Decolonising research methodologies: lessons from a qualitative research project, Cape Town, South Africa

Abstract

Background: It is becoming increasingly important for researchers to critically reflect on approaches that can have a positive impact on the health outcomes of indigenous people. Such issues are of great importance and perhaps of special relevance to researchers in the Global South, and to the African context in which we work.Objective:To share some lessons learned from our fieldwork to contribute to current knowledge and conversations on decolonising research process.Methods: We used an African lens to critically reflect upon some issues raised from individual interviews and focus group discussions with our participants which we deem to be important for consideration in a decolonising research process.Results: The major issues that we raise are about important structures such as power, trust, cultural competence, respectful and legitimate research practice and recognition of individual and communities’ health assets in a decolonising research process.Conclusions: Our paper argues for alternative approaches which are culturally appropriate for health research and for improved health outcomes of marginalised groups. In addition, we argue that participatory and transformative research methods which recognises individual and communities’ assets are needed. We hope that the lessons that we share in this paper can contribute towards a respectful and good research practice among the marginalised population groups in our context.

Realist evaluations in low- and middle-income countries: reflections and recommendations from the experiences of a foreign researcher

“…Realist evaluation methodology is being used within LMICs and cross-cultural contexts, yet little work explores this research process. Critical reflection of practices and knowledge generation within global health research is needed to enhance processes and work towards more relevant research that can have a positive impact on health 32. This paper presents some reflections and recommendations based on experience, but recognises the need for more detailed discussions on these topics, and for others to reflect on challenges and solutions they encountered while undertaking realist evaluations in general and within cross cultural contexts.…”

“…Power is noted to be influenced by a number of factors, including educational or professional backgrounds, socioeconomic status, gender and ethnic identities 30. This imbalance of power may be exacerbated in less resourced contexts or cross-cultural research situations,is relevant in many global health research projects,31 and requires particular attention when working with marginalised populations 32. Power discrepancies between researcher and research participant that influence participant responses were also apparent while conducting realist interviews.…”

The promise and pitfalls of social science research in an emergency: lessons from studying the Zika epidemic in Brazil, 2015–2016

“…9 10 There are ongoing debates on decolonisation of global health, and the role of high-income country researchers in studies conducted in LMICs. [12][13][14][15] These debates argue that global health has its roots in colonial or tropical medicine and that there is an inherent unequal power dynamic between the partners from richer and poorer settings, in terms of funding, roles and responsibilities and research outputs. 13 15 This dynamic can result in both 'parachute' and 'parasitic' research in international collaborations, where Northern researchers drop into Southern settings to undertake research without equitable treatment of Southern partners.…”

“…These collaborations therefore bring into question issues around power and respect, [12][13][14][15] as too often the high-income researchers control the research funding 16 and take priority in publication authorship, 14 17 while the local researchers undertake the bulk of the data collection. There is often a focus in the literature on imbalances of authorship in collaborations between foreign high-income researchers and researchers in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), yet Abimbola argues that these imbalances are 'a tangible proxy for concerns about power asymmetries in the production (and benefits) of knowledge in global health'.…”

Community engagement in youth justice program design

“…The legitimacy of Indigenous knowledge in research is now recognised in Indigenous and non-Indigenous academia, and is evidenced in the growing body of ‘decolonising’ research models. Smith (1999) argued that westernised models of knowledge are ethnocentric and in opposition with local Indigenous practices, moralities and sources of knowledge; this discourse now being supported and shared by other critical scholars (Gray & Hetherington, 2007; Keikelame & Schwartz, 2019; Laycock et al., 2011; Nakata & Nakata, 2009; Russel-Mundine, 2012). Decolonising research aims to counter covert assumptions that knowledge production and translation is largely owned by Western institutions and scholars where Indigenous knowledge is either ignored or discounted as unscientific, particularly in the justice space (see Tauri, 2017; Weatherburn, 2014).…”