Calls to decolonize have become so popular that some have called for ‘decolonizing decolonization’, while others warn of the ethical nightmare of ‘colonizing decolonization’. Simply put, when a group speaks too loudly or too often about decolonization — particularly as an exercise in individual or institutional expiation — it drowns out the dissenting voices of the ‘colonized’ themselves.
Calls to decolonize research are anything but new. Since the 2000s, however, the debate has expanded to encompass nearly every dimension of research — from the organization of research institutions (decolonizing universities and education) to research’s most intimate ‘known knows’ (decolonizing curricula, methodologies, data, ontologies, and more).
These calls have become so popular that some have called for ‘decolonizing decolonization’, while others warn of the ethical nightmare of ‘colonizing decolonization’. Simply put, when a group speaks too loudly or too often about decolonization — particularly as an exercise in individual or institutional expiation — it drowns out the dissenting voices of the ‘colonized’ themselves. Quoting Fanon’s warning that “decolonization is a project of complete disorder,” critical peace studies scholar Pushpa Iyer argues that orderly attempts at decolonization are especially contradictory and therefore suspect — or, at the very least, entirely counterproductive.
For the international development crowd — including those focused on the role of research — the decolonization debate has, for over a decade, largely taken the form of discussions on equitable knowledge partnerships. Too many of these conversations have resulted in at best mildly inspiring lists of well-meaning principles and best practices, while other efforts are ongoing (with the hope of avoiding yet another list). Some of the most intellectually robust and well-grounded analysis of the topic, however, are most often misunderstood as invitations to follow ‘best practices’.
One aspect of the decolonization debate that remains underexplored is the concrete, practical changes needed to transform how research funding actually works — especially in the context of international development, where North-to-South funding flows are often criticized. Below are some key points my colleague Daniele Cantini and I shared with a European donor who asked us (with genuine curiosity): What do you actually mean by decolonizing research for development?
Our answer came in degrees (not steps or principles, mind you!) and below I take the metaphor quite literally — an imaginary decolonization dial as if we were turning a compass to navigate our way out of both colonial legacies and the latest fashionable debates on decolonization.
A compass for decolonization (of development research funding)?
The starting point — degree 0 on the decolonization dial — for decolonizing research funding in the international development space is to stop being surprised by the existence of research capacity everywhere, even in the most challenging contexts. GDN’s work, along with other organizations funding research competitively across the globe, offers clear proof of this — not the opposite.* Regardless of the topic or country– from science and technology in Venezuela to policy research in Myanmar and digital public infrastructure in Benin– excellent researchers emerge. If donors struggle to find them, the problem likely lies in the design of the call (stay calm and keep reading) — or perhaps a lack of interest.
At 90 degrees on the decolonization dial, the key question is this: whose questions are researchers expected to address? Is funding meant to answer the funder’s questions, or empower researchers to pursue their own?? Both approaches are valid, mind you, but conflating the two breeds confusion — exactly what we need to avoid. Collecting data on this would be a first good step to assess whether current funding for strengthening Southern research capacity is anywhere close to sufficient.° Until data proves otherwise, there is no reason to assume that international funding flowing from North to South — despite its transformative importance for recipients — is what drives research systems (arguably, this is a classic case of the “fallacy of composition”). We cannot even claim that it can positively transform systems at this point, though it should arguably measure its impact against this goal. Country-level analyses of research systems conducted across five continents under the Doing Research global initiative suggest that career progression policies in public universities may have a much greater influence on whether research agendas in the Global South are oriented toward or away from development issues. (South Africa, Niger, Myanmar, India – an illuminating study on Benin is upcoming). At 90 degrees on the dial, one starts to become more aware of who is doing what, and why.
The 180-degree mark involves designing research funding opportunities with the same people — or at least a sample of them — they are intended to support, much like testing a new product before releasing it to the market. User-centered design has been around for over 80 years. Funders cannot be expected to know everything happening within research, research careers, research systems, and society — even if that is what the Open Science framework asks of them. Moreover, participation in this space has traditionally been a high priority. We tried this approach with young researchers at GDN, and, unsurprisingly, with great satisfaction. I can only recommend it and will continue to do so. Thinking for them — whether it’s Southern researchers or young researchers — is bound to fail.
At the 270 degrees on the dial – where some (but not all) may experience serious altitude sickness– involves rethinking the flow of funding between the so-called North and the so-called South. In reality, money already flows both ways, though many (both in the North and the South, including researchers) prefer to avoid this shift in currents and are often blind to it. GDN, in its own way, is testing this new flow, with funds coming from both Fiji and India to conduct independent assessments of the two countries’ national social science research landscapes in 2025, as part of a broader effort to understand the trajectory of research in Asia. Again, till we have data, all one needs to do is to be open enough to the idea to notice when it happens, and perhaps test it. More than the flow of funds, what matters is the productive disruption these shifts bring—to funding rules, collaboration, and the partnership itself.
As we reach the 360-degree mark on the decolonization dial, things get more challenging. At this point, what needs to be done is to challenge existing shortcuts for assessing research quality: quick assumptions about what constitutes appropriate methodology, which affect peer review and selection processes for funding, perpetuating selection bias that favors established and Northern authors; notions about who is competent to formulate research questions; established ideas about what research communications should look like (at the 2024 Transforming Evidence Network conference, the policy brief was declared “dead,” though its decline was already anticipated a decade earlier– for many however the policy brief has become an institutional proxy for influence, and cannot be substituted); and so on. At this degree, we must remain open to wide (read: wild) experimentation, regardless of AI name-dropping or novelty, both conceptual and methodological. We need to stay open and creative about new traditions for how to ask and answer research questions. These may come from anywhere. The challenge is how to prepare funding systems for such openness. The Volkswagen Foundation suggests that random selection increases equity and diversity without compromising quality. What do international development funders, many of which are aware that funding the same people over and over is more likely to result in impact, think of this? In fact, taking a stance on the VW Foundation’s proposal (which is a funder policy more than a provocation, mind you) would be a clear step into the decolonization debate.
Full revolution?
Ultimately, the 360-degree mark is also the 0-degree mark, and as astronomers remind us, it signifies the completion of a full revolution. However, much like planets in their orbits, returning to the same point does not mean that nothing has changed. Decolonizing research requires continually confronting both what has shifted and what remains unchanged. The key to avoiding fatigue is perhaps experimenting more.
*The founding idea of the Global Development Network as an international organization may have been at times misunderstood as suggesting that research capacity in developing countries is a blank slate, except for a few exceptional people. The vision behind this international organization is quite different: it recognizes that development is ultimately about context-specific ideas, and that original ideas and research go hand in hand. It’s as simple as that!
°A promising project led by CLACSO just started on this in 2025, even if IDRC, who funds it, may have oversold the project’s promise on their website. (Full disclosure: I very happily sit on the project’s advisory board)
