r o g r e s s or s u c c e s s . " S h e a d v i s e d the D e p a r t m e n t to d o c u m e n t hiring o p p o r t u n i t i e s a n d d e v e l o p p o l i c i e s a n d p r a c t i c e s r e g a r d i n g hiring and r e n e w a l of t e r m t e a c h i n g c o n t r a c t s , a w a r d s of t e a c h i n g or r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t s h i p w i t h male/female breakdowns. T h e r e v i e w e r b e c a m e v e r y m u c h a w a r e of c o n c e r n s r e g a r d i n g resist a n c e to inclusivity of s o m e students in the c l a s s r o o m , and its i m p a c t o n t h e m o n i t o r i n g p r o c e s s s u c h as e v a l u a t i o n s b y t h e m that are later u s e d in The Canadian journal of Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 A Pilot Project on Inclusivity 55 the tenure and promotion process. As she pointed out, some graduate students carry over to the classroom considerable authority (seen within the Group as actual power) f r o m their professional paid-work positions, and will also sometimes bring with them sexist biases. The visit provided legitimization to the process of self-review. The Group had wanted a person w h o m they knew and with w h o m they felt c o m f o r t a b l e . T h e visitor had w o r k e d collegially with several of the members of the area group. Conceptually the Group worked out at the time a broad understanding of inclusivity which did not fully agree with the view expressed by the Academic Senior Fellow and others on campus that faculty needed to rethink courses, reconceptualize them, and deal with the idea that epistemologizing is a political act. The tendency shared by some m e m b e r s of the group, and by the reviewer, to d o w n p l a y the instructor's authority and the emphasis on giving equal weight to all voices had the potential to inhibit critiques of i n j u s t i c e and subordination, including the standpoints of s u b j u g a t e d knowledge. As Carmen Luke (1996) has pointed out this approach risks access under the pretense of equal subject positions. It is a matter of differential power. Furthermore, " w e all k n o w that male instructors can approach issues of inclusivity without dealing with the kind of resistance w o m e n encounter." Voice of the Caucus, 1 (March 7, 1994). A loose non-normative understanding of inclusivity has implications for teaching that feminist pedagogues neglected until recently. Those of us w h o taught f r o m a feminist perspective knew that to contest the canon w e have to appeal to normative discourses. This appeal raises the issue of authority at the level of discourse and discursive practice (Luke, 1996). Jones (cited by Luke, 1995) articulated the central problem: . . . Feminists are confronted with a paradox: claiming that authority is the practice most necessary for all women — and all "others". . . while simultaneously deferring the question of writing [and speaking] authoritative texts in favor of a theoretical position supporting a veritable cacophony of voices. I contend that w e remain trapped in and immobilized politically by a peculiar discourse on Authority, (p. 295) In spite of the theoretical observations, we, the authors, acknowledge that a more critically defined approach would have been difficult to pursue. The report written by the external reviewer was very useful and The CanadianJournalof Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2,31999 56 R. Bruno-Jofré & J. Young viable within the political space that was available. Feelings of comfort and trust b e c a m e important elements in the political agenda and the selection of the reviewer. T h e r e v i e w m a d e clear that changes w e r e needed and it was taken seriously. WHAT DID THE GROUP ACHIEVE? T h e E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n A r e a G r o u p d e s i g n e d a plan of action based u p o n the Group's self-study during 1993-94. The plan was approved by the Departmental Council on September 30th 1994. A plan for further action included the following: [1] POLICY 1.1: "We propose to develop for adoption by Department Council a policy statement on inclusivity in the Educational Administration program that will clarify our meaning of the term, our commitment to it, and contain specific references to the use of inclusive language in our courses and classes. (This will b e consistent with existing University policies on Equity and inclusive language.) This policy will be published in our Supplementary Regulations and made reference to in our course outlines." [2] PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND CONTENT: 2.1: " W e p r o p o s e to take steps to ensure that inclusivity is f u l l y taken up in the Master's program. This will include infusing issues of inclusivity across the curriculum as well as exploring the place of specific courses and institutes within the required and elective elements of the program." 2.2: "We p r o p o s e to develop a general reading list and annotated bibliography of material on inclusivity in Educational Administration for o u r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s . T h i s w i l l a l s o b e m a d e a v a i l a b l e to t h e Clearinghouse on Inclusive Curriculum and updated regularly." 2.3: "We will continue to review our course outlines and to meet and discuss different ways to address inclusivity in our course content. All course outlines are available f r o m the Department Office and feedback on t h e m is welcomed by the Area Group." [3] PEDAGOGY 3.1: " W e as an Area Group will continue to look for opportunities for both informal and formal professional development in the area of inclusive pedagogy." The Canadianjournalof Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 A Pilot Project on Inclusivity 57 [4] PERSONNEL 4.: " T h e Area Group will explore ways to improve this situation. These efforts m a y include, the recruitment of w o m e n and Aboriginal A d j u n c t Professors w h o would be able both to teach for the Department and advise thesis students, e x p l o r i n g the possibilities of d e v e l o p i n g a p r a c t i c u m / mentorship experience, as well as other forms of collaboration." T h e D e p a r t m e n t m a d e a systematic effort to hire on sessional basis Aboriginal instructors for specific institutes and w o m e n conversant with feminist theories. Further to clause 2.1 of the plan that refers to the d e v e l o p m e n t of specific courses and institutes within the required and elective elements of the p r o g r a m saw the development of an outline for a 500 level institute. T h e designation "institute" is used to describe a course characterized b y its interdisciplinary character, t e a m teaching, the use of local and national resource people, and a flexible schedule. These are professional c o u r s e s o p e n o n l y to students w i t h a first degree. T h e Institute links social foundations of education and educational administration and aims at e x p l o r i n g h o w t e a c h e r s e n v i s i o n a n d r e - e n v i s i o n t h e i r r o l e s in a process of change. T h e i n s t i t u t e is e n t i t l e d " C o n t r o v e r s i a l I s s u e s in P u b l i c S c h o o l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n " and is organized a r o u n d f o u r interconnected themes: (i) the historical role of the school as a politically contested arena and the tensions between the ideal of the " c o m m o n school," h e g e m o n i c principles, f o r m s of discrimination and racism, and resistance and political a f f i r m a t i o n f r o m the ethnic c o m m u n i t i e s and the A b o r i g i n a l Peoples; (ii) t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t e a c h i n g as a p r o f e s s i o n a n d the f o r m i n g of teachers' identity along with ideological as well as policy and administrative changes; (iii) the role of the teacher—the gender issues; (iv) curriculum, political socialization, and the idioms of Canadian citizenship: w h a t is taught and h o w ? T h e design calls for these f o u r t h e m e s to each cover approximately three sessions. E a c h t h e m e (on occasion two t h e m e s m a y b e m e r g e d ) , will c o n c l u d e with a case study analysis, usually in the f o r m of a w o r k s h o p w i t h guest speakers. T h e course will o p e n with c o n c e p t u a l and theoretical explorations that will b e applied to the examination of the issues and close with a revision of those concepts and theories in light o f t h e a n a l y s i s d o n e d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e . T h e c o u r s e is i n t e n d e d to The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 58 R. Bruno-Jofré & J. Young e n c o u r a g e s t u d e n t s to e x p l o r e h o w w h a t is l e a r n e d at s c h o o l can b e c o m e an instrument to be used by students to change social location and h o w teachers can play transformative roles. The Institute has not been offered yet. Changes in the Department, mainly the m o v e m e n t of some members of the team to other positions b e y o n d the D e p a r t m e n t , g e n e r a t e d u r g e n c i e s that c o m p o u n d e d the impact of budget cuts. The review of the M.Ed, program at the Faculty level offers now a renewed opportunity for considering the Institute and the recommendations in a new light. CLOSING THOUGHTS Although there is no assessment of the process here described, there were tangible results reflected in the regulations, changes in syllabi, preoccupation with hiring w o m e n , a tacit inclusion of gender issues, and more openness toward inclusivity. It is worth noting that in July 1999, the forst occasion since the Review, the Department hired a woman into the area. The approach had a strong pragmatic tone and it was conditioned by d o m i n a n t set of assumptions about rights and freedoms. The process revealed the difficulties involved in questioning practices, in unveiling relations of power, the ways of reasoning permeating one's role as professor, in other w o r d s disentangling o n e ' s own system of ideas. T h e decentering of the subject did not often happen because by and large most m e m b e r s of the Group were convinced that they spoke out their own reasons, their own words sanctioned by the traditions of the institution (See Popkewitz & Brennan, 1997). The politics of the process is illustrative of the tendency to place w o m e n in administration issues within a nurturing frame of reference, thus recreating a dualistic masculine/feminine construction, rooted in classical h u m a n i s m and western tradition (See Luke, 1996). In that sense the questioning of the ethnocentric westernized canon remained hindered by the trap of dualistic thinking around gender construction. The search for evidence reflected the Group's own epistemological foundations, mainly rooted in a philosophy of consciousness that assumes reason can m a k e active subjects aware of their own circumstances. There were little concern a m o n g some members of the Group with issues related to the formation of the individual and collective self The Canadian journal of Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 A Pilot Project on Inclusivity 59 and the role of d i s c u r s i v e practices. T h e r e w a s a c h a n g e a l o n g the process in the w a y the Group located inclusivity issues, in particular, gender issues. They gained a more prominent place and there was some m o v e m e n t t o w a r d a r e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the field. T h e m e m b e r s ' u n d e r s t a n d i n g of a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m w a s at the core of the p r o c e s s , although unstated, because it is at the core of the institution itself. The discourse of academic freedom needs to be revisited again and a g a i n . ^ References A n d e r s e n , M . L . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . C h a n g i n g t h e c u r r i c u l u m in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . Signs, 12. B r u n o - J o f r é , R . ( 1 9 9 6 ) . A c a d e m i c f r e e d o m a n d e q u i t y : T w o s o l i t u d e s ? Voice of the Caucus for Women, 7(4), October 1996. The University of Manitoba clearinghouse for inclusive curriculum: Development and services, 7(1). B r u n o - J o f r é R . & Y o u n g , J. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . Equity and inclusiveness in a graduate program: A survey of students in educational administration. Unpublished B r u n o - J o f r é , R . & A n d r i c h , S. ( 1 9 9 6 ) . report. Winnipeg, M B : Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, The University of Manitoba. C h e s l e r , M . A . , & C r o w f o o t , J . E . ( 1 9 8 7 ) R a c i s m o n c a m p u s . In W . M a y ( e d . ) , Ethics and higher education. N e w Y o r k , N Y & T o r o n t o , O N : A m e r i c a n Council on Education and Macmillan Publishing Company. Collins, P.A. (1991). On our own terms: Self-Defined standpoints curriculum transformation. and NWSA Journal, 3 ( 3 ) . E i s e n b e r g , R . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . D e f i n i n g t h e t e r m s o f a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m . Texas Law Review, 6(5(7). Gilligan, C. (1982). development. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's Boston, M A : Harvard University Press. H a r d i n g , S. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University Press. The condition of postmodernity, an enquiry into the origins of cultural change, 3rd edition. G r e a t B r i t a i n : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Harvey, D. (1990). H o u s e , E . ( 1 9 9 4 ) . P o l i c y a n d p r o d u c t i v i t y in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . Researcher, Educational 23(5). K a s p r i s i n , L. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . E d u c a t i n g p e r s o n s a n d the social c o n s t r u c t i o n of p u b l i c Women in higher education: A cross-cultural the grassroots ' voice in the quest for change. life. In R . B r u n o - J o f r é ( é d . ) , approach, integrating Western Washington University, Woodring College of Education. The CanadianJournalof Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 60 R. Bruno-Jofré & J. Young L e a h y , R. (1994). Authenticity: F r o m philosophie concept to literary character. Educational Theory, 44(4). Luke, C. (1996). Feminist p e d a g o g y theory: Reflections on p o w e r authority. Educational Theory, 46(3). Multicultural education: Principles and practices. L y n c h , J. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . and London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Mcintosh, P. (1983). Interactive phases of curriculum revision. W o r k i n g P a p e r Series. Wellesley, M A : Wellesley College Center for Research on W o m e n . M o r g a n , K . P . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . W e ' v e c o m e to see the w i z a r d ! R e v e l a t i o n s of t h e enlightenment epistemologist. Philosophy of Education. Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society. P o p k e w i t z , T.S., & B r e n n a n , M . (1997). Restructuring of social and political t h e o r y in e d u c a t i o n : F o u c a u l t a n d a s o c i a l e p i s t e m o l o g y o f s c h o o l p r a c t i c e s . Educational Theory, 47(3). R a b b a n , D . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . D o e s a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m l i m i t f a c u l t y a u t o n o m y ? Texas Law Review, 66(1). R o s s E p p , J. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . W o m e n ' s p e r c e p t i o n s of g r a d u a t e level administration programs. educational The Canadian Journal of Higher Education , 24(2). S c h r o e d e r , P. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . R e c o n s t r u c t i n g A m e r i c a n l i t e r a t u r e : A n o n g o i n g p r o c e s s . Ephemera, 7(1). Appendix 1 — A Summary of Items from the Student Questionnaire Section 1 : Program Content 1.1: H o w i m p o r t a n t d o y o u f e e l it is t h a t m a t e r i a l t h a t i n v o l v e s a n d affects W o m e n , Aboriginal Peoples, and Minority Ethno-Cultural G r o u p s is i n c l u d e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e E d u c a t i o n a l Administration Masters program? 1.2: H o w a d e q u a t e l y d o y o u f e e l t h a t t h e c o u r s e s y o u h a v e t a k e n t o d a t e have involved the work and experiences of W o m e n , Aboriginal Peoples and Minority Ethno-Cultural Groups? 1.3: H o w w e l l d o y o u f e e l t h e p r o g r a m h a s a l l o w e d y o u t o d e v e l o p y o u r k n o w l e d g e o f i s s u e s o f e q u i t y a n d i n c l u s i v i t y in E d u c a t i o n a l Administration? 1.4: H o w w e l l d o y o u f e e l t h a t t h e p r o g r a m h a s r e q u i r e d all s t u d e n t s to b e c o m e more knowledgeable about equity and inclusivity Educational Administration? The Canadian journal ofHigher Education Volume WX, No. 2,3 1999 in A Pilot Project on Inclusivity Section 2: Teaching methods/Classroom 61 Interactions 2 . 1 : I n y o u r e x p e r i e n c e o f c o u r s e s in t h i s p r o g r a m h o w w e l l d i d y o u f e e l t h e i n s t r u c t o r s u s e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l m e t h o d s t h a t a l l o w e d all s t u d e n t s t o p a r t i c i p a t e f u l l in t h e l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s , a n d e n s u r e t h a t n o - o n e was excluded? 2.2: In y o u r courses to date did y o u feel that y o u w e r e e n c o u r a g e d a n d a s s i s t e d b y t h e i n s t r u c t o r t o p a r t i c i p a t e f u l l in all o f y o u r c l a s s e s ? 2.3: A s i d e f r o m the efforts o f the instructor, d o y o u feel that other stud e n t s in t h e c l a s s e s y o u h a v e t a k e n g e n e r a l l y e n c o u r a g e d a n d s u p ported a climate of inclusivity? 2 . 4 : P e r s o n a l l y , h a s it b e e n y o u r e x p e r i e n c e t h a t o t h e r s t u d e n t s h a v e c r e a t e d a c l i m a t e t h a t h a s e n a b l e d y o u t o f u l l y p a r t i c i p a t e in all your classes? 2 . 5 : H a s it b e e n y o u r e x p e r i e n c e t h a t in t h e c l a s s e s y o u h a v e a t t e n d e d inclusive language has been used by the instructor? 2 . 6 : H a s it b e e n y o u r e x p e r i e n c e t h a t in t h e c l a s s e s y o u h a v e a t t e n d e d inclusive language has been requested or required by the instructor in w r i t t e n a s s i g n m e n t s a n d c l a s s r o o m d i s c u s s i o n s ? Section 3: General Departmental Climate 3.1: D o y o u feel that o u r current t i m e t a b l i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s s u p p o r t or i n h i b i t o u r e f f o r t s t o d e v e l o p a p r o g r a m t h a t is r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e ? (Open-ended) 3.2: D o y o u feel that the opportunities for i n f o r m a l interaction b e t w e e n students and faculty and students, and students and students support the goal of an inclusive and w e l c o m i n g intellectual environment? (Open-ended) Section 4: General Comments 4.1: C a n you give us further feedback on h o w w e might improve our program? (Open-ended) Notes 1 T h e Project embodied the collective history of w o m e n working for c h a n g e at t h e U n i v e r s i t y . In t h e F a l l o f 1989, at t h e S y m p o s i u m from I s s u e s t o A c t i o n , t h e r e w a s a n u r g e n t call f o r c u r r i c u l a r c h a n g e . In 1990, t h e C a u c u s f o r W o m e n , a grassroots b o d y created f r o m the floor of the 1989 S y m p o s i u m , develo p e d a T a s k Force Proposal to generate a plan of action w h i c h w o u l d p r o d u c e a The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 62 R. Bruno-Jofré & J. Young c a m p u s f a v o u r a b l e equally to w o m e n a n d m e n . A l t h o u g h the Proposal w a s a p p r o v e d in p r i n c i p l e b y t h e F a c u l t y A s s o c i a t i o n E x e c u t i v e a n d t h e B o a r d o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s as w e l l as b y t h e P r e s i d e n t ' s A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l o n W o m e n , it w a s n o t a c c e p t e d b y t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . H o w e v e r , in 1 9 9 2 , t h e P r e s i d e n t ' s A d v i s o r y Council o n W o m e n obtained f u n d s f r o m T h e University of M a n i t o b a P r o g r a m D e v e l o p m e n t F u n d to d e v e l o p a p i l o t p r o j e c t o n e q u i t y in t h e c u r r i c u lum. T h e Project addresses one of the four interrelated issues of the T a s k Force P r o p o s a l o f 1 9 9 0 . T h e P r o j e c t w a s h o u s e d in t h e O f f i c e o f t h e V i c e - P r e s i d e n t ( A c a d e m i c ) a n d P r o v o s t and received strong support f r o m this office. T h e research for this p a p e r has b e e n supported by the R e s e a r c h D e v e l o p m e n t F u n d , The University of Manitoba. ^ T h e D e p a r t m e n t in J u l y 1 9 9 7 m e r g e d w i t h t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y to f o r m a n e w D e p a r t m e n t of Educational Administration, Foundations and Psychology. ^ T h e p a r a g r a p h s that refer to a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m w e r e taken f r o m B r u n o - J o f r é ( 1 9 9 6 ) . T h e p a p e r w a s r e a d at t h e p a n e l , B u i l d i n g a n E q u i t y C u l t u r e : A U n i v e r s i t y - W i d e F o r u m , M a r c h 29, 1996, organized by the Faculty of Arts, The Univeristy of Manitoba. ^ J u a n i t a R o s s E p p ( 1 9 9 4 ) f o u n d , in h e r a n a l y s i s o f e d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a - tion p r o g r a m s at t h e g r a d u a t e level, that 22 ( 1 8 % ) of 123 r e s p o n d e n t s h a d a f e m a l e advisor for their research. Educational administration professors w e r e predominately m a l e — 3 2 % of the respondents had never had a female professor. ^ The creation of the Clearinghouse for Inclusive Curriculum was pro- p o s e d o r i g i n a l l y b y t h e A c a d e m i c S e n i o r F e l l o w in M a r c h 1 9 9 3 . It w a s o f f i c i a l ly a n n o u n c e d b y t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f M a n i t o b a L i b r a r i e s in O c t o b e r , 1 9 9 3 . T h e C l e a r i n g h o u s e is g u i d e d b y a n A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l a n d h a s a s p e c i a l i z e d b i b l i o g r a p h e r . A n e t w o r k o f b i b l i o g r a p h e r s f r o m d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n e s at T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f M a n i t o b a f a c i l i t a t e a n e f f e c t i v e c o o r d i n a t i o n o f t h e c o l l e c t i o n p r o c e s s . It h a s b o t h a material and a virtual dimension. See B r u n o - J o f r é and Andrich (1996), pp. 66-71. 6 The University of Manitoba, Master of Education, Department E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n d F o u n d a t i o n s , 1 9 9 6 - 9 7 , p. 3. The Canadian journal ofHigher Education Volume XXIX, No. 2, 3 1999 of