Building a feminist, decolonized research approach during COVID: what we learned and unlearned
In early 2020, a group of researchers from The Asia Foundation and Kore Global began a study of rising inequalities in Asian cities during COVID-19. The aim of our partnership was to develop a collaborative research approach and methodology that would equip country-based teams to take the lead in conceptualising research topics, designing and conducting research that was relevant to particular country and policy contexts. Among the multiple benefits of this approach, it would enable local - predominantly female - voices, experiences and viewpoints to surface. We wanted to localise research design, data collection, and analysis as much as possible, while at the same time strengthening the leadership and ownership of that process by women-led research teams.
The Research Brief
In the last 18 months, Kore Global has worked with seven teams in Bangladesh, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Vietnam, and Philippines to build and apply a conceptual framework to understand the multidimensional impact of COVID-19 on marginalized groups living in Asian cities. We began with a multi-module synchronous and asynchronous training on qualitative research methodologies. Then together, we developed localized data collection tools, methods and ethical protocols that could be applied and owned by research teams who were guided by mentors throughout.
The COVID-19 Research Challenges
In the world of research, COVID-19 presents us with an important paradox. On the one hand, the pandemic has deepened economic, social, and political inequalities, which have in turn spurred a desire on the part of governments, civil society, academia, media, and other constituents to understand its multiple impacts as they unfold. On the other hand, it has exposed and shed further light on the inequalities and neo-colonial hierarchies that are reified by traditionally extractive data collection, analysis and communications; the frequently one-dimensional relationship between researcher and research “subjects” this implies; and the power imbalance it ultimately perpetuates and reinforces. This paradox is at once a challenge and an opportunity.
In February 2021, a group of academics made a powerful statement in the Lancet about power, research and inequality during COVID-19. They argued that the widespread shift to remote data collection “creates ethical and practical concerns that risk perpetuating gender, racial and other inequities. For example, the gender divide in mobile phone ownership, internet access, and digital literacy creates barriers to data collection from women, further silencing their voices and that of other groups without access to these technologies.” In calling for more explicitly feminist and decolonised approaches to research, they identify the potential for power imbalances to be reinforced at every step of the research process from its resourcing through methodology development, through identification of researchers and subjects or sampling techniques, to methods of collection, analysis, communication and beyond.
This observation resonates strongly with our experiences in conducting research during the pandemic. It applies to a whole range of methods of data collection and analysis, including and beyond remote data collection, that involve engaging with the perspectives of poor and marginalised populations. Over time, our research process has become an increasingly shared feminist endeavour, as we have sought to better understand, and dismantle unequal power relations within the team and between researchers and research participants.
Key Learnings
We have experienced as much a process of unlearning as of learning. For instance, the authors of the Lancet article argue that “the perceived urgency to collect data remotely exposes neo colonial power hierarchies between researchers in affected settings and those in resource-rich settings.” Like many, we started out with the idea we would undertake ‘rapid’ research; yet, ultimately, we resisted this urge, allowing the research to proceed at a pace that worked for local researchers and research participants. The realities of conducting research remotely during a pandemic meant that research teams and mentors were themselves enduring lockdowns and uncertainty around health, family welfare and security.
By engaging with the challenges that women researchers and women being researched alike were facing and adapting our timelines to fit particular circumstances, we made sure that the experience remained energising and positive for all involved. For example, ensured that ample time and resources were allocated to discuss research ethics and how the data collection process was consensual, safe, beneficial and empowering for research participants.
Having dropped this conventional urgency and accepting the need for a more empathetic and practical approach, we assumed a more considerate pace that strengthened our relationships as a large, multi-country team. The space this afforded also allowed for valuable reflection and adaptation, leading to a host of collaborative learning, exchange and dialogue opportunities - within teams, between teams, between mentors, and between teams and mentors. In addition, we prioritised an empathetic approach, challenging our initial instincts to dive in and ask people as much as we could about their experiences during the pandemic. Checking initial drafts of interview questions by imagining whether questions we posed might trigger distress or discomfort during an ongoing crisis was crucial. At times, deciding to remove questions was difficult, but we prioritized practicality and human understanding over data quantity.
Key research questions were developed by local researchers, based on consultations with policymakers and community members and literature review, challenging conventional hierarchies in knowledge production grounded in an external gaze. The different issues explored include (inter alia) the impact of school closures on women’s economic participation in the public and private sector in Mongolia; the experiences of ethnic minority migrants in urban areas of Vietnam; and the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on workers in the tourism industry in Laos. Research teams were engaged from start to finish, through analysis, synthesis and knowledge sharing, not just in data collection. The value of this partnership is abundantly clear in the quality of insights that we are generating, many of which would not have emerged were it not for the deep understanding of local political economies within our research team. As we move through the write-up and dissemination stage, some results of our efforts include narratives of the struggle faced by women entrepreneurs in Bangladesh, the challenges of women balancing paid work and childcare in Mongolia and a cross-country synthesis report. We look forward to publishing a variety of interesting findings such as these in the coming months. Knowledge sharing plans have been developed collaboratively to strengthen the evidence-to-use pathway, and continue to evolve as opportunities arise.
Final Thoughts
With COVID-19 having exposed multiple hierarchies of knowledge, information and power, there is an opportunity to properly dismantle pre-pandemic paradigms of knowledge production between the Global North and South. In seeking to decolonize our own research methods, while using them to expose the gaping inequalities between male, female (and in some cases non-binary) lives in cities in Asia, we hope to contribute to that effort.
Respecting and upholding feminist and decolonizing principles is not easy, and adhering to such principles can sometimes be painstaking and inefficient. However, we hope that as a team of researchers committed to advancing more inclusive research methods, our shared journey to more deeply understand the complexities of this commitment will enable us to generate more meaningful and impactful research.
This article draws on research exploring the varied impacts of COVID-19 on urban inequalities in Asia, funded under a partnership between the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and The Asia Foundation, together with Kore Global. The views expressed are those of the authors only and do not necessarily represent those of The Asia Foundation or the Australian Government. We’d like to thank our co-authors, Sally Neville and Mandakini Surie, and our colleagues at TAF, in particular Nicola Nixon, Sumaya Saluja, and the wonderful research teams in Mongolia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Laos, Myanmar, Philippines, and Vietnam.
