Decolonial research methodology: an assessment of the challenge to established practice

ABSTRACT

The decolonization project challenges the hegemony of Western knowledge and colonial ways of thinking. This article explores this challenge specifically in relation to research methodology. It notes how decolonization focuses on exposing the inappropriate use of positivistic/modernist/universalist approaches by Western researchers, and how it proposes alternative approaches that better protect the interests of indigenous and ‘Other’ minority groups. These alternative approaches are generally based on constructivist principles, and typically involve the use of qualitative methods such as participatory action research within a transformational paradigm. The degree to which these represent a new and/or distinct challenge to Western research methodology is discussed noting, in particular, the challenge posed by research involving Indigenous communities.

KEYWORDS:

• Research methodology
• decolonial research
• decolonization
• Indigenous groups
• participatory action research

Introduction

The decolonization project casts a critical eye over of the way knowledge is produced in the Western academy. The purpose of this paper is to outline the main themes of the decolonial critique as it relates to social research methodology and to assess the challenge this brings to established practices.

Context of the decolonization project

Decolonial research needs to be understood in the context of decolonization and its historical roots. Historically, colonization involved the invasion of lands by powerful groups who forcefully imposed their culture and political systems on Indigenous populations, and the decolonization project focuses, in particular, on the process of colonization that occurred over the last 500 years involving European states and the imposition of ‘White’, northern hemisphere culture on the Indigenous peoples of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, the Americas, India, Australia and New Zealand.

During the 20^th century a process of decolonization has taken place, with colonial rulers withdrawing their presence and handing back control of the government, administration and military apparatuses to those whose lands had been invaded. And where withdrawal has not occurred, there has been some recognition of the rights of Indigenous peoples (United Nations, 2007) and limited provision for autonomous self-government of the ‘First Nations’ (e.g. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA).

In terms of the decolonization project, however, such measures do not entirely eradicate the legacy of the colonial era. The footprint of colonial rule persists. It persists partly in the nature of the political, legal and administrative systems that are left behind, and partly in the economic and military dependency of the ‘decolonized’ states on their former rulers.

More than this, though, there is a legacy of ‘colonial ways of thinking’. This stems from the fact that colonization was not just a physical process of invading geographical spaces: it was also a mental process involving the imposition of Western world-views. The ability to fully subjugate the Indigenous peoples, indeed, depended on establishing Western ideas as something more civilized, advanced and beneficial than the customs, beliefs and status of ‘the natives’.

The decolonization project sets out to challenge such ideas about the superiority of colonial ways of thinking. It does so by:

• critically examining the ways in which the legacy of colonial systems of thought serve to preserve the power and interests of some groups (specifically White people and nation states in the West or Global North) at the expense of ‘Other’ groups (specifically non-Whites, Indigenous peoples and those living in the Global South);

• promoting the interests of those who are disadvantaged by the colonial legacy by exposing the unfairness and injustices of the system;

• highlighting the intrinsic value of cultures and knowledge associated with Indigenous peoples and the ways these stand as an alternative to colonial ways of seeing the world;

• replacing the hegemony of Western unitary ways of thinking with more heterogenous systems of understanding the world.

The legacy of colonial ways of thinking affects not only the Indigenous peoples of the countries that were once colonized. It is a key tenet of the decolonization project that the legacy also persists in the countries that instigated the process of colonization and that it now forms part of a world-view that systematically favours those who are White, wealthy, cis-male, heterosexual and able-bodied. The decolonization project, as a result, finds common ground with a variety of other social movements with radical ideologies that challenge the status quo. There are overlapping interests with things like Black Lives Matter and critical race theory, as there are with the ideas of LGBTQ+, feminist and Marxist groups. Not surprisingly, therefore, there is the presence of intersectionality in much work done on decolonization (see, for example, Butler et al., 2019; Kraehe et al., 2018; Malone et al., 2022; O’Rourke, 2018; Sandoval, 2000). Intersectionality has a resonance for decolonial researchers because it captures the point that injustices and inequality are rarely the product of any single factor. Using intersectionality as an analytic tool, decolonial researchers can deal with the legacy of colonialism in a way that includes, but goes beyond, a Black/White binary to show how it is closely interlinked with factors such as sexism, religious discrimination, social class identity and ethnocentrism (Collins & Bilge, 2020; Meghji, 2023; Mohanty, 2003).

Decolonial social research methodology

Decolonial researchers, scholars and activists have taken their inspiration from writers such as Fanon (2001, 2021), Freire (2017), Said (1994) and Smith (2022) who, in diverse ways, have drawn attention to the consequences of colonization and its aftermath. What unifies their work is the premise that knowledge of the world is produced within a particular historical, geographical and political context, and that knowledge is a source of power. In essence, those who have power use their version of knowledge to exercise control over those who lack power.

In terms of methodology, the starting point for most decolonial researchers has been Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s work relating to research with Maori communities (Smith, 1999, 2015). Other key methodological writings include Bagele Chilesa’s work highlighting the potential of Ubuntu and other Afrocentric principles for decolonial research (Chilisa, 2020; Chilisa et al., 2017), along with Margaret Kovach’s work with First Nations communities in Canada (Kovach, 2021) and Haunani-Kay Trask's work in Hawaii (Trask, 1999). There are also seminal collections of approaches to decolonial research by Denzin et al. (2008) and by Hokowhitu et al. (2022).

Such decolonial critiques of methodology span a variety of disciplines and different regions of the globe with each bringing their own priorities within the broader agenda of decolonization. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is no unified, consistent, theoretically-based set of premises that underlies the decolonial critique (Denzin et al., 2008; Moosavi, 2023; Steinhauer, 2002; Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021). It is possible, however, to identify certain core themes running through decolonial critiques, and these are outlined below.

Transformational agenda

A key strand of the decolonization critique concerns the way that Western research acts as a conservative force geared to preserving the status quo. In contrast, the decolonization project is committed to social change. The purpose of decolonial research is not just to understand the world, but to use this understanding as a vehicle for social change. The word praxis is used frequently, emphasizing the point that decolonial research requires an approach that is transformational in nature and which leads not just to alternative ways of producing knowledge (research methods/methodology) but equally to tangible outcomes that work to the advantage of disadvantaged groups. The aims of research should involve things like conscientization, giving voice, improving political influence or gaining material benefits (see, for example (Darder, 2019; Freire, 2017; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2019; Smith, 2015; Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021).

Beneficial purposes of research

Bearing this in mind, the decolonization project casts a critical eye on the purpose for which research has been undertaken. The criticism levelled at research undertaken in the past in colonised countries is that it was not motivated by any desire to improve the lives of the people whose lands had been invaded. Broadly speaking, it was either conducted in order to provide knowledge that allowed colonial powers to better manage/suppress the Indigenous populations. Or, as in the case of anthropological studies, it offered insights into the customs and beliefs of ‘primitive’ societies in order to log their existence before they died out and, more perniciously, to provide reassurance about the superiority of Western peoples and culture. Either way, it was something whose outcome was primarily of benefit to the outsider rather than the Indigenous people. Decolonial research requires a radical shift away from this situation and, consequently, there is a strong emphasis on conducting research whose outcome is clearly of benefit to those involved (Kara, 2018; Kovach, 2021; Smith, 2022).

Participation, engagement and control

Being ‘in the interests of those involved’, however, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for decolonized research. This is because, of itself, it does not deal with the issue of who decides whether or not the research will meet the needs of those involved. Feasibly, an outsider could arrive at the conclusion that they know best what is needed and then proceed to design research which they believe, perhaps with all good intentions, will have beneficial outcomes for the people being studied. Decolonial research, however, rejects the idea of externally-imposed agendas for research and is keen to build mechanisms into the design of the research that avoid this possibility. It aims to involve groups fully in the design and conduct of any research that is being proposed.

Primarily, this is done by adopting a participatory and engaged approach. The thinking behind this is that participants in research should be enabled to take some degree of ownership over the whole research process – from its inception, through its design, through data collection and analysis, and through to the implementation of the findings. The aim of decolonial research is to democratize the process by ceding control of the agenda to those being researched. This is something that is clearly demonstrated in the principle of ‘Indigenous data sovereignty’ which asserts the basic human rights of Indigenous people to have full control of the data that are collected and used in relation to their lives and their territories (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016). Approaching research in this way helps to avoid any prospect of research being ‘done to’ people by outsiders and, at the same time, it provides a foundation for research that truly reflects the interests of the people involved. The need for such an approach is very much to the fore in the case of research with Indigenous groups such as Maori, Aboriginal and First nations peoples who have suffered in the past from being the ‘objects’ of research and for whom research has become something of a ‘dirty word’ (Chilisa, 2020; Farbotko et al., 2023; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2019; Smith, 2022).

Ethics and respect

In line with the points above, decolonial research adopts an ethical approach that places a particular emphasis on a) protecting the interests of the participants, b) abiding with the principle of beneficence and c) ensuring open, transparent and democratic dealings with participants. Running throughout, there is the recognition that decolonial research is likely to take place with Indigenous groups and ‘Other’ communities who are potentially vulnerable and whose lives deserve to be treated with respect. Respect calls for researchers to be particularly sensitive to the context in which they are operating and make special efforts to understand and abide by the beliefs of the group, ensuring that the research does not unwittingly transgress local customs relating to things like privacy, propriety and good manners (Farbotko et al., 2023; Kara, 2018; Kennedy et al., 2023). It also calls for particular sensitivity to the way the findings from research are used. They should only be used for the benefit of the participants and never treated as commodity to be exploited or used for the benefit of someone else.

Rejection of ‘one best method’

In terms of the philosophical underpinnings of research, the decolonization project rejects the positivistic world view of Western research along with its reliance on scientific methods and its use of quantitative data in support of neo-colonial agendas and ideology (Kovach, 2015; Shahjahan, 2011; Smith, 2022) The criticism here is that positivism’s ontological and epistemological assumptions support the premise that worthwhile knowledge can only be produced in one particular way (Nadarajah et al., 2022; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2019; Ngoepe et al., 2022). The corollary of this is that Western methodologies belittle the value of knowledge produced on the basis of any alternative assumptions, effectively reducing the worth of knowledge produced within Other cultures to that of ‘subaltern’ status or effectively obliterating it from the landscape altogether (Moyo, 2020).

Focus on Indigenous peoples

In response to this, the decolonization project calls for an alternative approach that gives voice to Indigenous forms of knowledge and the position of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous, in this context, refers to peoples who are native to lands that were formerly colonised. Aboriginals in Australia, Māori in New Zealand, and First Nations people in Canada and U.S.A. have featured prominently in relation to decolonial research, as has the situation of Indigenous communities in Africa. This reflects an attempt to redress the impact of colonization on Indigenous customs and belief systems and, in terms of research, this highlights the need for decolonial approaches to represent reality as seen through the eyes of such Indigenous groups.

Constructivism and qualitative methods

As a means of researching Indigenous groups and exploring alternative forms of knowledge, the decolonization project favours qualitative approaches operating within a constructivist paradigm of research. This provides a good foundation for challenging the hegemony of Western methodology and its presupposition of one best method for discovering things about reality (Darder, 2019; O’Rourke, 2018) and it suits the need for an authentic portrayal of the lives of Indigenous and Other peoples.

To say that decolonial research generally favours constructivism and qualitative methods is not to suggest that decolonial research excludes the use of quantitative methods altogether. Indeed, there are instances of decolonial research that rely on the production of quantitative data. These tend to involve a conscious reaction against the way that official statistics have been, and continue to be, used by authorities to present a picture of Indigenous groups in terms of ‘deficit’ and ‘inadequacy’. In contrast, decolonial approaches seek to promote the interests of Indigenous groups by producing statistics based on premises that truly reflect the needs and world views of the groups in question (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016; Walter & Andersen, 2013; Walter & Suina, 2019; Walter et al., 2021).

Reflexivity and self-awareness

The use of qualitative research within a constructivist paradigm calls for a degree of self-reflection and reflexivity to ensure that researchers do not unwittingly import a colonial vision of the phenomenon they wish to investigate (Moosavi, 2023; Nadarajah et al., 2022). Consequently, decolonial researchers need to be conscious of their own self-identity and life experiences and how these might influence their understanding of the situation: the ways in which their own ethnicity, sexuality, age, social class, religious beliefs, dis/ability etc. might influence their perception of ‘the problem’, ‘what is happening’ and ‘what needs to be done’.

A challenge to established practice?

The features of decolonial research methodology summarized above tend to be set against a vision of Western research as modernist and ethnocentric, having a predominantly positivist or post-positivist orientation, and as promoting a monocultural worldview. This vision, however, might be accused of being rather anachronistic. After all, in the 21^st century large areas of social science (especially sociology, social anthropology, ethnography) operate with epistemologies and ontologies that acknowledge the limitations of objectivist, universalist claims about knowledge and social reality. And various forms of constructivism and post-modernism now form part of the mainstream of social science. This is not to deny that Western science and philosophy of the 19^th century had a specific, distorting influence on how Indigenous people were viewed and treated, nor that this colonial lens tended to demean the forms of intellect and the sophistication of culture within those Indigenous cultures. However, in the 21^st century the practice of Western social science and philosophy is generally far more sensitive to its own limitations and to the desirability of giving voice to disadvantaged groups in society. Social constructivist and post-modern methodologies recognize the importance of positionality, reflexivity and self-reflection in terms of the agenda for research, and within the transformational paradigm things like participatory action research address the need for praxis and social change. Indeed, it could seem that standard good practice for qualitative social research methodologies – the need to work ethically, a sensitivity to the cultural factors tied up with research involving people, the need for reflexivity and self-awareness, the issue of power relations involved in research – largely aligns with the tenets of Indigenous research.

The need for a separate paradigm of research

This raises the question of whether there is any need for a separate paradigm of research that is distinctly decolonial if, after all, the demands of decolonial methodology can be incorporated into existing paradigms of research. To this, decolonial researchers argue that there are certain features of research – specifically research with Indigenous groups – that do not accord with transformative, constructivist or pragmatic paradigms and which operate on ontological, epistemological and axiological assumptions that warrant recognition as a separate Indigenous paradigm of research.

World view

The first point to be made on this is that Indigenous communities tend to hold a distinctive world-view. Despite the diversity among Indigenous groups throughout the world, when it comes to visions of reality there appears to be some commonality: there is a holistic world-view that emphasizes the way in which all things are related, interconnected and interdependent (Kovach, 2021; Lambert, 2014; Wilson, 2008). There is an Indigenous ontology in which humans exist in relation to their historical roots, in relation to their ancestors, in relation to spiritual guidance, in relation to the land on which they live, and in relation to the animals and plants that inhabit the environment.

Research ethics

This holistic world-view is reflected in the way Indigenous researchers approach the matter of research ethics. Their duty of care is not only to the people directly involved in the research but to others in the community as well. More than this, they have a wider responsibility that includes care for the natural environment and respect for the ties between the community and its (colonial) past (Chilisa, 2020; Kara, 2018). In a nutshell, rather than research ethics being about individual researchers and their specific obligations, with Indigenous research it is about the researcher’s general relationship with the Indigenous people, their history, their environment, their ancestors and their spiritual world.

Knowledge

The holistic world-view is also reflected in the meaning of knowledge. As Wilson (2008, p. 177) portrays it, Indigenous knowledge exists in ‘relationship with all creation. It is with the cosmos, it is with the animals, with the plants, with the earth that we share’. It is, therefore, hard to disentangle bits of knowledge from a wider web of interlaced factors. Which means that, unlike other research paradigms in which knowledge is a commodity that can be decontextualised, transported and owned by individuals, within Indigenous communities knowledge is communal and at all times deeply embedded in the context. What counts as valid knowledge comes through collective agreement and is not something that is ‘owned’ on the basis of a person’s own expertise on institutional position of authority. Meetings of community members play a vital role in this.

Indigenous knowledge is distinctive, as well, to the extent that it can be revealed through people’s connections to ancestors, or inspired by rituals, songs or dance. It is something that can originate ‘through dreams, visions, and intuitions that are understood to be spiritual in origin’ (Castellano (2000).:24). Added to which, with Indigenous communities the transmission of knowledge often places heavy emphasis on oral traditions and the use story-telling (Archibald et al., 2019; Tuia & Cobb, 2021).

Understanding and communicating the world-view contained in these forms of knowledge is far from straightforward and might not lend itself to the kinds of data collection or reporting that are conventionally recognized as research. Kovach (2015) makes the point that even the conventions associated with writing-up findings can corrupt the contextualized meaning embodied in the Indigenous way of knowing. She points out that something like storytelling ‘loses a level of meaning in the translation into written script. (…) For the Indigenous researcher, incorporating an Indigenous worldview into a non-Indigenous language, with all that implies, is complex. It is a troublesome task of crisscrossing cultural epistemologies (Kovach, 2015, p. 53).

Participation

There is also the nature of researcher participation to be considered. With Indigenous research this involves a thorough immersion in the culture, beliefs and lifestyle of the group involved in the research (Bishop, 2005; R. Datta, 2018; Seppälä et al., 2021; Walker & Boni, 2021). In the words of Bishop (1999, p. 4) the researcher does not start from a position outside of the group, and then choose to invest him/herself. The researcher cannot ‘position’ him/herself, or ‘empower’ the other. Instead, through entering a participatory mode of consciousness the individual agent of the ‘I’ of the researcher is released in order to enter a consciousness larger than the self.

Such depth of participation brings into question the identity of the researcher and their ability to immerse themselves into the wider consciousness of the Indigenous group. With Indigenous research it is not a matter of the researcher working with the community (collaborating through gatekeepers and support structures established with the host community) so much as becoming part of the community itself – an insider. In practice, this means that the possibility of doing participatory research relies heavily on the researcher actually having roots in the Indigenous group itself (see, for example, Bishop, 1999; Chilisa et al., 2017; Hokowhitu et al., 2022; Smith, 2022; Steinhauer, 2002; Wilson, 2008).

Having roots in the community, though, does not automatically guarantee that an Indigenous researcher will have the necessary empathy and insight to understand the culture of the group. One reason for this is that Indigenous researchers are not entirely immune to the influence of the Western academy. It is likely that they will have been trained in universities in the Global North and, quite likely, will be undertaking research that is funded and assessed on criteria used in Western academic institutions or corporations. In practice, researchers from Indigenous backgrounds doing research with Indigenous cultures have to navigate their way through Western expectations about good research (academic supervisors, funding bodies etc.) whilst attempting to retain the integrity of their Indigenous methods and findings (Bell et al., 2022; Kennedy et al., 2023; Mutuota 2024; Smith, 2022; Tuia & Cobb, 2021).

Another factor to be borne in mind is that when Indigenous researchers operate within their own communities there is the possibility that people will react differently towards them if those people become aware of what the researcher is doing. Smith (2022) cites her own experience of this. Although she came from the Indigenous community she was studying and lived within it, when she was acting as a researcher – when her role shifted from ‘mother, friend and neighbour’ to that of being a researcher – people treated her differently. Even though working within her own patch, when she was doing the research she was treated as something of an outsider.

Despite these caveats, it can be seen that Indigenous research calls for a kind of participation which is different in nature from that normally associated with approaches such as participatory action research, different both in terms of its immersive nature and in terms of who is eligible to participate. It calls for a total commitment. This is because, given the legacy of past colonial research, Indigenous communities participating in research need to feel that the researchers are ‘on their side’ and that the project is ‘working for them’. Bishop (1999, 2005) has stressed this point in relation to ‘Kaupapa Māori’ research, arguing that such research must be committed to advancing the interests of Māori communities. It must be what Irwin (1994) calls ‘culturally safe’ research – conducted ‘by Māori, for Māori and with Māori’ (Smith, 2015, p. 47). For this reason, Indigenous researchers tend to be sceptical about canons of Western research which have a preoccupation with neutrality, objectivity and impartiality (Bishop, 2005; L. Datta, 1994; Wilson, 2008). More important is a full and wholehearted commitment of the researcher to the community and its wellbeing.

Summary and conclusion

From the outline of decolonial research methodology above, we can see that there are broadly four kinds of challenge to established Western research practices. First, decolonization directs attention to specific topics and areas of research that tend to have been neglected. It champions a new focus on cultures and ways of knowing that have been ignored or denigrated as a result of the process of colonization. Attention is turned to the lives of those who, in various ways, have suffered at the hands of colonization.

Second, it looks to expose the subtle, insidious ways in which colonialist visions of reality continue to perpetuate White privilege. In the words of Butler et al. (2019, p. 3) it positions itself ‘against a pre-biased system that favors the privileged few to the detriment of the subalterned many in a world of imbalanced power relations’. In doing so, decolonial research does not purport to be objective in the stance it takes: it is quite explicitly on the side of those whose lives, histories and cultures are seen as having been adversely affected by colonialism.

Third, decolonial research aims for a democratization of the research process. As a reaction against the manner in which potentially vulnerable groups and communities have had research ‘done to’ them, it seeks to do research ‘with and for’ the participants. It is critical of the power relationships entailed in doing conventional research and characteristically cedes ownership and control of the project to the groups and communities involved.

Fourth, there is a call for research that appreciates the Indigenous world-view in its own right, using methods that enable things to be understood authentically as experienced by the communities involved. This entails a particular sensitivity to the culture of these groups and the way their customs and beliefs shape their understanding of the world. And it entails, more radically, an acceptance that such an understanding might not lend itself to being ‘researched’ using conventional methods based on established Western methods of research.

It is, perhaps, only this last feature which poses a significant challenge to established Western thought relating to research. Whilst for many kinds of decolonial research transformative and constructive paradigms of research combined with critical theory and participatory action research might suffice, the requirement for a new paradigm arises specifically in the case of research with Indigenous peoples where the purpose is to understand and support their vision of things, their ways of knowing and their world-view. For those engaged in such research there are clearly ontological, epistemological and axiological assumptions that are excluded by conventional paradigms of research. This does not necessarily imply the need for a new paradigm that will replace Western methodologies. But it does require an additional alternative paradigm that takes Indigenous world-views, perspectives, values and lived experience as its central axis (Chilisa, 2020; L. Datta, 1994; Kara, 2018; Kovach, 2021; Sandoval, 2000; Smith, 2022; Wilson, 2018).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Martyn Denscombe

Martyn Denscombe is Emeritus Professor at De Montfort University, where he was previously Professor of Social Research in the Castle Business School. His recent research has focused on the areas of risk perception and health-related behaviour, primarily in relation to substance misuse by young people. He is the author of three text-books on research methodology - ‘The Good Research Guide’, ‘Ground Rules for Social Research’ and ‘Research Proposals’.