What Challenges for Global Development Research are Posed by a More Decolonial Approach?

By Laura Camfield

The appetite for decolonial approaches within development research is growing, prompting a critical examination of the colonial origins of conventional methodologies such as surveys and ethnography. These methods, historically employed as tools of colonial governance, continue to shape development research and limit space for decolonial alternatives. In this blog post I explore colonial continuities in research methods and examine the potential of decolonial alternatives, acknowledging the challenges posed by existing power dynamics within the field).

Colonial Continuities: From Surveys to Big Data

Critical historical analyses emphasise the colonial origins of popular methodological tools such as maps and censuses. The survey, a cornerstone of development research, has roots in colonial practices of enumeration, which underpinned territorial dispossession and enforced a particular way of understanding colonised populations. For example, For example, Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gatsheni  argues that

to resolve the ‘native question’ the conquered black ‘native’ had to be known in minute detail by the White coloniser… as a result of this desire to know the ‘native’ for colonial administrative purposes, the colonial state emerged as an ‘ethnographic state’, interested and actively involved in ‘re-searching’ the native so as to ‘define’ and ‘rule’ over the ‘native’’’.

The quest for a census of the British Empire between 1840 and 1940, described by Engin Isin and Evelyn Ruppert, exemplifies both the use of counting, categorising, and ordering as technologies of colonial control, and their continuation into contemporary development practice. (Spoiler alert: this aspiration was realised by the World Population Census Programme in 1970). The relentless pursuit of numerical data reflects the colonial desire to know and control, treating the Global South as a laboratory for experimentation and intervention.

In contemporary development discourse, the perceived shortcomings of development data, particularly in postcolonial African states, are often framed as a ‘knowledge problem’. Big data emerges as the proposed solution, promising unprecedented insights into areas like healthcare, security, and economic productivity. However, its usage raises concerns about ‘data colonialism’, highlighting the potential for exploitation and the perpetuation of power asymmetries inherent in data commodification. As with biometric identification, this feels like something to approach with caution, particular given that Katarzyna Cieslik and Dániel Margócsy  note we have been here before.

Decolonial Research: Towards Transformative Knowledge Production

Decolonial research presents an alternative to conventional development research methodologies, advocating for a critical and reflexive approach that acknowledges the colonial history of knowledge production, summarised in the excellent review papers by Viveta Thambinathan and Elizabeth Anne Kinsella  and Martyn Denscombe. While there are varied perspectives within decolonial research, some common elements are characterised by Bagele Chilisa as the four Rs:

  • Relational accountable responsibility – recognising that all parts of the research process are related, and that the researcher is accountable to all.
  • Respectful representation – namely, the researcher’s way of listening, of paying attention, of acknowledging, and creating spaces for the voices of the Other and their knowledge systems.
  • Reciprocal appropriation – where research is conducted so that the communities researched andthe researcher derive benefits, including sharing of intellectual property
  • Rights and regulations – or what Chilisa calls ‘not misappropriating what is not yours’

To these I would add critical reflexivity – while it shouldn’t be all about the researcher, they should be aware of their positionality and privilege, and a transformative agenda that challenges existing power structures.

Challenges and Opportunities

This might just seem like good research practice, as colleagues pointed out at the MethodsNet event this blog relates to, However, while decolonial research shares some common ground with participatory approaches, including its vulnerability to co-option, if taken seriously, it challenges the entire ecosystem of development research. For example, conventional methodologies struggle to accommodate the emphasis on relationality and interdependence, exemplified by Lauren Tynan’s characterisation of her PhD thesis as kin  –see also the seminal work of Linda Tuhiwai Smith.

One key challenge posed by decolonial research is the question of whether non-indigenous researchers, including those who have never experienced the legacies of colonialism and slavery, can contribute. Some argue that they can, advocating for a ‘two-eyed seeing’ framework that values both Western and indigenous knowledge systems. However, others express concerns about the potential for appropriation and the weakening of non-Western epistemologies through collaborations. Secondly, decolonial research necessitates a shift in understanding knowledge itself, moving away from individual ownership and expertise towards a more communal and contextual understanding. This fits poorly within the current framework of academic research and publication.

Conclusions

Decolonising development research requires a fundamental re-evaluation of research practices, including the power dynamics that shape our field. Moving beyond performative gestures, such as land acknowledgements, necessitates a deeper engagement with the historical and ongoing legacies of colonialism. Decolonial research offers a pathway towards more equitable and inclusive knowledge systems, but only if in return, we commit to dismantling the colonial structures that continue to shape development research. While not enough on its own, embracing critical reflexivity, fostering equitable partnerships, and centring indigenous voices and knowledge would certainly be a good start!

Laura Camfield is Head of the Department of International Development at King’s College, London, and co-convenor of the EADI Task Group on Methods Innovation

Image: Maxence Pira under an Unsplash Licence on Unsplash

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *