Decolonizing Anthropology in a Multipolar World: Methodological Critiques from Global South Gaze
Convener: Des Christy
Co-convener: Pujo Semedi
Aim
This panel will invite scholars to critically examine how anthropology might be decolonized in a multipolar world by interrogating the methodological assumptions that continue to structure ethnographic research, particularly dominant methods that remain implicitly centered on a Western gaze. By foregrounding ethnographic research conducted by Global South scholars in Global North contexts, the panel invites scholars with such experiences to discuss a pluriversal approach to anthropological methodology that recenters Global South epistemic perspectives.
Background and Rationale
The reflexive turn following Writing Culture generated sustained attention to the politics of representation and the positionality of the anthropologist, giving rise to concepts such as “near-self” (Jackson 1987), “native anthropology” (Karim 1992), and “halfies” (Abu-Lughod 1991). While these frameworks productively unsettled claims of objectivity, they largely presume Western scholars as the normative subjects of reflexivity. Despite early calls for non-Western anthropologists to conduct research in Western societies (e.g., Lévi-Strauss 1974), methodological discussions rarely address how fieldwork unfolds when the ethnographer is positioned as a Global South subject working within the Global North.
Existing methodological debates based on research in “Global North” context, such as on “studying up” (Nader 1972), elite research (Pierce, 1995; Guterson, 1997, and anthropology at home (Jackson 1987) similarly fall short in accounting of Global South anthropologists in doing research in the North. These approaches tend to conceptualize power in terms of class, institutional access, or proximity, rather than interrogating how colonial histories and epistemic hierarchies shape methodological encounters. A small number of African scholars (Obbo 1990; Ntarangwi 2010) have drawn attention to these tensions, framing them as “reverse anthropology”. Yet, this framing raises questions by treating Global South research in the Global North as an exception rather than a normal practice that support equal opportunity in knowledge production (Semedi 2024; Christy 2025).
Scope and Contribution
The panel focuses on methodological critique as a central site of decolonisation. Contributors will examine how standard ethnographic tools, such as participant observation, access negotiation, ethical review processes, and reflexive writing, are structured around Western assumptions about authority, familiarity, and legitimacy. Drawing on ethnographic experiences of researcher from South East Asia in “Global North” context, panellists will demonstrate how such positionality may exposes methodological blind spots that remain largely invisible within dominant anthropological frameworks.
However, rather than proposing a reversal of methodological hierarchies, the panel advocates for reworking ethnographic methods through pluriversal epistemologies. This includes questioning what are the challenges on conducting research in such positionality, who sets methodological norms, how credibility is evaluated, and which forms of reflexivity are deemed valid.
Key Questions
• How do dominant anthropological methods presume Western positionality as normative?
• What methodological tensions emerge when Global South scholars conduct fieldwork in Global North contexts?
• How can ethnographic methodology be reframed through pluriversal epistemic frameworks?
• What would it mean to decolonise anthropological methods rather than merely diversify research sites?