Academics working across the social sciences and humanities are often faced with the task of teaching ‘difference’ and inequality. This pilot study investigates key issues involved in teaching gender, class, ‘race’, ethnicity and sexuality as sites of social inequality, exclusion and identity politics. It focuses on the following questions: whom do we teach and what are the assumptions underpinning our constructions of the audience when teaching inequality/ difference? What are the effects of those assumptions? How do we teach inequality/ difference and how do our assumptions affect our teaching practices? In what ways do lecturers reflect upon and negotiate these issues? Clearly, these are questions of interpretation, experience and sense-making: they therefore relate to the production of meaning and call for the use of qualitative data.

The methods used were focus groups (carried out by the researchers as a collective) followed by semi-structured interviews, carried out separately by members of the research team). Access was gained by ‘snowball sampling’ and interviews were conducted with colleagues across a range of subjects. Field diaries were also kept by the researchers (as practitioners in the fields concerned). The results reveal two key issues: the ‘definitional power’ of lecturers, and ‘minoritised’ students.

‘Definitional Power’ of Lecturers:
Data analysis reveals that teaching difference/ exclusions involves a multiplicity of power relationships, within which identities are imposed, negotiated and resisted. Our field diaries uncover our preconceptions about the demographic make-up of our students, which we tend to assume as largely homogenous in around teaching difference often stem from unease with what we perceive to be such ‘undifferentiated’, non-representative classes.

‘Minoritised’ Students:
Especially in terms of gender, data show that teaching minoritised students can be problematic for teaching and potentially for learning. One key example to emerge is teaching Feminism and concepts of patriarchy to often female-dominated sociology undergraduates: data reveal occasions where patriarchy is debated heatedly by groups of up to 20 students, of which only one or two are male. That lecturer’s reflections and strategies are discussed in terms of how they might inform practice. Another example emerges out of teaching colonialism to geography undergraduates: data indicates that students reacted uncomfortably to the role of geography in shaping the colonial project. Possible ‘good practice’ strategies are again discussed.

This pilot study uncovers some challenges associated with teaching ‘difference’ but has not investigated students’ perceptions of themselves, each other and lecturers. Instead it makes a series of recommendations aimed at promoting reflexivity and debate among lecturers, and makes proposals for possible future studies that could incorporate empirical research into students’ experiences. Key recommendations include:

• Understanding inequality and difference requires consciousness-raising — among lecturers and between lecturers and students — of our own positions within existing micro- and macro-structures of power and exclusion.


• Teaching in this area would benefit from discussions of how real biographies and everyday life problematise discourses of identity.