This article interrogates the relationship between social science research and ways of doing, knowing and being that are dominant in Western universities. It traces a line from the colonial origins of dominant knowledge, through the creation of a rational scientist subject, in order to make visible the reproduction of epistemic inequality in modernity/coloniality. The link between epistemic injustice and neoliberal knowledge production practices in higher education is made clear through a particular focus on the role research methods play in this process, Finally, a reorientation is proposed along with a framework of methodologies for epistemically-just research.
AlvessonM.SköldbergK. (2017). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. SAGE.
2.
BalarinM.PaudelM.SarmientoP.SinghG.WilderR. (2021, June). Exploring epistemic justice in educational research. JustEd: Education as and for Epistemic, Environmental and Transitional Justice to Enable Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5502143
3.
BhambraG. K. (2009). Rethinking modernity: Postcolonialism and the sociological imagination. Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
CannellaG. S. (2015). Qualitative research as living within/transforming complex power relations. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(7), 594–598.
5.
DaviesB.BrowneJ.GannonS.HopkinsL.McCannH.WihlborgM. (2006). Constituting the feminist subject in poststructuralist discourse. Feminism & Psychology, 16(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959-353506060825
6.
de FreitasE.TrumanS. E. (2021). New empiricisms in the Anthropocene: Thinking with speculative fiction about science and social inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(5), 522–533.
7.
DenzinN. K. (2017). Critical qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 8–16.
8.
de Sousa SantosB. (2010). The University in the twenty-first century: Towards a democratic and emancipatory reform InAppleM. W.BallS. J.GandinL. A. (Eds.), The Routledge International handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 274–282). Routledge.
9.
de Sousa SantosB. (2018). The end of the cognitive empire: The coming of age of the epistemologies of the South. Duke University Press.
10.
FanonF. (2001). The wretched of the earth. Penguin Books.
11.
FrickerM. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
12.
FrickerM. (2008). Forum on Miranda Fricker’s “epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing.”Theoria, 23(1), 69–71.
13.
GildersleeveR. E.GuyotteW. G. (2020). Readymade methodology. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(8–9), 1122–1130.
14.
GirouxH. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. Bloomsbury.
15.
HallB. L.GodrieB.HeckI. (2020). Knowledge democracy and epistemic in/justice: Reflections on a conversation. The Canadian Journal of Action Research, 21(1), 27–45.
16.
HandforthR.TaylorC. A. (2016). Doing academic writing differently: A feminist bricolage. Gender and Education, 28(5), 627–643.
17.
HarawayD. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.
Le GuinU. (2019). The carrier bag theory of fiction. Ignota Books.
20.
Maldonado-TorresN. (2007). On the coloniality of being: Contributions to the development of a concept. Cultural Studies, 21(1–2), 240–270.
21.
MasakaD. (2019). Attaining epistemic justice through transformation and decolonisation of education curriculum in Africa. African Identities, 17(3–4), 298–309.
22.
MignoloW. D.WalshC. E. (2018). On decoloniality: Concepts, analytics, praxis. Duke University Press.
23.
OyinloyeB. (2021). Towards an Ọmọlúàbí code of research ethics: Applying a situated, participant-centred virtue ethics framework to fieldwork with disadvantaged populations in diverse cultural settings. Research Ethics, 17(4), 401–422.
24.
QuijanoA. (1991). Decolonialidad y modernidad/racionalidad [Decoloniality and modernity/rationalyity]. Perú indígena, 29, 11–20.
25.
RenoldE. J. (2018). “Feel what I feel”: Making da(r)ta with teen girls for creative activisms on how sexual violence matters. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(1), 37–55.
26.
SmithL. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). Zed Books.
27.
StengersI. (2018). Another science is possible: A manifesto for slow science. Polity Press.
28.
St. PierreE. A. (2021). The lure of the new and the hold of the dogmatic. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(5), 480–490.
29.
TaylorC. A. (2017). Rethinking the empirical in higher education: Postqualitative inquiry as a less comfortable social science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 40(3), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2016.1256984
ThielJ. J.HofsessB. A. (2020). Digressive methodologies: Inviting the aesthetic and material into the phenomenological. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(5), 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419836698
32.
UlmerJ. B. (2017). Posthumanism as research methodology: Inquiry in the Anthropocene. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(9), 832–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2017.1336806
33.
van AscheK.BeunenR.DuineveldM.GruezmacherM. (2021). Adaptive methodology. Topic, theory, method and data in ongoing conversation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2021.1964858
34.
VergèsF. (2021). A decolonial feminism. Pluto Press.
35.
Wa Thiong’oN. (1986). Decolonising the mind: The politics of language in African literature. East African Publishers.
36.
WilderR.McIntoshS. (2023). Crafting ethics out of confinement. In HughesC.TaylorC. A.PérezM. S.UlmerJ. B. (Eds.), International handbook of research and methods in transdisciplinary feminism. Routledge.
