We might think that colonialism has ended, and the history of knowledge production is just that — history. However, many of the structures and institutions that were created during colonisation persist to the present, including in academia and research.
In this section, we focus on how the process of research and knowledge production in HEIs continues to be shaped by coloniality and resultant unequal power dynamics between the Global North and the Global South. We cautiously use the terms Global North/South, which tend to correspond with economically wealthier/poorer countries, to refer to diverse geographical spaces that have been and continue to be suppressors/suppressed in the colonial world order.
The diversity in research profiles (of students/researchers etc.) is a legacy of unequal access, for example, in 2015-2016, only 0.6% of UK professors were black compared to 3.3% of the overall population (2015-2016 UK HESA, as cited in Wanelik et al., 2020). There also exists a pay gap, both between men and women researchers (15.5% pay gap in 2018-2019), and between Global South and Global North researchers, which often also intersects with their gender. Particularly in field-work heavy disciplines such as ecology, geology, and glaciology (Olinger, 2020) where most research has been/are done by white men, minority researchers potentially face uncomfortable, dangerous, sexist and/or racist encounters.
Further, unequal access goes beyond institutions and extends to nation-state boundaries. Researchers from Global South countries tend to have to go through more administrative red tape in order to travel (e.g. to other countries for field work or attending conferences), whether in terms of visa applications or having to prove financial means. On the other hand, researchers from Global North countries are able to travel relatively freely and easily, enabling ‘parachute science’ (see for example, Stefanoudis et al., 2021).
This impacts the kinds of research that one can do, depending on the passport that one holds, and the ability to progress in research careers. In many instances, Global South students and researchers are attracted to Global North institutions for their improved access and funding, which continues to undermine Global South HEIs (Reidpath and Allotey, 2019). Against a backdrop of lacking institutional support, researchers of diaspora also struggle to navigate challenges in conducting meaningful and equitable research relationships back home (Mwampamba et al., 2021).
However, increasing diversity alone does not necessarily resolve power imbalances and coloniality in knowledge production.
Unsurprisingly, economically wealthy Global North countries are better able to fund their HEIs and devote more resources to research compared to Global South countries (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, undated). This economic power translates into the ability to dictate research directions and agenda. As such, research topics of interest to the Global North are often prioritised; a well-known example lies in health research where only 10% of all research funding focuses on health issues of populations in low-income countries or 90% of global population, known as the 10/90 gap.
Where research funding is provided to Global South countries, these are often restricted to development and health or other applied research, rather than allowing them to also pursue philosophy, mathematics, theoretical physics, which reinforces the disparity between Global North and Global South HEIs. With research directed from the Global North (HEIs and NGOs) but conducted in Global South countries, this is often perceived as a neo-colonial extension of control over post-colonial governments (Chaudhary and Colla, 2020).
Specifically within sustainability and development research, top-down, North-South donor-driven agendas tend to be the norm, which may not address the specific needs of communities and which reproduces colonial dynamics of control (sometimes termed as neo-colonialism). Assumptions may be made about the kinds of progress or development that communities want. In order to achieve desired outcomes, interventions requiring behavioural changes may be imposed on communities, which may contradict with their own visions, especially in the field of international development (Kothari, 2006).
For example, the Millenium Development Goals, predecessors of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), were considered by some in Africa to impose a model of development that would perpetuate dependence on the West (Durokifa and Ijeoma, 2018). International conventions where these policies and targets are decided are often dominated by Global North actors and their ways of thinking (Krauss et al., 2022, Carant, 2017). These international commitments then affect the direction of research that is undertaken in HEIs (see Purvis et al., 2019 for how the concept of Sustainable Development was mainstreamed and entered academic literature).
Histories of the discipline continue to shape the questions asked and approaches used now. For example, the colonial world view of seeing the natural world (landscapes and animals) as natural resources that need to be managed persists to this day in conservation, used to justify the dispossession of Indigenous and local peoples (Dominguez and Luoma, 2020).
In much of engineering research, technological innovations are seen as providing the solution. However, the problem framing by researchers may be different to what the communities experience. The push for constant innovation and “techno-fixes” in part reinforces colonial modes of industrial production (Pansera and Owen, 2018), while inadequate attention to local political socio-economic situations may end up exacerbating existing inequalities and environmental problems (Mirza et al., 2019).
Research processes may perpetuate colonial unequal power dynamics between Global North/foreign and Global South/local researchers. Local researchers are brought in usually as logistics managers, translators or data collectors, while foreign experts with the technical skills analyse the data collected. The sense of hierarchy between foreign and local researchers is exacerbated by the language used, and locals are often made to feel that they can only bring knowledge of local contexts or identification skills, without having any knowledge over potential causes or solutions (Haelewaters et al., 2020).
In research with communities, knowledge production continues to be extractive in many cases. The voices of local peoples who will be affected by the research may not be heard or recognised when problems are assumed or solutions proposed without their input, for example, in health (Packard, 2016), conservation (Kashwan et al., 2021), or engineering (Reynante, 2021).
The scientific method (comprising primarily logic, reasoning, and hypothesis-testing) is often taught across (Western-style) education systems in the world today with a Eurocentric dominance, beginning in the 16th century with Galileo (or the ancient Greeks) (Gower, 2002). However, this omits the major contributions to scientific methods, science, and knowledge by ancient Egyptians, India, China, and the Islamic world before the 16th century (see for example, Joseph, 2011 on the non-European roots of mathematics [Ironic note: The author has been accused by C. K. Raju of plagiarism]). Part of this omission lies in racist ideals of white Western scientific superiority.
Particularly with sustainability research, there is often the impetus to measure outcomes and track progress/success of interventions in reaching targets. However, these measures assume a common end point and the metrics chosen may be inappropriate for local contexts or incommensurable with what people care about (Turcu, 2012).
We have also written an article for the university’s magazine, Doctoral Times, on colonial research methodologies and more equitable ways forward (pg 24-26) that delves into this topic in greater detail.
Publication bias still exists; research publications are dominated by Global North HEIs in fields ranging from development (Amarante et al., 2021) to climate science (CarbonBrief, 2021). Manuscripts submitted from the Global North are more likely to be accepted (Nunez et al., 2019), and Global South scholars are less likely to be published in Global North journals. Although there is concerted effort now to make publications more accessible (to those outside institutions which are able to pay journal subscription fees) through open-access publishing models, concerns still remain that Global South scholars are now unable to afford to publish, and the overall structural inequality remains (Batterbury et al., 2022)
As publications are the main currency in academia, being cited is a sign of intellectual legitimacy, but the dominance of English language in research and the lack of recognition of intellectual contribution in other languages often creates additional challenges for non-English speaking researchers while stifling the flourishing of academic ideas (Henry et al., 2021).
When research is done with communities but not shared or presented to them, that can also be perceived as extractive and colonial, since knowledge was taken from them, and the researcher’s career benefits, yet nothing is given back to the communities. This is often perceived by Indigenous peoples (Tuhiwai Smith, 2021), or experienced as ‘research fatigue’ (Clark, 2008).
Other more subtle ways that research can be colonial is in the language framing of research problems and participants, for example with the use of words like “vulnerable”, “marginalised”, or “beneficiary”. These perpetuate the idea and narrative that populations in certain countries or certain segments of society need to be helped, perpetuating a colonial complex of saviourism and the “civilising” mission (Lokot, 2021).
How are my research questions generated? Is there input from target communities?
Are there other questions that should be asked? Have I considered other ways of knowing, that would enable learning of new things?
How will I collect my data? Am I working collaboratively and respectfully with partners, and will acknowledge their contributions and co-authorship (should be discussed at the start)?
Who am I citing in my research articles; have I considered work in other languages or from non-elite Global North institutions?
If my research is publicly funded, how does it give back to the wider community?