Methodology and academic extractivism: the neo-colonialism of the British university

Melany Cruz, Darcy Luke
{"title":"Methodology and academic extractivism: the neo-colonialism of the British university","authors":"Melany Cruz, Darcy Luke","doi":"10.1080/23802014.2020.1798275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Methodological pedagogy within contemporary British social science higher education (through methods courses, textbooks, etc.) constitutes the process through which the researcher is formed, and research designed. It is our contention that methodology – whether positivist or post-positivist – is a form of knowing predicated upon the severance of theory from practice. Methodology presents these as distinct areas, which can only be unified through the synthetic operations of methodological approaches. We argue that the consequence of the separation of theory and practice is that the realm of practice is construed as raw material – as data – to be harvested in the research process, whilst theory is seen as detached from geohistorical–political relations. This serves a neo-colonial process of academic extractivism. We will demonstrate how this is so through an examination of popular methodological textbooks and approaches, highlighting the absence of considerations of contemporary coloniality. We then set out a tentative pedagogical alternative in the form of practical reflexivity and dialogical research. We will show how such approaches are emergent within the social sciences and how they offer a decolonial alternative to contemporary methodological approaches.","PeriodicalId":398229,"journal":{"name":"Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23802014.2020.1798275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

ABSTRACT Methodological pedagogy within contemporary British social science higher education (through methods courses, textbooks, etc.) constitutes the process through which the researcher is formed, and research designed. It is our contention that methodology – whether positivist or post-positivist – is a form of knowing predicated upon the severance of theory from practice. Methodology presents these as distinct areas, which can only be unified through the synthetic operations of methodological approaches. We argue that the consequence of the separation of theory and practice is that the realm of practice is construed as raw material – as data – to be harvested in the research process, whilst theory is seen as detached from geohistorical–political relations. This serves a neo-colonial process of academic extractivism. We will demonstrate how this is so through an examination of popular methodological textbooks and approaches, highlighting the absence of considerations of contemporary coloniality. We then set out a tentative pedagogical alternative in the form of practical reflexivity and dialogical research. We will show how such approaches are emergent within the social sciences and how they offer a decolonial alternative to contemporary methodological approaches.
方法论与学术榨取主义:英国大学的新殖民主义
当代英国社会科学高等教育中的方法论教学法(通过方法课程、教科书等)构成了研究者形成和研究设计的过程。我们的论点是方法论——无论是实证主义的还是后实证主义的——是一种基于理论与实践分离的认识形式。方法论将这些作为不同的领域呈现出来,这些领域只能通过方法论方法的综合操作来统一。我们认为,理论和实践分离的结果是,实践领域被解释为原材料-作为数据-在研究过程中收获,而理论被视为脱离地理历史-政治关系。这为学术榨取主义的新殖民主义进程服务。我们将通过对流行的方法论教科书和方法的考察来证明这一点,强调缺乏对当代殖民主义的考虑。然后,我们以实践反思和对话研究的形式提出了一种尝试性的教学选择。我们将展示这些方法是如何在社会科学中出现的,以及它们如何为当代方法论方法提供一种非殖民化的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信