Decolonizing gender and education research: unsettling and recasting feminist knowledges, power and research practices

Introduction

Critical scholars across a variety of disciplines and geographic areas express the need to engage in intellectual projects that shift the dominant epistemic perspectives and methodologies used in traditional research (Abu-Lughud 1991; Narayan 1993, 1997; Shah and Khurshid 2018; Smith 2012; Takayama 2011). Feminist research has had a longstanding commitment to epistemically, theoretically, and methodologically interrogating issues of power and difference with the goal of emancipating women (Benhabib and Cornell 1987; Benhabib et al. 1995; Connell 2014, 2015; Fraser 1989). Similarly, decolonizing research seeks to explicitly address colonial structures of knowledge production and the representation of marginalized and indigenous populations (Lugones 2010; Mendoza 2016). Both feminist and decolonizing research challenge traditional hierarchies of knowledge and seek to incorporate the scholarship and perspectives of non-Western, nondominant scholars to challenge the traditional self-other distinction (Abu-Lughud 1991; Lincoln and Gonzalez 2008; Smith 2012).

This guest-edited themed issue explores the intersection and overlap between feminist and decolonizing research. It brings together intellectually provocative papers that theoretically and empirically interrogate why research at the nexus of gender and education needs to be ‘decolonized’, and which illuminate what this means and what it looks like.

Decolonizing gender and education research

Since the 1990s, and even before, there have been sustained calls across a number of academic fields to engage in research that challenges the dominant knowledge production process (Abu-Lughud 1991; Narayan 1993; Smith 2012; Takayama 2011). This continuing desire to engage in decolonizing research is evidenced most recently in a special issue of Comparative Education Review (May 2014) entitled ‘Contesting Coloniality: Rethinking Knowledge Production and Circulation in Comparative and International education’, which brought to the fore the active colonial legacies underpinning scholarship in the field of comparative and international education, within which much gender and education research and knowledge has been produced and disseminated. Similarly, a recent special issue of Gender and Education, ‘Approaching Southern theory: explorations of gender in South African education’ traced how a particular geo-spatial politics of knowledge production continues to be ‘imprinted with the legacies of imperialism and colonialism’ (Epstein and Morrell 2012, 469). Our themed issue builds on these interventions. In doing so, it aligns with the longstanding goal of critical feminist research to challenge the essentialism, power hierarchies, and concepts of difference embedded in the research process, and foregrounds the production of knowledge from a range of feminist epistemological perspectives.

One of our primary goals with this guest-edited themed issue is to provide a publication platform to scholars from non-dominant positions. In terms of our own positionalities, we both acknowledge our privileged social locations as university faculty in the United States and Canada, living relatively comfortable middle/upper class lives. But, as Curry-Stevens (2005, 2007) suggests, no one is always and everywhere privileged or oppressed: these are not absolute states of being; socioeconomic status and geographic location are merely two among many positions that can and do intersect in dynamic ways in different spatial and temporal locations to produce both privilege and oppression. Thus, we acknowledge that our gender, and different ethno-racial, and religious identities influence our ways of knowing and being in the world, and in turn, how other people, structures and systems ‘know’ and ‘are’ with us. These multiple and shifting gendered, racialized and classed positionings have informed our collaborative work on this themed issue. Our experiences as individuals, living in settler colonies and frequently traveling for work to formerly colonized societies, have shaped our shared desire for a decolonized future for the field of gender and education research and practice, and to be part of the change we want to see and experience in the world. We move together, as similar, but differently positioned people, in this journey of solidarity towards a decolonized future for the field of gender and education research and practice.

In line with these commitments, we use the themed issue to highlight scholarship that questions the concepts of culture, nation, and difference and challenges the binary logistics and essentialism that have long underpinned their articulations across scholarship in the social sciences and humanities. In this, it is underpinned by work by Alatas (2003)s and Dei (2000) on ‘academic neocoloniality’ which aims to 'challenge imperial ideologies and colonial relations of knowledge production’ (as cited in Takayama 2011, 450; see also Takayama, Sriprakash, and Connell 2017), and it activates Appadurai’s (2001) concept of ‘epistemological diffidence’ to support research from non-Western, non-English speaking ‘peripheries’, to challenge the traditional academic knowledge production and circulation process. We are also mindful of Tuck and Yang’s (2012) important argument that decolonization is not, and should not be a metaphor, and this themed issue makes efforts to avoid the trap of superficially adopting the language of decolonization. We recognize that decolonization by definition, demands different (though with some similarities at times) processes and outcomes than other social justice projects. Thus, seeking alignment with the ‘wants’ of decolonization (Tuck and Yang 2012, 3) the decolonizing agenda we advocate entails, in part, the dismantling of knowledge hierarchies (e.g. among Northern and Southern theory, see Connell 2007, or among Black feminist and liberal feminist thought), a complex issue taken up by several contributors to this volume (see, Adley; Haynes; West; and Uchendu, Roets, and Vandenbroeck). Moreover, such dismantling needs to be part and parcel of a broader and deeper disruption and recasting of gender and education discourses and research practices. This could mean, for example, moving away from framing such work as about ‘saving’ the Other, and towards approaches that emphasize context, humility, respect, recognition, and solidarity with those with whom we work (see for example, Arur and DeJaeghere; Lira, Muñoz-García and Loncon; and Shah and Khurshid, this volume). In the context of a decolonizing agenda, it is important to highlight that solidarity ‘is an uneasy, reserved, and unsettled matter that neither reconciles present grievances nor forecloses future conflict’ (Tuck and Yang 2012, 3).

This decolonizing onto-epistemological orientation is complementary to a critical feminist onto-epistemology where one goal is to reveal the participants’ lived realities deeply contextualized in their socio-cultural milieu (Benhabib and Cornell 1987; El Saadwi 1997). This reflexive lens pushes researchers to reflect upon and gain better insight into the complex intersectionalities that constitute the lives of their participants (Benhabib et al. 1995; Fraser 1989), as well as repositioning how researchers engage with the subjectivities and representations of participants who are considered ‘marginalized’ by dominant discourses. This themed issue highlights scholarship that shares the narratives of their participants in ways that illuminate their agency and strength and not in ways that reinforce their marginalization.

Decolonization, intersectionality, and essentialism

As evidenced by the papers within, this themed issue connects with several core and/or emergent debates in gender and education and feminist studies. First, the very theme of decolonizing research and practice in feminist education research locates this issue within a nexus of debates concerning how knowledge is produced, by who, on what topics, and for what purpose(s). Our theme brings into focus the exclusion of the Other as a knower and problematizes knowledge hierarchies within which Indigenous and other non-dominant epistemologies and the knowledge produced therein have been denigrated and/or otherwise marginalized in much mainstream research and publishing.

The issue begins with a viewpoint piece by Adley who discusses how neo-colonial means of engaging with the Arab Muslim world continues to limit understanding of the ‘male crisis’ trend in education and women in computing fields in the Arab world. Using these trends as examples, she shows how the positioning of the West as the central frame of reference incorrectly assumes the prevalence of universal understandings of gender biases. She asserts that one important means of beginning the process of decolonizing educational knowledge requires recentering the actors engaged in educational processes and paying attention to local manifestations of these educational processes themselves. These themes are picked up by each of the subsequent articles throughout the issue.

Uchendu, Roets, and Vandenbroeck directly address the debates regarding knowledge production processes by engaging Southern feminist theory to analyze gender constructs in research about Ibgo women in South-Eastern Nigeria. In their article, they draw from Southern feminist which works at ‘redrawing […] spaces for decolonizing knowledge and re/claiming discursive territories for hybridity’ (Mutua and Swadener 2004, 1 as cited in Uchendu et al, this issue). Uchendu et al., engage in a wide ranging analysis detailing how Northern (i.e. Western) and Southern (i.e. sub-Saharan African) feminist theorists explore the social position of Ibgo women and conclude that both perspectives tend to reproduce and reinforce the colonial essentialist claims about Self and Other. Based on this analysis, they argue that historically, geographically, contextually and culturally grounded forms of knowledge should be recognized and privileged.

Lira, Muñoz-García and Loncon’s article uses non-traditional methodologies to explore systems of oppression and domination in schooling operating at the global and local levels. They argue the need to decolonize the onto-epistemological and methodological foundations and processes of gender and education research, particularly those engaged by researchers seeking understanding of the experiences and needs of indigenous populations. To ‘walk the talk’, they present a series of reflective findings emerging from their use of what they term a ‘correspondence method’ and analyze how the process functioned to challenge dominant epistemological orientations and knowledge hierarchies in gender and education research broadly, but also, how the correspondence method helped them develop an ethics for the larger research study they worked on in Chile. Such work is important in helping push conversations concerning how to think about, do and use gender and education research into new territory by emphasizing the critical importance of pre-research reflection, dialogue and understanding.

Another important intervention made by this issue concerns the role and significance of intersectionality in feminist gender and education research and practice (Cho, Williams Crenshaw, and McCall 2013; May 2014; Shields 2008; Yuval-Davis 2006). Intersectionality, as a theory and concept

centres the interaction between diverse positions of marginality and dominance as social processes while exposing how these processes become invoked within and across power relations … [and in so doing] this exposes the interactions of colonialism, patriarchy and capitalism and how such interactions are invoked, reinforced and contested (Bunjun 2010, 116).

Intersectionality seeks to move ‘feminist theorizing beyond one singular relationship of power, for example, patriarchy, in order to more fully account for the complexity of systems that shape the diversity of women’s lived realities’ (Bunjun 2010, 116). We have, therefore, incorporated articles that examine how interconnected systems of oppression and domination shape girls’ and women’s experiences, especially of those in marginalized positions (Bunjun 2010; Cho, Williams Crenshaw, and McCall 2013; Connell 2010; Shields 2008; Yuval-Davis 2006). West’s study explores the counterspace experiences and perceptions of African American women student affairs administrators at the African American Women’s Summit (AAWS). Counterspaces, as ‘ecological sites of resistance’ are conceptualized as a means to develop ‘adaptive responses’, that is, ‘the process by which marginalized individuals maintain psychological well-being despite oppressive conditions’ (Case and Hunter 2012, 259, cited in West, this volume). Highlighting the centrality of narrative identity work, acts of resistance and direct relational transaction in professional counterspaces, West’s analysis and discussion demonstrates how the AAWS – created by and for Black women student affairs administrators in the United States – functions as a ‘culturally affirming’ space within which support systems are cultivated and nurtured, and racialized and gendered identities and discourse are challenged. In engaging questions and issues of power, representation, and possibility at stake for marginalized (i.e. non-White) women in US institutions of higher education, the piece contributes valuable insights that may help create new counterspaces and/or enhance existing ones.

In their article, Arur and DeJaeghere argue for the explicit inclusion of caste as a category shaping the material and social conditions of women to expand our understanding of how interconnected systems of domination and oppression shape the experiences of Dalit girls in India. Using the example of a global life skills program implemented in Rajasthan, India, Arur and DeJaeghere elaborate a Dalitbahujan feminist perspective that reveals the intersections of caste and gender in ways that challenges some of the assumptions of postcolonial and critical feminist perspectives that often end up reinscribing a Brahmanical (re)colonization. Arur and DeJaeghere illustrate how their Dalitbahujan perspective can be used to analyze a life skills program aimed at improving girls’ educational, work, and marriage outcomes, and, more broadly, as a means to (at least begin to) redress caste and gender inequities.

Our themed issue also engages with feminist debates concerning sameness and difference in gender and education theory and practice (Mohanty 2003; Bhopal 2001). This long standing debate emerged from Black feminist critiques of the essentialism seen as characterizing dominant liberal or hegemonic feminism, revealed for example in the tendency to frame ‘women’ as a homogenous category, unified by similar lived experiences of oppression and domination. Instead, we argue for the reality and validity of multiple feminisms (Sandoval 2003, see also Shah and Khurshid, this volume). Connecting as well to intersectionality theory, critiques of the essentialism of hegemonic feminism have highlighted how the same systems of oppression and domination operating in society affect individuals and groups in different ways, depending on time and space variables and how these intersect and shape the relative significance of gender, race, class, sexuality and other categories of social difference in any given situation or process (Collins 2000, see also Arur and DeJaeghere, this volume). But taking intersectionality seriously does not preclude attentiveness to dimensions of sameness, as is the emphasis in postmodern and poststructural approaches where absolute difference, contingency and fluidity are privileged (Adams St. Pierre 2000; May 2014). In turn, the debate continues as critiques of postfoundational approaches argue, in part, that removing all consideration of sameness from the experience of the oppressed and marginalized implies the loss of grounding for social mobilization and collective action based on shared experiences of oppression and domination (Alcoff 1988).

The article by Shah and Khurshid engages with these debates of sameness and difference by focusing on the experiences of educated women from India and Pakistan. They confront the essentialism embedded in homogeneous and universalistic portrayals of Islam and Muslim womanhood which, they argue, is steeped in colonial history. The article details how various Western, colonial, military, and international development narratives view empowered Muslim women as an antithesis of their culture and religion. To counter these narratives, Shah and Khurshid examine how some of the first and only educated women from their rural, low-income communities in India and Pakistan employ their distinct educated status to construct what it means for them to be an empowered Muslim women. The focus on lived experiences is used to challenge frameworks that offer universalistic and homogenous understandings of womanhood, gender, and empowerment, and to provide insights into the complex and often contradictory meanings and performances of empowerment. Shah and Khurshid push us to take intersectionality seriously by examining how the intersection of religion, caste, class, and gender, deeply contextualized across two nations with distinct yet shared histories and cultural traditions, can provide nuanced insights into the myriad ways of how Muslim womanhood is constructed.

Using Black feminist theories of geography, Haynes takes on issues of intersectionality, power/agency, race and gender through her exploration of the experiences and perceptions of Black women college students living in dorm residences at a predominantly White higher education institution in the United States. The findings and discussion highlight the intersections of race and gender reflected in the nature of the microaggressions experienced by academically-successful Black women students at the college, and how in turn, such experiences led some Black women to self-segregate from the White students they were living with.

Finally, the themed issue closes with a review of Khoja-Moolji’s (2018) book, Forging the ideal educated girl: The production of desirable subjects in Muslim South Asia. The review highlights how Khoja-Moolji takes a genealogical approach to ‘unveil education as a vehicle for the concerted production of Muslim womanhood and girlhood to serve the needs of the nation-state and patriarchal family’ (Closson-Pitts and Marin-Velasquez, this volume), and indicates how this body of scholarship address the debates that are at the core of this themed issue: decolonization, intersectionality, and essentialism.