By Norma Romm
What might it mean to practise responsible research within a postcolonial Indigenous paradigm? What is distinctive in terms of the conception of responsible research practice? How does research informed by this paradigm include responsiveness to the voices/spirit of the more-than-human world?
A postcolonial Indigenous paradigm as defined by scholars from a variety of geographical regions is offered as a way of doing research that expressly draws out and tries to revitalise the relational knowing-and-being processes of Indigenous communities in Africa, the Indigenous peoples of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and the USA (First Nations). These scholars (Indigenous, as well as non-Indigenous ones who can be regarded as allies) have tried to credentialise this research paradigm by expanding upon the underlying suggestion that processes of knowing are inextricably tied to ways of living (being in relation to others, human and more-than-human).
This implies a specific conception of responsibility to try to nurture (in all fields of our influence, including in research practices) relationships that can be considered reciprocal rather than exploitative (of other humans or of other species and of the land and its communities). It offers a non-anthropocentric outlook (ethic) in its insistence that research needs to be attuned not only to human wellbeing (and especially to those most marginalized across the globe) but at the same time to the wellbeing of more-than-human others for their own sake and not only for the benefit of humans.
Furthermore, what is considered crucial within this paradigm (which is not meant to be exclusive of other transformative stances) is that at the moment of knowing (through theories developed, through narratives told, through the language used, and through the ways of engaging with all that we encounter), knowing shapes worlds-in-becoming, in more or less destructive ways in terms of (re)generating balanced relationships.
In regard to world-shaping, Rutendo Ngara (2018) argues that modern quantum theory, which recognises that we live in a participatory universe, where the act of knowing itself becomes an intervention in the way events unfold, “is finally catching up to eons of indigenous wisdom” (p. 15). I also consider this onto-epistemology as a participatory one where we are regarded as active participants in world-shaping and never as simply “observers” (Romm, 2024).
What I wish to emphasise in this i2Insights contribution is the notion that we need to be alert (as professional researchers in engagement with others) to how our knowing processes, as part of a community of human and more-than-human agents, willy-nilly contributes to having influence on/in a world-in-becoming, for which we are co-responsible. Otherwise expressed, in terms of this onto-epistemology we are enmeshed in a web of relations in which we shape worlds as we enact our thinking-and-being with others with whom/which we are engaged.
This has implications for how we facilitate research processes so that all those involved in the research become co-researchers (and so that we are also responsive to the relational intelligence of the more-than-human world as we learn from each other in processes of mutuality). This implies imagining and trying to enact with ‘others’ newly defined decolonial relations for the current era, through radical social experiments. These experiments include alternative ways of relating to ‘nature’ (of which we are part) so as to address the ravages of climate change from a non-anthropocentric perspective.
In terms of the issue of how those of us who might be considered to be non-Indigenous researchers can express/admit our positionality as we engage with others, I suggest that we need to be explicit about our commitments, and we need to seek feedback from ‘others’ throughout the research process, so as to check whether the research is being perceived as helpful towards establishing reciprocal relations and contributing to creating ‘better’ worlds (as experienced).
Self-reflexivity means creating opportunities to seek, and to be responsive to, others’ accounts of the ways of organising and interpreting the research (and implications for action). Amanuel Tewolde from the Centre for Social Development in Africa offers a conception of what he calls “liquid positionalities,” which allows us (those concerned) to reconceptualise insider/outsider positionalities in terms of how others may be experiencing one’s commitments.
My own statement of positionality is that I consider myself as “Indigenous-oriented” in that I “identify with the values which I see and draw out from authors writing about Indigeneity, including values which I draw out from my interactions and conversations with people Indigenous to Africa in particular” (Romm, 2018, p. 29). The interactions include relations with participants while co-conducting (with colleagues) various research projects in Indigenous communities and obtaining feedback from the participants around how they were experiencing our relationship with them. As I indicated above, such feedback can be explicitly solicited, to gauge along the way how participants are experiencing the research relations and also what further they may be suggesting in terms of making a meaningful impact in the community and the wider society (and globe).
Closing questions
What’s your experience (as professional and indeed lay researchers) in striking a balance between admitting our influence in shaping (with others) worlds-in-becoming, while making provision for other agents (human and more-than-human) to be active participants? In forwarding a postcolonial Indigenous paradigm how do you self-reflect upon and display your starting commitments when organising research?
To find out more:
Akena, F. A. and Romm, N. R. A. (2022). Reflections upon our way of invoking an Indigenous paradigm to co-explore community mobilisation against irresponsible practices of foreign-owned companies in Nwoya district, Uganda. The Qualitative Report, 27, 7: 1359-1389. (Online – open access) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5147. This provides a good example of setting up and facilitating research along Indigenous-oriented lines.
Romm, N. R. A. (2018). Responsible research practice: Revisiting transformative paradigm for social research. Springer: Cham, Switzerland. (Online): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380297098_Responsible_Research_Practice_-_Revisiting_Transformative_Paradigm_2018
Romm, N. R. A. (2024). An Indigenous relational approach to systemic thinking and being: Focus on participatory onto-epistemology. Systemic Practice and Action Research. (Online – open access) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-024-09672-4
Reference:
Ngara, R. (2018). ‘Following the way of the river: Indigenous knowledge systems, healing and reconciliation’. Presentation given at the 2018 National Convention of the South African Council of Churches, Discussion papers, Healing and Reconciliation Thematic: 5–18. (Online – open access for all theme papers): https://www.lutherancape.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Discussion-Papers-Healing-and-Reconciliation-July-2018.pdf (PDF 697KB).
Biography: Norma RA Romm D Litt et Phil is retired Professor Extraordinarius (affiliated as a Research Associate) to the Department of Adult, Continuing and Community Education at the University of South Africa in Pretoria. She specialises in organising transdisciplinary research for transformative purposes and in exploring how an Indigenous research paradigm advances this endeavour.
This is a well-written analysis by Prof. Norma Romm, a seasoned academic. Norma has always struck me as a critical systems theorist with a stake in transformative, transdisciplinary studies that bring together a variety of worldviews. One aspect of Norma’s revolutionary work that sets her apart is her persistent push for the recognition, valuing, and inclusion of indigenous research paradigms in research. I consider it an honor to have collaborated with Norma throughout the years and gained insight from her guidance.
Hello Francis. Thank you for these encouraging and supportive sentiments! And I consider it an honour to have gained insight from your holistic thinking and practice as evidenced in all that you do. Your understanding also of how we may relate to Western ways of knowing as part of a holistic approach has been particularly educative for me, as you have rich insights to share in this regard. Your critique of the exclusivist production of Western knowledge means that you do not wish to offer an exclusivist position yourself. This has been so well expressed by you in all our conversations over the years. Thank you for all that I have learned from our engagements, including all our joint research in various contexts in South Africa and Uganda, where I have noticed how you have encouraged so skillfully the sharing and discussing of experiences with a view to transformative action. I was also fascinated when you explained to me the importance to African participants of starting all research meetings with a prayer to invoke spiritual forces as part of the meeting, no matter what power for goodness is being invoked through the prayer – as a kind of tolerance for different ways of expressing spirituality (again, rather than an exclusivist approach). Meanwhile we have both learned from our many reflections around what it means to draw upon and expand in practice an Indigenous research paradigm and I am pleased that we have been able to express some of this learning in our writings.
Western researchers might also wonder about their own indigenous knowledge(s) that may have been buried under the mess left by ‘progress, or discarded in the pursuit of consciously purposive goals.
How I, as a white academic and therapist, position myself in relation to different cultures and knowledge systems is important – it needs to be fluid, humble and respectful, and from a second-order position that recognises and embraces immanence – we are all connected, and not just with other humans, but with all entities.
One of the concerns I have is the Western tendency to monetise everything, including research outputs that either impact upon, or directly/indirectly colonise indigenous peoples. This mindset, in my opinion, stems from the same dualistic thinking that enabled colonisation.
Hello Hugh. Thank you for these thoughts. I am interpreting your first paragraph as meaning (inter alia) that within certain Western cultural narratives, we can find (albeit buried in dominant discourses) instances of relational thinking and being. However, the narrative of “progress” (and its tendency to “monetise everything”, as you put it, has overpowered such ideas and practices. Yes and in Indigenous non-Western worldviews, the commodification of people and of nature pervading modern-colonial existence, is regarded as highly problematic.
I find it interesting how, as a White academic and therapist you set out to position yourself in relation to different cultures and knowledge systems. It would be very interesting for me (and perhaps other readers of this site) if you can offer some of your writings reflecting upon how you manage this process. Kenneth Gergen speaks about people learning in practice to join a dance across cultural symbols – I think I found this metaphor of his in his recent book called the Relational Imperative published by the Taos Institute. It is probably in other works of his too. I suppose also that your approach to the therapeutic process would involve inviting such a dance! How do you effect this in practice?
And yes, in regard to your last paragraph, the point I was trying to emphasise on this site is that as far as research processes are concerned, the way of organising the research and way of co-constructing “outputs” must be done in consciousness of the manner in which these are likely to impact upon, or, directly/indirectly colonise indigenous peoples (as you state). This is why a relational approach to research is so important, as together those involved and affected can work out a decolonising agenda.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments as a “White academic and therapist”, where you are reflecting upon new ways of relating (new in terms of dominant discourses).
Interesting discussion Norma
The acknowledgement and integration of Indigenous research methodologies are not just timely but urgent, given the extensive environmental and cultural damage inflicted by industrialised nations and through colonialism. The delay in researchers recognising these perspectives represents a nearly missed opportunity. Though belated, their inclusion offers hope for guiding and reshaping practices in ways that are more attuned to various communities’ ecological and cultural landscapes.
More than leading to a more equitable and sustainable management of the world’s resources, Indigenous research must amplify the voices of the oppressed, challenging the entrenched patterns of power and domination that perpetuate silence through ongoing conflicts and protracted wars and which further damage the planet.
Pinkie Mabunda and I discuss multispecies relations in the following article:
Mabunda, P.L., and McKay, V. (2021). Educational Curriculum and Multispecies Relations. In: McIntyre-Mills, J., Corcoran-Nantes, Y. (eds) From Polarisation to Multispecies Relationships. Contemporary Systems Thinking. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6884-2_16
Hello Veronica . I concur with you that the forwarding of Indigenous research methodologies (with associated onto-epistemology and axiological commitments) is indeed urgent, given the extensive environmental and cultural damage that seems to continue unabated in creating social and environmental havoc. Challenging the entrenched patterns of power and domination that perpetuate silence by, inter alia, denigrating the ways of knowing-and-being offered by Indigenous sages and scholars, is an important project! And your reference to the chapter on appreciating multi-species relationships and including this in educational curricula is also important. Thank you for your work on this!
Dear Norma (if I may),
Your insights are profoundly relevant. I have personally utilized your theoretical analysis to develop a deeper understanding of my own positionality on Aboriginal land (so-called Australia) during my research on racism(s) there. I also drew on Moreton-Robinson’s (2004) analysis (see: Whitening Race: Essays in Social and Cultural Criticism.) As a non-Indigenous person, I endeavored to reflect on my own positionality by following your advice to avoid reproducing colonial practices and conduct research responsibly, as you articulated in your book Responsible Research Practice: Revisiting Transformative Paradigm for Social Research (Springer: Cham, Switzerland).
I found your guidance particularly insightful, especially your suggestion to avoid treating informants as passive commodities (I reviewed your beautiful book here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2020.1831569 ).
By employing an anti-colonial lens (or an Indigenous-oriented approach, as you describe), I have sought to reflect on my positionality as a researcher on dispossessed land (I wrote about this in an open-access paper https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12965 ).
I also found your analysis of Amanuel Tewolde’s concept of “liquid positionalities” particularly intriguing, as it challenges the strict insider-outsider dichotomy.
Thank you for your invaluable contributions to this field.
Sincerely,
Vassilissa
Hello Vassilissa. Thank you for sharing your experiences on how, as a non-Indigenous person organising research in so-called Australia (Aboriginal land) you proceeded by reflecting on your own positionality in order to try to avoid reproducing colonial practices and conduct research responsibly. Thanks for sharing on this site the details (via your article) on how you handled this when exploring unequal vertical career progressions among Anglo White & non-Anglo White highly skilled immigrant women. As you say, part of this process of exploration meant not treating research participants as commodities from which to extract information (an extractive approach to research). And as you say, Amanuel Tewolde’s concept of “liquid positionalities” is intriguing, as it challenges the strict insider-outsider dichotomy when you feel (and enable participants to experience) a connection with their expressed concerns as part of the process of exploration (and dialogue).
In this article, Dr. Romm emphasizes the importance of practicing responsible research within an indigenous paradigm. One crucial aspect highlighted is our role as practitioners and the involvement of various stakeholders as observers of complex socio-technical systems. This discussion intersects with the methodology of Structured Democratic Dialogue (SDD), which aligns with the principles of third-phase science (Bausch and Flanagan, 2013; De Zeeuw, 1996; see Laouris and Romm, 2022, p. 1074). Unlike first-phase (traditional) science, which assumes observed phenomena exist independently of observation, and second-phase science, which acknowledges observations depend on the frames scientists employ, third-phase science values observations for their ability to facilitate new activities by users and their invitation for user participation (De Zeeuw, 1996, p. 20; Michaelides & Laouris, 2024, p. 321). Authentic engagement of people from all walks of life in designing or reforming the systems in which they are embedded is imperative, especially when interventions involve indigenous or disadvantaged groups. Additionally, representation of those without a voice (e.g., nature) is necessary (Laouris et al., 2008, p. 342).
Bausch, K. C., & Flanagan, T. R. (2013). A Confluence of Third‐Phase Science and Dialogic Design Science. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30(4), 414-429.
De Zeeuw, G. (1996). Three phases of science: A methodological exploration. Working paper number 7. Centre for Systems and Information Sciences, University of Humberside.
Laouris, Y., Laouri, R., & Christakis, A. (2008). Communication praxis for ethical accountability: the ethics of the tree of action: dialogue and breaking down the wall in Cyprus. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 25(2), 331-348.
Laouris, Y., & Romm, N. R. (2022). Structured dialogical design as a problem structuring method illustrated in a Re-invent democracy project. European Journal of Operational Research, 301(3), 1072-1087.
Michaelides, M., & Laouris, Y. (2024). A cascading model of stakeholder engagement for large-scale regional development using structured dialogical design. European Journal of Operational Research, 315(1), 307-323.
Thank you, Yiannis, for these comments. Yes the discussion intersects with the methodology of structured dialogical design (SDD) because this methodology aligns with “third phase science”, which is oriented to facilitating new activities on the part of users. It is thus transformative in character. As you say, for SDD it is crucial that all stakeholders (or their representatives) concerned with the issues at stake are included, including those seemingly without a voice (which many of us may not be hearing and are not responsive to listening to, such as the voice of nature). This is a point stressed by Indigenous sages and scholars. Thanks for your way of relating this to third phase science, ethical accountability, and opportunities for large-scale transformation. This all resonates with Indigenous onto-epistemology and axiology.
Thank you for this insightful perspective, Prof. Norma. You have expertly highlighted the importance of conducting research within a postcolonial Indigenous framework, emphasising the need for a reciprocal, rather than exploitative, approach. Your advocacy for a non-anthropocentric perspective is particularly compelling, as it calls for research that considers the well-being of both human and more-than-human worlds.
Your emphasis on self-reflexivity and positionality encourages researchers to state their commitments clearly and seek ongoing feedback. This ensures that the research contributes to creating balanced and reciprocal relationships.
Prof, this is a vital contribution, and I applaud you for your dedication and profound insights. Many of your publications have significantly assisted me, especially in the development of my book titled “Research Paradigms and Their Methodological Alignment in Social Sciences: A Practical Guide for Researchers” which is available here: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003484066
Well done, Prof. Your work continues to inspire and shape the future of responsible research practices.
Dear Omodan. Thank you for summarising so succinctly what I was trying to communicate in my piece on this site. Yes as you say, stating initial commitments and seeking feedback is what contributes to balanced and reciprocal relationships, which is stressed within this paradigm. And yes, I am advocating, along with many Indigenous sages and scholars, a non-anthropocentric perspective too. Meanwhile, your work has also inspired me, and I am keen to read your latest book on Research Paradigms and Their Methodological Alignment in Social Sciences. I have so far downloaded the flyer and I already found your arguments well expressed! Many thanks, Norma
Hello again dear Bunmi. I meant to use your first name in my last entry and used your surname by mistake as that is the one familiar to me from reading your works!
I found the parallel drawn between quantum theory and indigenous wisdom to be extremely interesting. I wonder what possibilities may be presented by expanding this parallel. It may offer a framework that is more accessible to certain areas of academia.
The value of this lies in the interdisciplinary approach that is necessary to address certain large scale realities, such as climate change.
Hello Laura. Yes this an interesting parallel that I spotted in the work of Rutendo Ngara. Maybe you can expand on this in your work. And yes we need interdisciplinary thinking and practice to address together the large scale issues. And also transdisciplinary research that explicitly involves working with communities to explore issues of concern with transformative intent. Thanks for these comments!
Thank you, Prof. Norma, for your illuminating article on practicing responsible research within a postcolonial Indigenous paradigm. Your exploration of responsible research practice through the lens of decolonization offers invaluable insights into challenging the entrenched power dynamics and hierarchies within knowledge production.
Your discussion of the postcolonial Indigenous paradigm underscores the importance of centering Indigenous perspectives and revitalizing relational knowing-and-being processes. By foregrounding the voices and wisdom of Indigenous communities, this paradigm disrupts colonial narratives and promotes reciprocity in research relationships, fostering a more equitable and inclusive knowledge landscape.
Your emphasis on non-anthropocentric ethics highlights the need to extend responsibility beyond human-centric concerns to encompass the well-being of the more-than-human world. This reframing of research practice acknowledges the interconnectedness of all beings and ecosystems, challenging Western-centric notions of knowledge and value.
Furthermore, your call for researchers to engage in radical social experiments and alternative ways of relating to nature exemplifies a decolonial approach to addressing pressing global challenges such as climate change. By decentering human dominance and embracing Indigenous ontologies, researchers can co-create transformative solutions rooted in ecological and social justice.
Your advocacy for self-reflexivity and transparency in research practices resonates deeply with the principles of decolonizing knowledge. By acknowledging and interrogating our positionalities as researchers, we can navigate the complexities of power and privilege inherent in knowledge production, fostering more ethical and accountable research processes.
In response to your closing questions, navigating the tension between admitting our influence in shaping worlds-in-becoming and ensuring the active participation of other agents requires continual reflection through a decolonial lens. By centering Indigenous knowledges and embracing relationality, researchers can co-create knowledge that reflects diverse perspectives and promotes justice and sustainability.
Thank you for your thought-provoking insights and for advancing the discourse on decolonizing knowledge production.
Hello Alemu
Thank you so much for expressing all of these thoughts in the way that you have, which made interesting reading for me! I liked very much your suggestion that we need to continually engage in reflection through a decolonial lens in order to make provision for our own and others’ active participation. And your closing statement about embracing relationality to co-create knowledge (and ways of knowing) that reflect diverse perspectives was also very meaningful to me. Thanks again!
Thanks, Norma, great to hear about your work.
I want to draw attention to a relevant article that we recently published: On intersecting modes of responsibility in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand: a case for reimagining responsible innovation (https://doi-org.virtual.anu.edu.au/10.1080/23299460.2024.2331274)*.
The paper, written by indigenous scholars and allies, discusses indigenous understandings and practices of responsibility and what they can bring to Responsible Innovation and its introduction into Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, as well as its global practice. We particularly focus on inclusion, reflecting on ideas and practices of relationality and reciprocal obligations of care, similar to those you discuss in your post. We also consider anticipation, and how indigenous interwoven temporalities, including inseparable connections to the past, can enrich Western notions of anticipation and responsibility. We call for intercultural dialogue to explore the complementarities but also tensions between different modes of responsibility.
The paper was a great opportunity for me to develop and learn as an indigenous ally, and to reflect on how practices of collaboration reflect ways of knowing and being. We sought to listen to and elevate the voices of our indigenous colleagues, while recognising the pressures on them as indigenous scholars, and bringing our understanding of our audiences and contexts and how we sought to bring change. In doing so, we hope to open spaces and facilitate dialogue. The challenge in shaping worlds-in-becoming is that this has to start from where we are and requires us to strike out into new territory and find new paths, with others, with all the uncertainty this brings. This takes courage and we have to accept the discomfort of making mistakes and wrong steps. Care, and practices of ‘feeling our way’ together are part of this.
*Moderator note: The article is:
Espig, M., Provost, S., Russell, A. W., Viaña, J. N. M., Koroheke, C., & Finlay-Smits, S. (2024). On intersecting modes of responsibility in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand: a case for reimagining responsible innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2024.2331274
Hello Wendy. Thank you for drawing my attention to the article by Espig et al. (including yourself) which is indeed is very relevant to this discussion. I found that you lucidly expressed the importance of collectively reconfiguring co-responsible practices when considering responsible innovation (RI). I also found very informative your advocacy of what you named as “deeper engagement with RI’s moral foundations in relation to local contexts, communities, and cultures … to determine the concept’s value in Australia and Aotearoa” (for example). Your indication of how RI in Aotearoa, for instance, needs to take into account the onto-epistemology where “Māori share intimate connections with Te Ao Tūroa (the natural world), which manifest through interwoven relationships between the social, material, and spiritual worlds” made a lot of sense to me. You stated that thus far the dominant literature and practices of RI in this (as other) contexts does not explore how RI can be reconfigured. This indeed needs to be given far more attention when practising responsibility as a process of intersecting modes of responsibility (as a form of co-responsibility). I am pleased that you drew my attention to this article, which I would recommend for other readers too!