Critical review of Decolonial research methodology: an assessment of the challenge to established practice
Critical review of Decolonial research methodology
An assessment of the challenge to established practice
Introduction
The paper authored by Denscombe (2025) conducts a thorough scrutiny of the decolonial research methodology and evaluates to what extent it poses a serious challenge to Western research practices. In the context of the ongoing debate on decolonisation, epistemic justice, and methodological pluralism, the article questions the assumptions that have been at the foundation of the dominant research paradigms and also investigates how the decolonial approaches are trying to push research towards the interests, knowledge systems, and worldviews of the Indigenous and marginalised communities.
The article’s main goal is not to blindly support decolonial methodology, but to assess its challenge to traditional research practice in terms of character and significance. Denscombe intends to find out if decolonial research is a completely new research paradigm or if the basic principles of it can be included in the already existing ones of constructivist, transformative, and participatory methodologies. The paper targets a scholarly audience comprising social researchers, PhD students, and methodologists, and its reflective and evaluative tone is very much in tune with the readers.
Summary of the Article
Denscombe maps the decolonial research methodology onto the historical framework of colonialism, maintaining that Western knowledge systems have always been made to appear as universal and objective while inconsiderately suppressing the Indigenous and non-Western epistemologies. The article further states that the decolonial research, opposite to these power relations, tries to adopt the alternative ways of knowing that are based on the experiences, cultures, and worldviews of the colonised people.
The writer enumerates quite a few distinctive characteristics of the decolonial methodology, which include considering social transformation rather than neutral knowledge production, a direct concern for the participants in the research, and strong participatory involvement during the entire research process. Ethics of care are paramount, especially the aspect of being respectful to Indigenous cultures, recognising Indigenous data sovereignty, and rejecting extractive research practices and thus favour the external academic interests.
In a methodological sense, the article makes it clear that qualitative approaches predominated under a constructivist paradigm and that quantitative methods were selectively used only if they were conducive to the Indigenous priorities. Reflexivity and researcher self-awareness are pointed out as the key factors that will prevent the perpetuation of colonising assumptions. Denscombe, in the end, asserts that although a number of decolonial principles are in line with modern qualitative research, research that concerns Indigenous communities may still need a separate methodological paradigm based on the Indigenous ontological, epistemological, and axiological frameworks.
Critique
Significance and Contribution to the Field
The article reveals the very foundation of the issue in the claim that decolonial research methodology is a challenge to the established practice. It is not that decolonial methodology is a single monolithic revolutionary alternative; it is that Denscombe has skilfully separated its different parts and has evaluated their newness against the backdrop of existing research traditions.
One of the key virtues of the article is that the author does not try to create two opposing sides in a battle. The article, by recognising the previous progress made in Western qualitative research—especially regarding reflexivity, ethics, and participatory methods—does not stereotypically portray mainstream social research as being totally positivist or colonial. It is this nuanced approach that adds credibility to the paper and also makes it a point where decolonial researchers and the followers of classical methodologies can meet.
On the other hand, this balanced position also has the effect of limiting the article’s potential for transformation. The paper, by stressing the break between the decolonial methodology and the standard paradigms, runs the risk of minimising the radical epistemic critique that the decolonial scholars advance, especially those who claim that the Western research frameworks are structurally incapable of portraying the Indigenous worldviews accurately without introducing distortion.
Methodology and Research Design
Being conceptual and evaluative, the article does not use empirical methods, which is right for its objectives. The critique is rooted in a broad and deep interaction with the literature of decolonial, Indigenous and methodological aspects, utilising the concepts of top scholars such as Smith, Chilisa, Kovach, Freire, and Fanon. This theoretical grounding adds to the article’s power and, at the same time, makes its critique well-informed.
However, the lack of empirical illustrations renders the evaluation’s depth limited. The article refers to Indigenous research practices in an abstract manner but does not refer to particular research projects to show where the current paradigms are successful or unsuccessful in accepting Indigenous methodologies. Thus, some assertions, especially the one about the inadequacy of modern qualitative practices, are still open for discussion.
Argumentation and Use of Evidence
The argument is structured clearly, and the development of ideas is very logical, starting with the contextual background, then through the evaluation of methodology, and finally to the synthesis of concepts. The author’s identification of four main challenges—research focus, power relations, research democratisation, and Indigenous worldviews—offers a suitable analytical framework.
However, sometimes one side of the debate is represented by the balance of evidence in favour of Western methodological traditions more than others. Decolonial critiques, despite being very succinctly and accurately pointed out, are frequently treated as extensions of existing practice rather than as radically opposite and hence their influence is more limited. This situation may illustrate the author’s methodological bias, but at the same time, it leads to the possibility of the area of decolonial scholarship that clearly and firmly rejects engagement with Western paradigms for both ethical and epistemological reasons being pushed further to the corner and therefore becoming less visible.
Ethical Considerations and Omissions
Denscombe very well points out that the Indigenous ethics include not only the consultation labelling but also the relationships with the community, land, ancestors and the spirituality connected to them. This part of the discussion is the one that gives the paper its strongest point.
But the article does not go so far as to capture the institutional implications of these ethical commitments. Issues like doctoral supervision, research assessment, publication norms, and funding structures are barely touched upon. By not taking these issues into account, the analysis becomes less relevant for researchers who want to experiment with decolonial approaches within the framework of Western academic systems.
Writing Style and Structure
The article is very clear, very well structured and accessible to an advanced academic audience. Each term is precisely defined, and ideas that are difficult to grasp are presented without the use of any jargon that is not unnecessary. The move from decolonial criticism to methodological appraisal is both rational and smooth.
However, the tone that is neutral and careful might be interpreted by some of the readers as too conservative. More interaction with opposing views coming from clearly anti-colonial or abolitionist methodological standpoints would not only have added variety to the debate but also made the argument more powerful in terms of its criticality.
Conclusion
In summary, Denscombe (2025) offers a comprehensive and well-organised critique of decolonial research methodology and its effective challenge to the traditional research practices. One of the major aspects of the article is the clarification of the conceptual bases of decolonial research and their positioning in present-day methodological controversies. It helps to make the distinction between the components of decolonial methodology that follow the existing qualitative traditions and those that might need to be recognised as an entirely new or separate Indigenous research paradigm.
Nevertheless, the article’s limitation restricts its interaction with the more radical implications of the decolonial literature. On the one hand, it efficiently presents the case that a lot of decolonial studies can be fitted into conventional paradigms; on the other hand, it does not take seriously the extent to which Indigenous worldviews undermine the ontological and epistemological assumptions of Western academia. In this regard, future studies will be in need of empirical case studies, stakeholder engagement and institutional constraints, and how decolonial methodologies can be integrated into doctoral research and academic governance structures.
Reference:
Denscombe, M. (2025). Decolonial research methodology: an assessment of the challenge to established practice. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 28(2), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2024.2357558
We offer our Greatness in Various Parts of Research, and we help you with any phase of your Process. Make a Smart Decision and get your Paper Published.