Decolonising Performance Methodologies: A Commentary

This paper presents a critique of intercultural research in the context of a study of Educational Inclusion in Rural Schools in Cambodia undertaken by four U.K. researchers in partnership with four Cambodian researchers. Interculturality is an endeavour to recognise and engage with different ways of being and knowing across cultural boundaries and to address barriers to reciprocal understanding. This endeavour is a complex one and there is little research on the reality of intercultural research, especially in a Cambodian context. We therefore explored this reality within our own research team to address a gap in the literature. Our research question is: What are participants’ perceptions of interculturality based on their experiences of a 5-year research study in educational inclusion? Using a decolonial framework and decolonial methodologies, this paper presents the findings of a qualitative study that draws on questionnaire, research diary and interview data. We critically examine affordances and challenges relating to knowledge exchange, cultural differences, language/translation effects and research orthodoxies. We found that whilst our decolonial approach proved mutually beneficial, fostering co-construction and enhancing power-sharing, the quest for epistemic justice is inevitably constrained by powerful, Western research orthodoxies and funding conditionalities necessitating ongoing, joint reflexivity. The significance of the paper lies in the examination of the lived experiences of these affordances and challenges using a decolonial framework. The paper will be of relevance to international development researchers, international research funding agencies, international NGOs and others working in low and lower middle-income countries (LMICs) in the Global South.

This paper draws attention to the significance of incorporating decolonial methodologies in analyzing political discourse in a postcolonial world, particularly in Africa. The decolonial approach to political discourse focuses on the ways politics in postcolonial context is imbricated in the logic of coloniality. Decolonial approach is considered necessary rather than sufficient in interrogating the hegemonic structure of colonialism in Africa's political discourse. The paper uses critical discourse analysis situated within decolonial methodologies to analyze former President of Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan's declaration-of-intent speech to seek re-election. The paper specifically draws on [Mignolo, W. (2011). The darker side of western modernity: Global futures decolonial options. Duke University Press.] and [Macgilchrist, F. (2014). Media discourse and de/coloniality: A post-foundational approach. In C. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.), Contemporary critical discourse studies (pp. 385–405). Bloomsbury Publishing] decolonial frameworks and [Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse. Routledge] legitimization model. Situating decolonial approaches together with Chilton's legitimization model is, on the one hand, a way of interrogating hegemonic structures in Goodluck Jonathan's speech and on the other hand works to show the limitation of Chilton's theory in analyzing discourses from Africa. This limitation of Chilton's model underscores the need to bring decolonial approaches in constructing a nuanced understanding of Africa and its epistemic diversity because it is impossible to think of overcoming the coloniality of power without approaching it from the perspective of the colonized.

This chapter reimagines noise not as disorder or interference but as a decolonial disruption that foregrounds indigenous epistemologies in the Global South. Historically dismissed by colonial modernity as primitive or irrelevant, indigenous oral traditions, ecological soundscapes, ritual performances, and literary forms were frequently categorized as noisy disturbances to orderly knowledge. Reframing noise, however, reveals its role as an epistemic and political force that resists silencing, preserves memory, and sustains community identities. The chapter explores noise across four dimensions. First, in oral traditions, noise emerges as interruption, repetition, and silence that encode memory and plurality against colonial archives. Second, in ecological soundscapes, the noisy rhythms of forests, rivers, and animal life embody relational environmental knowledge crucial for sustainability and climate resilience. Third, in performance and literature, noise operates as aesthetic strategy through drumming, chants, polyphonic narratives, and ritual sound to critique and disrupt dominant narratives. Finally, in policy contexts, noise functions both as a means of marginalization, where indigenous voices are dismissed as disorder, and as political assertion, where communities reclaim noisy protests and sonic disruptions as tools of visibility and recognition. By positioning noise as a decolonial framework, the paper argues that indigenous epistemologies are not marginal residues but vital resources for shaping just, sustainable futures. It highlights the importance of listening differently to the silences, dissonances, and interruptions that carry epistemic value beyond Western models of order and progress.

This chapter examines how contemporary Indigenous fiction narrates complex relationship between language identity and resistance in aftermath of colonisation and cultural erasure. Drawing on The Marrow Thieves by Cherie Dimaline, Indian Horse by Richard Wagamese, and Moon of the Crusted Snow by Waubgeshig Rice, the study analyses how literary representations of language loss, suppression, and reclamation reflect the lived realities of Indigenous peoples across settler-colonial contexts. Indigenous fiction is not merely artistic expression it is also a pedagogical and identity-forming space. These narratives can be read as “fictionalised autoethnographies,” blending personal truth with imaginative storytelling. Employing narrative inquiry, postcolonial theory, and Indigenous epistemologies, this chapter argues that Indigenous fiction functions as a form of cultural resistance and identity pedagogy, offering insights for rethinking education through culturally sustaining and decolonial frameworks.

This book review critically examines Lived religion and lived development in contemporary society. The book honors Wilhelm Grab. It explores the complex link between lived religion and development using interdisciplinary, empirical, and decolonial frameworks. The book offers insights into practical theology, indigenous epistemologies and ecological ethics. Its strengths include an African focus and theoretical innovations. Limitations exist in conceptual density and chapter quality. The book's importance for Southern Africa will be discussed. Recommendations for future scholarly inquiry will conclude this review. Keywords: Contextual theology, decolonial theology, ecological theology, indigenous spirituality, development, religion, practical theology, symbolic hermeneutics

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a leading cause of death in the Global South, where the burden of disease is compounded by structural inequalities. Despite decades of biomedical interventions, TB control efforts have often failed to address the deeper socio-political and historical factors that sustain the epidemic. Aim: This literature review aims to examine how colonial legacies continue to shape TB control and to explore how decolonial frameworks can reimagine TB care by centering indigenous knowledge, community agency, and health sovereignty. Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted using interdisciplinary sources from public health, global health governance, medical anthropology, and decolonial theory. Key themes were identified through a review of peer-reviewed articles, reports, and grey literature related to TB, colonialism, indigenous knowledge, and community participation. Discussion: Findings highlight enduring power asymmetries in global TB governance, with institutions based in the Global North often dictating priorities that may not align with community needs. The marginalization of indigenous epistemologies further weakens the cultural relevance of TB interventions. However, documented examples of community-led initiatives and integrated traditional practices demonstrate alternative models rooted in relational, participatory approaches. These approaches underscore the importance of ethical collaboration, epistemic pluralism, and local leadership. Conclusion: Decolonising TB control means more than changing tools; it means changing relationships. By centering indigenous knowledge, dismantling power hierarchies, and fostering true community leadership, TB strategies can become more just and effective. In reclaiming the breath, we restore the right to heal on one’s own terms.

Literacy scholars have pointed out the neoliberal co-opting of literacy and language learning, specially when English is often promoted as the language of progress by the English language teaching industry and educational policies worldwide. This utilitarian discourse on English language learning has been passively accepted and reinforced by governments, policy makers, educators, and society in general. Such positioning not only furthers neoliberal values of competition and individualism, but also perpetuates Western ideas of development that have proven to be detrimental for our planet. Scholars in the field of Education have acknowledged the necessity of prioritizing indigenous epistemologies to transform education. Thus, in this article I introduce the ‘Pluriversal literacies’, a decolonial framework which conceptualizes literacies as relational, land-based, and multisentient practices, such as weaving plants, constructed within communities and their territories. I argue that this framework may facilitate the transformation of English language teaching, especially in foreign language contexts, by centering and valuing the knowledges, cultures, and literacies of non-dominant learners.

The African whodunit is a haven for revealing the continent’s critical social issues and exploring the tensions between competing ways of knowing. Yet there is a limited focus on how detective figures renegotiate scientific rationality and indigenous epistemology in their quest to unravel a crime. This paper explores this dialectic by examining how Nii Ayikwei Parkes’s Tail of the Blue Bird (2009) and Kwei Quartey’s Wife of the Gods (2009) reimagine crime-solving as an epistemological negotiation and a complementary interplay between plural ways of knowing rather than a purely scientific process. The paper introduces the concept of cognitive border-crossing to describe how these texts resist rigid binaries between tradition and modernity, rural and urban, and science and spirituality. The paper contributes to debates on epistemic decolonisation by advancing the need for context-responsive frameworks for supporting an understanding of knowledges in the postcolonial African state.

This paper examines the intersections of indigenous knowledge, the decolonial turn, and social development through the lens of contemporary Indian parallel cinema. Emerging from the legacies of the New Wave, parallel cinema in India has often challenged dominant cultural narratives by foregrounding subaltern voices, marginalized identities, and local epistemologies. Contemporary filmmakers continue this tradition by representing lived realities rooted in indigenous knowledge systems, ecological consciousness, and community practices that resist homogenizing forces of globalization and cultural imperialism. By adopting a decolonial framework, this study investigates how these films destabilize Eurocentric models of modernity and knowledge production, offering instead localized ways of understanding development, sustainability, and justice in the Global South. Through close readings of selected films, the paper highlights how the cinematic language—use of regional dialects, folk traditions, and non-linear storytelling—serves as a counter-discourse to mainstream narratives. In doing so, contemporary Indian parallel cinema not only documents social issues but also proposes alternative visions of social development grounded in cultural specificity and indigenous epistemologies. This analysis argues that such cinematic practices embody a decolonial turn by reclaiming aesthetic and narrative space for marginalized communities, thereby contributing to broader debates on social development in the Global South.

This chapter explores the Indigenous moral-philosophical conceptualization of Buen Vivir (Vivir Bien/ Sumak Kawsay/Suma Qamaña) as a decolonial framework for social justice and ecological harmony, rooted in Indigenous epistemologies from the Andes and Amazon. It emphasizes the term Tinkuy, representing encounters and confrontations among diverse knowledge systems, which underscores Indigenous resistance against colonial legacies. The authors analyze the constitutional recognition of Indigenous rights in Ecuador and Bolivia, positioning Buen Vivir as a response to capitalist development models. The chapter argues for a multidimensional understanding of Buen Vivir, integrating class/justice, culture/ethnicity/ontology/epistemology, and ecologism to address the complexities of Indigenous struggles. Through comparative analysis of Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives, the authors highlight the importance of ethnographic research in capturing diverse voices. The political implications of Buen Vivir are examined, revealing tensions between Indigenous movements and state policies, particularly regarding extractivism. The authors advocate for recognizing the duality of particularistic and universalistic goals within Indigenous movements, framing Buen Vivir as a floating and plural conceptualization, a "flying river" that adapts to local contexts while promoting social justice. Ultimately, the chapter calls for a holistic understanding of Buen Vivir that encompasses both cultural preservation and broader socio-economic justice, underscoring its relevance in contemporary struggles for ecological sustainability and equity.

Indigenous peoples around the world suffer from health disparities attributed to a plethora of risk factors and social determinants of health stemming from colonialism and systemic oppression. Community-based health interventions have been identified as a means for addressing and reducing Indigenous health disparities by allowing for Indigenous sovereignty to be respected and centered. However, sovereignty relating to Indigenous health and well-being is underresearched. The present article explores the role of sovereignty in Indigenous community-based health interventions. A qualitative metasynthesis was conducted among 14 primary research studies co-authored by Indigenous people describing and evaluating Indigenous community-based health interventions. Five conceptual themes emerged as aspects of sovereignty which benefit Indigenous health and well-being outcomes: integration of culture; relocation of knowledge; connectedness; self-actualization; and stewardship. Implications are discussed, with the goal of creating a decolonial framework rooted in Indigenous epistemologies and perspectives for how sovereignty impacts Indigenous health, as well as strengthening a clear need for further research on and praxis of sovereignty in Indigenous healthcare.


 
 
 Indigenous gender roles have been distorted by colonialism, both through imposed systems of patriarchy and redefining gender roles within Indigenous communities. In Canada, the Indian Act of 1857 initiated a system of patriarchy which resulted in the loss of matrilineal family lines and Indigenous women’s rights to represent their community in leadership roles. This system still exists today, and despite numerous attempts to modify the law, the Indian Act still exerts patrilineal bias on Indigenous communities. In spite of this, there exists a large volume of research and literature by Indigenous women which investigates Indigenous feminism and the agency of Indigenous women in their communities. Examples include the writings of Sherry Farrell-Racette (Farrell-Racette 2010), Lee Maracle (Maracle 1996), Beverly Singer (Singer 2001) and Carol Rose Daniels (Daniels 2018) as well as online campaigns such as Rematriate (Rematriate 2018). Moreover, many Indigenous women in Canada are now stepping forward to address patriarchal systems in Indigenous institutions, such as the Assembly of First Nations, and outdated laws favouring male representation over female in meeting with governmental institutions.
 My research considers decolonization methods in relation to Indigenous feminist perspectives in research practice. Through an Indigenous research paradigm based on the teachings of the Indigenous Cree medicine wheel, this paper aims to decolonize homogenous forms of research by promoting Indigenous women’s knowledge. The medicine wheel in Indigenous teachings is a philosophy and a practical method of interpreting the physical, mental and transcendental domains. For research purposes, the medicine wheel offers a unique representation of Indigenous epistemology, ontology, axiology and methodology for use in research. Furthermore, following decolonial theory and Indigenous methodologies this research investigates the intersections of Indigenous feminism in decolonizing knowledge production and dismantling paternalistic affects in educational institutions.
 Including Indigenous approaches to listening, participation and storytelling as opposed to standardized interviews, as well as observation and document analysis, this thesis opens space for generating community-based definitions of Indigenous feminism. Focusing on the Canadian context, Indigenous women in Saskatchewan possess a vast amount of traditional knowledge and ways of knowing which have been devalued since the enforcement of the Indian Act. One vital way of Indigenizing cultural revitalization is by reclaiming Indigenous women’s epistemologies as a means of decolonizing gender roles and negating the impacts of the Indian Act.
 
 

The United Nations declared 2019 the International Year of Indigenous Languages[i] for the promotion of language development, peace, and reconciliation. One of the stated aims of the awareness campaign is the integration of indigenous languages into standard settings, bringing about empowerment through capacity building and through the elaboration of new knowledge. The San tsî Khoen Digital Languages Application & Archive is a project based in the San & Khoi Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT). Established in 2020 and funded by the Department of Sports, Arts and Culture, it is informed by a co-design digital curation process with the community. The project archives the endangered and erased languages of the indigenous San and Khoi communities of southern Africa, with an initial focus on N|uu and Khoekhoegowab. To obtain this, the project integrates decolonial scholarship within a digital environment of human languages technologies that creates a visibility of not only erased and endangered languages but also indigenous African feminist knowledges that have been lacking in scholarship. Its co-design digital curation process challenges the insular and fragmented nature of academic output, thereby allowing for a greater degree of critical analysis. This action research and digital curation processes are not without its challenges, as co-creating knowledge in an attempted decolonial framework that aims to foreground African feminist knowledge in a region of historical linguicide that was subjected to epistemic violence, as a consequence of colonialism and neo-colonialism is in itself not without its various contestations. This paper critically discusses this collaborative research and co-design knowledge production process engaged with over a process of forty research workshops [ii], over the past two years. The analysis and discussion in this paper are derived from a thematic analysis of this co-design digital curation process facilitated by the San & Khoi Centre between 2020 and 2022.

American Indian and Alaska Natives (AIAN) comprise about 2% of the US population and 0.5% of the faculty in higher education. While scholars have documented the experiences of underrepresented minority (URM) faculty, the perspectives of AIAN faculty at elite universities are largely absent. Although AIAN faculty share many of the same barriers to success as URM colleagues, their unique status as Tribal peoples and their relationship to settler colonialism pose particular challenges and resistance strategies. Findings from a mixed methods study of 25 AIAN faculty at research universities, employing a decolonizing, survivance-oriented framework, examines their lived institutional experiences. The data yielded five themes regarding (1) institutional climate, (2) mentorship, (3) family–work balance, (4) cultural taxation and role stress, and (5) discrimination. The authors conclude that decolonization involves the repatriation of Indigenous epistemologies and Indigenous ‘place’ in the growth of science, research, and knowledge production, creating liberatory spaces within the academy.

In his Epistemic Blame (2024), Cameron Boult presents a comprehensive account of epistemic blame as negative relationship modification in response to intellectual conduct that impairs an epistemic relationship. I articulate an alternative conception, according to which the proper basis for a critical epistemic response is violating epistemic normative expectations, and the response consists in holding the target epistemically accountable in a non-blaming way. The key elements of epistemic accountability are non-instrumental downgrading of the target’s standing as a source, partner, and user in social epistemic practices, and endorsement of taking responsibility for the violation. Like blame, this way of holding accountable carries a sting that goes beyond negative judgment, is sensitive to responsibility for the violation (and thus allows for excuses), and is second-personal. In these respects my view is closer to that of Boult than his critics, and can thus be described as a form of moderate rather than radical scepticism about epistemic blame. However, unlike paradigm blame, epistemic accountability is not accusatory or attitudinal, and is only weakly second-personal, since it doesn’t require standing or demand some form of atonement. It is thus best described as an epistemic analogue of blame rather than as a form of blame.