Sunteți pe pagina 1din 10

Running Head: THE COMPLEXITY OF DECOLONIZING RESEARCH 1

The Complexity of Decolonizing Research: A Review of Mixed Methods in Indigenous

Research: Building Relationships for Sustainable Intervention Outcomes

Grace Leu
THE COMPLEXITY OF DECOLONIZING RESEARCH 2

Abstract

This is a review of Mixed methods in indigenous research: Building relationships for sustainable

intervention outcomes by Bagele Chilisa and Gaelebale N. Tsheko (2014). This review considers

the article’s validity as a mixed methods research study aimed to decolonize research methods

and create a positive intervention within a global South community in Botswana.

Keywords: review, decolonization, indigenous research, mixed-methods research


THE COMPLEXITY OF DECOLONIZING RESEARCH 3

The Complexity of Decolonizing Research: A Review of “Mixed Methods in Indigenous

Research: Building Relationships for Sustainable Intervention Outcomes”

Chilisa and Tsheko’s research, as described in the article, Mixed methods in indigenous

research: Building relationships for sustainable intervention outcomes take on two challenges:

decolonizing research and utilizing mixed methods. In this review, I will consider how these

challenges are met.

Chilisa and Tsheko intentionally decolonized their research by utilizing a “postcolonial

indigenous paradigm,” (2014, p. 222) that carefully considered critiques of Westernized research

in the global South and avoided research paradigms that reflect the hierarchy of colonialism.

They sought to emphasize the contributions of the global South in several ways. Rather than

having American faculty lead the study, University of Botswana researchers were the principal

investigators. In their first investigative phase, a qualitative study focused on eliciting

community members’ beliefs, results of which guided later phases of the study. They were also

sensitive to cultural taboos and collected data through the use of local conversation practices

instead of formal interviews. Additionally, their research was change-based rather than problem-

focused in which “the researched reflect on their qualities and move toward a self-discovery, as

they dream and envision the best that they could be, dialogue on strategies to implement their

dreams, and draw a plan to take them to their destiny” (Chilisa & Tsheko, 2014, p. 229). Unlike

colonial science which utilizes data to evidence deficits in the colonized, this research served as

an intervention for positive change and invited research participants to be an active part of the

change. Finally, contrasting the individualistic approach of Western science, while their goals

were to change adolescent sexual behavior, researchers invited parents and other community

members to contribute. Ultimately, Chilisa and Tsheko did a thorough job in curbing traditional
THE COMPLEXITY OF DECOLONIZING RESEARCH 4

Western research’s hegemonic ideology that persons, ideas, and practices of the global South are

less valuable or legitimate. They took proactive measures to incorporate native people and

practices in each phase of their study.

Still, despite their inroads in decolonizing research by using a postcolonial indigenous

paradigm, there were several aspects of their study that echoed colonial discourse reflecting the

complexity and paradox of decolonizing research. In the following I will show how this occurred

through their use of dichotomous “us/them” language and their simplification rather than

hybridization of current global South culture.

Colonialism divided the world into colonizer and colonized which virtually split and

redefined the entire globe into rulers and oppressors. And from that time until to today,

colonialists and their descendants scramble to justify this division, inventing dichotomies of race

(Maldonado-Torres, 2007), intellect (Croizet, 2012), development (Burman, 2008), affect (Said,

2012), and ability (Grech, 2015). Thus dichotomous thinking, though it existed before colonial

times, can be considered within this context as antithetical to decolonial efforts. Yet research

frequently falls into this dichotomous “us/them” mentality. In Chilisa and Tsheko, this occurs

several times. Trying to equalize research practices as mentioned above, the authors

inadvertently widened the distinctions of the North and South as literate verses oral societies,

individual verses relationship based communities, and practical verses spiritual beings (Chilisa &

Tsheko, 2014). Yet while it is easy to identify this fault, it is incredibly hard to not exaggerate

and focus on the differences in research. Divisions are natural labels or identifiers. Positively,

they allow us to pick out the distinct, unique strengths of a people. For instance, Chilisa and

Tsheko’s distinction of indigenous methods “such as naming, storying, yarning, and talking

circles” was done to highlight the contributions of the community (Chilisa & Tsheko, 2014, p.
THE COMPLEXITY OF DECOLONIZING RESEARCH 5

224). The complexity of dichotomy is particularly true within the constraints of scientific

inquiry. Division is often the name of the game for research, being able to identify the

uniqueness of certain objects allows researchers to manipulate and change it.

Second, there was an oversimplification of the global South’s culture and practices.

Chilisa and Tsheko rarely localized descriptions of cultural practices, rather they gave several

sweeping statements. In talking about indigenous conversation methods, they write, “In African

contexts and among Indigenous peoples, there are many occasions when people form a circle,”

(Chilisa & Tsheko, 2014, p. 230). Concerning theory, they explain, “African perspectives view

relational epistemology as knowledge that has a connection with the knowers,” (Chilisa &

Tsheko, 2014, p. 223). It is hard to ignore such blatant generalizations considering the diversity

of the African continent in ethnicity, religion, nationality, language, and urban and rural

residency. In truth, while they say the research “involves the study of local phenomena, using

local language, local subjects, and locally meaningful constructs to provide solutions to local

problems,” (Chilisa & Tsheko, 2014, p. 226) there was only one mention of a practice unique to

the Botswana community. What is more, defining their research as “indigenous” methods raises

concerns as the term indigenous is neither tied to a specific location nor a ethnic or linguistic

community; rather, reflecting colonial language, indigenous is often equated as the “other,” i.e.

non-White. This leads us back to the problem of dichotomizing. Another type of

oversimplification was their tendency to romanticize the global South which does little to

promote change (Fanon, 1952/2008). For instance, justifying a relational framework in their

research process, they write,

The Bantu in Southern Africa discuss a relational axiology that is embedded in the

ubuntu relational principles of (a) ‘‘I am we, I am because we are’’; (b) relations of
THE COMPLEXITY OF DECOLONIZING RESEARCH 6

people with the living and the nonliving; (c) spirituality, love, harmony, and community

building, (Chilisa & Tsheko, 2014, p. 223).

This simplification of the Bantu as a peaceful unified community based on an oneness

with nature reside in a romanticism of precolonial practices. This is problematic because, as

Frantz Fanon explains, postcolonial practices are not a simple reversal to idealized precolonial

times; rather, postcolonial practices are a hybridity of precolonial origins and colonial oppression

(1963). Yet there was no specific awareness of how their participants’ beliefs and practices were

dynamic and evolving, in part connected to their community’s traditions while also adapting to

modernity.

These difficulties in Chilisa and Tsheko’s decolonization efforts are mirrored in their

mixed methods process. The researchers speak ideally of mixed method research’s potential

while in practice their research lacks a meaningful use of hybridity. They write:

A mixed methods approach thus brings into the research process a combination of

indigenous research methods and other methods to build a web of relationships so that

research takes place in an environment that nurtures peace and appreciation for diversity;

love, harmony, and possibilities of hope; togetherness, cooperation, and collective action;

and responsibilities and coalitions of disciplines and knowledge systems, (Chilisa &

Tsheko, 2014, p. 223).

This description of mixed methods provides a sense of wholeness and unity, of a fully integrated

loving relationship between the researcher and researched. Yet their actual research is far from

this ideal. Rather, their efforts come together awkwardly, creating a mishmash of inquiry from

utilizing Western psychology’s theory of planned behavior in documenting local beliefs to

concluding an individualistically focused intervention with the indigenous practice of a talking


THE COMPLEXITY OF DECOLONIZING RESEARCH 7

circle (Chilisa & Tsheko, 2014). The students’ beliefs and practices while they were

documented, were not accepted as legitimate. Two examples show how these researchers saw

students’ beliefs as romanticized fixed entities and outright rejected them (rather than taking on

an integrated, unified approach) in their interventions. In talking about cultural taboos,

researchers document a wide acceptance of proverbs, traditional songs, and common sayings that

disapproved of abstinence and limited sexual partners yet rejected these beliefs by requesting

students to make vows of stopping “risky sexual behavior,” (Chilisa & Tsheko, 2014, p. 230).

Second, while it was a taboo to speak about sexual practices, researchers challenged students to

open up these lines of communication with their parents. The researchers seemed to infer that

these students had fixed, traditional (wrong) ideas of sexual practices, furthermore, while they

wanted to appreciate diversity, they, in fact, ignored local beliefs within their intervention.

Here I would like to look more closely at Chilisa and Tsheko’s discussion of their

research. I believe their report lacked demographics, data and results, and a discussion of

research influence which further limited their efforts to decolonize the research process.

Aligning with my earlier observation that the researchers generalized indigenous

practices, there is minimal demographic information given for the participants. Aside from

knowing the age of the students interviewed and that they are from the country of Botswana, the

reader is presented with no information such as their human or social capitals: their

socioeconomic status, educational achievements, parental supports, language abilities, or even

whether it is from a rural or urban setting. This is problematic because many effective decolonial

projects have aimed to dismantle particular political and social colonial practices tied to

particular communities; for instance, Waangari Matthai in Kenya and Ken Saro-Wiwa in Nigeria
THE COMPLEXITY OF DECOLONIZING RESEARCH 8

(Guha, 2000). Thus without specific references to Botswana’s health situation and its community

resources or needs, it is difficult to see how this intervention enabled meaningful changes.

Second, the article lacks both quantitative and qualitative data and results. The title:

“Sustainable Intervention Outcomes” (Chilisa & Tsheko, 2014, p. 222) imply that this article

concerns not only the process (as emphasized in their abstract) but the product of their research.

Yet there were only a few summary words concerning the outcome. I was rather disappointed

that, with such an emphasis on how mixed methodology benefited their research they gave no

clear data collection procedures nor presented concrete data. Data collection methods from

whether interviews were recorded, transcriptions, the number of hours or words collected, notes

taken, to the language interviews were conducted in were missing. Nor were there numbers to

signify survey results or direct quotes from participant voices to represent qualitative data. The

lack of voices is particularly problematic in their decolonial efforts as it reinforces the colonial

perceptions of silencing global South voices.

Finally, it concerned me that the researchers did not include a discussion of their

influence to the research. In intentionally selecting Botswana principal investigators rather than

American researchers, I had expected that there would be mention of how this affected the

research in positive ways. This is problematic because part of decolonizing is a recognition of a

researcher’s power in interpreting results and making decisions of what and how to intervene.

Neglecting to mention local demographics, minimizing results, talking in broad summaries, and

ignoring researcher’s influence the hierarchy of research as universal and objective was

perpetuated.

Research represents the colonial ideology of using scientific inquiry as a form of

domination. As Louise Pratt explains, by dissecting and labeling the world under the name of
THE COMPLEXITY OF DECOLONIZING RESEARCH 9

science, imperialism was able to conquer continents, turning exotic, unknown mysteries into

identifiable and thus manipulatable objects (2007). Thus decolonizing research is a paradox as it

is an attempt to use a colonial act to decolonize ideas. Chilisa and Tsheko have taken on this

challenge by deconstructing aspects of hegemonic science utilizing mixed methods research.

They have sought to infuse non-Western indigenous processes so that their research would result

in positive changes within the participants and their community. Still, there were significant

obstacles that remained which continue to challenge not only Chilisa and Tsheko but also all

researchers that seek to decolonize their work.


THE COMPLEXITY OF DECOLONIZING RESEARCH 10

References

Burman, E. (2008). Developments: Child, Image, Nation. New York: Routledge.

Chilisa, B., & Tsheko, G. N. (2014). Mixed Methods in Indigenous Research Building

Relationships for Sustainable Intervention Outcomes. Journal of Mixed Methods

Research, 8(3), 222-233.

Croizet, J.-C. (2012). The racism of intelligence: How mental testing practices have constituted

an institutionalized form of group domination. In L. D. Bobo, L. Crooms-Robinson, L.

Darling-Hammond, M. C. Dawson, H. L. G. Jr., G. Jaynes, & C. Steele (Eds.), The

Oxford Handbook of African American Citizenship, 1865-Present Oxford University

Press.

Fanon, F. (1952/2008). Black Skin, White Masks (R. Philcox, Trans.). New York: Grove Press.

Fanon, F., Farrington, C., & Sartre, J.-P. (1963). The Wretched of the Earth (Vol. 36). New

York: Grove Press.

Grech, S. (2015). Decolonising Eurocentric disability studies: Why colonialism matters in the

disability and global South debate. Social Identities, 21(1), 6-21.

Guha, R. (2000). Environmentalism: A Global History. New York: Longman.

Maldonado-Torres, N. (2007). On the coloniality of being: Contributions to the development of a

concept. Cultural studies, 21(2-3), 240-270.

Pratt, M. L. (2007). Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation: Routledge.

Said, E. W. (2012). Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage.

S-ar putea să vă placă și