Author
Listed:
- Laura Camfield
(King’s College London)
Abstract
The increasing appetite for decolonial approaches in development research challenges conventional methodologies rooted in colonial legacies. While the relationship between colonialism and development is well documented, the colonial underpinnings of key research methods, such as surveys and big data, have received less attention. This paper critically examines how these methods, as tools of colonial governance, continue to predominate in development research and reduce the space for decolonial alternatives. It highlights the continuities between colonial-era data practices, such as population censuses, and contemporary methods like big data, arguing that they can perpetuate power asymmetries and “data colonialism”. In contrast, decolonial methodologies emphasise reflexivity, relationality, and the active participation of indigenous communities. However, there is potential for these methods to be co-opted or instrumentalized within the global development research ecosystem, if they are adopted without a critical understanding of the relationship between power and knowledge. This paper evaluates emerging decolonial alternatives, including methodologies grounded in indigenous knowledge systems and ethical frameworks such as Ubuntu and relationality, assessing their potential to resist such co-option. The paper concludes by arguing that while decolonial research offers a more holistic and ethically grounded alternative to conventional methods, its influence is limited by the persistence of deeper structural inequities. These include the dominance of Northern epistemologies and the commodification of research methods and expertise within academia. Future development research must not only adopt decolonial approaches but also actively deconstruct the existing power dynamics within the field to create equitable and inclusive knowledge systems.
Suggested Citation
Laura Camfield, 2025.
"What Challenges for Global Development Research are Posed by a More Decolonial Approach? Colonial Genealogies and Responses,"
The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 37(2), pages 421-433, April.
Handle:
RePEc:pal:eurjdr:v:37:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1057_s41287-024-00676-3
DOI: 10.1057/s41287-024-00676-3
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:eurjdr:v:37:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1057_s41287-024-00676-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.