The complex nature of colonisation presents with the potential for paradoxes in decolonising approaches, hence, fixed conventions and methods are discouraged. In this way, decolonising methodologies concerns interrogating dominant conventions in research that have typically excluded alternative ways of knowing from academia. This raises concern about the issue of breaking conventions, when it is potentially difficult to realise that one is depending upon them. An incremental approach to the research process and subsequent knowledge generated provides opportunity to challenge the conventions that typically dictate research praxis. In addition, fostering epistemological transformation and pluralism presents a solution to problems derived from dominant cultural assumptions and practices. My aim for this article is to extend upon the literature pertaining to decolonising methodologies, with this contribution of focusing on the research process as a means to avoid paradox in the decolonial intention. Accordingly, a process imperative that focuses on how researchers do research, over the tendency to focus on outcomes, emerges as a strategy to identify and contend with paradoxes within decolonial work. A questioning convention is posited as a means for mining the assumptions and biases of the dominant culture that would otherwise ensnare ones thinking. Consequently, research may be better liberated from oppressive colonising practices that are tacit within research and academic conventions. Narratives are provided throughout for illustrative example, and to better explore the concepts named.

Often, colonisation is considered a single, past event; in actuality, colonisation is a continual enculturating practice that galvanises historical Indigenous inequality and colonial privilege. This study deconstructs social tension surround Australia Day—the national day of celebration that for some is seen as the date marking the beginning of Australia but for others marks invasion. Given that the date of celebration marks the beginning of non‐Indigenous privilege and Indigenous disadvantage in Australia, debate exists as to whether the date should remain the same. Twelve people, self‐identified as wanting the date of Australia Day to stay the same, participated in semistructured interviews; transcripts were analysed using causal layered analysis. Findings suggest an unstable national identity centred on a denial of past and present oppression of Indigenous peoples—the past is conceptualised as having little relevance to present‐day Indigenous inequalities. Findings generated appear transferable to understanding social tensions that arise in colonised states globally, particularly relating to Indigenous inequalities and colonist privilege. Exploring Australia Day acts as a conduit for understanding how social psychological barriers occur to deny historical and present social injustices and positively constructs oppression within colonist states.

No abstract