Epistemic Reflexivity: a Tool for De-Centring Pedagogical Practices
This is the fourth chapter in a forthcoming e-book, entitled 'Decolonial Education and Youth Aspirations'. Pablo Morales and Suzanne Temwa Gondwe Harris argue that decolonising efforts must go beyond critical self-reflection and engage with a process of accepting the ‘incompleteness’ of all knowledges.
For decades, scholars have been involved in heated discussions about the complex dynamics behind the genesis of knowledge(s), from what is defined as ‘useful knowledge’ (Mokyr 2002) and ‘tacit knowledge’ (Polanyi [1958] 2002) to how and what has become known as ‘dominant’, ‘Western’ and ‘legitimate knowledge’ (Akena 2012). This is often reflected in Marx’s dominant ideology thesis that the world has been constructed as the result of power struggles throughout history, whereby the oppressed have been constrained (or at best persuaded) to adopt a singular view of the world as imposed by those in positions of power (Freire 1972; Said 1978; 1993; Bhabha 1994; Spivak 2010).
In recent years, efforts to “decolonise” academia have been proposed to remedy this issue (1). Generally understood as a process of de-construction of extant knowledge systems based on colonial legacy and as such replicating hierarchies that go against the spirit of equity and inclusion, the realisation of such efforts has proved more challenging than practical, thus undermining the whole enterprise. As (Willems (2023, 17) asserts, “discussions on ‘decolonising’ knowledge production have often foregrounded the importance of centring ‘marginal’ perspectives, which is crucial but insufficient, as it risks leaving the cannon untouched”.
This critique follows a long line of scholars who have called for a less superficial approach which does “much more than diversify their canons to get rid of their modern/colonial inheritances” (Maldonado-Torres et al. 2018, 79) or “merely offering a minor expansion of the canon and stopping there” (Moosavi 2023, 145). Instead, others call for the existing canon to be provincialized (Chakrabarty 2000; Go 2017) or subjected to a ‘decolonial gaze’ to call our attention to the limitations of Western-centric knowledges (Alatas and Sinha 2017). We argue that epistemic reflexivity can help scholars overcome this conundrum.
Epistemic reflexivity has been used in various ways. From a methodological tool within the research process to question social scientific claims (Bourdieu 1989; 1996) to a pedagogical approach used for teaching in ‘diverse’ classrooms (Feucht et al. 2017; L’Estrange et al. 2023), epistemic reflexivity has made it “a sin to not be reflexive” (Maton 2003, 54).
In pedagogical terms epistemic reflexivity helps us acknowledge that “teaching is not just about the ‘doing’ of teaching, it is also about the ‘why’” (Loughran and Menter 2019, 216). By centring on the ‘why’ of teaching, we begin to interrogate the pedagogies and epistemic bases they are anchored to. Mignolo and Walsh (2018, 108) claim that answering “the question ‘what does it mean to decolonise?’ cannot be an abstract universal. We need to examine other W questions: Who is doing it, where, why, and how?”. They are essential to evaluate and validate knowledge, as well as influencing course design, feedback, and grading practices, as well as student learning.
In this chapter, we align with Bhambra’s (2014; 2016; 2021) efforts to critique and redefine Western-centrism. Bhambra argues that non-Western voices, knowledges, and experiences are intimately bound to Western voices, knowledges and experiences; therefore, any critical reflection of the canon requires “critiquing the scholarship that critiques scholarship that is Western-centric” (Moosavi 2023, 142). Moosavi (2023, 145) points out that “decolonial reflexivity” may have “(a) sustained exclusion while claiming to be inclusive; (b) maintained the status quo while claiming to be radical; and (c) reinscribed Western-centrism while claiming to decolonise”. We believe epistemic reflexivity needs to go beyond critical self-reflection and engage with a process of accepting the ‘incompleteness’ of all knowledges.
Educational spaces can be transformational but also damaging if pedagogy is not taken seriously. Teachers must consider how students experience education, and foster an environment that allows students to reflect on, and question the status quo. Based on Freire’s (1972) idea that teaching should not follow a banking model whereby information is deposited onto students as if they were empty vessels, we propose that engaging in reflective dialogues can be a powerful tool. Both teachers and students ought to reflect on the complexities of knowledge production and our individual roles in this process. Who we are, what we know, and how we know are all aspects that inform and give more completeness to our understanding of knowledge. As such, we propose four steps to engage in epistemic reflexivity. First, to step back, zoom out, look at where we stand and reflect on knowledge production. Second, to recognise and acknowledge our positionality. Third, to acknowledge others and where they stand, to situate and de-centre our own knowledge system. Fourth, once we acknowledge our limitations, we can engage and incorporate with other epistemologies.
Reflect on knowledge production
Before starting to design a course or lesson plan, we advise reflecting on the motivations for such endeavour, as well as reviewing and learning from the experiences of others. Experiences that integrate new epistemologies, values, and philosophies. Engaging with past practices is an exercise of placing ourselves in dialogue with knowledges produced through the ages, those that only reproduce existing beliefs and those that expand our outlook. The sets of ideas around which some sort of consensus is formed by their perceived truthfulness are organised in a canon. It is widely assumed that there is a canon and that it constitutes the backbone of science. Reflecting on the context of knowledge production should be a prerequisite for critically engaging with the canon and its presumed universality.
Reflecting on knowledge production allows us to understand the context that allowed certain ideas to become part of the framework that defines our view of the world. Historically, knowledge production has often been defined and interpreted through a lens that has been conceived and constructed in one specific part of the world. Having such a lens is very useful, but at the same time its claimed universality leads to the invisibilisation of other systems of knowledge. Dussel (1993), Grosfoguel (2013), Santos (2013; 2020) and Ndlovu-Gatsheni, (2018) refer to the cause of these cognitive injustices as epistemicide, i.e., the rejection (through silencing and devaluing) of other systems of knowledge based on the perceived superiority of the euro-centric knowledge system (2). Epistemicide negates the spirit of science and the pursuit of knowledge, as it destroys the construction of knowledge that does “not fit the dominant epistemological canon” (Santos 2013, 238). Thus, reflecting on the conditions of knowledge production is imperative for the advancement of knowledge.
Allowing students to reflect on knowledge production helps us move to a dialogic process of creation, to become what Itchuaqiyaq and Matheson (2021, 9) define as “co-designers of knowledge”. Therefore, a critical review of the established canon is not a dismissal of it, but rather its inclusion for the sake of confronting it to a wider landscape of ideas.
Acknowledge your positionality
This next tool has received some critique. According to Andrew Holmes (2020, 1) ‘positionality’ is threefold. It addresses “ontological assumptions (an individual’s beliefs about the nature of social reality and what is knowable about the world), epistemological assumptions (an individual’s beliefs about the nature of knowledge) and assumptions about human nature and agency (individual’s assumptions about the way we interact with our environment and relate to it)”. Thus, the act of acknowledging one’s positionality is the action of sharing these various social and cultural qualities, and privileges that shape our research and teaching practices. These intersecting qualities of our identities play an important role in shaping our understanding of the world and consequently, the way we engage with it. As Acevedo et al (2015, 1) explained:
For us the concept of positionality is important in understanding the role of experience in the learning process. Positionality acknowledges complex differentials of power and privilege while simultaneously identifying the value of multiple ways of knowing and being that arise from our multiple identities. The goal of revealing individual and relative positionality is to de-center dominant ways of thinking and expose multiple ways of thinking as diverse assets for self-knowing and collective knowing.
Disclosing one’s positionality forces us to move from the passive state of being perceived to the active recognition of our own vantage point to minimise the possibility of misunderstanding, thus making learning an informed process and a dialogic experience. Additionally, disclosing positionality challenges positions of power that have historically been embedded into the ways in which we have created our own beliefs about how knowledge is produced and who does the producing. According to Alcoff (1991, 7), “the speaker’s location is epistemically salient”, which makes the issue of “speaking for others” particularly problematic from an epistemic point of view. “Speaking for others” implies a position of power, it places the speaker/observer at the centre, in a position of dominance over those who are presented as “voiceless” or unable to speak for themselves. Disclosing one’s positionality aids to contextualise one’s standpoint and the relation/dynamics between us and the content of our utterances. Even for educators reflecting on and disclosing one’s positionality can have several benefits as outlined byMassoud (2022, S66):
Reflecting on one’s positionality is also a form of knowledge production. It can help scholars to find their inner wisdom, and it can build community among researchers and between researchers and their research subjects, particularly among scholars who identify as members of under-represented or minoritised groups.
Despite its importance, it can become a challenge. While it helps contextualise, there is the risk of wrongly being perceived as a self-granting authority based on certain demographic characteristics. Therefore, we believe it needs to be organically integrated to avoid becoming a spectacle or a virtue-signalling contest of who is seen as being more privileged or oppressed.
Situate and de-centre
From the standpoint of a European tradition, empiricism and rationalism constitute some of the mechanisms whereby knowledge is constructed. Observation, experimentation, recognition of patterns, validation or rejection of hypotheses, abstraction, and the formulation of theories are the basis of the scientific method that –according to this tradition- has allowed humanity to understand the world, including themselves. However, the pursuit of universal knowledge often works to the detriment of its own validity, arguably more so in the social sciences. It relentlessly imposes itself onto the observed, creating hierarchies and castigating deviations. Therefore, the tension between universalism and contextualism represents the impossibility of knowledge that is “true” and unique.
The pursuit of universalism constrains knowledge to mould itself to become acceptable for validation and recognition. Only then, research can “travel”. In so doing, what is sacrificed are the nuances that allow us to better understand specific realities. Knowledge production thus appears as a dilemmatic process of zooming in and zooming out. However, zooming in and out only becomes meaningful with a comparative perspective: moving across. The known becomes the centre of comparison with the unknown. The challenge is then to adopt an outlook based on genuine curiosity rather than prescriptive judgement. Many of the theories we use have been developed by adopting a European-centric outlook as the yardstick against which everything else is to be described. Robinson (1980, 202) argues that “Western social thought is not merely ethnocentric, but epistemocentric”. In his view, it is essential to question both the universality of Western universalism and the assumed normativity of knowledge itself, as knowledge frameworks are often applied universally without critical examination.
The hierarchisation of systems of knowledge is not inevitable and can be prevented by actively engaging in an exercise of contextualising and de-centring hegemonic models. Numerous efforts have contributed to de-centre and contextualise hegemonic Eurocentric systems of knowledge, from Chakrabarty’s (2000) call to provincialise Europe, to Cheruiyot and Ferrel-Conill’s (2021) proposal to de-contextualise majority World countries. The most basic tool is the co-creation of knowledge by zooming in, out and across different realities through case studies. The goal is to situate a case, situate where knowledge is being created and where this knowledge is applicable to. In all instances, we need to be mindful of the concepts we use by situating them as products of a particular cultural tradition, and avoiding unnecessary generalisations. Decentring does not mean to discard the Western tradition, but to incorporate it within the plethora of different knowledge systems that exist in the world. De-centring means to move aside and acknowledge the contributions of other equally valuable knowledge systems that also deserve our attention in the classroom.
Reach out, engage, and incorporate
Knowledge production is inseparable from its cultural context, including language. According to Salö (2018, 25), language “embodies all kinds of imaginaries with important bearings on people’s investments and senses of selves”. However, not all languages were created equal. The English language has become a lingua franca in many higher educational spaces. While there are benefits of having a common language, it is not devoid of undesirable consequences. English has become a common language because of certain characteristics such as being spoken by those in power, including global and transnational elites, and therefore occupies a privileged position in comparison to other languages. This inevitably contributes to the invisibilisation of untranslated knowledge produced outside the Anglosphere and over amplifies the importance of knowledge produced within this language system. Therefore, a common language is a double-edged sword. It is a useful tool to build bridges between language spheres and it can help science advance and avoid the balkanisation of knowledge along linguistic bubbles. However, it also creates barriers to those that are unable to engage with it. Overstressing the importance of a common language reinforces asymmetrical power relations, particularly when the lingua franca is adopted by imposition, explicitly or tacitly. In ‘Decolonising the Mind’ (1986) for example, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o reminds us that language is a locus of colonial tensions, it is part of the colonial process, as it suppresses and invalidates native languages, and elevates the colonial one above all others. For him, this process is a means to end a false universalism in the guise of Westernised canons that find truth only in Western forms of knowledge. More recently, Suzina (2021) argues that English as a lingua franca can lead to the sterilisation of scientific knowledge by undermining the value of knowledge that is not formulated in English and therefore does not travel, hindering academic exchange. Instead, she proposes the idea of networks of solidarity that can enrich research and help us highlight knowledge produced beyond the Anglosphere. This helps us connect with similar debates in other language-spheres about the inadequacy of Eurocentric/Western epistemology in envisioning developmental tools and models for other parts of the world, from Africa (Mukambilwa 2020; Quedraogo 2021) to Latin America (Villegas 2019; Mora 2020), China (Liang 2018; Zheng and Yang 2023) and beyond. Leaving out interlocutors of a conversation does not just concern the validity of our arguments but, more importantly, it also affects our teaching and contradicts our statements of inclusion.
We are not suggesting that English needs to be replaced, but rather it needs to be situated and confronted with other languages. As a major component of our culture, language is a tool that we use to formulate our world view and produce knowledge. Following Fairclough’s (1995) ideas about building a critical language awareness which questions the choices of words that we use to describe our understanding of ideas and project our experiences, as educators we must not only be mindful that language has this constructive dimension, but we should actively strive to incorporate other languages to explore, discuss, and create further dialogue with our students and further create new knowledge from these interactions. The words and the languages that we use in our classrooms affect what knowledge we bring into the educational setting and what knowledge is produced in the process. The solution we propose to overcome the dilemma of operating in a specific language is that of “reaching out” to other cultures and acknowledge that there is a wealth of knowledge beyond one’s linguistic bubble.
Conclusion
Teaching is not a unidirectional process, teachers do not just disseminate knowledge to students but are engaged in an interactive process of knowledge creation. We must acknowledge that we have been conditioned to place certain knowledge at the centre of our worldviews, and as a result, we intentionally or unintentionally marginalise and exclude others. Reflecting on the process of knowledge production allows us to better understand the world and the position we occupy in it. By acknowledging one’s positionality, we disrupt and de-centre the power and privilege which is embedded in certain knowledges, and instead give value to the multiple ways of knowing. Therefore, it is imperative that we challenge and decentre the academic canon and the intellectual tradition that gives universal legitimacy and normativity only to certain concepts and ideas. Decentring is not only about expanding or broadening the range of case studies that we use, but providing the necessary tools to benefit from adopting a comparative perspective that is inclusive of diverse realities. It is about zooming in, zooming out and moving across. It is about transcending the dilemma of either going in-depth and paying attention to the details, versus expanding our scope and considering wider contexts. And remembering that knowledge production is not exclusive to Anglophone academia. Despite the irony of writing this essay in English, we invite scholars that work and operate exclusively within English-language circles to consider that valuable knowledge is being created beyond this cultural sphere. Academia can become sterile if we only focus on the Anglosphere. For this, we argue that learning other languages can be a useful tool, but it is not essential to build bridges. We can still build bridges and create networks of solidarity.
Pablo Morales is a UKRI Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE, where he researches China’s international communication strategy in Latin America. His work explores the intersection of media and geopolitics, with a focus on international media flows and the implications on journalistic cultures and the public sphere.
Website:https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/people/research-staff/pablo-morales
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pablomoralessanfurgo/
Suzanne Temwa Gondwe Harris is a fellow at LSE in the Department of Media and Communications where she teaches critical approaches to media, communications and development, and humanitarian communications. Her research interests are centred on the intersectional and historical links between media, race, coloniality and international development.
Website: https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/people/academic-staff/suzanne-temwa-gondwe-harris
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-suzanne-temwa-gondwe-harris-03bb4b17/
Photo by Kaushal Moradiya
Notes
1 We have placed the term “decolonise” in quotation marks to emphasise the complexity of decolonising higher education which has been challenging the structural and epistemological legacy of colonialism through different means (Bhambra et al., 2018).
2 See Gayatri Spivak (1998) in her seminal essay Can the Subaltern Speak?, where she uses the term “silencing” in reference to Subalterns who are routinely silenced or subjected to epistemic violence.
References
Liang, Xiao [梁孝]. 2018. “现实的人”:走出西方话语“陷阱”的认识论原点 [“Real People”: The epistemological origin of getting out of the “trap” of Western discourse].云南社会科学 [Yunnan Social Sciences] 1: 1–13.
Zheng, Yongnian [郑永年], and Lijun Yang [杨丽君]. 2023. “中国叙事:如何讲好中国故事” [Chinese Narrative: How to tell Chinese stories well]. 中信出版社 [CITIC Publishing House].
