Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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 &
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
References
Chilisa, B., & Tsheko, G. N. (2014). Mixed Methods in Indigenous Research Building
Croizet, J.-C. (2012). The racism of intelligence: How mental testing practices have constituted
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
Grech, S. (2015). Decolonising Eurocentric disability studies: Why colonialism matters in the