743237

research-article2017
QHRXXX10.1177/1049732317743237Qualitative Health ResearchChambers et al.

Research Article
Qualitative Health Research

Decolonizing Scoping Review

1­–14
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Methodologies for Literature With, for, sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1049732317743237
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317743237

and by Indigenous Peoples and the African journals.sagepub.com/home/qhr

Diaspora: Dialoguing With the Tensions

Lori A. Chambers1, Randy Jackson1, Catherine Worthington2,

Ciann L. Wilson3, Wangari Tharao4, Nicole R. Greenspan5, Renee Masching6,
Valérie Pierre-Pierre7, Tola Mbulaheni7, Marni Amirault6,
and Patrick Brownlee6

Abstract
This article summarizes our deepened understanding of decolonizing research with, for, and by Indigenous peoples
and peoples of African descent that emerged from conducting a scoping review of the methodological literature and
reflecting on our review process. Although our review identified decolonizing methodologies as a promising approach,
we questioned if our scoping review process engaged in decolonizing knowing. To unpack the epistemological tensions
between decolonizing knowing and Western ways of doing scoping reviews, we engaged in individual and collective
reflective processes—dialoguing with the tensions—moving from individual immersion in the literature to transformative
dialogues among the team. In reflecting upon our tensions with the scoping review process, themes that emerged
included (a) ontological/epistemological disjunctures, (b) tensions with concepts and language, and (c) relationships
with the literature and beyond. This reflexive process provides valuable insight into ways in which review methods
might be made a decolonizing research experience.

Keywords
HIV/AIDS; epistemology; methodology; Aboriginal people; African Americans; Canada; participatory action research
(PAR); critical methods; decolonizing methodologies; qualitative interpretive methods; knowledge synthesis; scoping
reviews

It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this community ways of knowing and interpreting the world
sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of can better assure that research findings are applicable to
others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that local understandings of health and are useful in devising
looks on in amused contempt and pity. intervening responses (Hovey, Delormier, McComber,
Lévesque, & Martin, 2017).
—W. E. B. Du Bois (1903) in The Souls of Black Folk
1
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Introduction 2
University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
3
Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Qualitative researchers have been making a concerted 4
Women’s Health in Women’s Hands, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
effort to diversify health research approaches by drawing 5
St. Michael’s Hospital, Ontario, Canada
6
upon epistemologies not commonly utilized within tradi- Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia,
tional health research. Notably, health researchers from Canada
7
African and Caribbean Council on HIV/AIDS in Ontario, Toronto,
non-Western cultures are applying their own epistemo- Ontario, Canada
logical standpoints to better assure that their research
approaches are culturally responsive and respectful to Corresponding Author:
Lori A. Chambers, Kenneth Taylor Hall, School of Social Work,
communities with whom the research is conducted and McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, Ontario,
for whom the research is intended (Dillard, 2012; Loppie, Canada L8S 4M4.
2007). Methodological approaches that are grounded in Email: chambl3@mcmaster.ca
2 Qualitative Health Research 00(0)
Although the coming of alternative epistemologies has
diversified qualitative health research, questions remain
about whether this diversification addresses the long-
standing centering of Western worldviews within knowl-
edge production (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Indigenous1
scholars and scholars of African descent2 particularly
have demanded the decolonization of research method-
ologies, which includes critical reflexivity of Western
domination and imperialism within health research, and
research that is conducted in a manner that honors
Indigenous and Afrocentric3 ways of knowing (Chilisa,
2012; Smith, 2012). Through our engagement with the
decolonizing literature as described in this article, we
have brought this critical reflexivity to our work in
Canadian health (HIV) research.
We are a diverse team of predominantly Indigenous
(Aboriginal4) and African descendant (African diaspora5)
scholars working with allied (White settler) HIV research-
ers. Our research collaboration began through conversa-
tions about our roles in the Canadian HIV response and
with the ways research is conducted with and for Indigenous
peoples and the African diaspora. We wanted to explore
some of the commonalities of our work, including the
approaches we use to conduct research, and our place
within the academy. As Indigenous and African diasporic
scholars, we often confront a shared experience of social
science research that “distorts [our] realities and . . .
serve[s] to sustain power relations that continue to place
[us] at a disadvantage” (Dunbar, 2008, p. 86). We came
together initially to explore commonalities and to review
and summarize the decolonizing literatures through the use
of a scoping review methodology. As our process evolved,
we then worked together to collectively reflect upon how
we used decolonizing knowing to unpack our experiences
of scoping review method to map and summarize this body
of knowledge. Drawing upon our tribal genealogies and
relational worldviews to forge common ground, our
involvement in conducting research on behalf of the com-
munities we represent embodies a “talked back to” and
“talked up to” orientation: our multiple positions/lenses are
made explicit as we work to challenge the Western model
of research that is embedded and supportive of “a global
system of imperialism and power” (Smith, 2012, p. ix).
Our team has substantial experience in Canadian HIV
community-based research (CBR), as well as in service
provision and policy work. Many of us have built strong,
trusting relationships as part of that experience over many
years. Our approach used a CBR framework to guide our
application of a scoping review methodology to map and
summarize evidence (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005) focused
on decolonizing, Indigenous, and Afrocentric literatures.
We approached our work framed by Smith’s (2012) descrip-
tion of decolonizing knowing as a process of uncovering
and challenging colonialism within imperialist discursive
practices to restore the cultural and knowing practices of
Indigenous and African descendant communities affected
by colonization. This article presents a brief introduction to
decolonizing health research, discusses some of the debates
and tensions related to scoping review methodologies, pres-
ents the main themes arising from our review of the litera-
ture, and finally presents a team reflection on our scoping
review process as shaped by our deepened understanding of
decolonizing, Indigenous, and Afrocentric knowledges, and
our evolving engagement with the literature.
Decolonizing Health Research
As noted above, health research has contributed to nega-
tive social constructions of Indigenous peoples and peo-
ples of African descent. For example, the use of
terminology that labels populations as vulnerable, HIV-
endemic or at risk, without interrogating the social and
systemic inequities that contribute to disproportionate
rates of HIV infection, reaffirms racialized stereotypes of
these populations. This terminology is indicative of colo-
nial discourse, a mechanism where language is used to
represent colonized populations through the eyes of the
imperialist power (Spivak, 1995). Indigenous and African
diasporic scholars have noted the influence of colonial
discourse in the design and delivery of health services
(Lazarus, 2006; Peltier et al., 2013; Waldron, 2010).
Colonial practices of knowledge generation universalize
Western thought by reading social and health concerns
through dominant (i.e., Euro-Western) perspectives in
ways that may ignore cultural knowledge and practices
that foster health and well-being for Indigenous peoples
and peoples of African descent.
One of the first works of decolonizing scholarship to
reach a wide audience was Tuhiwai Smith’s (1999, 2012)
Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous
Peoples. This book connected dominant Euro-Western
research practices to histories of imperialism and colonial-
ism and offered ways affected communities could reclaim
their ways of knowing and being. This book had a pro-
found influence on Indigenous research scholarship within
Canada, which has emerged as a leader in promoting
decolonizing knowing practices with and for Indigenous
peoples (Kovach, 2010; S. Wilson, 2008). In African
descendant scholarship, thinkers such as Franz Fanon
(1967) and Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o (1986) have philosophized
on the impact that colonialism has had on the lived reali-
ties of peoples of African descent in continental African
and settler states. The growth of decolonizing knowing
has inspired recent anti-colonial and postcolonial scholar-
ship on Afrocentric methodologies and worldviews, and
has contributed to greater discussions of colonialism and
neocolonialism and their continued impact on peoples of
African descent (Chilisa, 2012; Dei, 2015; Dillard, 2012).
Chambers et al. 3
Global health research has begun integrating
Indigenous worldviews and decolonizing knowledge
generation in areas such as health promotion, mental
health/well-being, health service provision, diabetes, pal-
liative care, and Indigenous health (Thomas et al., 2009;
Wand & Eades, 2008). These are approaches that empha-
size the importance of reclaiming ancestral ways of
knowing within health practice, the relevance of local
knowledges, cultural interpretations of well-being, holis-
tic and relational models of health, and recognition of the
sociohistorical impact of colonialism on the current
health and well-being of Indigenous peoples and peoples
of African descent (Dlamini et al., 2012; Mundel &
Chapman, 2010; Racine & Petrucka, 2011).
As Kagawa-Singer, Dressler, George, and The NIH
Expert Panel (2016) cautioned, we aim not to universal-
ize Indigenous or African descendant cultures, nor essen-
tialize the experiences among Indigenous peoples and
peoples of African descent. Instead, we wish to empha-
size that decolonizing scholarship shares common aims
from which we can draw: to interrogate colonialism
within the knowing practices we employ in health
research and to find ways to reclaim Indigenous and
Afrocentric ways of knowing within the research we con-
duct. Like Smith (1999, 2012), we believe that there
exists the possibility for fruitful cross-pollination between
the Indigenous and African descendant scholarship. This
cross-pollination has already emerged in the literature
with Fanon’s theories of decolonization influencing many
Indigenous literary works (Lundgren, 2008), and anti-
colonial and postcolonial thinkers drawing upon transna-
tional Indigenous scholarship in their theorization of
decolonizing thought (Dei, 2012a). In this cross-pollina-
tion, we can collectively interrogate the theories, method-
ologies, and methods commonly applied to health
research and work collaboratively to create space for
diverse knowing paradigms within the research we con-
duct with, for, and by Indigenous peoples and peoples of
African descent.
Knowledge Synthesis Methodologies—Current
Debates
Knowledge synthesis methodologies have become a cor-
nerstone of evidence-based practice (EBP) in health
research. The development of knowledge synthesis
methodologies came in response to evidence-based med-
icine, an approach to health care policy and practices that
aimed to optimize health care decision-making, through
the “conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current
best evidence” (Sackett, 1997, p. 3). Knowledge synthe-
sis methodologies, with their emphasis on quantitative
indicators and effectiveness and efficacy of interven-
tions, have been deemed an ideal complement to
evidence-based health practice (Sackett, Rosenberg,
Gray, Haynes, & Richardson, 1996). Within the HIV
field, the syntheses of quantitative evidence, with meta-
analyses as the gold standard, have been considered
complementary to biomedical health responses to HIV
and the trial research and quantitative statistical analyses
that initially dominated the field (Parker, 2001). Although
EBP has evolved outside of medical disciplines, with
knowledge synthesis methodologies—including scoping
review methodologies—being utilized within other
health and social science disciplines, many have argued
that its positivistic underpinnings still shape these meth-
odologies even when used outside of the medical sci-
ences (Eakin & Mykhalovskiy, 2003; MacLure, 2005).
Knowledge synthesis methodologies, though popular,
have also received considerable critique as they position
themselves as an objective approach to summarizing
research. Some caution that knowledge synthesis method-
ologies have become part of a wider evidence-based
“movement” that favors quantitative research methods
over other knowing practices and positivism over other
worldviews (Pope, 2003). Traditional synthesis approaches
have promoted claims of procedural objectivity—where
methodological rigor is obtained from the proper execution
of review processes, which in turn reduces the risk of bias
and enhances replicability of study results (Eakin &
Mykhalovskiy, 2003). A common concern is that proce-
dural objectivity suppresses quality rather than enhances it,
as the interpretive processes of research—critique, tacit
knowledge, intertextual connections and interconnections
with other knowledge, dialogic interactions with other
reviewers and the literature—can be discouraged through
strict adherence to synthesis protocols (MacLure, 2005).
Furthermore, some researchers question if knowledge syn-
theses are suitable methodologies for synthesizing and
interpreting the social and cultural aspects of health for
Indigenous and African descendant populations. In the
field of HIV, Ciann Wilson (one of our team members)
argues that knowledge syntheses of HIV-related health evi-
dence are poorly suited to understanding the psychosocial,
systemic, and structural aspects of HIV epidemics, includ-
ing colonization and its impacts (C. L. Wilson, 2015).
Critiques of knowledge synthesis methodologies have
opened innovations in the field. In HIV-related research,
qualitative research exploring the social and cultural
aspects of HIV have proliferated (Parker, 2001). Syntheses
of qualitative evidence (Barroso & Powell-Cope, 2000;
Dillon & Basu, 2014; Sandelowski, Lambe, & Barroso,
2004) have contributed to a paradigm shift in HIV knowl-
edge syntheses, allowing for more critical, interpretive,
theoretically grounded approaches to aggregating and
synthesizing health evidence congruent with qualitative
scholarship. Many authors of knowledge synthesis
research have optioned for alternative understandings of
4 Qualitative Health Research 00(0)
these methodologies that promote reflexive, subjective
engagement with the literature. They propose the develop-
ment of synthesis methodologies that are predicated on
the topic under study and congruent with the type of
knowledge being reviewed. Lather (1999) suggested that
knowledge syntheses can be critical methodologies if they
engage in the “unpacking of a problematic that situates the
work historically and methodologically” (p. 3). This
unpacking requires critical reflexivity where the reviewers
acknowledge the social relations within which knowledge
is constituted (Pope, 2003). Furthermore, to move from its
positivistic roots, the endpoint of knowledge synthesis
should become knowledge discovery—through interpre-
tation and critical reflection—rather than just knowledge
replication (Thorne, 2017). As such, critical, reflexive
engagement with the literature can exist as another way of
knowing the evidence.
Method
The three issues discussed in the previous section—the
dominance of colonial practices within HIV research, a
growing impetus to promote the cultural wisdom of
Indigenous peoples and peoples of African descent
through research, and paradigmic shifts in knowledge
synthesis methodologies—have informed our approach
to conducting a knowledge synthesis as a community-
based and critical practice. Our aim was to consider
decolonizing, Indigenous, and Afrocentric knowing
approaches to reconceptualize HIV research by, with,
and for Indigenous peoples and the African diaspora in
Canada. We began our research collaboration by con-
ducting a literature synthesis using a scoping review
methodology.
Original Methods: Scoping Review
Our original objectives were to review and summarize
the literature on decolonizing, Indigenous knowing,6
and “Southern theoretical7” methodologies. Questions
we wished to explore through this review included the
following:
Research Question 1: How do we find a place that is
meaningful for ourselves within research practice that
is also respected by others?
Research Question 2: Can we find research frame-
works that can work with these two populations and is
guided by their similar yet divergent histories and
worldviews?
We had originally decided to use a scoping review
methodology (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005) based on team
members’ previous experiences using this and other
synthesis methods within a CBR framework on topics
related to HIV (Chambers et al., 2014; Souleymanov
et al., 2016; M. G. Wilson et al., 2013; Worthington,
O’Brien, Zack, Mckee, & Oliver, 2012) and because it is
a literature synthesis approach that is considered ideal for
topical areas where evidence is emerging or complex, or
the depth of evidence is relatively unknown. We under-
stood scoping review methodologies to be a process that
rapidly maps “key concepts underpinning a research area
and the main sources and types of evidence available”
(Arksey & O’Malley, 2005, p. 21; see also Mays, Roberts,
& Popay, 2001). We considered a scoping review meth-
odology suitable for our project due to the growing emer-
gence of decolonizing, Indigenous, and Afrocentric
methodologies within health research. As well, we origi-
nally thought the flexibility of scoping review methodol-
ogies would allow us to incorporate a decolonizing
knowing stance in our synthesis approach and to be more
inclusive, critical, and reflexive of the literature.
We developed our search strategy based on a prelimi-
nary identification of literature on decolonizing,
Indigenous, and Afrocentric methodologies, and then
extracted keywords to use as searchable terms. We limited
our search to articles where methodological search terms
were identified (see Table 1). The breadth of our search
strategy reflected our desire to learn from other Indigenous
and African descendant scholars who work in areas out-
side of HIV. We believed the ways research is carried out
in these other areas of concern might be relevant to the
HIV research we do in Canada. We also consulted with
Indigenous and African descendant researchers at the XIX
International AIDS Conference [AIDS 2012] to get addi-
tional literature recommendations.
To locate literature, we searched 10 research databases
using the inclusive list of keywords drawn from docu-
ments obtained from our preliminary identification of rel-
evant literature (see Table 2). We chose to restrict to
literature from 1999 onward, as this was the point when
decolonizing and Indigenous methodologies, and partici-
patory and critical research methodological writing began
to flourish on a global scale. Using this search strategy,
once duplicates were removed, we yielded 22,184
abstracts for review. Due to the large number, we engaged
in a two-stage review process. Our first stage was to
review all titles and abstracts to exclude literature deemed
irrelevant to our topic and to identify literature to include
for our second stage review. Each of our 10 research team
members was assigned equally portioned and overlap-
ping literature abstracts to review. We included references
where the topic of study related to decolonizing research
methodologies or research from an Indigenous,
Afrocentric, or Southern paradigm. This preliminary
review resulted in the inclusion of 3,175 references for
the second review stage.
Chambers et al. 5

Table 1.  Search Strategy—Keywords and Search Terms. Table 2.  Electronic Databases Selected for Literature
Search.
Conceptual
Understandings of Database N
Decolonizing/Indigenous/
Southern Worldview America: History & Life 892
Anthropology Plus 2,070
Decoloniz* Knowledge ASSIA 2,217
Indigenous Knowledge utilization CBCA 3,893
Southern theory Knowledge generation FRANCIS 800
Native Knowledge development IBSS 3,749
Imperialism Epistemolog* MEDLINE 7,866
Colonialism Feminism Social Work Abstracts 382
American Indian Critical theory Sociological Abstracts 3,938
African Diaspora Social action Web of Science 5,708
Postcolonialism Education
Total references 31,515
Knowledge transmission
Duplicates (9,331)
Knowledge and
Total included in T&A 22,184
information sharing
Knowledge transfer
Research transfer
Sociology of knowledge single review was used (i.e., each article was reviewed
AND
Cultural/ethnographic Methods by one team member) to screen the full text of the 350
Cultural identity Methodology documents. We took an iterative approach to our screen-
Cultural groups Participatory ing process. We had regular team meetings to discuss
Cultural values Participatory
our review process—potential themes, knowledge
Cultural transmission Community-based
Cultural maintenance research (CBR) gaps, questions, and challenges—to ensure that the
Local culture Action research team was using similar decision rules for including/
Local knowledge Participatory research excluding literature.
Traditional knowledge Photovoice From the 350 references sampled, based on our
Ethnoscience Oral method selection criteria, we identified 82 relevant articles.
Ethnography Oral history For data abstraction, we thematically categorized lit-
Ethnology Oral tradition
erature based on the topic of study, the language of
Ethnographic Storytelling
Qualitative publication, countries of interest, communities of
Cross-cultural research interest, knowledge gathering methods employed, and
health research topics discussed. A collaborative the-
matic analysis process was used to identify prelimi-
To get a sense of the included literature before pro- nary commonalities and contrasts in the literature (see
ceeding with any further analysis, for the second stage Supplementary Appendix for this reference list). It was
we randomly selected 350 of the included references through this synthesis process, however, that our rela-
(approximately 10% of the total number of references tionship with the literature and with the review process
resulting from the preliminary review). Through this shifted, and where the process of reviewing itself
second stage of the process, we modified our inclusion became a focus of analysis and reflection on scoping
criteria to ensure salience to our topic area. Toward this review methodologies and (re)knowing decolonizing
end, we clearly defined decolonizing research/method- methodological practices.
ologies (i.e., methodological processes that addressed
Western imperialism/colonialism within research, or Reflecting on the Scoping Review Process
that integrated culturally responsive knowing practices
within research methods). To refine our inclusion crite- After approximately 1 year of work on the scoping
ria, we concentrated on literature documenting research/ review, our methods evolved. We began to free ourselves
knowing practices that were by/with/for Indigenous/ of strict methodological adherence to pursue a process
African diaspora communities and not “on” them (i.e., that began to increasingly reflect a decolonizing knowing
we did not include research done by researchers repre- process. We used our experience of the scoping review
senting the dominant culture and with a colonial, process and the literature we encountered to engage in
Western science perspective). As the abstracts had critical, reflective dialogues; as noted previously, these
already been screened as potentially relevant in answer- dialogues were initially to review our progress, but over
ing our research questions, for this second stage a time they evolved into collective dialogues about our
6 Qualitative Health Research 00(0)
relationship to the literature and our roles as researchers.
We chose to engage in a formal dialogue among ourselves
to grapple with our (dis)connections to our original meth-
odology and the tensions within these. These discussions
were conceptual, and at the same time, very personal—
about our spaces and places within/between the readings
and inquiry approaches. Several of us reflected on the
trust and openness within the group, and of the discom-
fort of sharing some of the ideas outside of the group. We
found that this dialogic and reflective process of inter-
preting the data allowed us to (re)discover our ways of
knowing as a collective and allowed each of us to (re)
connect to the many ways in which we know.
We conducted two face-to-face meetings and took
notes at each meeting, the second of which was video-
recorded (see African and Caribbean Council on HIV/
AIDS in Ontario [ACCHO] & Canadian Aboriginal AIDS
Network [CAAN], 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, for edited ver-
sions of our video), and transcribed to text. For our video-
recorded meeting, we incorporated a sharing circle format
as it is congruent with Indigenous methods and it offered
a collaborative, collective process to build knowledge
(Lavallee, 2009). We employed qualitative interpretive
methods to thematically code and interpret our tran-
scribed reflections (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Mason, 2002).
This analysis focused on our experiences using a scoping
review method and the tensions we experienced using
this method in the context of decolonizing knowing. Our
interpretive methods used an asynchronous team
approach: We engaged in the sequential coding of the
data, and then second-order interpretation. Members of
the author team coded and circulated the coding for feed-
back/alterations.
Results
Given our evolving process, this article reports on two
sets of findings: broad themes from the decolonizing
literature and findings that emerged from our reflec-
tions on the scoping review process. In the first part of
this section, we briefly summarize the common themes
that emerged from the literature on decolonizing meth-
odologies with and for Indigenous peoples and the
African diaspora. In the second part, we use this know-
ing of decolonizing practices in research to reflect
upon the tensions that emerged from using scoping
review methodologies for this body of literature.
Although this article is not devoted to presenting a full
account of the decolonizing literature, we felt it impor-
tant to note commonalities as they spoke about the ten-
sions we experienced in using scoping review
methodologies and implored us to reshape our method-
ological process such that it became a decolonizing
knowing practice.
Literature Summary: Commonalities in
Decolonizing Methodologies With and for
Indigenous Peoples and the African Diaspora
As described earlier, the literature identified decolonizing
knowing as a practice that critically reflects on colonial-
ism, its cultural impacts, and its influence on research
practices and the knowledge derived from the research.
The literature identified historic and current practices of
colonization—the erasure and pathologization of
Indigenous and Afrocentric knowledges, critical events
of colonialism in a people’s history (i.e., trans-Atlantic
slave trade and postcolonial independence in African
descendant histories; residential schools and land treaties
in Indigenous peoples’ histories), colonial practices that
reconstructed self-identities and social identities—and its
interconnections to the health and well-being of
Indigenous peoples and the African diaspora (Chapman,
2007; Diawara, 2000; Hill, Pace, & Robbins, 2010;
Kempf, 2002; Rothe et al., 2006; Schiwy, 2007). Some
forms of decolonized knowing discussed in the literature
included the integration and incorporation of cultural
knowing/knowledge, and the reclamation of voice within
knowing practices (Mama, 2000; Orr, Paul, & Paul,
2002). Decolonizing knowing is also demonstrative of a
relational ontology within communities; with the living
and nonliving; the mind, body, and spirit; and the past,
present, and future (Restoule, Archibald, Lester-Smith,
Parent, & Smillie, 2010). This connectedness was reflec-
tive of a holistic approach to health (Brown, 1999;
Finnstrom & Soderhamn, 2006).
The literature also identified the ethical responsibility
for research to be conducted with, for, and by Indigenous
peoples and the African diaspora (Bull, 2010). This ethi-
cal stance promotes community leadership and participa-
tion; fosters active collaboration with community
members; selects culturally appropriate research methods
that are congruent with Indigenous and Afrocentric ways
of knowing (e.g., sharing circles, narrative and storytell-
ing, oral testimonies, and creative/artistic approaches);
conducts research of community benefit, relevance, and
local utility; develops research mechanisms that foster
community ownership/control; and allows reflexivity to
emerge while engaging in participatory research pro-
cesses with Indigenous and African diaspora communi-
ties (Abram & Cruce, 2007; Harvey & Afful, 2011;
Sharma, Gittelsohn, Rosol, & Beck, 2010).
Yet, the literature also described tensions of engaging
in decolonizing knowing practices within Western aca-
demic spaces, including the tensions of ownership/control
when engaging in academic/community collaborations;
and the tensions of Indigenous/Afrocentric knowing
within Eurocentric spaces (Cargo et al., 2008; Wyeth,
Derrett, Hokowhitu, Hall, & Langley, 2010). Two-eyed
Chambers et al. 7
seeing/double consciousness (Du Bois, 1903; Hatcher,
Bartlett, Marshall, & Marshall, 2009)—seeing that uses
the strength of both Indigenous/Afrocentric and Western
ways of knowing—was noted as potentially congruent
with decolonized knowing as it could utilize Western
approaches to research alongside Indigenous and
Afrocentric worldviews (Auer & Andersson, 2001;
Stroink & Nelson, 2009). Other tensions still arise, includ-
ing the incompatibility of some Western ontologies with
Indigenous/Afrocentric worldviews, academic “gatekeep-
ers” who privilege Euro-Western epistemologies and
methodologies as the universal standard, conflicting con-
ceptual understandings of health and well-being, and the
challenges of reconciling cultural authenticity and rela-
tional axiology with academic definitions of ethical, rigor-
ous, and valid research (Mila-Schaaf & Hudson, 2009;
Nsamenang, 2006; Snively & Corsiglia, 2001; Thomas
et al., 2009).
Thematic Findings: Our Reflection on Our
Scoping Review Process and Decolonizing
Knowing
Although engaging in a scoping review process allowed
us to distill and synthesize common themes, as we syn-
thesized the literature, we questioned if our own pro-
cesses were colonizing. We questioned if we were
homogenizing the literature and possibly erasing impor-
tant nuances and outliers through the process.
Furthermore, we realized we were ignoring important
precepts of Indigenous and Afrocentric knowledges, such
as valuing diverse perspectives, worldviews, and episte-
mologies; the localized nature of knowledge; and it being
situated within the lived realities of Indigenous peoples
and the African diaspora. Drawing from our thematic
analysis of our reflections and integrating quotes from
members of our research team at our videotaped circle,
we highlight several tensions we experienced using
Western grounded scoping review methodologies for
synthesizing decolonizing methodological literature.
Tensions with the scoping review process: Ontological and
epistemological disjunctures
. . . That’s one of the biggest tensions I’ve experienced, this
need to validate ourselves to our colleagues, who adhere to
Western ways of knowing. And I find that a little tense, for
lack of a better word. Because I think validity might mean
something different for us and for this way of knowing.
(Emphasis added)
One of the tensions we experienced derived from the
processes embedded in completing a scoping review. We
considered these tensions as epistemological and onto-
logical disjunctures between methodology and method,
and the worldviews and theories of knowledge that
emerged from the literature we were reviewing. We
noticed a lack of fit between the linear, reductionist,
Eurocentric scoping review methodologies such as creat-
ing hierarchies (or tiers) of evidence that we reproduced
through our inclusion processes. This approach seemed
incongruent with the more holistic, integrated, and criti-
cal approaches offered in the literature we were
exploring.
In our collective dialogues, we discussed the impor-
tance of reviewing the decolonizing literature to articu-
late concepts, methodologies, and theories that we have
not had the space to articulate to our HIV research col-
leagues. We also desired to produce outcomes in a man-
ner that we hoped our colleagues would be able to
respect. And though we were pleased with the findings
that had emerged through our engagement with the
decolonizing literature, we questioned the appropriate-
ness of scoping review methodologies for the literature
that we were reviewing as illustrated by the quote above.
Particularly, we wondered if we were using scoping
review methods—as an approach to knowledge synthe-
sis well-recognized in mainstream health research—to
not only validate our methodological approach but also
perhaps to validate ourselves. Yet, in exploring research
framed within Indigenous and Afrocentric worldviews,
we were inherently questioning the definition of research
validity and how validity within these frameworks is
materially different from that in dominant research.
We also questioned our epistemological and ontologi-
cal approach and its congruence with the literature we
were reviewing:
When we’re doing a scoping review . . . we need to start
from a place that understands that information from the
worldviews and perspectives of the people who originally
created it. (Emphasis added)
As noted in this quote, this knowing is a reflexive pro-
cess that is grounded in the worldviews of the people
whose knowledge we are trying to impart. Knowing as a
reflexive process is an important concept in Indigenous
and Afrocentric worldviews, as it is situated within socio-
historical, cultural, and political contexts. Knowing as a
self-reflective and embodied process brings forth our
ancestral or cultural wisdom (Dillard, 2012; S. Wilson,
2008). This knowing process cultivates deep listening
and engagement in ways that required us to take time to
integrate the lessons offered within the decolonizing lit-
erature for Indigenous peoples and the African diaspora
(Kovach, 2010). Reflexive knowing from a decolonizing
worldview is also relational, as it derives and develops
through our relationships with others (Dei, 2012b). Our
cyclical and dialogic approach to knowing embodied
8 Qualitative Health Research 00(0)
Indigenous and Afrocentric worldviews; moreover, com-
munal conversations deepened our individual and collec-
tive understanding (S. Wilson, 2008). Thus, the ways in
which we grappled with our ontological and epistemo-
logical disjunctures—in collective dialogue—embodied
decolonized knowing-in-action:
Tensions with the scoping review process: Concepts and
language
To jump back to methods, this is powerful self-work. It’s
also about new self in relation, and co-creating meaning.
What does that mean when we try to distill messages down?
. . . And we can do that, but the words don’t cut it. So I
struggle with that . . . What do we do with the words? Words
aren’t enough. (Emphasis added)
A second tension we experienced was related to
concepts and how they are bound by (English) lan-
guage and Euro-Western worldviews. We found it dif-
ficult to name key concepts such as Indigenous and
African diaspora where in the lived world these con-
cepts are complex, blurred, and sometimes blended.
For instance, these terms impose definitions of what is
African diaspora and what is Indigenous as if they
were separate, definable, and distinct. Using these con-
cepts disregards the interconnectivity among these
groups like the Seminoles in the United States; the
diverse ethnocultural makeup of Caribbean, Central,
and South American populations; and even individuals
who identify as both Black Canadian and Indigenous
peoples within Canada itself. This essentialized nam-
ing also ignored the fluid identifications exemplified
within our team, where some of us identify as
Indigenous and as African diaspora depending on the
cultural and geopolitical context. Our terminology
defined and essentialized populations that are not eas-
ily differentiated, and populations with mixed ances-
tral histories that in some cases were indicative of
colonization. In this struggle to name our populations
of interest, we grappled with the tensions of such nam-
ing as these names carried with them historical, tempo-
ral, and social inscriptions that are not amply captured
in the concepts themselves.
We also struggled with translating various Indigenous/
African diasporic understandings of health into categori-
cal terms for our data abstraction. The literature we
encountered typically applied holistic approaches to
health highlighting the interconnectedness of mind,
body, soul, and spirit; the past, present, and future; and
the individual and the social (Dei, 2012a). However, our
use of biomedical terms failed to capture these historical,
social, spiritual, communal aspects of health for
Indigenous peoples and peoples of the African diaspora.
For instance, the literature we originally classified as
“diabetic health” also spoke about colonization (i.e., loss
of hunter–gatherer lifestyles and access to traditional
foods) and cultural and communal aspects of food (i.e.,
relationship with land and animals; food sharing as a
communal practice) and its relationship to dietary health
(Bird, Wiles, Okalik, Kilabuk, & Egeland, 2009; Giles,
Haas, Šajna, & Findlay, 2008; Mendenhall et al., 2010).
The literature we categorized as “mental health” also
spoke about its physical, emotional, spiritual, cultural,
and social interconnectivity (Brown, 1999; Mark &
Lyons, 2010; Mila-Schaaf & Hudson, 2009). In our bio-
medical classifications, we disconnected “physical” and
“mental” health from its emotional, social, cultural, spir-
itual, systematic, and structural aspects; thus, these clas-
sifications were incongruent with Indigenous/Afrocentric
understandings of holistic health. In our scoping review
process, we were forcing concepts from one language/
way of thinking into (primarily) Euro-Western terminol-
ogy/worldviews and as one team member remarked,
“into the language of the colonizer.” This difficulty with
concepts and words and in our reductionist approach of
using language and applying concepts to simplify our
review processes allowed us to reflect on what got lost in
applying scoping review methodologies, and what mean-
ing was imposed through language. As summarized in
the quote above, “Words aren’t enough.”
Finally, we had difficulty with the inclusion/exclusion
process. In scoping reviews, inclusion and exclusion cri-
teria are used to ensure that the literature included are
deemed to be relevant for the study. Yet, this was experi-
enced by the team as a reductive approach that was incon-
gruent with the literature we were encountering. Thus, we
felt like we were “shoehorning” articles in (or out). One
of us remarked on the irony of the terms inclusion and
exclusion used for literature documenting research
approaches/worldviews that eschewed such simplistic
classification:
I actually read one article that was a definite “exclude.” And
you know, when you reach the conclusion, and you realize,
you know, this actually needed to be said, and to be
understood in the context in which we are working. But if I
didn’t read it, I’d just have left it. And said, you know what,
this is not worth including, because it doesn’t cover the
different topics we are working on. But the conclusions were
very relevant to what we are actually doing, and I thought,
“What are we going to do?” (Emphasis added)
And so, part of what we did through this reflexive
work was to trouble the ways in which we conducted our
inclusion process and how we applied the concepts used
for inclusion and exclusion. We tried to soften the edges
of the scoping methodology, and many of us ended up
reading not only the “includes,” but also the “excludes”
as noted in the quote above:
Chambers et al. 9
Tensions with the scoping review process: Reader’s relation-
ship with the literature and beyond
It’s the way this paper teaches me something, or the way that
I interpret what they’re talking about in this section or in this
paragraph . . . I don’t know if a scoping review is supposed
to do that. But that mimics the way that I actually learn from
the literature outside of this project as well. Sometimes it’s
the direct content; it’s written in the conclusion section. But
sometimes it’s like, I don’t know, the relationship that I
build with the author and the journal and the content.
(Emphasis added)
A third tension that we had with the scoping review
process derived from the reader’s relationship with the
literature. Knowing is not a linear process but is often a
circular/spiralling process that bridges past with present
and uses historical knowledge in contemporary contexts.
From a Western perspective, we define this as the herme-
neutic circle or moving back and forth between the text
itself and its broader context to glean a comprehensive
understanding of the phenomenon under study (Gadamer,
2004). From a decolonizing standpoint, this interpretive
process also requires a holistic engagement with the lit-
erature: the relationship created between the reader and
the literature, the relationship the literature has with other
researchers and communities, and the contexts in which
the literature and the reader are situated and the literature
is interpreted. As illustrated in the quote above, we
reflected on how we personally engaged with the litera-
ture: not only the writing, but also consciously with the
writers, their ideas, and the contexts within which these
are placed.
This holistic reading also required us to consider audi-
ence and responsibility—whose responsibility is it to
understand and to change? These tensions are illustrated
in the following quote:
If we want to influence and share—perhaps some of the
people, . . . who haven’t been exposed to, who aren’t from
our cultures, who aren’t working with our communities, . . .
how do we present something in a way that’s familiar enough
for them to pick it up? And do we have to? (Emphasis added)
As we considered the potential audiences for sharing
our findings, we grappled with our role in transferring
this knowledge and guiding audiences’ understandings—
and our responsibility for that. We also troubled how
colonial relations assume that Indigenous people and
people from the African diaspora are responsible for
transferring and translating Indigenous and Afrocentric
knowledges into Western ways of understanding. We
asked ourselves whether allied colleagues also have a
responsibility to learn from Indigenous and African dia-
sporic scholars and of frameworks that are grounded in
Indigenous and Afrocentric worldviews. Thomas King
(2003) described how Indigenous writers layer Indigenous
stories against those that are commonly known outside
these contexts. Our stories—when we do this—become
recognizable to both audiences. Yet, it also implicates the
audience to be responsible for interpretation and integrat-
ing new knowledge. As King declares, “Just don’t say in
the years to come that you would have lived your life
differently if only you had heard this story. You’ve heard
it now” (p. 151).
Discussion and Conclusion
Our engagement with the literature on decolonizing
knowing with and for Indigenous peoples and the African
diaspora impelled us to decolonize our approach and to
develop a collective methodological process that was
congruent with the literature we were encountering. This
process became less a knowledge synthesis project using
a scoping review methodology and more an ontological
and epistemological (re)knowing through our immersion
and our connection with decolonizing knowing perspec-
tives. Consistent with the value we placed on Indigenous
and Afrocentric knowing, this way of interacting with the
literature became an embodied, group practice which will
be connected to the health research work we have yet to
do from a place of decolonized knowing.
Our epistemological and ontological disjunctures were
illustrative of the tensions of two-eyed seeing/double
consciousness in which we are engaged. We struggled
with following Western requirements for rigor as some of
these requirements seemed incongruent with our emerg-
ing understandings of Indigenous and Afrocentric know-
ing and decolonizing approaches in research. We
questioned, for example, whether our critical, reflexive,
dialogical engagement with the literature in the context of
decolonizing knowing would be perceived by our non-
Indigenous peers as rigorous. Our desire to revise our
methodological processes represents our attempt to strad-
dle two worlds rather than resolve the tensions. Instead,
we attempted to devise ways to fruitfully live with the
tensions that respected our own positioning as Indigenous,
African diasporic, and allied scholars. This straddling of
worldviews and its tensions is consistent with the decolo-
nizing literature that we encountered and highlights the
need for broader or alternative forms of rigor that might
be used when reading and performing decolonizing
knowing in health research. Quite simply, it begs the
question that the use of decolonizing knowing is best
evaluated from within the epistemological tradition from
which it emerged.
We also consider our project as an ontological and
epistemological journey toward knowing from a different
place—one that acknowledges the colonial context of
knowing and strives to develop new ways of moving
10 Qualitative Health Research 00(0)
toward full engagement with multiple ways of knowing.
Looking beyond the words and bringing forth context
was illustrative of the space in which two worlds work
together, blend, and merge. Our collective and open dia-
logues created the necessary space for the inductivity and
reflexivity which was key to us successfully bringing for-
ward Indigenous and Afrocentric knowing into our
research process. Inductivity allowed us to shift our
methodological approach such that it was congruent with
the literature that we were reviewing; reflexivity through
collective dialogue encouraged us to think within our
experiences of our scoping review process and consider
the broader context of knowledge generation and our
roles in its production. Although inductivity certainly has
a place in methodological rigor, without reflexivity we
might never have asked whether Western defined scoping
review practices were a meaningful fit with Indigenous
and Afrocentric knowing.
Our engagement with the literature also reminds us of
our ethical responsibilities to the communities to which
we are aligned and allied. From a decolonizing knowing
standpoint, we have an ethical if not a moral responsibility
to trouble methodology and method (Castellano, 2000).
This moral responsibility includes questioning the “whos
and whys” of inquiry: for whom are we conducting this
research and why is this research of relevance to the com-
munity for and with which we work? It takes up the call
issued by McLeod (2007) to “engage [research] through
the lens of those who originally experienced it” (p. 17).
Perhaps because of our dialoguing with these tensions,
we have found this methodological process a personally
and collectively transforming experience. Our tensions
with methodology and method led us on an ontological and
epistemological journey with and through the decolonizing
literature with and for Indigenous peoples and the African
diaspora. Consequently, this journey integrated the princi-
ples of decolonizing knowing into our methodological pro-
cess: It was social as well as individual, dialogical and
reflexive, holistic and circular, and emotional and spiritual
as well as intellectual. This dialoguing with the tensions
has allowed us as health researchers to mindfully integrate
decolonizing knowing within our research work with and
for Indigenous people and the African diaspora.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the following who have been
involved on our project: Angela Eady, Rémy Huberdeau, Doe
O’Brien-Teengs, Erin Konsmo, Carmen Plante, Christine
Smilie-Adjarkwa, Michael Antwi and those who came to the
consultations at AIDS 2012 in Washington, DC. Earlier drafts
of our work were also presented at the ASSHH 2013 conference
in Paris, France, the OHTN 2013 conference in Toronto,
Canada, the Indigenous pre-conference in Sydney and at AIDS
2014 in Melbourne, Australia.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this arti-
cle: This work was supported by the CIHR Social Research
Centre in HIV Prevention (SRC) through a seed grant; and the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) through a proj-
ect planning grant [Funding Reference Number 124853]. The
funders had no role in the study design, the data collection and
analysis, the decision to publish, or in the preparation of the
manuscript. Additionally, a number of investigators are the
recipients of student support from the Vanier Canada Graduate
Scholarships, Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the
Ontario HIV Treatment Network.
Notes
1. Although there is no universal definition for Indigenous
people as it is understood as a self-defining term that can
be conceptualized differently across societies, it has been
commonly understood as people who have “a historical
continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies
that developed on their territories, consider themselves
distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing
on those territories, or parts of them”(Asia Pacific Forum
of National Human Rights Institutions & The Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
2013). More recently, the term has been used to collec-
tivize and politicize colonial struggles shared among First
Peoples globally (Smith, 2012). Although this article
applies the collectivist usage of the term, it also acknowl-
edges the problematic nature of its usage. For instance,
member of our team who have indigenous ties to conti-
nental Africa define themselves as African diaspora in the
Canadian context, though this does not negate their indig-
enous ties to territories in continental Africa. The com-
plexities of population categories, many of which are both
constituted within and resistant of colonial categorizations,
exist as salient tensions in decolonizing thought.
2. Peoples of African descent is a diverse group consisting of
people indigenous to continental Africa and people who
identify African ancestry (e.g., African American, Black
Canadian, Afro-Cuban) who are living outside of continental
Africa including but not exclusive to North America, Central
America, South America, the Caribbean, and Europe.
3. Afrocentric refers to ways of knowing or worldviews of
peoples of African descent that is founded on their histo-
ries, cultural practices, and local knowledges. Although we
acknowledged that the term evolved from African diasporic
scholarship in the Americas, it has increasingly been used
to recognize the cultural precepts that guide the local know-
ing practices of peoples of African descent. Using termi-
nology that emphasizes the commonalities among African
indigenous and diasporic worldviews has become part of a
Chambers et al. 11
broader decolonizing project with, for, and by peoples of
African descent centered on cultural affirmation, reclama-
tion, and consciousness (Asante, 2016; Mkabela, 2005).
4. Aboriginal people is the term commonly used to designate
the Indigenous peoples within the geographic nation-state
of Canada and comprises the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis.
5. African diaspora refers to peoples of African descent who
are living outside of the African continent. It is also com-
monly understood as a collective term that both harkens back
to ancestral roots in continental African as well as the his-
torical and recent displacement of persons of African descent
due to imperialism, colonization, neocolonialism, and glo-
balized capitalist projects (Gilroy, 1993; Zeleza, 2005). We
use “African diaspora” when specifically referring to peoples
living outside of continental Africa, including but not exclu-
sive to peoples of African descent living in Canada.
6. Indigenous knowing is engaged in by and for Indigenous
people and uses techniques drawn from traditional
Indigenous practices as part of a wider framework of self-
determination, decolonization, and social justice (Evans,
Hole, Berg, Hutchinson, & Sookraj, 2009).
7. Southern theory defines the body of knowledge produced
by thinkers from former imperialist colonies to examine
their social condition in the current geopolitical context of
the “postcolonial” era (Connell, 2007).
Supplemental Material
Supplementary material for this artticle is avaiable online.
References
Abram, F. Y., & Cruce, A. (2007). A re-conceptualization
of “reverse mission” for International social work edu-
cation and practice. Social Work Education, 26, 3–19.
doi:10.1080/02615470601036393
African and Caribbean Council on HIV/AIDS in Ontario &
Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network (Producer). (2014a,
December 11). Decolonizing methodologies: Colonization
[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=bDsmHziActY&t=32s
African and Caribbean Council on HIV/AIDS in Ontario &
Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network (Producer). (2014b,
March 6). Decolonizing methodologies: Engagement with
the literature [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=SCsNvMwEqJE
African and Caribbean Council on HIV/AIDS in Ontario &
Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network (Producer). (2014c,
March 6). Decolonizing methodologies: The scoping
review process [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=t6dX94LVEZA&feature=youtu.be
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies:
Towards a methodological framework. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 19–32.
doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616
Asante, M. K. (2016). Afrocentricity. In K. B. Jensen, R. T.
Craig, J. D. Pooley, & E. W. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), The
international encyclopedia of communication theory
and philosophy (pp. 1–6). Malden, MA: John Wiley.
doi:10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect128
Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions &
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights. (2013). The United Nations declaration on
the rights of indigenous peoples. Sydney: United Nations.
Auer, A. M., & Andersson, R. (2001). Canadian Aboriginal
communities and medical service patterns for the man-
agement of injured patients. Public Health, 115, 44–50.
doi:10.1038/sj.ph.1900712
Barroso, J., & Powell-Cope, G. M. (2000). Metasynthesis
of qualitative research on living with HIV infec-
tion. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 340–353.
doi:10.1177/104973200129118480
Bird, S., Wiles, J. L., Okalik, L., Kilabuk, J., & Egeland, G. M.
(2009). Methodological consideration of story telling in quali-
tative research involving indigenous peoples. Global Health
Promotion, 16, 16–26. doi:10.1177/1757975909348111
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psy-
chology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brown, R. (1999). Indigenous mental health: The Rainbow
Serpent awakening. The International Journal of
Psychiatric Nursing Research, 4, 475–481.
Bull, J. R. (2010). Research with Aboriginal peoples: Authentic
relationships as a precursor to ethical research. Journal
of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(4),
13–22. doi:10.1525/jer.2010.5.4.13
Cargo, M., Delormier, T., Lévesque, L., Horn-Miller, K.,
McComber, A., & Macaulay, A. C. (2008). Can the demo-
cratic ideal of participatory research be achieved? An inside
look at an academic–indigenous community partnership.
Health Education Research, 23, 904–914. doi:10.1093/her/
cym077
Castellano, M. B. (2000). Updating Aboriginal traditions of
knowledge. In B. L. Hall, G. J. S. Dei, & D. G. Rosenberg
(Eds.), Indigenous knowledges in global contexts: Multiple
readings of our world (pp. 21–36). Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Chambers, L. A., Wilson, M. G., Rueda, S., Gogolishvili, D.,
Shi, M. Q., Rourke, S. B., & The Positive Aging Review
Team. (2014). Evidence informing the intersection of HIV,
aging and health: A scoping review. AIDS and Behavior,
18, 661–675. doi:10.1007/s10461-013-0627-5
Chapman, T. K. (2007). The power of contexts: Teaching and
learning in recently desegregated schools. Anthropology
& Education Quarterly, 38, 297–315. doi:10.1525/
aeq.2007.38.3.297
Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. Los
Angeles: Sage.
Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of
knowledge in social science. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Dei, G. J. S. (2012a). Indigenous anti-colonial knowledge as
“heritage knowledge” for promoting Black/African edu-
cation in diasporic contexts. Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society, 1, 102–119.
Dei, G. J. S. (2012b). “Suahunu,” the trialectic space. Journal of
Black Studies, 43, 823–846. doi:10.1177/0021934712463065
Dei, G. J. S. (2015). Conceptualizing indigeneity and the impli-
cations for indigenous research and African development.
Confluence: Journal of World Philosophies, 2, 52–79.
12 Qualitative Health Research 00(0)
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Introduction: Critical
methodologies and indigenous inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S.
Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indig-
enous methodologies (pp. 1–20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Diawara, M. (2000). Globalization, development politics and
local knowledge. International Sociology, 15, 361–371.
doi:10.1177/0268580900015002013
Dillard, C. B. (2012). Learning to (re) member the things we’ve
learned to forget: Endarkened feminisms, spirituality, and the
sacred nature of research & teaching. New York: Peter Lang.
Dillon, P. J., & Basu, A. (2014). HIV/AIDS and minority men
who have sex with men: A meta-ethnographic synthesis of
qualitative research. Health Communication, 29, 182–192.
doi:10.1080/10410236.2012.732911
Dlamini, S. N., Maticka-Tyndale, E., Omorodion, F., Anucha, U.,
Lowik, A. J., & Team, H. R. (2012). What does a decoloniz-
ing/decentralizing methodology in examining sexual lives
entail? African Journal of Reproductive Health, 16, 55–70.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903). The souls of Black folk. Chicago:
A.C. McClurg.
Dunbar, C., Jr. (2008). Critical race theory and indigenous
methodologies. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T.
Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous method-
ologies (pp. 85–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eakin, J. M., & Mykhalovskiy, E. (2003). Reframing the evalu-
ation of qualitative health research: Reflections on a review
of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences. Journal of
Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 9, 187–194. doi:10.1046/
j.1365-2753.2003.00392.x
Evans, M., Hole, R., Berg, L. D., Hutchinson, P., & Sookraj,
D. (2009). Common insights, differing methodologies:
Toward a fusion of indigenous methodologies, participa-
tory action research, and white studies in an urban aborigi-
nal research agenda. Qualitative Inquiry, 15, 893–910.
doi:10.1177/1077800409333392
Fanon, F. (1967). A dying colonialism. New York: Grove Press.
Finnstrom, B., & Soderhamn, O. (2006). Conceptions of pain
among Somali women. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54,
418–425. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03838.x
Gadamer, H. G. (2004). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer, &
D. G. Marshall, Trans., 2nd ed.). London: Continuum.
Giles, B. G., Haas, G., Šajna, M., & Findlay, C. S. (2008).
Exploring Aboriginal views of health using fuzzy cogni-
tive maps and transitive closure: A case study of the deter-
minants of diabetes. Canadian Journal of Public Health/
Revue Canadienne de Sante’e Publique, 99, 411–417.
Gilroy, P. (1993). The Black Atlantic: Modernity and double
consciousness. London: Verso.
Harvey, R. D., & Afful, S. E. (2011). Racial typicality, racial
identity, and health behaviors: A case for culturally sensi-
tive health interventions. Journal of Black Psychology, 37,
164–184. doi:10.1177/0095798410376244
Hatcher, A., Bartlett, C., Marshall, M., & Marshall, A. (2009).
Two-eyed seeing: A cross-cultural science journey. Green
Teacher, 86, 3–6.
Hill, J. S., Pace, T. M., & Robbins, R. R. (2010). Decolonizing
personality assessment and honoring indigenous voices:
A critical examination of the MMPI-2. Cultural Diversity
& Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 16–25. doi:10.1037/
a0016110
Hovey, R. B., Delormier, T., McComber, A. M., Lévesque, L.,
& Martin, D. (2017). Enhancing Indigenous health pro-
motion research through two-eyed seeing: A hermeneutic
relational process. Qualitative Health Research, 27, 1278–
1287. doi:10.1177/1049732317697948
Kagawa-Singer, M., Dressler, W., George, S., & The NIH
Expert Panel. (2016). Culture: The missing link in health
research. Social Science & Medicine, 170, 237–246.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.015
Kempf, W. (2002). The politics of incorporation: Masculinity,
spatiality and modernity among the Ngaing of Papua New
Guinea. Oceania, 73, 56–77. doi:10.1002/j.1834-4461.2002.
tb02806.x
King, T. (2003). The truth about stories: A native narrative.
Toronto: House of Anansi.
Kovach, M. E. (2010). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics,
conversations, and contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Lather, P. (1999). To be of use: The work of review-
ing. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 2–7.
doi:10.3102/00346543069001002
Lavallee, L. F. (2009). Practical application of an Indigenous
research framework and two qualitative Indigenous
research methods: Sharing circles and Anishnaabe sym-
bol-based reflection. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 8, 21–40. doi:10.1177/160940690900800103
Lazarus, S. (2006). Indigenous approaches to health promo-
tion: Challenges for education support in South Africa.
South African Journal of Psychology, 36, 521–546.
doi:10.1177/008124630603600306
Loppie, C. (2007). Learning from the grandmothers:
Incorporating Indigenous principles into qualitative
research. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 276–284.
doi:10.1177/1049732306297905
Lundgren, J. (2008). Fanon and beyond: Decolonizing indig-
enous subjects in Jeannette Armstrong’s “Slash” and Lee
Maracle’s “Sundogs.” The Canadian Journal of Native
Studies, 28, 399–419.
MacLure, M. (2005). “Clarity bordering on stupidity”: Where’s
the quality in systematic review? Journal of Education
Policy, 20, 393–416. doi:10.1080/02680930500131801
Mama, A. (2000). Strengthening civil society: Participatory
action research in a militarised state. Development in
Practice, 10, 59–70. doi:10.1080/09614520052501
Mark, G. T., & Lyons, A. C. (2010). Maori healers’ views on
wellbeing: The importance of mind, body, spirit, fam-
ily and land. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1756–1764.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.02.001
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching. London, England: Sage.
Mays, N., Roberts, E., & Popay, J. (2001). Synthesising
research evidence. In N. Fulop, P. Allen, A. Clarke, & N.
Black (Eds.), Studying the organisation and delivery of
health services: Research methods (pp. 188–220). London:
Routledge.
McLeod, N. (2007). Cree narrative memory: From treaties to
contemporary times. Saskatoon, SK: Purich.
Mendenhall, T. J., Berge, J. M., Harper, P., GreenCrow,
B., LittleWalker, N., WhiteEagle, S., & BrownOwl,
S. (2010). The Family Education Diabetes Series
(FEDS): Community-based participatory research with a
Chambers et al. 13
Midwestern American Indian community. Nursing Inquiry,
17, 359–372. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1800.2010.00508.x
Mila-Schaaf, K., & Hudson, M. (2009). The interface between
cultural understandings: Negotiating new spaces for Pacific
mental health. Pacific Health Dialog, 15, 113–119.
Mkabela, Q. (2005). Using the Afrocentric method in research-
ing indigenous African culture. The Qualitative Report, 10,
178–189.
Mundel, E., & Chapman, G. E. (2010). A decolonizing
approach to health promotion in Canada: The case of the
Urban Aboriginal Community Kitchen Garden Project.
Health Promotion International, 25, 166–173. doi:101093/
heapro/daq016
Nsamenang, A. B. (2006). Human ontogenesis: An indig-
enous African view on development and intelligence.
International Journal of Psychology, 41, 293–297.
doi:10.1080/00207590544000077
Orr, J., Paul, J. J., & Paul, S. (2002). Decolonizing Mi’kmaw
education through cultural practical knowledge. McGill
Journal of Education, 37, 331–353.
Parker, R. (2001). Sexuality, culture, and power in HIV/AIDS
research. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 163–179.
Peltier, D., Jackson, R., Prentice, T., Masching, R., Monette,
L., Fong, M., & Shore, K. (2013). When women pick up
their bundles: HIV prevention and related services needs
of Aboriginal women in Canada. In J. Gahagan (Ed.), HIV
prevention and women in Canada (pp. 85–104). Toronto:
Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Pope, C. (2003). Resisting evidence: The study of evidence-
based medicine as a contemporary social movement.
Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social
Study of Health, Illness and Medicine, 7, 267–282.
doi:10.1177/1363459303007003002
Racine, L., & Petrucka, P. (2011). Enhancing decolonization and
knowledge transfer in nursing research with non-western
populations: Examining the congruence between primary
healthcare and postcolonial feminist approaches. Nursing
Inquiry, 18, 12–20. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1800.2010.00504.x
Restoule, J.-P., Archibald, J.-A., Lester-Smith, D., Parent, A.,
& Smillie, C. A. (2010). Editorial: Connecting to spirit
in Indigenous research. Canadian Journal of Native
Education, 33, 1–8, 154–156.
Rothe, J. P., Makokis, P., Steinhauer, L., Aguiar, W., Makokis,
L., & Brertton, G. (2006). The role played by a former
federal government residential school in a First Nation
community’s alcohol abuse and impaired driving: Results
of a talking circle. International Journal of Circumpolar
Health, 65, 347–356. doi:10.3402/ijch.v65i4.18126
Sackett, D. L. (1997). Evidence-based medicine. Seminars in
Perinatology, 21, 3–5. doi:10.1016/S0146-0005(97)80013-4
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R.
B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine:
What it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312,
Article 71. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
Sandelowski, M., Lambe, C., & Barroso, J. (2004). Stigma in
HIV-positive women. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 36,
122–128. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2004.04024.x
Schiwy, F. (2007). Decolonization and the ques-
tion of subjectivity. Cultural Studies, 21, 271–294.
doi:10.1080/09502380601162555
Sharma, S., Gittelsohn, J., Rosol, R., & Beck, L. (2010).
Addressing the public health burden caused by the nutri-
tion transition through the Healthy Foods North nutri-
tion and lifestyle intervention programme. Journal of
Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 23(Suppl. 1), 120–127.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-277X.2010.01107.x
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research
and indigenous peoples. New York: Zed Books.
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research
and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). New York: Zed books.
Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2001). Discovering indigenous sci-
ence: Implications for science education. Science Education,
85, 6–34. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200101)85:1<6::AID-
SCE3>3.0.CO;2-R
Souleymanov, R., Kuzmanović, D., Marshall, Z., Scheim, A.,
Mikiki, M., Worthington, C., & Millson, P. (2016). The
ethics of community-based research with people who use
drugs: Results of a scoping review. BMC Medical Ethics,
17, Article 25. doi:10.1186/s12910-016-0108-2
Spivak, G. C. (1995). The Spivak reader: Selected works of
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. New York: Routledge.
Stroink, M. L., & Nelson, C. H. (2009). Aboriginal health learn-
ing in the forest and cultivated gardens: Building a nutritious
and sustainable food system. Journal of Agromedicine, 14,
263–269. doi:10.1080/10599240902739737
Thomas, L. R., Donovan, D. M., Sigo, R. L. W., Austin, L.,
& Marlatt, G. A., & The Suquamish Tribe. (2009). The
community pulling together: A tribal community-uni-
versity partnership project to reduce substance abuse and
promote good health in a reservation tribal community.
Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 8, 283–300.
doi:10.1080/15332640903110476
Thorne, S. (2017). Metasynthetic madness: What kind of mon-
ster have we created? Qualitative Health Research, 27,
3–12. doi:10.1177/1049732316679370
Waldron, I. (2010). The marginalization of African indigenous
healing traditions within western medicine: Reconciling
ideological tensions & contradictions along the epistemo-
logical terrain. Women’s Health & Urban Life, 9, 50–68.
Wand, A. P. F., & Eades, S. J. (2008). Navigating the process
of developing a research project in Aboriginal health. The
Medical Journal of Australia, 188, 584–587.
wa Thiong’o, N. (1986). Decolonising the mind: The politics of
language in African literature. Nairobi, KE: East African.
Wilson, C. L. (2015, October). Research and evidence-
based practices in HIV prevention, treatment and
care [Presentation]. Paper presented at the En Avant:
Implementing an Impact-Focused HIV/AIDS Research
Strategy for African, Caribbean and Black Communities in
Ontario, Toronto.
Wilson, M. G., Husband, W., Makoroka, L., Rueda, S.,
Greenspan, N. R., Eady, A., . . . Rourke, S. B. (2013).
Counselling, case management and health promotion for
people living with HIV/AIDS: An overview of systematic
reviews. AIDS and Behavior, 17, 1612–1625. doi:10.1007/
s10461-012-0283-1
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research
methods. Halifax, NS: Fernwood.
Worthington, C., O’Brien, K., Zack, E., Mckee, E., & Oliver, B.
(2012). Enhancing labour force participation for people living
14 Qualitative Health Research 00(0)
with HIV: A multi-perspective summary of the research evi-
dence. AIDS and Behavior, 16, 231–243. doi:10.1007/s10461-
011-9986-y
Wyeth, E. H., Derrett, S., Hokowhitu, B., Hall, C., & Langley,
J. (2010). Rangatiratanga and Ōritetanga: Responses to the
Treaty of Waitangi in a New Zealand study. Ethnicity &
Health, 15, 303–316. doi:10.1080/13557851003721194
Zeleza, P. T. (2005). Rewriting the African diaspora: Beyond
the Black Atlantic. African Affairs, 104(414), 35–68.
Author Biographies
Lori A. Chambers, MSW, PhD candidate is second generation,
Black Canadian of Jamaican descent. She is a social worker, HIV
advocate and community health research, completing her PhD in
the School of Social Work at McMaster University, Hamilton,
Ontario. Her research uses decolonizing knowing, transnational
feminist thought and anti-colonial theories to reimage commu-
nity-based health research as culturally responsive knowledge
generation, and to develop performance-based narrative method-
ologies grounded in African and Caribbean standpoints.
Randy Jackson, PhD, is Anishinaabe from Kettle and Stony Point
First Nation and is an assistant professor in the Department of
Health, Aging, and Society with a cross-appointment in the School
of Social Work at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. His
research draws on the Indigenous and decolonizing methodologies,
community-based participatory research, and two-eye seeing to
explore the strengths of Indigenous peoples with lived experience
responding to the challenges of HIV and AIDS.
Catherine Worthington, PhD is professor and director in the
School of Public Health and Social Policy, University of
Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia. Her community-engaged
research focuses on quality and access issues for community
health and social services, particularly for poorly-served com-
munities. She has conducted research in partnership with people
living with HIV, street-involved youth, Indigenous communi-
ties and organizations, and African immigrant communities on
studies related to the development and assessment of HIV pre-
vention and care services.
Ciann L. Wilson, PhD is an assistant professor in the
Department of Psychology, Program of Community Psychology
at Wilfrid Laurier University. Her lived experience as a Black
woman has shaped her research interests in CBR with African
diasporic and Indigenous communities; anti-colonial and criti-
cal race theories.
Wangari Tharao is the director of Research and Programs at
Women’s Health in Women’s Hands, a community health cen-
tre that provides primary healthcare services for African,
Caribbean, Black, Latin American and South Asian women in
Toronto and surrounding areas. She is also a community-based
researcher, researching HIV and related issues relevant to
immigrant, refugee and non-status women living in Canada
who have migrated from countries with generalized HIV epi-
demics, mainly Africa and the Caribbean. Her research bridges
knowledge generation, programmatic and policy practice to
support effective actions on HIV. Wangari is also a recognized
HIV advocate and has co-founded several local, provincial,
national and international networks including, the African and
Caribbean Council on HIV/AIDS in Ontario (ACCHO), the
Canadian HIV/AIDS Black, African and Caribbean Network
(CHABAC) and the African and Black Diaspora Global
Network on HIV and AIDS (ABDGN) to support Black popula-
tions living in Canada and other developed countries mount
effective responses to HIV/AIDS.
Nicole R. Greenspan, MHSc, PhD is a health services
researcher at the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute at St
Michael’s Hospital in Toronto. She has worked and conducted
research about the response to HIV for over 10 years. She has
collaborated and worked in solidarity with people from com-
munities most affected by HIV as an ally, working with and for
them about issues related to community-based care and organi-
zation of HIV and harm reduction services.
Renee Masching is First Nation from Southern Ontario.
Professionally Renée’s energies are dedicated to Aboriginal health.
Her work in the Aboriginal HIV and AIDS community began in
1995, and she is honoured to contribute with dedication and deter-
mination. She earned her degrees in Social Work at McMaster
University, with a CIHR research award for her Masters. Renée’s
research interests focus on community-based research frameworks,
Indigenous knowledge and community health with an emphasis on
HIV and AIDS. Presently, Renée is the Director of Research and
Policy with CAAN, and she lives with her husband, sons and pets
by the ocean in Mi’kmaq Territory.
Valérie Pierre-Pierre is the director at the African and
Caribbean Council on HIV/AIDS in Ontario (ACCHO) in
Toronto, Ontario.
Tola Mbulaheni, MA, formerly the Research Coordinator at
the African and Caribbean Council on HIV/AIDS in Ontario
(ACCHO), is currently the Project Coordinator, Promoting
Decent Work for Racialized Women at the Access Alliance
Multicultural Health and Community Services in Toronto,
Ontario.
Marni Amirault, MA is of Acadian and English/Irish descent.
She has her Master of Arts in cultural anthropology from the
University of Alberta where her research focused on Indigenous
media making in Canada. Marni currently holds the position of
Community-Based Research Manager (KT) with the AHA
Centre - a project of the Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network
(CAAN). She works collaboratively with academic and com-
munity researchers and organizations to build and maintain
relationships and offers support in all stages of Aboriginal HIV
and AIDS Community-Based Research. She is interested in
interdisciplinary team building and Two-Eyed Seeing.
Patrick Brownlee is an executive research Assistant with the
Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network’s Research and Policy
unit.