Methodology and academic extractivism: the neo-colonialism of the British university

ABSTRACT

Methodological pedagogy within contemporary British social science higher education (through methods courses, textbooks, etc.) constitutes the process through which the researcher is formed, and research designed. It is our contention that methodology – whether positivist or post-positivist – is a form of knowing predicated upon the severance of theory from practice. Methodology presents these as distinct areas, which can only be unified through the synthetic operations of methodological approaches. We argue that the consequence of the separation of theory and practice is that the realm of practice is construed as raw material – as data – to be harvested in the research process, whilst theory is seen as detached from geohistorical–political relations. This serves a neo-colonial process of academic extractivism. We will demonstrate how this is so through an examination of popular methodological textbooks and approaches, highlighting the absence of considerations of contemporary coloniality. We then set out a tentative pedagogical alternative in the form of practical reflexivity and dialogical research. We will show how such approaches are emergent within the social sciences and how they offer a decolonial alternative to contemporary methodological approaches.

KEYWORDS:

• Colonialism
• decolonisation
• methodology
• epistemology
• British Higher Education
• academic extractivism

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Elio Di Muccio and Dr Sam Warner for reading and commenting upon early drafts of this paper. Their critical insights proved invaluable. We would also like to extend thanks to Dr Laura Jenkins and Dr Stephen Bates for their constructive and enriching dialogue on issues covered in the paper, as well as the reviewers and editors of Third World Thematics for their feedback and critique.

Notes

1. By theory, we include both first-order observations and claims, as well as second-order categorial claims. The former refers to empirical observation (facts, causal relations, etc.); whilst the latter refers to the ‘truth’ status of such claim (i.e. what is fact, what is cause?) (see Gunn 1989). Practice is the realm of activity from where concepts emerge. However, it is important to note that practice includes theory and therefore is always also conceptual; similarly, all theory includes (and is) practice. The difference comes from either explicitly accepting this co-constitution of theory and practice or denying it. Our contention is that methodology is a denial of this interrelation of theory and practice.

2. It is important to note here the distinction between tendency and law. We are not seeking a determinist and reductionist account. Rather, we are pointing to what we believe are important tendencies which are visible within methodological textbooks. Whilst a certain set of social relations may tend towards certain outcomes over others, this does not always entail a law-like relation.

3. Whilst we make use of the distinction between GN and GS, we recognise the potential hazards of making use of this dualism. We maintain that whilst this dualism may obscure some of the complexity in global relations of power, it is still useful for examining socio-political tendencies.

4. We recognise the contradiction of speaking critically about the GN in such a way whilst also being products of it. These disciplinary dimensions of methodological training became apparent to the authors by way of resistance to them. However, this contradiction is still present and therefore our theoretical argument is an attempt to trace a potential route beyond this contradiction.

5. These textbooks tend to focus primarily on sociology and political science due to our own disciplinary backgrounds. There are clear limitations in this, as ethnographic methods (some of which attempt to break with the disciplinary tendencies we highlight) cannot be given proper attention. Further analysis of approaches which attempt to break with the separation of theory and practice would be a fruitful avenue for further research.

6. Such approaches include grounded theory, case study research, ethnography, phenomenology, critical realism and action research.

7. There is scope for experiential theory to break with circularity, if engaged with in a reflexive manner which frames local context as an important dimension of theoretical knowledge. Here, we speak of tendencies within the representation of methodology, whilst recognising some scope for these patterns to be broken with.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Comisión Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONICYT) [CONICYT PFCHA/DOCTORADO BECAS CHILE/2015 – 72160].

Notes on contributors

Melany Cruz

Melany Cruz is a Teaching Fellow in the Department for Political Science and International Studies at the University of Birmingham. She recently completed her PhD thesis on the affective dimensions of political violence by looking at lynching in contemporary Mexico which was awarded the 2020 Political Studies Association’s ‘Sir Ernest Barker Dissertation Prize for Political Theory’. Research interests include theories of violence, theories of emotions, feminist theory, and Latin American Politics.

Darcy Luke

Darcy Luke is a PhD student in the Department for Political Science and International Studies at the University of Birmingham. His current research is on the British Treasury and the management of public expenditure in the 1970s. His research interests include Marxism, theories of the state, British Politics, public expenditure in capitalist democracies and critical archival methodologies.