Qualitative inquiry growth

Four Rs: Responsibility Respect Reciprocity and Rights

The postcolonial researcher must be guided by the four Rs—says Chilisa (2011: 7) citing Ellis and Earley (2006), Louis (2007), Weber-Pillwax (2001) and Wilson (2008)—namely: “accountable responsibility, respect, reciprocity, and rights and regulations of the researched”. Chilisa (2011) elaborates on the assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge and values within the postcolonial indigenous research paradigm; emphasising the multiple relations and many connections human beings are having with their community, the living and nonliving—stretching from birth to death and beyond. “An indigenous paradigm comes from the fundamental belief that knowledge is relational” states Chilisa (2011: 21) and “knowledge is shared with all of creation”. The four Rs therefore comprise:

• Relational accountable responsibility, which implies that all parts of the research process are indeed related and that the researcher is accountable to all.
• Respectful representation includes the researcher’s way of listening, of paying attention, of acknowledging, and for creating spaces for the voices of the Other and their knowledge systems.
• Reciprocal appropriation entails that research must be conducted in such a way that both the communities researched and the researcher derive benefits. The ethical dimension of ownership of intellectual property is emphasised.
• Rights and regulations during the research process include, but is not limited to “ethical protocols that accord the colonized and the marginalised ownership of the research process and the knowledge produced” (Chilisa, 2011: 22). Not misappropriating what is not yours as researcher for the taking.

Chilisa, B. 2011. Indigenous Research Methodologies. Los Angeles: Sage.

The uncritical imitation by the captive mind

To what extent are Euro-Western research methodologies relevant to people that were formerly colonised, historically marginalised, or previously oppressed? It is argued by Chilisa (2011) and other cited by her, that Euro-Western research methodologies do not embrace indigenous knowledge production or systems; instead these methodologies often disconnects, exclude and silence. The colonialised ‘Other’ includes broad categories such as: non-Western, third world, developing, underdeveloped, First Nations, indigenous peoples, third world women, and African American women. What is needed is an emancipation form generations of being silenced; being reduced to captive minds; being stripped of ancestral culture and replaced by Euro-Western culture; argues Chilisa (2011). What is needed is research methodologies that are not perpetuating binary opposites of superior versus inferior; of sameness and ‘Othering’. The researcher must fulfil the role of provocateur and of transformative healer.

Chilisa, B. 2011. Indigenous Research Methodologies. Los Angeles: Sage.

Postcolonial indigenous research relates to transformative paradigm

Bagele Chilisa (2011: 38) explains that postcolonial indigenous research methodologies share assumptions with the transformative research paradigm. By adopting decolonisation and indigenisation aims, postcolonial indigenous research methodologies emphasise transforming conventional ways of knowledge production by being inclusive of multiple knowledge systems. Decolonised and indigenised research methodologies do not necessary derive theory from written texts “but can be inferred by the researcher from oral traditions, stories, legends, language, and artefacts” (Chilisa, 2011: 39). The researcher, in postcolonial indigenous methodologies, further “has a duty to retrieve from the oral texts, perspectives, concepts, and theories that form conceptual and theoretical frameworks for research studies, rationale, and justification for selected data-gathering techniques, data analysis, and research finding dissemination strategies".

Chilisa, B. 2011. Indigenous Research Methodologies. Los Angeles: Sage

Postcolonial research pradigm - what does it mean?

Politicised youth in South Africa often angrily voice insults of colonialism and imperialism. Firmly believing in qualitative research principles such as giving voice, respecting, and responsible analysis; I needed to understand postcolonial research.

Bagele Chilisa (2011: 13-14) describes decolonisation as “a process of centering the concerns and worldviews of the colonized Other so that they understand themselves through their own assumptions and perspectives” and involves:

• Liberating the ‘captive mind’ from oppressing conditions
• “restoration and development of cultural practices, thinking patterns, beliefs, and values that were suppressed but are still relevant and necessary”

Chilisa, B. 2011. Indigenous Research Methodologies. Los Angeles: Sage.

‘Sensitivity to the importance of sensemaking processes’

Global-wide business calls for a research methodology with integrity to bridge distance. Noorderhaven (2004: 85) argues that “the hermeneutic approach to social reality and social research” is indeed a suitable methodology. Derived from the Greek word ‘hermeneuein’—meaning to explain; put in words or translate—philosophical hermeneutics pertains to the act of understanding phenomena as signs. “It is not enough to observe the signs; their meaning should also be established” for interpretation to be efficacious.

Noorderhaven (2004: 92) illustrates the “application of hermeneutic methodology” by means of a number of published clinical studies about close collaboration of international business alliances. It is important to note that none of the illustrative case studies were deliberately hermeneutic, however, observes Noorderhaven “the researchers show a remarkable sensitivity to the importance of sensemaking processes within the alliances/joint ventures”. He focusses on three aspects, namely:

• The influence the initial expectations and conditions of alliances forming
• The various cycles of collaborative sense-making—the going through hermeneutic circles, namely from understanding single elements to understanding the whole—within alliances that are under way, including impediments to shared meanings
• The researcher’s interpretations in addition to those of the incumbents—what Giddens (1984: 284) names ‘double hermeneutic’ (cited by Noorderhaven 2004: 95) contribute to sense-making. The goal of hermeneutic analysis—according to Hans-Georg Gadamer (1999) who rejects the traditional hermeneutical rule denouncing interpretations that were not implied by the writer (cited by Noorderhaven 2004: 95)—“is not to take for granted the interpretations and meanings produced by incumbents”.

Noorderhaven, N.G. 2004. Hermeneutic methodology and international business research, 84-104. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds). 2004. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Differentiating between research methodology and method

Noorderhaven (2004: 91) clearly differentiates between research methodology and research method. A research “methodology is a system of ontological and epistemological assumptions on which research is to be based”; whereas “a research method is a particular strategy for collecting and analysing data”.

Noorderhaven, N.G. 2004. Hermeneutic methodology and international business research, 84-104. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds). 2004. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Dirt under fingernails = good qualitative participants

Johanson (2004: 4) shares "the lesson we learned for the future was to always avoid staff who are not in the front line. They have time but no experience. It is only those who have 'dirt under their fingernails' who understand where the important problems lie."

Johanson, J. 2004. Theory is not reality. In Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C. (Eds) 2004. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.