Decoloniality and Information Systems: Making Local Contexts Relevant to IS Research

During the colonial era, ¹ roughly from 1400s to 1914, Europeans “gained control of 84 percent of the globe and they ruled colonies on every other inhabited continent” (Hoffman 2015, 2). Today, 17 colonies remain. ² Historians, anthropologists and sociologists have time and again shown that Eurocentric science and technology played an instrumental role in supporting the political needs of the colonial administration, from Africa (Goody 1982) and the Indian subcontinent (Kumar 2006; MacLeod and Kumar 1995), to the Americas (Vickers 2008). An unfortunate aspect of colonial project was that the technology transfer from the West to the colonies was made for political purposes. Another more subtle but still critical consequence was that the introduction and application of Eurocentric technologies also directly and indirectly subordinated local epistemologies and Indigenous ³ thought, making the colonies epistemically dependent on the colonisers. Some colonies gained independence through war (e.g., the 13 American colonies in 1776), but many remained under European control both politically and ideologically until well after World War II, when war-torn European countries could not afford to maintain tight control over their colonies. As countries gained their independence, many citizens sought to distance themselves from their former colonisers and return to the national and cultural identities, lifestyles and ways of knowing their ancestors had embraced prior to colonialisation. This process is referred to as decolonialisation.

While colonialism refers to the historical period of direct political and economic control by colonial powers, coloniality refers to the persistence of colonial power relations, embedded in contemporary institutions, values, social hierarchies, and, importantly for researchers, knowledge. Given that the purpose of colonial enterprise is control, the colonial view of the production of knowledge is “‘mentally divorced’ from the local setting” in which it operates and ignores “local requirements” and “local knowledge” (Kumar 2006, 8–12). It attempts to erase local knowledge in every form and replace it with colonial epistemic structures (de Sousa Santos 2015; Satia 2020). Thus, dominant Eurocentric epistemologies served as the foundation on which fields of knowledge grew throughout the world. It is not surprising then that one legacy of colonialism is new forms of coloniality vis-à-vis the dominance of Eurocentric thought in academic discourse, including IS academic literature (Banerjee 2022; Chughtai 2023).

In this editorial, we seek to explain what coloniality is and how it relates to the IS field. We then explain why we organised a special issue on this topic for Information Systems Journal (ISJ) and why this journal cares about decoloniality. We provide a brief history of decolonial research and then introduce its core tenets. From these tenets, we develop three criteria for successful decolonial research. Criteria 1 stipulates that decolonial IS researchers engage deeply with the local context. Criteria 2 requires researchers to unpack the focal problem that exists as a legacy of colonialisation. Criteria 3 involves the development of a strategy or a solution that is decolonial in nature, meaning that it incorporates a local or Indigenous philosophy to restructure or reformulate a problematic colonial structure or practice. After articulating these criteria, we introduce the four papers accepted to the special issue on decoloniality and IS and explain how each of those meet the three criteria. We conclude with a call for decolonial research in the IS field.

Decolonial research provides critique of the entrenched colonial matrix of power, enabling not only the expansion but the fundamental reimagining of scientific knowledge. This approach diverges sharply from traditional methodologies that, despite their claims to neutrality, often reproduce colonial biases and power imbalances. Decolonial researchers consider the colonial influence of conventional frameworks, prompting them to forge knowledge systems that prioritise local knowledge. Unlike traditional methods, which frequently position the researcher as a neutral observer, decolonial research involves active, reciprocal engagement between researcher and participant, especially with voices historically marginalised or silenced (Grosfoguel 2007; Thambinathan and Kinsella 2021). Here, the act of research becomes an act of mutual transformation, where knowledge production is inseparable from the socio-cultural dynamics in which it unfolds.

Decolonial approaches often have emancipatory goals; they seek not only to understand but to actively transform oppressive structures and foster spaces of conviviality and pluriversality—environments where multiple ways of knowing are valued and can be considered simultaneously, without a colonial hierarchy. A decolonial transformative approach challenges researchers to confront the power structures that underlie the very systems they study. In doing so, they are tasked with cultivating a research environment that does not merely acknowledge diverse perspectives but actively resists homogenisation and oversimplification (e.g., see de Sousa Santos 2015; Mohanty 2003). Decolonial research emerges not just as a method but as a profound intellectual and political exercise involving collective reimagining of IS and through IS.

The task of decolonial research is to undo the doings of colonialism. A complete reversal of these structures is neither realistic nor desirable; thus, decolonial scholarship critically examines the applicability and appropriateness of concepts developed within Eurocentric epistemological frameworks, particularly when these are applied to local contexts with histories of oppression and colonial control. While many insights from Eurocentric thought hold value, decolonial research suggests scrutinising the contextual relevance of such insights within settings where knowledge relationships have been historically defined by asymmetry and domination, potentially leading to the adoption of Eurocentric knowledge frameworks that do not fit the context. Instead of imposing external frameworks, decolonial research seeks to revive and legitimise local epistemic traditions, knowledge systems and philosophies that authentically reflect local communities' values, histories and needs. It involves a deliberate shift toward methodologies and theoretical frameworks rooted in the local, allowing communities to reclaim agency over their knowledge practices. By engaging directly with Indigenous and local intellectual traditions, decolonial research fosters epistemic plurality and strives for an inclusive, transformative, restorative outcomes.

Decolonial research begins with epistemic orientation, where researchers critically examine their positionality and reflexivity, questioning the ontological and epistemological assumptions driving their research. The aim is to cultivate a decolonial relational ethic that critiques, transforms, and, to some degree, adapts colonial hierarchies of knowledge to meet local needs. In the methodological framework stage, methods are chosen to prioritise reciprocity, co-creation and accountability to the communities involved. Rather than imposing conventional frameworks, decolonial research aligns with participatory, narrative and Indigenous methodologies that honour local forms of knowledge, e.g. ancestral and metaphysical. This stage includes extensive consultation with the community to ensure the research aligns with their needs and values. During data collection and analysis, researchers employ methods such as ethnography, participatory design, in-depth case studies, storytelling, oral history, critical hermeneutics and observation, valuing local insights as legitimate sources of knowledge. Here, analysis prioritises meaning-making processes rooted in the focal context over external standards of validity and generalisability. Finally, in the dissemination stage, decolonial research replaces extractive models of knowledge sharing. Beyond journal and book publications, findings are often also shared in ways that directly benefit the community. The latter prioritises non-textual forms, such as oral presentations or community events, thereby closing the research loop in a way that upholds the agency and autonomy of the researched community. Though this sort of research has not traditionally been a focus in ISJ, we see value in adding this perspective to the repertoire of research approaches IS scholars have at their disposal.

We developed this special issue to provide a platform for both novice and experienced researchers seeking to showcase their critical Indigenous and decolonial research. This special issue aims to feature decolonial approaches in IS scholarship, challenging the uncritical acceptance of the dominance of Eurocentric frameworks and opening space for perspectives grounded in local, context-specific knowledge. By encouraging contributions that centre non-European and Indigenous knowledge systems, we hope to promote a more inclusive, nuanced understanding of IS that reflects the communities we serve.

Qualitative IS research has historically overlooked non-European theories and methodologies. Although some IS researchers are increasingly engaging with issues of colonialism, two major challenges remain. First, researchers studying topics related to decoloniality often lack theoretical and methodological tools that fully align with decolonial perspectives. As a result, their work may unintentionally reinforce the Eurocentric frameworks they aim to question. Second, scholars conducting research in decolonial contexts—such as Indigenous communities or non-Western societies—frequently draw on concepts that do not resonate with or accurately reflect local knowledge and historical meanings. An Indigenous community may also contest research findings (for a relevant case of Havasupai, see Dalton 2004; Garrison 2013) or interpret the findings differently than the researchers. This is not a critique of scholars working in these contexts but rather a reflection of the limited decolonial resources within our field.

When Eurocentric frameworks dominate, they can perpetuate what decolonial scholars refer to as epistemic violence. This occurs when the authority of Western perspectives is legitimised over local or Indigenous ways of knowing, either because researchers overlook alternative epistemologies or because they lack the means to engage with them effectively. Many foundational concepts in IS research, such as the “IT artefact,” were developed within Western contexts. While these concepts may work well in their original settings, they can lose relevance or even take on a distorted meaning in non-Western environments. In some cultures and languages, there may be no direct translation for such terms. Such translation challenges reveal the inherent limitations of universal conceptualisations. When researchers treat IS concepts as universally applicable, they often fail to account for the unique social, political and colonial histories that shape other communities' perspectives.

Without critically examining the complex interplay between theory and context, it is easy to assume that widely used concepts are universally valid. Yet, because a legacy of colonialisation is the colonialisation of knowledge, it is worth considering how that legacy continues to shape research paradigms, including in IS. This special issue is an intentional step toward that end. By shifting the focus to local epistemologies and context-specific methodologies, we hope to foster a research environment that values diverse perspectives and promotes knowledge production across cultures.

Colonial influence permeates research on social sciences, management, technology and beyond. While Eurocentric philosophies have driven significant progress in these fields, they have also created a systemic imbalance, privileging certain epistemologies and marginalising others. This result is a false dichotomy that deems Eurocentric knowledge to be “scientific,” “serious,” and “elite” while disregarding or disparaging local knowledge, such as ancestral wisdom, as “unscientific,” “silly” and “inferior.” Such disregard of alternative methods of knowing does not benefit society but limits the possible explanations researchers consider, and ultimately, the insights researchers glean.

The Guest Editors of this special issue are critically aware of this false dichotomy and are excited about the advances in knowledge that can stem from a more open-minded and local approach to research. In a case study of India, Datta (2011) describes our field as being “under the yoke of colonial influence,” constrained by a persistent epistemic “lock-in” imposed by colonial paradigms (11). We now call for an intentional inclusion of local and Indigenous epistemologies, not simply as supplementary perspectives but as transformative foundations that challenge long-standing assumptions (Chughtai 2023; Chughtai et al. 2020; Myers et al. 2020; Young 2018). An important step in this direction involves equipping researchers who often lack the vocabulary to describe the effects of coloniality, even if they sensed its effects. For example, Jansen (1995) studied the diffusion of IT infrastructure in the Finmark region of Norway. This region is home to the Indigenous Sami people. ⁴ An important insight from this early study is that it calls for more “Indigenous development” (113) and acknowledges the significance of Indigenous local context in developing digital solutions for Indigenous communities. Another example is the case study of early Internet in Togo (Bernstein and Goodman 2005). The authors touch upon the effects of colonial legacy and local specificities but stop short of critical engagement.

This pattern reflects a broader disciplinary issue: even when scholars are aware of colonial residues, they lack the theoretical frameworks to interrogate them effectively. The delayed integration of decoloniality has therefore meant missed opportunities for richer insights. As decolonial perspectives gain traction, IS researchers can use them to expand and challenge the epistemic boundaries of our field. Why, after all, should decolonial research remain marginal in a field grappling with global technological impact and the role of technology in globalisation? As critical researchers today, we have the tools and language to examine and explain these colonial legacies and to foster a more pluralistic, inclusive intellectual landscape. In the sister discipline of management studies, scholars have suggested that theories and concepts developed using European philosophical apparatuses are often considered to be “authentic and original without a recognition that this knowledge is produced through the political economy of colonialism” (Banerjee 2022, 1074). At ISJ, like other top journals, researchers are beginning to look at the local contexts with an openness to expanding local knowledge; some examples include studies of Ubuntu value systems in digital entrepreneurship (Abubakre, Faik, and Mkansi 2021), cultural re-presentation and re-affirmation of Māori IT professionals (Díaz Andrade et al. 2021) and subaltern approaches to ICT4D (Khene and Masiero 2022; Masiero 2022). In order to empower more research in this vein, we now provide a brief history of decolonial research.

Early academic work on decolonialisation (e.g., Fanon 1966; Nkrumah 1970; Rodney 1974) advocated for the therapeutic effect of violence, called for a new world order, and articulated raw emotions around trauma and a thirst for revenge (Betts 2012). By the late 1970s, academic literature on decolonialisation shifted towards neo-colonialism (Betts 2012). Academic critiques of both colonial impacts and decolonial thought became more nuanced and practical (e.g., Amin 1977; Frank 1979; Yansané 1980), expanding beyond emotional and cultural impacts to include and discuss economic impacts of colonialisation (wa Thiong'o 1986), social justice (Cusicanqui 2020, 2023; Tuck and Yang 2012), and ecology and climate (Ferdinand 2021). The United Nations General Assembly declared the 1990s to be “the international decade for the eradication of colonialism” (Betts 2012, 26) as liberated countries formalised their decolonialisation efforts.

Today, the academic decoloniality literature is vast and diverse. For example, research on nutrition decolonialisation discusses the health and ecological implications of returning to Indigenous diets and agricultural practices such as planting native seeds rather than relying heavily on European staples (Calderón Farfán, Dussan Chaux, and Arias Torres 2021; Hassel et al. 2019). In education, decolonial methods aid communities that seek to return to traditional practices and locally relevant curriculum (Bhambra, Gebrial, and Nişancıoğlu 2018; Zavala 2016). Decolonial management research addresses how colonial ‘modes of domination’ appear in the workplace and how open systems approaches can contextualise management theories (Banerjee 2022, 1080). In information systems, decolonial research addresses a variety of phenomena including digital innovation (Jimenez et al. 2022), ICT4D (Khene and Masiero 2022), the digital divide (Moyo 2017), artificial intelligence (Mohamed, Png, and Isaac 2020), queer interpretations of Two-Spirited ⁵ peoples' digital content (Coe 2023) and digital marginalisation (Chaka 2022). These studies can be recognised as decolonial based on their engagement with certain tenets of decolonial research.

Decolonial research rejects prescriptive principles and cannot be universally defined. There is no single underlying philosophy, but it falls under the umbrella of critical research (Young 2023). It is important to note that decolonial scholarship is sometimes critical of traditional critical and post-colonial approaches because those traditions often operate within Western epistemological frameworks (Chughtai 2023). Decolonial researchers, in contrast, often follow what Smith (2012) refers to as a “local approach to critical theory” (242). Specifically, a decolonial project may involve efforts by researchers to not only recognise but dismantle structures of colonial epistemic domination, and foreground marginalised, Indigenous and local knowledge systems. While certain tenets frequently emerge in the decolonial literature, decolonial scholarship warns against rigidly applying these across contexts (Mignolo and Walsh 2018; Smith 2012). Instead, it encourages researchers to discern which of these tenets are relevant to their unique settings. Below we highlight some of the tents of decoloniality.

There is no blueprint for conducting and doing decolonial research. However, building on the discussion of decolonial tenets above, we now develop a foundation for thinking about what is required in a decolonial project. This foundational framework provided the criteria by which submission to the special issue were evaluated.

Criteria 1: Decolonial approaches require the researcher to engage deeply with the local context. Researchers must immerse themselves in Indigenous knowledge systems, local philosophies and histories specific to their study, as these insights are foundational to a truly decolonial approach. By actively engaging with local contexts, researchers move beyond generalisations and avoid imposing external frameworks. This immersion ensures the work is contextually relevant and respects the epistemic sovereignty of the communities involved, building a foundation for ethically grounded, transformative scholarship. To meet this criterion, researchers can work to understand the colonial matrix of power, question the universality of concepts, engage in epistemic delinking, and familiarise themselves with local and Indigenous epistemologies.

Criteria 2: Decolonial research must begin by explicitly clarifying the colonial legacy it seeks to disrupt. It is important to unpack the focal problem and answer the questions: Decolonialisation of what and for whom? Fulfilling this criterion requires researchers to explain which colonial structure or practice is enforcing an oppressive status-quo of epistemological violence and how. That is, the research can meet this criterion by investigating the nature of the colonial difference experienced by the focal community as well as the contributing factors that perpetuate colonial difference.

Criteria 3: Decolonial research is impactful when the researchers develop a strategy or solution that can be implemented to restructure or reformulate the problematic colonial structure or practice to align with the local or Indigenous philosophy that they identified as helpful during their deep engagement with the local context. Establishing a clear, decolonial strategy or solution is not merely a theoretical exercise; it serves as a guardrail against outcomes that fall short of addressing epistemic injustice or even reproduce colonial hierarchies of knowledge. Ideally, decolonial research should help all members of society achieve gradients of emancipation by promoting epistemic justice.

Fourteen manuscripts were submitted in response to our call for papers and four successfully met the criteria above to be included in the special issue. Each of these papers contributes to a growing understanding of how IS researchers can engage with communities in post-colonial contexts to promote emancipation and epistemic justice by valuing local insights.

In the first paper, Zubler, Plattfaut, and Niehaves (2024) focus on decolonialising IT governance in international non-governmental organisations (iNGOs). They address the problem of Western-centric IT governance structures in iNGOs that can perpetuate colonial power dynamics and fail to account for the needs and perspectives of local communities in the Global South. The study draws on Ubuntu philosophy as a decolonial framework. Ubuntu emphasises community, interdependence and shared responsibility. The authors use a design science research approach to develop organising principles for decolonialising IT governance. This involves identifying ideal principles based on Ubuntu and then adapting them to account for operational constraints. The study contributes to decolonial scholarship by proposing concrete steps to decolonialise IT governance in iNGOs. It moves beyond critique to offer practical guidance for creating more equitable and inclusive IT governance structures. Their work advances the field by highlighting the importance of considering power dynamics and local knowledge in IT governance and offering a potential solution based on an Indigenous philosophy.

In the second paper, Frimpong, Ayaburi, and Andoh-Baidoo (2025) examine the cultural tensions that arise when Western-designed digital crowdfunding platforms are deployed in Indigenous communities, using the Kenyan tradition of Harambee as a case study. This paper addresses the potential for digital crowdfunding to contribute to a form of digital colonialism by marginalising Indigenous cultures and elevating Western norms. Harambee, meaning “all pull together” in Swahili, is presented as a decolonial philosophy emphasising communal values such as inclusive access, mutual recognition and reciprocity, and collaborative networks. The study employs a qualitative approach, using narrative interviews with Kenyan participants to understand how these values intersect with digital crowdfunding practices. Their work contributes to decolonial scholarship by highlighting the potential for Harambee to inform the design and implementation of digital crowdfunding platforms that are more culturally responsive and inclusive. They contribute to decolonial scholarship in the field by advocating for integrating Indigenous knowledge and practices in the development of technologies to ensure that digital innovation does not come at the expense of cultural diversity.

In the third paper, Jimenez, Hoefsloot, and Miranda (2025) examine a co-produced IS intervention, the Metropolitan Water Observatory (MWO) in Lima, Peru, through a decolonial lens. It addresses the problem of Western-centric IS interventions that may not adequately account for local knowledge systems and power dynamics. The study uses the concepts of pluriverse and conviviality as decolonial frameworks. The pluriverse recognises the existence of multiple and diverse worldviews, while conviviality emphasises ethical and respectful relationships between diverse groups. The authors re-analyse the MWO project through these concepts, focusing on ontological, epistemological, methodological and justice dimensions. The study contributes to decolonial scholarship by applying these frameworks to analyse the MWO and provides insights into how decolonial IS interventions can be designed and implemented. They offer a framework to examine IS interventions from a decolonial perspective and propose practical guidelines for researchers interested in using decolonial approaches in IS research.

In the final paper, Sanches, Pozzebon, and Diniz (2025) focus on the development of a solidarity cryptocurrency in a Brazilian favela to explore decolonialising IS research and practice through the lens of tecnologia social. The study addresses the problem of the dominant Western, Eurocentric perspective in IS that often overshadows alternative epistemologies and perpetuates historical inequalities by silencing philosophies of the less developed world in knowledge creation. The authors use a design ethnography methodology to examine how the tecnologia social approach, prominent in Latin America, deals with epistemic plurality and resulting epistemic tensions in both research and practice. Tecnologia social advocates for epistemic justice and plurality by proposing that tensions are not resolved by suppressing or eliminating cultural differences. It centers Indigenous traditions, with their local actors, local resources and local knowledge, in any developmental process. The study contributes to decolonial scholarship by introducing tecnologia social to the IS community. It also highlights how the inherent tensions from the coexistence of diverse epistemologies in a pluriversal world can be navigated in IS research and practice, favouring often-silenced communities. Their work contributes to the field by suggesting that tecnologia social and epistemic dialogical tension provide fertile ground for developing decolonialised approaches where multiple epistemologies coexist.

It is our hope that this special issue will encourage future research that identifies suboptimal or oppressive structures and practices that are a legacy of colonialisation and works to replace them with structures and practices that better align with the values and needs of the local community. Such research should identify not only how colonial legacies are embedded in or detrimental to IS design, development, implementation and use but also how IS can be used as a tool for implementing emancipatory and justice-oriented decolonial solutions. We end with a note of caution that any such research should be done with utmost humility, acknowledging complex social systems and epistemologies that may compete or conflict and the respective value of each. We urge researchers not to settle for simplistic conceptualisations of local or colonial value systems, and not to seek to reverse power dynamics such that the oppressed become oppressors. Rather, we encourage IS researchers to strive for solutions that emancipate all members of a society by introducing structures and practices that are most appropriate for the local context. In the past, evaluation of designs and strategies for structuring society have been biased towards Eurocentric models without adequate consideration of the models put forth by local people. We encourage future researchers to consider multiple alternative—some local and some colonial—without disregarding either. This will empower researchers to act towards decoloniality when the local ideas genuinely provide the best path forward for society.