Decolonial research practices from an indigenous psychology perspective: Critical contributions to knowledge.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The indigenous psychology (IP) movement has challenged mainstream psychology, which is considered rooted in colonial legacies, and has advocated for locally informed and developed theories and practices. The article explores the nexus of IP and decolonial psychology, emphasizes the need to challenge Western-centric hegemony, and promotes a contextually rich, relational paradigm based on reflexivity. IP critiques the Euro-American methodologism and calls for broader epistemic and substantive perspectives and a more inclusive and equitable psychology based on ontological and cultural diversity. Illustrations from IP-informed research are presented as concrete knowledge outcomes. The theory of strong-ties and weak-ties rationalities, used in combination with Bourdieu's critical sociology, addresses the impact of modern economic hegemony and renders intelligible the ecological grief of an Indigenous People in Malaysia. The postcolonial debate concerning the Chinese concept of xin (heart) is elaborated to show that decolonization and IP are entangled. We conclude with concrete suggestions for decolonizing psychology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.098 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".