Decolonizing Through Virtual Exchanges? Reflections on an Educational Experiment Between Botswana and Switzerland

Evidenced by the syllabus of any MBA or MPA program in the Global North and South alike, the conventionalized management curriculum has failed to account for, let alone to include, voices of previously (and currently) colonized people. This is even more disturbing as a significant number of multinational organizations draw on these people in terms of racialized precarious, low-pay, low-skill work (Barthold, 2020). The knowledge for conventionalized management teaching is mainly authored in and authorized by international publishers based in the United States and Europe.

As an emancipatory program, decolonization aims at identifying vestiges of colonial histories embedded in socio-political circles as well as at challenging and orchestrating corresponding reforms (Nayar, 2010; Young, 2016). In terms of management education, decolonizing should center on a pedagogy of multiplicity in terms of a plurality of perspectives, worldviews, ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies (Allen, 2023; Banerjee, 2022; Banerjee & Berrier-Lucas, 2022; Bhambra et al., 2018, p. 2; Everett, 2023).

Within the broad endeavor to decolonize universities in general, decolonizing individual programs, curricula, and courses is a small but important piece to the jigsaw. Intercultural exchange – in person or virtual – contributes to this at the level of students’ experience and interactions for that matter. In view of the increasing digitalization around the globe, digitally enabled VE courses have become affordable. Acknowledging that technology and digitalization in general and VE courses are no panacea to colonialism overall, such joint projects contribute incrementally and over time to bridging the gap between student populations and faculty.

In this paper, we critically reflect on a VE course between UniBe and Botswana UB to explore whether and how such courses can play their role in decolonizing management studies. Importantly, we ground our critical reflection deliberately in Ubuntu philosophy, an integral, emancipatory, non-Western paradigm to broaden and enhance the hermeneutic apparatus of our field. While we did not mobilize Ubuntu principles in the design and delivery of this course, they served us very well in critically reflecting on the structure, process, and practices of the course and, moreover, to better understand whether and how such a VE might contribute to the decolonization of management education.

Definitions, aims, and strategies of decolonization abound (e.g., Bhambra, 2014), whereby two important perspectives can be distinguished. Whereas a formal perspective focuses primarily on legal and governmental independence and sovereignty, a more encompassing view refers to the reversal of all European imperial expansive ramifications (Mignolo, 2007; Quijano, 2000). In terms of the former, decolonization is referred to as a process where legally dependent territories gained their constitutional independence and joined the international relations state of play as sovereign states. Thus, countries proudly hoisted their own flags, created national anthems, and joined the United Nations as full-fledged members (Collins, 2016). As this formal conceptualization restricts itself to political and constitutional dimensions, it avoids decolonization’s transformative process through economic, social, and cultural repercussions in former colonies (Bhambra, 2014). In terms of the latter, decolonization encompasses the reversal of European imperial expansion with all political, economic, social, cultural, and linguistic ramifications (Von Bismarck, 2012).

While approving of the principle that a formerly colonized territory can be ridden off every remnant of its colonial past, rarely is there a clean slate (Bhambra, 2014; Collins, 2016). But then it becomes important to view decolonizing in terms of objects (what gets decolonized?) and subjects (who gets decolonized?) (Wenzel, 2017). While the former question demonstrates the unfinishedness of decolonization, the latter question refers to the political aspirations of a people to be free and run their own affairs. However, decolonization is – be it confronting elements of colonialism in society, calling for overhauling of entire systems such as penal codes, the language of instruction, requesting the return of cultural artifacts – a complex spectrum ranging from calls for entire overhaul of systems to calls for incremental transformation of systems (Eckhardt et al., 2022; Ehrmann, 2022).

Practices of decolonization have been examined in three broad domains, namely international (governmental & non-governmental) organizations, social movements, and academia (Mallard et al., 2021). In international governmental & non-governmental organizations, professionals of global health, humanitarian aid, and development have actively been reconsidering their work practices between practitioners from the Global North and those from the Global South (Kickbusch et al., 2021). Secondly, social movements (including “Black Lives Matter,” “Why is my curriculum so white?,” or “Rhodes Must Fall”) have all questioned the social practices impregnated by the legacy of colonialism in Western societies where colonial artifacts are still visible and operating as manifest for instance in street names, statues, or museum artifacts (Bhambra et al., 2018; Chowdhury, 2021).

Thirdly, academia has also begun to scrutinize its colonial roots and sediments, which are still at play to this day. It has witnessed scholars calling within many disciplines to reflect on their teaching philosophy, research methodology, and epistemology (Kessi et al., 2021; Mbembe, 2016; Mintz, 2021; Yousfi, 2021). In a similar vein, scholars have begun confronting and addressing the colonial origins of their fields (Conrad, 2016; Joo & Kim, 2017; Le Grange et al., 2020; Stanek, 2019). As Mbembe (2016) concludes so compellingly in this regard, no professional, school administrator, scholar, or student can afford to disentangle from decolonizing.

Yet, the decolonization of academia has been subject to a lively debate. While some scholars argue it is a matter of historical narrative, epistemological (De Sousa, 2015; Matasci, 2022; Lazem et al., 2022; Connell, 2018) exclusion, language, and social equity, other scholars view it as concerning border-thinking, counter-story telling, and territory reclaiming (Kester, 2019; Mackinlay & Barney, 2014; Zavala, 2016).

The parallel evolution and institutionalization of the contemporary university weaponized epistemologies in shaping a narrative of Western civilizational and racial superiority that induced a marginalization, if not near erasure, of non-Western traditions and world views – often referred to as “epistemicide” (Mignolo, 2017; Santos, 2014). Over time, this development resulted in a dependence by non-Western countries on neo-colonialism as well as in a dominance of Western educational approaches, practices, and institutions (Esteban, 2020).

Overall, the fundamental critique of Westo-centric education has been that it has been perpetuating hegemony and reinforcing a Eurocentric worldview, thereby not just defining and determining epistemologies but, moreover, also economic, political, and social spheres (Escobar, 1995; Said, 1983, 1993). Westo-centric, enlightenment-informed epistemological traditions restrict, at least, scholarly efforts to interrogate and comprehend the phenomena and experiences of non-Western peoples in their own right and in their own epistemologies (Adefila et al., 2022; Fougère & Moulettes 2007).

Decolonizing education, therefore, demands the conscious, critical recognition of a historically specific set of colonial power relations ingrained in our academic institutions, relations, and processes today (Mignolo, 2007; Picower, 2009). Faul (2021) identifies five closely related arenas in this regard, namely teaching, research, institutions, estates, and reparations. Institutions, estates, and reparations have already seen notable attempts, such as Harvard University’s appointment of its first black president, Claudine Gay. Equally, faculty composition becomes increasingly diversified to reflect present realities, and scholarships and grants are being made accessible to people who would have traditionally been left out (Faul, 2021). Importantly, decolonization should not be confused with the integration or inclusion of epistemic accomplishments of non-white, non-Western cultures. Enhancing academia to advance social justice, embrace critical methodologies, or implement more student-centered pedagogies are adjacent but distinct political projects to decolonization (Arshad et al., 2021; Shahjahan et al., 2022).

Countering Westo-centric hegemony and epistemic dominance, a decolonized academia allows for a multiplicity and plurality of perspectives, worldviews, ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies (Bhambra et al., 2018, p. 2; Kothiyal et al., 2018).

Within the broad program of decolonizing academia, decolonizing the field of management education is a tall order in its own right. Pivotal educational institutions (including universities and faculty), teaching, and learning approaches have become objects of decolonization (Grosfoguel, 2011; Mbembe, 2015, 2016; Nyamnjoh, 2021). With academics from the Global South paving the way, universities around the globe have experienced a wide array of decolonizing approaches (Jammulammadaka et al., 2021; Mbembe, 2016; Mignolo & Walsh, 2018) aiming at disentangling colonialism in its structural, racial, and epistemic manifestations (Santos, 2014).

As a discipline, management (including public management) has not been an exception to such normalization (Dadze-Arthur, 2022). Hence, the onus is on Western business and government schools to contribute to the broader aim of decolonizing (Jack et al., 2011; Prasad, 2012; Seremani & Clegg, 2016). For instance, colonial bureaucracy and public administration focused not only on managerial efficiency but also on a calculated repression of colonial subjects (Akinwale & Jude, 2014; Berda, 2022).

Countering the dominant discourse, Prasad (2012, 2003) and Jammulam-madaka et al. (2021) have actively introduced postcolonial perspectives on management. Specifically, they refer to decolonizing as a radical praxis of “(un) doing academia” that transforms individuals and the ways to comprehend, study, and practice management studies (Jammalumadaka et al., 2021).

Thus, decolonizing academia necessitates substantive changes. More often than not, sustainable change starts small and on the periphery of an institution. In the case of universities, one niche to experiment with decolonial learning consists of student exchange initiatives.

Decolonizing course practice is a humble, practical niche for experimenting with novel learning formats (Morreira et al., 2021). Student exchange programs are very effective in sensitizing students to different cultures, worldviews, and ethics (Thomas, 2005). However, such exchange programs are often very expensive and not affordable for a significant majority of global students. Thus, the concept and practice of VE courses have gained traction in universities (O’Dowd, 2021).

Emergent research on VE education demonstrates its potential contribution to the decolonization project (Aatkar, 2020). These courses are suggested to invite and enable intercultural dialogue by facilitating meaningful interactions between students from diverse cultural backgrounds that challenge stereotypes and foster mutual understanding and respect. Moreover, they provide an empowering discursive arena for marginalized communities to share their perspectives and experiences (Abuzaid, 2019). Also, they allow for challenging dominant narratives and contribute to the construction of more inclusive educational spaces. VE rely on equitable learning environments where all participants feel valued and respected, regardless of their cultural background or socio-economic status. Overall, these VE courses enhance intercultural competence and improve students’ ability to navigate diverse cultural contexts. (Aatkar, 2020; Abuzaid, 2019).

Importantly, VE initiatives must be mindful of technological barriers, cultural differences and unequal access to resources, but moreover, of colonial legacies and epistemic injustices that may shape relationships between participating universities. As structural inequalities influence VE partnerships, an ethos of mutual respect, reciprocity, and knowledge sharing is advised (Adam, 2021; Robinson et al., 2015).

In light of the above, this paper seeks to critically reflect on how VE might contribute to decolonizing management education.

At the heart of decolonizing education is the creation of a physical and intellectual space in which everyone feels safe, valued, and respected and is, therefore, able to learn effectively (Bhambra et al., 2018). Specifically, a decolonizing learning environment allows for dialogue, awareness of colonial power dynamics and legacy, as well as for a pluralism of voices and perspectives. A compelling concept and exemplar of such a pedagogy of multiplicity consist of a decolonizing curriculum based on and informed by the integral ethical paradigm of Ubuntu.

Ubuntu, a cosmology deeply rooted in African philosophy, embodies interconnectedness, community, and mutual support (Taylor, 2014). Derived from various African languages, it signifies “humanity towards others” or “I am because we are.” In a synoptic review of different philosophical strands, Hailey (2008) highlights Ubuntu as a moral framework, emphasizing the significance of relationships and communal harmony in African societies. On the same note, Konadu-Osei et al. (2023) delve into the historical and cultural significance of Ubuntu, tracing its origins to indigenous African societies and its integration into various aspects of life, including governance, conflict resolution, and societal organization.

This integration reflects Ubuntu’s role as a guiding principle for fostering cohesion and collective well-being. Discussing how Ubuntu might inform global management, Lutz (2009) investigates Ubuntu’s philosophical dimensions, highlighting its contrast with individualistic Western ideologies. Ubuntu emphasizes the interconnectedness of humanity and the importance of shared humanity, promoting a holistic worldview that prioritizes collective welfare over individual interests.

In summary, Ubuntu represents much more than a mere philosophical concept; it embodies a way of life, a social cosmology of sorts characterized by compassion, communal solidarity, and respect for others (Taylor, 2014). Its principles offer valuable insights into fostering harmonious relationships, promoting social cohesion, and addressing collective challenges in diverse cultural contexts. While Naude (2019) points to the risk of an overly simplistic transfer and application of Ubuntu to other contexts and rather calls for acknowledging its complexities and limitations, he also recognizes its potential as a framework for promoting social justice, reconciliation, and ethical conduct.

Specifically concerned with discussing the usefulness of Ubuntu in the context of decolonizing education, Dennis et al. (2018) emphasize its potential for informing, if not reshaping, pedagogical approaches. She foregrounds the importance of relationships and mutual dependence among people as well as to their environment; the pertinence of a communal ethic, wherein the well-being of the community takes precedence over individual interests; the importance of empathy and compassion toward others as well as the respect for diversity in perspectives, experiences, and identities within the community.

By incorporating Ubuntu values into pedagogical interventions, educators can create learning environments that nurture empathy, foster collaboration, and empower learners to become active participants in building a more just and equitable society. Very usefully, Dennis et al. (2018, 200pp.) integrate these overarching norms and values into four didactical principles as follows.

This principle underscores the interconnectedness of all elements within the curriculum, acknowledging their accountability to both human and non-human entities. It goes beyond human-centric perspectives to recognize the importance of ecological, cultural, and spiritual dimensions. For instance, a science curriculum might integrate indigenous ecological knowledge alongside conventional scientific concepts, acknowledging the interconnectedness between humans and the natural world.

In line with decolonizing education, this principle emphasizes the importance of creating inclusive spaces within the curriculum where the voices, perspectives, and knowledges of indigenous peoples are respected and valued. It involves incorporating indigenous narratives, histories, and ways of knowing into the curriculum, challenging Eurocentric biases and stereotypes, and promoting cultural authenticity and dignity.

This principle acknowledges that knowledge production is not a one-way process but rather a reciprocal exchange between universities and communities. It recognizes that communities contribute valuable insights, experiences, and expertise to the educational process and should, therefore, benefit from the outcomes of knowledge production. This might involve collaborative research projects, community-engaged learning initiatives, or knowledge-sharing platforms that facilitate mutual learning and empowerment.

This principle advocates for ethical frameworks that recognize the rights of indigenous communities over their knowledge systems and cultural heritage. It emphasizes the importance of respecting intellectual property rights, traditional knowledge systems, and cultural protocols. Educational institutions should adopt policies and practices that ensure indigenous communities have ownership, control, and decision-making power over how their knowledge is used, disseminated, and preserved.

By integrating these principles into educational practices, institutions and faculty can move toward more inclusive, equitable, and socially just approaches to teaching and learning. This not only enriches the educational experience for all learners but also contributes to the revitalization and empowerment of Indigenous communities and knowledge systems. As an integral, emancipatory paradigm, we draw on Ubuntu as our analytical lens and conceptual framework to critically reflect on our educational experiment in the next section and, moreover, whether and how a VE seminar might contribute to management education.

In this section, we briefly outline the VE course thereby focusing mainly on design, content, and struture of the course. The course, a 7-week VE, Masters-level course called “Public Sector Management, Reforms, and Innovation – Comparing the Botswana and Swiss Contexts” (see Fig. 1) was held in the Fall semester 2023 designed for eight students and four members of faculty from both UniBe and UB.

Based on initial personal contacts between two academics from UniBe and UB, the idea of a collaborative exchange emerged and was subsequenetly formalized in a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in 2022. Aligned with the mission and strategy of both universities, the MoU included joint activities in terms of research, teaching and staff/student exchanges. Legal offices in both universities ensured all due diligence and all necessary formal requirements were met.

As semester calendars between the two universities are not synchronized, we pragmatically settled to consider the VE as a dedicated course for each university. While the teaching period in UniBe’s Fall 2023 semester ran from September 18, 2023 to December 22, 2023 (formal end January 31, 2024; UB’s Semester Two (2) teaching ran from July 31, 2023 to November 10, 2023 with the exam period ending on November 24, 2023. Given these constraints, we pragmatically focused on the overlap of 8 weeks in both university calendars.

In terms of the design and delivery of the course, we agreed on equality in the number of faculty members on the design committee as well as in the number of participating students. For virtual student breakout groups to co-create and co-own their own spaces, we also ensured parity from both universities. Furthermore, four sessions consisted in lectures, delivered by two members of each faculty.

The physicality-virtuality aspects of space and place were also of concern in our planning. Overall, a virtual, i.e., video-conferencing technology-enabled endeavor using virtual whiteboards (Fig. 2), we deliberately held three hybrid sessions at each university in which students and instructors were in the same lecture room. As shown in Fig. 3, the paradoxical experience of space in terms of being (partially) physically together while being (partially) distanced created a shared sense of commonality and difference at the same time.

As both Master’s programs are dedicated to public administration and management in their specific countries, reforming and innovating in the public sector were deemed pertinent challenges in both contexts and, moreover, very amenable for comparison.

Within the broad topic of reforms and innovation, we assigned four specific topic areas (see Fig. 1) and alternated in their delivery: “need for reform and innovation” as well as “the role of culture in reform and innovation” (UB) “comparison of administrative traditions” as well as “change in public sector organizations” (UniBe).

In terms of the learning process, the course drew on lectures, group work, and presentations, as well as plenary discussions. We thereby offered equal airtime and respectful listening as guiding principles of our virtual interactions. Also, we aimed to make sure that different perspectives and voices were invited and heard. By welcoming a multiplicity of voices, we aimed to avoid a one-sided, authoritative voice or perspective as to how public administration is to be learned. Moreover, we recognized our own implicitness within the structures of conventionalized public management studies and, therefore, invited authentic, comparative narratives by students and instructors alike of public administration knowledge in the two countries.

Whether and how our design and delivery of this VE course might have allowed for decolonizing moments in the learning process is subject to our critical reflection in the following section.

Undoubtedly and as evidenced by the evaluation form, students have appreciated this learning experience. However, student satisfaction is not the main concern of this paper. Rather and in a reflexive gesture, we wish to critically reflect on structure, content and process of learning through a decolonizing lens.

As to structure these reflections, we draw on the aforementioned four normative trajectories of an Ubuntu perspective (Dennis et al., 2018) and frame the following questions:

To What Extent Had the Course Been Connected in a Co-Relation of Accountability to Humans and Non-Humans?

In terms of relational accountability and given the topical orientation of the course, non-human, natural aspects had been backgrounded. For instance, deliberate efforts were made to formalize the partnership between the two universities; the embodiment of this is found in an MoU between the two universities. Essentially grounded interconnectedness is both for the implementation of this VE course and other future endeavors. Again, although not explicitly stated, the idea of creating public value was preeminent in regard to the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4 and the African Union (AU) Agenda 2063, which aims to push the frontiers of quality education and make it accessible to all.

However, the fundamental, if not foundational, premise of the course was the relevance of equality and the importance of relationships. Meeting each other on equal footing was at the center of the ethos with which the design committee planned the course.

Issues of social cohesion, equal student participation, discussion of course content, addressing challenges in course delivery and cultural diversity, as well as country-specific/contextual issues, were given utmost relevance in fashioning a common footing. Yet, there were limitations and blind spots in the relational realm, especially in the incorporation of indigenous knowledge. Again, implicit cultural assumptions that had not been problematized (e.g., how do you address a professor in the plenary).

However, technological constraints may crop up (e.g., the differences in internet connectivity, data bandwidths, etc.). were duly acknowledged and accommodated; for instance, UB had onsite IT assistance throughout the virtual sessions for scenarios such as connectivity issues, technicalities pertaining to logins/logons, etc.

To What Extent Has the Course Created Space for Different Voices and Knowledge?

In terms of respectful representation, the core materials of the course drew very much on Western concepts (e.g., reform, innovation, change, culture). In this regard, the representation was very much informed by Westo-centric concepts and frameworks. However, we deliberately designed for and invited different voices and knowledges as we probed into comparing the institutional and cultural specifics of each country, for instance, on histories behind State-Owned Enterprises.

Thus, country-specific, comparative case studies were explored, discussed, and then presented in the plenary in cross-country student teams – within which the different voices and perspectives were expressed. This was achieved by creating inclusive spaces where all students from both universities were given an opportunity to participate in class, voice their ideas and opinions, and share their knowledge through group discussions and presentations.

To What Extent Have the Benefits of Knowledge Been Shared by Both the Universities and Communities?

Appropriation in the strict sense had not been at play in this context. However, there was a lot of complementarity in terms of both communities benefiting from the exchange of knowledge and expertise through knowledge-sharing platforms like MiroBoard (see Fig. 2), WhatsApp, and Zoom, a sort of technological bridge building. Yet the reciprocity dimension raises the crucial question of whether the knowledge used, applied, and gained in this course would be used outside and beyond the immediate context of the university.

To What Extent Has the Course Recognized Ownership of Knowledge from Non-Western Origins?

As per the above, the course concepts and reading operated mainly, if not exclusively, on Westo-centric materials. However, the key to recognizing alternative knowledge and their equal relevance to learning was introduced via the constant comparison between the Swiss and the Botswanan context. Ethical frameworks that recognized the rights of lecturers and students were observed during the module planning, delivery, and post-course evaluation phases.

For example, course delivery and assessment protocols were discussed, both countries’ cultural issues were discussed and addressed, and lecturers and students were given an opportunity to prepare for the introduction and induction sessions so that they learn about each other’s culture and country-specific contextual factors/issues. Again, operational details such as issues of time management in the two countries, how to address each other during sessions, what to discuss on social media platforms like WhatsApp, and what to post on the Miro Board were ironed out during the preparation phase. These were mainly aimed at setting up and establishing a code of conduct for lecturers and students as well as between the two universities.

This short reflection on the course in light of the ideas and ideals of an Ubuntu curriculum demonstrates how far the course was in the design and delivery of such a Ubuntu perspective. Despite the positives, in relation to the course content, this should have been the time when we could have, as course designers, challenged and explored why Western ideologies are not that effective in transforming the management of organizations in developing countries and explored when/where indigenous management principles have worked in Botswana, Switzerland or in other African or developing country contexts.

Oftentimes, we make progress not by providing answers but by raising and entertaining challenging questions. In this case, the design and delivery of the course are not an answer to colonization, but our ubuntu-based reflection raises important questions for us and other designers of learning how to advance in decolonizing learning through these incremental yet reflexive learning and reflection processes that we will make advances in decolonizing learning.

In this brief essay, we set out to offer the case of a jointly designed and delivered VE course of two Master-level public management and administration programs in Botswana and Switzerland as a foil to critically reflect on its potential and limitations to decolonize management learning. Of course, it would be injudicious to oversell the merits of a VE course in its contribution to decolonizing MOS. However, it would equally be a mistake to overlook its potential, for instance, in creating epistemological third spaces where conversations between the West and “non-West” and their ways of knowing could be nurtured (Seremani & Bazana, 2025).

As the decolonization project aims at contesting entrenched epistemological imbalances, it is crucial to offer psychologically and culturally “safe spaces” in which difficult conversations can take place. In that sense, this VE course is, for participants and faculty alike, a starting point in tackling such epistemic imbalances. It forms part of a gradual yet ever-evolving decolonizing set of activities. Acknowledging that there is no neutral space (e.g., the bandwidth in the north is higher), the physical and relational aspects of virtuality (e.g., participants’ images are all the same size) allow for contouring a third space. Virtual, in essence, ushers participants into a third dimension where, having circumvented attendant technological challenges, they meet together in one place as a whole/unit, although physically miles apart.

Exchanges – virtual or not – invite you to reconsider long-held, taken-for-granted assumptions. Comparisons in content or semester calendars are, therefore, very formative for designers and participants alike. The structure and content of the course allowed faculty from across the geopolitical divide to not only design a course but also to find synergies on what is relevant for both parties, on approaches, style, methods of assessment, joint student endeavors, etc. For many of the students, too, it was the first of such exchanges to be in a space where experiences across geographical divides could not only be shared but also learned, with their presence not only seen but felt and varying experiences treated as valid.

Given the almost commoditized ubiquity of virtual technologies and acknowledging the remaining colonial challenges, we should engage more in such VE as the benefits seem to outweigh the risks or disadvantages. This is not to relegate in-person exchanges to the background. They matter and are weightier in terms of lived exposure and contextualization regarding cultural and structural developments. Such in-person exchanges would allow faculty and students alike an experience of Botswana and Switzerland that no however sophisticated technology can offer. When you consider all the logistics involved, it’s almost impossible to pursue decolonizing endeavors all the time through traditional means such as in-person approaches.

When we imagine the grand task of decolonizing, scholars should not seek to exclusively uncover unadulterated precolonial perspectives of the Global South and the various ways theories and approaches in MOS could have been delivered had there been no colonialism (Seremani & Clegg, 2016). Instead, what we acknowledge is that colonialism has impacted reality both in the Global North and South in profound and irreversible ways (Bhabha, 1994; Hamann et al., 2020). Essentially, innovative ways should be found to shine a light on this hybridity, a claim to which we argue a VE course might contribute.

VE courses do come with important limitations, one of which is the difficulty in recognizing cultural cues. Acknowledging the cultural protocols of a place is difficult over an online platform. Therefore, given the objective of embracing diverse cultural backgrounds, it is important to acknowledge that what is considered appropriate may vary. For instance, in terms of salutations, it is imperative to ascertain the appropriate form of address for a professor, whether it should be on the basis of first name or last name. Another illustration is the manner of participation in seminars, whether silence should be interpreted as concern or tacit approval of the lecture’s progression. It is vital for designers and students to be cognizant of the fact that educational settings, including virtual ones, have the potential to function as sites of power, privilege, hierarchy, inclusion, exclusion, and implicit norms regarding appropriate forms of argumentation and behavior. These dynamics may give rise to certain cultural presumptions (Mintz, 2021).

All in all, while a VE has legitimate limitations compared to, for example, a face-to-face exchange, it does offer valid potential in terms of cost reduction, and it provides a “pseudo-neutral space” in which the difficult work of decolonization can begin to be not only imagined but discussed among faculty and students alike. However, its significant contribution lies in the practicality it brings.

Irrespective of how the four principles of the Ubuntu framework were incorporated into the planning and design of this VE, no single course or an eight-week VE course will do justice in decolonizing management studies or even an entire university or respective faculties. However, decolonizing does not only concern itself with the macro structures but also the micro- essentially the act of doing decolonization. This is where we find the most strength in terms of what our VE was able to achieve: enhancing plurality in curriculum development and delivery, student empowerment, diversity and inclusiveness, social justice and equality in teaching and learning, small yet vital and incremental facets of the decolonizing agenda.

While far from a perfect contribution to the decolonization project, the VE course had a dual effect: it was a micro-contribution of doing decolonization and, at the same time, has raised important questions for faculty and participants. We hope that our essay invites others to join the quest!