Directions for research practice in decolonising methodologies: Contending with paradox

Abstract

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.

The role of critical methodologies in climate psychology scholarship: themes, gaps, and futures

“…For example, Trott et al (2020) focused on children, Bryant and Sonn (2022) worked with non-indigenous climate activists, Culley and Angelique (2010, 2011) worked with local activists, while Freedman and Bess (2011) focused on residents within the community. The voices of vulnerable groups, such as indigenous people or children, are seldom included in the research because they need special protection and consideration (Lipscombe et al, 2021). As a result, researchers are less likely to work with vulnerable people and inadvertently exclude certain marginalised groups.…”

“…To address concerns relating to the research process, they propose that researchers need to be multiculturally competent and aware of how marginalised people are positioned. Cokley and Awad, Barnes (2018), Lipscombe et al (2021), and Daszkiewicz et al (2022) agree that there is a need for researchers to be respectful and aware of the multiple ways that power disparities and coloniality are reinscribed and should be addressed throughout the research process. Furthermore, to dismantle the unequal power division between the researcher and those who are researched, researchers need to interrogate their assumptions and how these assumptions could contribute to perpetuating inequality through the use of research methodology (Barnes, 2018).…”

“…The positionality statement's explication might not be common in psychological publications because of the positivist legacy or due to journal publication standards. When working with marginalised communities, researchers should strive to be self-reflexive and critical of their positionality to avoid perpetuating injustices, as highlighted by Lipscombe et al (2021) and Smith (2021). Barnes (2018) furthermore emphasises that researchers must guard against reifying, essentialising, and perpetuating sexist, racist, and classist representations of marginalised people.…”

Diversity Interventions in the Classroom: From Resistance to Action

“…, 2021 ), we recognize positionality and reflexivity as important components to our study. Thus, it was critical for each of us to examine our roles, possible bias, and influence on the research (reflexivity) and to account for how our social positioning influences our research design, use of theory, data collection, application of analytic and statistical techniques, and interpretation of results ( Lipscombe et al. , 2021 ).…”

“…In advancing the call for transparency of perspective across qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodologies with higher education (Wells, and Stage, 2015) and STEM education research (Hampton et al, 2021), we recognize positionality and reflexivity as important components to our study. Thus, it was critical for each of us to examine our roles, possible bias, and influence on the research (reflexivity) and to account for how our social positioning influences our research design, use of theory, data collection, application of analytic and statistical techniques, and interpretation of results (Lipscombe et al, 2021). The authors have listed the social identifies and roles that they believe to be most relevant to their positionality on this paper.…”