This article reflects on a collaborative project at a Dutch university that examined inclusivity in bachelor‐level history education amid a growing body of scholarship on the persistence of Eurocentrism and androcentrism in the field. History education involves sensitive and contested topics such as colonialism, migration, and structural inequalities. In this context and in line with our own experiences, some students and staff expressed concerns about representation, accessibility, and classroom dynamics. In response, this project combined curriculum analysis, student‐centred focus groups, and a staff questionnaire, to gain insight into current teaching content and practices, focusing specifically on the representation of the Global South, gender diversity, and inclusive pedagogical practices. Findings echo wider disciplinary patterns, including Euro‐American bias and perspectives, and gender imbalances in assigned scholarship. While many staff expressed a commitment to inclusive teaching, the findings suggest that such efforts remain uneven and are shaped by structural constraints. Situating these findings within institutional, disciplinary, and national contexts shows that inclusive history education requires attention to the societal embedding of the programme, the peculiarities of the history profession, as well as educational dynamics. While this project was intended to make our programme more inclusive, it also functioned as a mirror to our own teaching practices, revealing the need for shared understandings and aims, pedagogical support, and coordinated leadership. By foregrounding the challenges encountered during this process, this article contributes to debates on inclusive pedagogy, epistemic justice, and institutional change in higher education, thereby offering insights for educators and policymakers.
Zurné et al. (Mon,) studied this question.