By Alemu Tesfaye
Is science inherently objective and immune to the influences of coloniality?
Here, I explore the role coloniality plays in scientific knowledge production, as well as intersubjectivity and scientific consensus. Finally, I suggest some strategies for decolonizing scientific knowledge.
Coloniality in knowledge production
Coloniality refers to the enduring patterns of power, control, and domination established during colonialism that persist in contemporary institutions. In knowledge production, this manifests as epistemic dominance, where Western ways of knowing are privileged over non-Western epistemologies. Despite the common belief among scientists that scientific knowledge is inherently objective and intersubjective, there are several critical issues that need to be addressed:
- Social Construction of Science: Scientific knowledge is influenced by social, cultural, and historical contexts. Sandra Harding (2016) in “Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?” argues that scientific practices and epistemologies are embedded in specific social orders, which can carry colonial biases and power structures.
- Eurocentrism in Science: Modern science often operates within a Eurocentric framework, marginalizing other forms of knowledge. Aníbal Quijano (2000) discusses the “coloniality of power,” highlighting how Western scientific paradigms are imposed as universal, devaluing Indigenous knowledge systems.
- Epistemic Injustice: Miranda Fricker (2007) introduced the concept of “epistemic injustice,” where certain groups are unfairly excluded from knowledge production. This exclusion often occurs in scientific communities that reflect and reinforce Western epistemologies, colonizing the process of scientific knowledge production.
- Decolonial Science: Arturo Escobar (2007) in “Worlds and Knowledges Otherwise” advocates for a decolonial approach to science that incorporates diverse epistemologies. This challenges the purported objectivity and universality of Western science, emphasizing the need to decolonize scientific practices to include marginalized voices.
Intersubjectivity and scientific consensus
Intersubjectivity in science refers to the shared understanding and agreement among scientists about certain knowledge claims. This consensus is often shaped by prevailing cultural and intellectual traditions, which can lead to the marginalization of alternative scientific paradigms.
Thomas Kuhn’s (1962) concept of “paradigm shifts” in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” illustrates how scientific consensus is not static but can be disrupted by new ideas that challenge the established norms. These paradigm shifts highlight the dynamic nature of scientific progress, where initially marginalized or revolutionary ideas gradually gain acceptance and reshape scientific understanding. Recognizing this dynamic nature of scientific knowledge emphasizes the importance of being open to diverse perspectives and alternative paradigms, as they can lead to significant advances and a more comprehensive understanding of the world.
Strategies for decolonizing scientific knowledge
Decolonizing scientific knowledge involves:
- Inclusion of Indigenous Epistemologies: Recognizing and valuing Indigenous knowledge systems, such as environmental knowledge for sustainable practices (Berkes, 2012).
- Participatory Research Methods: Involving local communities as active participants ensures inclusive knowledge production (Smith, 1999).
- Critical Reflexivity: Encouraging scientists to reflect on their positionality and biases helps address colonial legacies in scientific practices (Haraway, 1988).
Conclusion
The assertion by many that scientific knowledge is difficult to colonize is problematic when viewed through the lens of coloniality and decolonial theories. Scientific knowledge is not immune to colonial influences; rather, it has often been a tool for perpetuating colonial power dynamics.
Decolonizing science requires acknowledging these influences and creating more inclusive, equitable, and contextually relevant knowledge systems, leading to a pluralistic and just scientific practice that values diverse ways of knowing.
How do you perceive the impact of colonial influences on scientific research in your field? Can you share specific instances where you observed such influences affecting the objectivity or inclusivity of scientific knowledge production? What approaches have you implemented or witnessed that effectively integrate diverse epistemologies in scientific research? Are there particular methodologies or collaborative practices that have enhanced the inclusivity and equity of knowledge production in your experience?
References:
Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred Ecology (3rd ed.). Routledge: New York, United States of America.
Escobar, A. (2007). Worlds and Knowledges Otherwise. Cultural Studies, 21, 2-3: 179-210.
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press: Oxford, United Kingdom.
Harding, S. (2016). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women’s Lives. Cornell University Press: New York, United States of America.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 3: 575-599.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, United States of America.
Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America. Nepantla: Views from South, 1, 3: 533-580 .
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books: London, United Kingdom.
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative AI assisted in identifying relevant literature and summarizing seminal works by scholars such as Sandra Harding, Aníbal Quijano, Miranda Fricker, Arturo Escobar, and Thomas Kuhn. The AI also provided suggestions for refining language, and ensuring overall readability, while adhering to ethical guidelines to maintain the integrity and academic rigor of the content. (For i2Insights policy on generative AI please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)
Biography: Alemu Tesfaye MBA is Regional Programs Manager (Research, Communication, Knowledge Management and ICT (Information and Communications Technology)) at the Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA), in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. His interests include communication, knowledge management and translation, and community engagement.
Hello Alemu. This is a very important piece that you have constructed in relation to the question of whether we should regard science as immune to the influences of coloniality (as propounded by many authors who fail to consider the critiques of this position). As you state, the view of science as a would-be objective enterprise excludes other positions regarding how the doing of science (and validating the productions) is affected by the assumptions made in the so-called “scientific” community. I believe you have indicated how the Western-originated view of science excludes a diversity of perspectives on the nature of “science”. It postulates that Western sciences offer better knowledge (closer to the so-called “truth”) than can be produced by other sciences (e.g., ethnoscience, which is a way of doing science in more holistic fashion than isolating variables, and which also includes more community participation than academically-situated expert-led processes). By stating that science strives for objectivity, and is hence immune to influences of coloniality, one perpetuates the myth that the way of doing and interpreting the products of Western science are the best (and indeed only) way to conceive the practice of “good” science. Besides your thoughtful reflections on this topic, your references that you supply are well chosen to express the range of arguments that can be proffered to subvert the hegemony of Western science and its denigration of other ways of knowing.
At the end of your piece, you ask: Are there particular methodologies or collaborative practices that have enhanced the inclusivity and equity of knowledge production in your experience?
I would say that especially in the field of sustainability science, it is beginning to be recognised that Western scientific research in relation to agricultural practices that promote inputs such as fertilisers and pesticides (and GMO seeds) as a way to increase food security, have lacked the holistic vision supplied by ethno-scientific approaches, as Indigenous knowledge systems and ways of knowing in Indigenous communities across the globe. These latter approaches have developed over centuries and continue to be drawn upon as ways of knowing which have enabled a more harmonious interaction between humans and the more-than-human worlds of which we are part. Western science, which isolates specific variables to try to discover how to increase crop yields, has arguably had disastrous consequences for our climate and for our ecosystems (while enriching the multi-national corporations that supply the inputs and at the same time create dependence of farmers on their products). And yet it was (and still is) presented as if it offers objective knowledge about ways to increase food security.
A good example of farmers in the Philippines collaborating in a large network of farmers to share their (organic) practices around sustainable farming, while also engaging appropriately with researchers situated in academia, can be found in Wright (2014): Quantitative Research Performing other Worlds: Lessons from sustainable agriculture in the Philippines, Australian Geographer, 45:1, 1-18. To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2014.869293. And examples of knowledge-sharing for sustainable practices in Indigenous communities in South Africa and Indonesia can be found in McIntyre-Mills et al.,2023: https://journals.isss.org/index.php/jisss/article/view/4091
Norma
Thank you for your thoughtful and comprehensive comment. Your reflections and examples provide valuable insights into the ongoing discourse about the decolonization of scientific knowledge and the necessity of embracing diverse epistemologies to address complex global challenges.
Your example of sustainability science and agricultural practices is particularly illuminating. The example you provided of farmers in the Philippines collaborating within a network to share organic farming practices, while engaging with academic researchers, exemplifies a successful model of inclusive and equitable knowledge production. Such collaborations not only enhance the sustainability of agricultural practices but also empower local communities by recognizing and valuing their knowledge and expertise.
In response to your concluding thoughts, I agree that methodologies and collaborative practices that prioritize inclusivity and equity are essential for decolonizing scientific knowledge. Participatory research methods, co-production of knowledge, and the integration of Indigenous epistemologies are crucial steps toward achieving a more just and comprehensive understanding of complex issues like sustainability and climate change.
Thank you again for your insightful contribution. Your examples and references significantly enrich the discussion on decolonizing scientific knowledge and underscore the need for ongoing efforts to embrace diverse ways of knowing.
Hello again Alemu
As usual, you summarise so adeptly what can be regarded as at stake in the decolonising of science, namely: participatory processes, co-production of knowledge, and the integration of Indigenous epistemologies, which as you say “are crucial steps toward achieving a more just and comprehensive understanding of complex issues like sustainability and climate change”.
Well stated! I admire your thoughts and ways of expressing them; and I hope many readers will have the benefit of your insights.
Thank you, to both of you, for a deeply thoughtful exchange. Decolonization (perhaps: silo penetrating, by another name) is critical to the advancement of society along perhaps all dimensions. I said “silo penetrating” rather than “silo busting” because, it seems to me, there will always be colony (tight social network) formation. How we navigate a future riddled with islands of cultures, social norms and systems, remains a critical topic.
Indeed Jack, the decolonising agenda has to address the silo’d thinking where islands of cultures, norms and systems pervade, while recognising how some cultures, norms and social systems have attained hegemony in global discourses and marginalised and denigrated others!
Thank you both for your deeply thoughtful contributions.
The decolonizing agenda must address entrenched siloed thinking that perpetuates the dominance of certain cultures, norms, and social systems over others. By recognizing and valuing the perspectives of marginalized communities, we can foster a more inclusive and equitable approach to knowledge production.
Decolonizing scientific knowledge requires concerted efforts to break down barriers and embrace a plurality of perspectives. Through this inclusive and equitable approach, we can achieve a more comprehensive understanding of complex global issues and drive meaningful progress.