Implementation Dynamics and Pedagogical Practices in Humanities
The structural critique of institutional Eurocentrism reveals a profound divergence between macro-level decolonial policy imperatives and micro-level classroom practices. Grounding the theoretical critique in systemic institutional barriers, Heleta (2016) argues that higher education in South Africa remains constrained by Western epistemological hegemony and entrenched institutional structures that resist transformation. This theoretical position identifies epistemic violence as a deep-seated feature of university curricula, requiring a comprehensive reconstruction of teaching paradigms to place African realities and worldviews at the centre of higher learning (Heleta 2016). Conversely, practical curriculum analysis highlights that policy declarations alone cannot dismantle institutional inertia without direct academic staff engagement. Examining the implementation gap, Le Grange (2023) contends that the initial momentum for curriculum reform has abated largely due to challenges surrounding academic staff attitudes and a lack of genuine ownership. Consequently, decolonisation cannot succeed merely as an administrative mandate; it requires academic staff to reconceptualise epistemology through pluriversality and intentionally counter coloniality within disciplinary modules (Le Grange 2023). Comparing these analytical perspectives illustrates that while structural resistance institutionalises epistemic dominance across humanities faculties, the operational success of curriculum transformation ultimately hinges on empowering educators to enact pluriversal frameworks in their daily pedagogical design. Reconciling theoretical critiques of Eurocentric dominance with concrete module reframing ensures that decolonial strategies move beyond abstract institutional rhetoric into substantive, socially responsive classroom practice.