Evaluation in Australian higher education is often presented as objective and neutral, yet dominant frameworks remain deeply embedded in Eurocentric epistemologies that privilege compliance, standardisation, and quantifiable metrics. These approaches marginalise Indigenous knowledges and risk reducing equity to a technical rather than structural and justice-oriented concern. In this article, we critically examine how such frameworks entrench epistemic exclusion in the evaluation of equity programs. Drawing on Indigenous-Pacific epistemologies, including fa’afaletui, vā, talanoa, and tok stori, we argue for relational, culturally grounded, and community-led approaches to evaluation. Case studies from the University of Technology Sydney, Western Sydney University, and Griffith University demonstrate how Pacific methodologies are embedded in program design, delivery, and evaluation, generating indicators such as cultural identity, belonging, and intergenerational aspiration that remain invisible in mainstream evaluation logics. We show how Indigenous-Pacific frameworks not only expand what counts as rigour but also reposition evaluation as a practice of reciprocity, accountability, and justice. Our contribution is both critical and hopeful and a call to reimagine evaluation not as a tool of control, but as a relational and transformative practice that honours Indigenous sovereignty and community-defined success.

1. Introduction: Theoretical background, aims, and research questions.

Although, there have been movements and calls for decolonization for as long as there has been European colonization, it was the student-led RhodesMustFall and FeesMustFall movements that recently generated most attention to the ongoing colonial and racist structures shaping university life (Gurminder et al 2018). These movements created a situation where even some of the most prestigious universities began to consider coloniality in their architecture and institutional structures. The results of these debates and discussions are far from uniform or complete. As the historian Priyamvada Gopal (2021) has noted most universities in the UK turned the discussion of decolonizing the university into a box-ticking exercise. In many contexts the main redress has been to revise reading lists and curricula (e.g. Lockley 2018, Inman et al 2024), to question recruitment and workloads (Pete 2018, Schuller/Abreu 2022) and to consider the experience of students (Bafo/Dattatreyan 2021). What remains virtually unquestioned is epistemic coloniality in the way university courses are taught (Gatt 2022, Burgos-Martinez 2018).

I base my research on the work of the school of thought referred to as the Modernity/Coloniality/Decoloniality project or MCD project (e.g. Mignolo/Walsh 2018, Escobar 2007). They argue that coloniality is also an epistemic project, in which one particular onto/epistemology is forcibly imposed on peoples around the world. The MCD theoretical framework enables a focus on how knowledge is defined and framed, by whom and for whom. Key here is that even epistemologies that emerge in ‘Europe’ have been delegitimized when they do not align with the universalizing goal of colonial onto/epistemogies (Santos 2014). While MCD scholars have themselves been critiqued for reproducing relations of inequality between global north and south scholars and actors (Cusicanqui 2013), in my research I adopt their forms of questioning to develop an anthropological approach to decolonizing higher education.

In my anthropological research about decolonizing pedagogy in higher education I ask:

What ways of knowing and being are considered valid for shaping higher education pedagogy? What onto/epistemologies are being excluded and why?

How can I shape my pedagogy to respectfully and appropriately teach by means of different onto/epistemologies?

How is education changed when it becomes epistemically plural?

2. Methods

Participant observation is the basis of anthropological methods, and I have carried this out within my own university courses and within the university departments I have worked and taught in (Gatt 2022, Gatt forthcoming). However, participant observation itself also needs to be questioned, as it is more often than not a form of extract research that reproduces epistemic coloniality (Gatt 2018, Bejarano et al 2018). For this reason, I developed collaborative methods in which the research is jointly designed with research participants, and in whatever ways possible, made to benefit all parties involved (Ang/Gatt 2018). The most effective method for this has been the workshop format. In the workshops I organize, my research collaborators and I jointly explore what current pedagogies they have experienced, and what alternatives we could devise.

I have organized educational workshops and delivered courses where my participants and I jointly consider the question of decolonizing university education, questioning what practices are considered epistemically valid. While we still read in these workshops, we also use multimodal, artistic, performative and sensory practices, and explore how reading itself consequently changes.

3. Results and Discussion

Preliminary results show that education which involves different ways of knowing revitalizes students’ interest and love of learning. Students have expressed a strong renewed sense of the value of their education, and a sense of independence and responsibility towards their own learning, having come to experience their agency as collaborators.

4. Educational Significance of the research.

This research towards epistemically plural university education valorizes different ways of knowing, and this includes the knowledge and ways of knowing students bring with them. Not only does this lead towards decolonizing the university in an epistemic sense, but in a context of the growing use of AI for university assignments, and the growing disillusionment of students, evidenced by decreasing student numbers in the humanities for instance, plurally epistemic education can reinvigorate the value of university education.

Introduction

This bibliometric analysis arose from questions raised in Da Cruz's (2025) doctoral research on the cultural and linguistic aspects of mathematics textbooks. That study analyzed how Canadian mathematics textbooks function in Brazilian educational contexts, documenting cultural disconnections and the need for pedagogical mediation when educational materials cross cultural boundaries. Building on these findings regarding cultural transposition in mathematics education, the present study expands the scope to examine how scholarly research addresses gender equity, representation, diversity, and inclusion across STEM and STEAM education more broadly.

Research documents the persistent underrepresentation of women and minorities in STEM fields across educational levels (Blackburn, 2017; Estrada et al., 2016). Studies demonstrate that social and cultural factors influence students' STEM identity development and persistence (Kim & Sinatra, 2018). Recent work has expanded to address intersectional identities, culturally responsive pedagogies, and arts integration as STEAM (Leavy et al., 2023; Perales & Aróstegui, 2024). However, systematic understanding of how research attention has evolved, which themes dominate, and where gaps persist remains limited.

This study examines 999 scholarly publications from 2015 to 2025 addressing: How has research on gender equity in STEM education evolved temporally? What thematic combinations characterize this field? What gaps warrant future attention?

Methods

Data collection occurred in September-November 2025 via Google Scholar using the following combined terms: "gender," "equity," "representation," "diversity," "inclusion," "mathematics education," "STEM," and "STEAM." The search yielded 999 publications (2015-2025), including articles, proceedings, and book chapters. Bibliographic metadata (title, abstract, authors, year, source, citations) was extracted and analyzed through temporal distribution analysis, thematic analysis via text mining, citation analysis, and gap analysis using targeted keyword searches.

Methodological limitations include database restrictions (Google Scholar only), language bias (English, Spanish, Portuguese), and reliance on titles/abstracts rather than full texts. Despite these limitations, the sample size (n=999) aims to provide evidence of field-level patterns.

Results and Discussion

Publications increased from 6 in 2015 to 272 in 2025. Comparing 2020-2022 to 2023-2025, overall volume increased 134%. Gender-focused research increased from 33 papers (2020) to 166 papers (2025), representing 403% growth. Mathematics education research increased from 22 to 82 papers (272% growth) during the same period.

Thematic analysis identified the following dominant foci. STEM/STEAM topics in 967 papers (96.8%), gender in 567 papers (56.8%), and equity/diversity in 480 papers (48.0%). Examining intersections, 273 papers (27.3%) addressed STEAM and equity together, while 155 papers (15.5%) combined gender and mathematics. Only 55 papers (5.5%) examined mathematics, technology, and gender together. Highly cited works on women in STEM (Blackburn, 2017; Kim & Sinatra, 2018) and underrepresented minorities (Estrada et al., 2016) received 600-1000 citations.

Emerging themes showed increased attention to specific topics. Climate/sustainability publications increased from 2 papers (2015-2019) to 26 papers (2023-2025). Makerspace-based learning increased from 2 to 18 papers. Computational thinking appeared in 30 papers (2023-2025) compared to zero in 2015-2019.

Gap analysis identified underrepresented topics. LGBTQ+/non-binary identities (3 papers, 0.3%), race-gender intersectionality (16 papers, 1.6%), Indigenous knowledge systems (15 papers, 1.5%), and equity-focused teacher education (17 papers, 1.7%). Geographic analysis showed limited African representation (3 papers, 5.2%) and no studies from Oceania.

Conclusions

This analysis documents substantial growth in gender equity research while identifying underexamined topics. For researchers, the limited coverage of non-binary identities (0.3%) and intersectionality (1.6%) indicates opportunities to expand research agendas. Emerging areas of sustainability and computational thinking suggest opportunities to integrate equity considerations early.

For practitioners and policymakers, findings indicate uneven knowledge development across STEM disciplines. Concentration in STEAM+equity (273 papers) compared to mathematics+technology+gender (55 papers) suggests areas needing research investment. Growth in climate/sustainability (2 to 26 papers) and makerspaces (2 to 18 papers) indicates connections between pedagogical innovations and equity goals, though gaps remain for marginalized populations and require proactive support.

Future research should address non-binary and LGBTQ+ student experiences in STEM (currently 0.3%); intersectional approaches examining race, gender, and identity interactions (currently 1.6%); Indigenous knowledge systems in STEM education (currently 1.5%); geographic expansion beyond North America and Europe; and longitudinal studies examining research-to-practice translation and student outcomes. These directions address current gaps while building on documented growth in gender equity research.