J. TECHNICAL WRITING AND COMMUNICATION, Vol.

44(3) 297-327, 2014

DECOLONIAL METHODOLOGIES: SOCIAL JUSTICE

PERSPECTIVES IN INTERCULTURAL TECHNICAL
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH

GODWIN Y. AGBOKA
University of Houston-Downtown

ABSTRACT
This article argues that many methodological approaches used in intercultural
technical communication research are limited in addressing emerging social
justice challenges in many post-colonial, developing, and unenfranchised/
disenfranchised cultural sites, where professional communicators have begun
conducting research. It offers decolonial approaches as an alternative by
highlighting how these approaches are used in an intercultural research that
investigates attempts to localize communication that accompanies sexuo-
pharmaceuticals from one cultural context to another. The article also dis-
cusses some the challenges and benefits of such approaches.

The ways in which scientific research is implicated in the worst excesses

of colonialism remain a powerfully remembered history for many of the
world‘s colonized peoples. It is a history that still offends the deepest sense
of our humanity [1, p. 1].

Global research raises many methodological and ethical challenges for

technical communicators . . . because of the cross-cultural, international, and
transnational nature of the work [2, p. 283].

INTRODUCTION
Just how well are professional and technical communication research method-
ologies and methods addressing emerging postmodern challenges—i.e., issues
of ideology, power, social justice, “glocal” tensions, etc.—in unenfranchised or

297

Ó 2014, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/TW.44.3.e
http://baywood.com
298 / AGBOKA

disenfranchised intercultural contexts? This is a legitimate question, given the

changing landscape of intercultural technical communication research. I am
concerned that despite the “explosion of interest in international professional
communication” [3, p. 1], research approaches used in intercultural technical
communication research have not consistently kept pace with the changing
nature of this sub-field of technical communication. Thus, it is my position that
current approaches, which are motivated by modernist ideologies and whose
history is tied to the colonial project, may not be well positioned to address
emerging social justice challenges in many post-colonial, developing, and
unenfranchised/disenfranchised cultural sites, where professional communicators
have begun conducting research. Essentially, to make our research become
attuned and responsive to these emerging issues, I claim in this article that
intercultural professional communication research needs to develop a coherent
body of new methodologies with their corresponding methods that are cognizant
of local logics, rhetorics, histories, philosophies, and politics. By doing that,
our research approaches will answer the call of social justice, which hinges on
reflexivity, liberation, and empowerment [1, p. 1].
In this article, I propose decolonial approaches [1, 4-11] as an alternative
to current approaches for intercultural communication research. Basically, I ask:
How can decolonial approaches help us address emerging issues of social
justice, knowledge investigation and production, ideology, culture, and power
(i.e., researcher–participant symmetry) in international research sites, particularly
in many post-colonial, unenfranchised/disenfranchised sites? With their unique
agenda of decolonization and social justice, decolonial approaches are important
for revealing the ways that colonialism continues to operate and to affect lives
in new and innovative ways as well as to show the unmitigated damage inflicted
by past colonial practices. After describing and critiquing the current state of
research in intercultural technical communication, I discuss why current method-
ologies and methods (including traditional qualitative methods) are limited in
addressing postmodern challenges in research contexts and in outsider-insider
configurations when intercultural communication research takes place. Then,
I offer decolonial approaches as an alternative by describing their theoretical
foundation. I follow up by sharing how I used these approaches in an intercultural
case study research on designer localization efforts in the design, distribution,
and use of documentation that accompanies sexuopharmaceuticals imported into
Accra, Ghana (a postcolonial site). Finally, I highlight the implications of the
research design and execution on technical communication research.

RESEARCH TRAJECTORY IN TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION

Concerns, in the 1980s and 1990s, over the limitations of the objectivist and func-
tionalist focus of research in technical communication spurred a growing body
of scholarship on socially-based or critical research and interpretive approaches
 DECOLONIAL METHODOLOGIES / 299

[12-18] that sought to emphasize the ideological and rhetorical influences on

research. A common feature of these approaches was the rejection of the posi-
tivistic or “functionalist” [19] approaches that focused on making predictable,
objective, “value-free” [19, p. 40] claims to knowledge and knowledge-making,
as well as obfuscating the privileged status of the researcher. Essentially, the
epistemic tradition of the functionalist school was dominated by a research
approach that was uncritical, unreflexive, colonizing, and culturally-insensitive.
These approaches often assumed that cultures were homogeneous, static, and
isolated from the rest of the world [4, p. 3]. Conversely, critics of these func-
tionalist approaches sought to cast research in a more rhetorical and ideological
sense, often arguing that research “does not exist in an ideological-free vacuum”
[20]. Thus, describing functionalist approaches as “dangerously incomplete”
[15, p. 351], Herndl [15] called for “new research to investigate the ideological
work and the struggles that occur within professional communication discourse”
[15, p. 361]. This debate did not only put into perspective the struggles that
academic researchers confronted, but it also pointed to encouraging signs that
scholars had begun to respond to political and social issues in research.
In my opinion, the most significant contribution of the “ideological” perspec-
tive was that academic research is always cultural, in many respects, and is
always laden with political, power, and social justice concerns that cannot be
addressed by employing positivistic approaches. It is little wonder that as far
back as the 1990s the influence of quantitative methodologies on studies about
intercultural communication began diminishing, because of their preoccupation
with predicting and controlling reality [21]. It was also a logical development
when researchers began to promote methodological pluralism in their research
approaches.
However, addressing these problems of hegemony and control goes beyond
merely adopting pluralistic approaches. Technical communication researchers
need to actively and progressively change a few habits. For example, we need
to, more progressively: question our own assumptions; make participants active
collaborators in research projects by positioning them—not as subjects/objects,
but as equal participants; employ reflexive research methods; be critical of our
own approaches; question our insider posture, even when we claim to be native
to the research site; and be humble in our contacts with participants. To echo
the views of Sun [22], no one knows a local culture and context better than the
locals themselves do [22, p. 458]. Some earlier research studies have rhetorically
positioned research participants in problematic ways, which doesn’t suggest
that we have particularly been attuned to the histories and contexts of these
research participants. These studies did not only adopt functionalist approaches
[23], but constructed participants as “subjects” (see, for example, [24-27]—at
least in the way their research report descriptions suggested. Kastman and Gurak
[25], for example, highlighted the challenges of “recruiting subjects” [25, p. 463;
also see [26] while North [27] pointed to how the ethnographer’s analysis must be
300 / AGBOKA

approved by the “subjects” (qtd. in [24, p. 120]). To be sure, just using terms such
as “participants” as against “subjects” does not address the underlying power
dynamics between researcher(s) and participant(s), because the problem runs
deeper than that. It will take a systematic shift in practice. The underlying problem
is that when research participants are seen as subjects, they become only objects
to be exploited, rather than equal partners in the research process. It is no surprise
that Boynton [28] suggested that the term “subjects” be banned from reports
on humans, because it is demeaning and smacks of colonialism. I should say
that although this is not representative of the practice in the field, such practices
might rhetorically construct technical communicators as researchers who objec-
tify users in cultural sites.
Ultimately, if we acknowledge that these concerns are legitimate, we should
be able to develop corresponding practices and methodologies to address
these issues. Our profession has been a little too slow to critically and more
comprehensively address these issues, although our pedagogy has been responsive
in many ways [17, 18, 29]. Scholars who have addressed these issues in their
research [23, 30-32] acknowledge the struggles in research sites and how research
methods and methodologies may either be complicit in colonizing practices,
or help liberate participants from some forms of injustice. A lot of this work
has been done through participatory research approaches, which have sought to
investigate a specific local problem and then consistently developed appropriate
ways to intervene to help specific groups fight a social or political problem.
Grabill’s [33] research, for example, successfully investigated how “professional
writing researchers can help shape public policy by understanding policy making
as a function of institutionalized rhetorical processes and by using an activist
research stance to help generate the knowledge necessary to intervene” [33, p. 29].
Elsewhere, scholarship by Crabtree [34] has argued strongly in favor of par-
ticipatory approaches in seeking social justice for marginalized groups in cross-
cultural contexts.

CHALLENGES OF INTERCULTURAL RESEARCH:

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH UNDER THE MICROSCOPE
In the context of these challenges of research in our field, it is logical that
research in intercultural contexts might raise many methodological, ethical,
social justice, and power issues as well, obviously given the “cross-cultural,
international, and transnational nature of the work” [2, p. 283]. Professional
communicators conduct research studies in many post-colonial, developing, and
developed sites [34-39], all of which raise their own sets of challenges and
opportunities. For example, as research crosses national borders, it raises complex
issues (e.g., researcher-participant power relations, intellectual property, ideology,
language barrier, culture, problems with informed consent, etc.), which are par-
ticularly a concern in intercultural communication research studies that take place
 DECOLONIAL METHODOLOGIES / 301

in unenfranchised/disenfranchised cultural sites at risk of re-colonization or

neo-colonization (i.e., “Third” and “Fourth” world sites). Savage and Mattson
[40] note, for example, that the field of technical communication is deeply
involved in the complex processes of globalization that sweep through cul-
tural, social, environmental, and economic domains in destructive ways [40, p. 5].
They argue that:
Insofar as technical communication as a practice and as an academic disci-
pline participates in and seeks to benefit from globalization, it also shares
responsibility for globalization’s effects, whether good or ill [40, p. 5].

Fortunately, the challenges of conducting research in intercultural contexts

have been well documented [41], although an awareness of these challenges
doesn’t necessarily make addressing these challenges any easier, particularly
given the history of research in many contexts. As indigenous scholars such as
Smith [1] and Mutua and Swadener [10] note, for many local sites, the word
research “. . . stirs up silence [and] conjures up bad memories . . .” [1, p. 1], making
research in intercultural contexts become a site of struggle, as it can potentially
“cast [participants] in the role of the marginalized ‘Other’” [10, p. 12]. Thus, to
echo the concerns of Debs [42], what we need to do is to adopt a self-conscious
reflection as to the consequences of our research [42, p. 252].
Currently, many intercultural communication researchers in our field use quali-
tative methods both in the design and execution of their research. Yet some
scholars have faulted the use of limited traditional qualitative methods in inter-
cultural research [see 8, 11, 43]. In many cases, these studies were designed even
before the researchers arrived at the research sites, reflecting the unreflexive and
predictable posture of these studies and their research questions. To be sure,
“beginning research from the often Eurocentric theoretical models, then moving
to addressing people’s needs often contributes to distortion of reality because
Eurocentric interpretations may not be applicable to [local] contexts” [4, p. 6].
As a researcher committed to social justice, I find this particularly problematic.
When research is designed only from the position of the researcher, it is difficult
to adjust the design to accommodate local situations. Even more so, it may
give researchers a false sense of confidence that they “know all about research
participants . . .” [1, p. 1] even before they get to the context. Also common are
research studies that are designed and executed at the point where the researcher
is stationed—without the researcher ever going to the research site. While this
may be a pragmatic approach, it is functionalist in many ways, as it does not
necessarily foster humility, neither does it allow the researcher to know the context
enough to write and report about it. As Blyler [12] notes, by “maintaining this
standpoint outside—this separation—from participants, researchers try to affect
the process as little as possible and thereby maintain objectivity” [12, p. 37].
Furthermore, as a methodological framework, traditional qualitative research
is implicated in the colonial project. For instance, decolonial researchers are
302 / AGBOKA

worried that a lot of “qualitative research, in many if not all of its forms (observa-
tion, participation, interviewing, ethnography), serves as a metaphor for colonial
knowledge, for power, and for truth” [7, p. 1]. This is because as a form of scien-
tific research that provides the foundation for reports and representations of the
“Other,” traditional qualitative research has become merely a way of representing
the “Other” to the whole world [7, p. 1]. No wonder that it has been described as
“dirty” [1, p. 1]. More so, as Sikes [44] writes, many abuses have been committed:
Under the spuriously legitimating cloak of . . . qualitative research masquer-
ading as emancipatory and empowering action, when in actuality the
premises, assumptions and values upon which such work is founded are
essentially Western and not applicable or relevant in other indigenous
contexts [44, p. 354].

Ultimately, this close involvement with the colonial project contributed, in

significant ways, to qualitative research’s long and anguished history, and to
its becoming dirty [7, p. 1], because among these populations, there is a suspi-
cion that traditional qualitative research is not fair, flexible, and transparent
enough. Ultimately, while qualitative research may be sensitive to contexts and
flexible in its design, it may be viewed with some suspicion if not cautiously
employed and executed—given its history in the racist project.
Thus, in order to effectively conduct research in intercultural contexts, we
need to understand not merely what motivates the research, but also the insti-
tutional and cultural influences that shape the research context and eventually
how they will influence the research outcome. Such posture will help us to
generate effective methodologies and methods suitable for those contexts. In
the next section, I discuss the theoretical foundations of decolonial approaches
and highlight how they can help us think about our own research in intercul-
tural contexts.

DEFINING THE DECOLONIAL

Scholars often use the term “decolonial” to capture the process of rupturing
and challenging the political economy of knowledge production that accords
certain privileges and legitimacy to certain forms of knowing while invalidating
indigenous knowledges or viewpoints of research participants [5]. Decolonial
approaches also seek to produce new knowledge about how colonialism has
worked and continues to work to subjugate, commoditize, and otherwise exploit
culture, knowledge, and other resources of unenfranchised people, groups, and
nations. One of their principal contributions is to offer “. . . a more critical under-
standing of the underlying assumptions, motivations, and values which inform
research practices” [1, p. 20]. Since their inception, they have been applied in
disciplines such as ethnic studies, Chicana/o studies [11], indigenous studies [1],
border studies, Latina/o studies, Afro-centric studies, feminist studies, rhetoric
 DECOLONIAL METHODOLOGIES / 303

and technical communication [30], and African-American studies, among other

disciplines.
Decolonial approaches identify research as a significant site of struggle between
the interests and ways of knowing of the researcher and interests and ways of
resisting of participants [1]. Thus, with their goal of social justice and freeing
individuals from sources of domination, decolonial approaches acknowledge the
colonial influences of research and therefore enact liberatory approaches that
benefit both the researcher and participants [10]. The most influential source
on decolonial methodology has been Linda Tuhiwai Smith [1], whose major
contribution has been to make the case that these approaches are a framework
for self-determination, decolonization, and social justice [1, p. 4] and a way of
“researching back” in the same tradition of “writing back” or “talking back” that
has characterized much of post- and anti-colonial literature” [1, p. 7]. “Talking
back” in Smith’s world involves a “knowingness of the colonizer, a recovery
of ourselves, and an analysis of colonialism . . .” [1, p. 7]. Furthermore, “talking
back” involves agency, which is not necessarily generated or offered by the
researcher to the participant, but enacted through reflexive and thoughtful proc-
esses through which the researched (in many cases the colonized) can express
their agency. Generally, decolonial researchers are often uncomfortable with
claims to “give voice” to research participants, given that the very process of
giving voice can be a conduit for re-colonization [45, p. 112]. To be sure, the act
of giving voice puts the giver of voice in a position of authority and casts the
recipient perpetually as a subject, and therefore an object of colonialism.
Working around these themes, Smith critiques traditional research approaches,
and therefore rejects the “objective” and “positivistic” approaches that take
a modernist posture in research design and contexts, and therefore builds on
the foundation that there are diverse ways of disseminating knowledge and of
ensuring that research reaches the people who have helped make it [1, p. 15].
Essentially, decolonial research does not just imply totally [and blindly]
rejecting existing theories and research-based knowledge [1]; instead, it is an
invitation to deconstruct Western-influenced research traditions and essentialist
perspectives through collaborations between native researchers themselves as
well as between researchers and non-researchers [10, p. 101]. Broadly, decolonial
approaches recognize:

• the ever-increasing commitment to the recognition and realization of social

justice;
• equity and equality for all peoples, underpinned by social models of differences;
• enhanced sensitivity to the role of discourse in constructing and framing
identities and relationships; and
• various consequences of globalization and of improved communications and
technologies which have had the effect of shrinking the world and bringing
people from far-flung places into closer contact with each other [10].
304 / AGBOKA

Ultimately, understanding the two fundamental principles underpinning

decolonial approaches would help us in applying it. First, the decolonial recog-
nizes the existence of colonizing tendencies in discourse and research both in
the methods of inquiry and the application of the methods. Then, it engages these
issues through the implementation of decolonial and social justice epistemologies
and critical interpretative practices [6, p. 952] via research design and methods.
Essentially, decolonial research puts the concern of social justice first in its
research goals, not as a subsidiary goal. So, for a social justice agenda, decolonial
approaches offer a nuanced, active, and conscious heuristic that acknowledges
that we are not only beyond the past, but it is only the active agency of the
colonized that will complete the process of liberating participants in specific
research sites from the legacies of the past.

WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?

Before I articulate what all these discussions of decolonial approaches mean
for intercultural communication research in technical communication, let me
state that intercultural communication objectives and social justice are intercon-
nected issues, because intercultural communication has always been interested
in contexts, diversity, and cultural pluralism. So for intercultural researchers,
decolonial approaches offer us a humanistic heuristic for inserting ourselves
into research contexts, and then working on research projects that benefit both
researcher and participant [46]. Also, these approaches provide a way for trans-
cending the political and institutional tensions presented by research. Further-
more, because these approaches teach us to adopt corresponding methods to
fit specific contexts—considering the histories of the research sites—these
approaches can help us to be more flexible, reflexive, and humble. Finally, they
can help us to overcome what Scott [47] calls the challenges of “dual positioning”
which arise when researchers play conflicting roles as both insiders and outsiders
to the lives and “discursively constituted experiences” [47] of participants.
In the following section, I discuss how a decolonial research ethic productively
complicated an intercultural research that studied the transfer of sexuopharma-
ceuticals from one cultural environment to another.

WHY THIS RESEARCH?

Context of Research
The overarching aim of the study was to investigate communication practices
that accompanied sexuopharmaceuticals imported into post-colonial Ghana,
from China. My interest in the study was sparked by concerns that some sexuo-
pharmaceutical imports from China into Accra, the capital of Ghana, were creating
usability and health problems (i.e., cardiac failures, impotence, hypertension, and
 DECOLONIAL METHODOLOGIES / 305

priapism) for patrons. These products were reported to have been marketed
with no instructions or, in cases where they came with instructions, the docu-
mentation was often either not provided in a language typically spoken by
Ghanaian users, or it was poorly translated into an accessible language. The
official language of trade and education in Ghana is English [48, p. 76], even
though it has about 72 “living languages” [49, p. 7]. Thus, by law all com-
munication that supports products both manufactured in Ghana and abroad is
supposed to be in English. For example, Section 47 of the Food and Drugs
Law, 1992 (PNDCL 305B), the law put out by the body that regulates the
manufacturing, registration, labeling, and distribution of drugs, mandates that all
documentation originally produced in other languages, including local Ghanaian
languages, should be translated into English before they are distributed for con-
sumption by Ghanaian users (see Appendix A). But, the designers failed to do
that, as they made a poor attempt at localizing the documentation for these
products—which were mostly literal translations from the source to the target
language—that were initially intended for a different linguistic and cultural
context; in effect, some Ghanaian users had problems reading and understanding
the documentation, and therefore adapting the products for their purposes.
As a marketing strategy, some of the products were packaged with erotic
images, which were used to complement instructions that came with the products.
Others were packaged in various colors and shades to attract patrons to purchase
the product. Even those that did not have such erotic images were advertised on
television through the use of rhetorical strategies that often baited patrons to
purchase the products. One such strategy was for advertisers to link the product
to successful relationships or marriages, in which case they showed images
of supposedly happy couples who had used the product and supposedly had
successes, or been able to save their supposedly rocky marriages from falling
apart. Another such strategy was the manner advertisers successfully tied the
products to masculinity, to make the argument that a man is ONLY considered a
MAN, if he could satisfy his partner sexually. Because of poor border security and
lack of political capital, the government could either not enforce laws, as is done in
countries such as France and Mexico, to ensure that all communication met the
legal requirements, or prevent those products from getting into the country. I
should also state that these marketing practices of Chinese manufacturers provided
income that might be otherwise inaccessible for Accra residents, many of whom
became street vendors.
The specific context for this research, Accra, is one of the major business
cities in West Africa with a population of over 4 million, and an annual growth
rate of 3.6%. As a major business city, it attracts a lot of products and com-
modities—both illegal and legal—that are further distributed to other cities in
the country. At the time of the study, regulating the distribution of such products
in Accra was a major challenge for regulatory officials. As such, although there
were many laws that regulated the importation, distribution, and marketing of
306 / AGBOKA

drug products, it was always difficult for regulatory bodies to enforce these
regulations due to lack of personnel, corruption, and lack of political capital to
resist attempts by manufacturers from other countries, mainly China because the
government and consumers depended so much on imports, trade, and financial
capital of the Chinese government. For example, although China and Ghana are
supposed to be trading partners, the ratio of import to export to and from China
is very lopsided in favor of China. Also, because of the high illiteracy rate in
Ghana, manufacturers and distributors were able to successfully market products
with no or poor documentation. Meanwhile, opinion leaders, health personnel,
regulatory officials, and the local people of Accra were particularly concerned
that such products were creating a lot of health concerns.
Ghana itself, like many other colonized nations in Africa, is still shaking off
its colonial baggage, having been under British colonial rule from the beginning
of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century, when it gained its inde-
pendence. Since independence, though, it has made efforts, albeit unsuccess-
fully, to assert its cultural, political, and economic independence. However, years
of colonial rule has succeeded in projecting the cultural and ideological values
of the British society, and, by extension foreign ideologies, while denigrating
the indigenous knowledge and intellectual systems of the local people. Some of
my research participants often joked that if a ship were to berth at the country’s
ports promising to ship people to any other country, they would jump on board
without being forced to.
Thus, although independence was to serve as an important political and cul-
tural moment, “to a large extent the independence movement . . . was a movement
toward westernization” [50, p. 119], as both its political and educational systems
were designed as a faithful replica of the British systems. To quote July [50], at
the time of its independence, Ghana’s educational system “had been created
as a faithful replica of British models, with a rigid structure of degrees that
emphasized Western institutions and values, to the virtual exclusion of Ghana,
its history, and life” [50, p. 7]. In effect, although independence was supposed
to “represent a moral, historic break, and a new departure” [51, p. 21], it only made
Ghanaians dependent on Europeans as the makers of knowledge and purveyors
of technological innovation.
As a consequence, besides its economic dependence on development partners,
its cultural identity was battered. The logical effect of this is that Ghanaians
lost confidence in themselves. My observations of the buying culture and consul-
tations with some of the local people revealed that many local products were
often shunned for those manufactured abroad, because of a perception that
those that come from abroad, particularly China, had some intrinsic quality to
them. In essence, although there were lots of cheaper, high-quality locally manu-
factured sexual pharmaceuticals approved by the regulatory authorities, their
patronage was often low. Interestingly, China is not a Western country, and did
not colonize Ghana. So, I was curious to know why its products enjoyed so much
 DECOLONIAL METHODOLOGIES / 307

patronage. Decolonial scholars attribute this phenomenon to auto-colonization,

the process in which colonized people emulate the values of a dominant or
foreign nation or are serially dependent on foreign ideals and practices [52]. As
a consequence, the fact that China has become a “fast moving, technologically
advanced, and economically powerful nation” [53, p. 6] as against Ghana‘s
“slow-moving and without [advanced] technology or a complex economy” [53,
p. 6] can provide a fertile ground for auto-colonization.
In effect, although communication seemed to be the problem that the
local people of Accra confronted, it was only a smokescreen for some underlying
ideological and political issues, as my discussions with the local people of
the area suggested. For example, how did the products get onto the market?
Why did the people decide to patronize those foreign products, as against those
manufactured locally? Why were the products not recalled, even when people
suffered health risks?
The problem, though, is that some research studies by both local and foreign
social scientists, which have put the problems of many post-colonial sites on the
global map, have been fraught with methodological inaccuracies and misrepre-
sentations, which often lead to inaccurate reports [4, p. 1]. A function of this is
that these methodological approaches do often reflect “ethnographic assump-
tions and theorizing shaped by interpretations and theories generated from
[other] contexts” [4, p. 2]. Decolonial researchers are interested in understanding
these underlying political, economic, and ideological causes of these systemic
problems. Obviously, not all problems in post-colonial sites are a function of
their colonial past, but the need exists for researchers to try to work with a
community to address these problems when the underlying issues point to
ideology or power. Employing flexible, reflexive approaches in the study, which
I describe below, provided opportunities for understanding the context better
and helped generate rich data.

THE RESEARCH PROCESS AND METHODS

Questions of Positionality
One of my foremost challenges before (and during) this research was how
I positioned myself discursively. In a way, I was an insider (by birth) and an
outsider, given that I had lived outside the country for over 6 years. When I left
the country to pursue further studies, my highest academic achievement was
a bachelor’s degree from a Ghanaian university. At the time of the study, how-
ever, I was a Ph.D. candidate, having already received my master’s degree via
Western education. In a sense, I was bi-culturally positioned, but I also occupied
a privileged positioned relative to the research participants. Thus, the challenges
that Scott [47] describes about researchers’ dual positioning, especially when
they play conflicting dual roles of insiders and outsiders, resonated with me.
308 / AGBOKA

But even seeing myself as an insider was not a sine qua non for successfully
inserting myself into the context given my bicultural identity, which is consistent
with research findings by Benson [4] that while it is expected that natives
more accurately represent local reality, a large proportion of them are trained
in Western perspectives that may be sources of error [4, p. 2]. Essentially, given
that I was a product of Western education, I was aware that I was probably
indoctrinated and perhaps was blinded to the experiences of the local people.
Thus, I knew I had to decolonize my mind, and in the words of McLaren [54],
“unlearn” [54, p. 152] what I had learned before engaging with the participants.
But, I was prepared to be humble, to allow myself to be re-taught some of the
cultural norms of my hosts.
As Accra is a highly hierarchical society, I worked closely with some of
the local leaders and in some cases, their surrogates. By working with these
people, I was introduced to key stakeholders who were connected with the
issues. The leaders and their surrogates often arranged meetings between me
and research participants. Yet, even during the data gathering process, some
participants (i.e., vendors) refused to be interviewed, because they considered
me an outsider who had been planted by the regulatory authorities to solicit
information from them and mark them for arrest. Thus, to these participants I was
an investigator posing as a researcher. And, the concern by these vendors was
legitimate, because they did not know my intentions. Chiu [55] has argued that
the attempt to empower people through research processes, however altruistic,
has the potential to affect participants in some way, so there is the need for
researchers to engage in “self-reflexivity” [55, p. 121], what McLaren [56]
calls the “politics of disclosure” [56, p. 156], where researchers will identify what
hidden assumptions may underpin their research. The discursive strategy of
disclosure is important for political and pragmatic reasons. Politically, it is a
declaration of intent, and pragmatically it is a commitment to enacting intent.

The Development of Research Questions

The development of the research questions was initially informed by prag-
matic factors. Given that the planning stage of the research began when I was
stationed in the United States, I began initial consultations via phone and Skype
with a representative contact of the country’s Food and Drug Board (FDB)
organization. I also contacted some marketers, health personnel, and a govern-
ment official, who were all introduced to me by my FDB contact. All these
initial consultations with these constituencies were done through Skype and
phone. These initial consultations, together with some analyses of news reports
on the problem, led to two initial research questions:
1. Why do information products/communication materials imported into the
Ghanaian cultural market over-emphasize business priorities, at the expense
of important cultural and linguistic concerns of the local users?
 DECOLONIAL METHODOLOGIES / 309

2. What is the impact of this practice on the local communities that consume
these products?
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved these initial questions,
although they had concerns about the sensitive nature of the subject matter of
the research. I understood their concerns, because the research was basically
going to ask people to discuss sexual issues, or even discuss their sexual problems.
And, in a research context where practices such as public kissing and public
show of affection is even frowned upon, the concern of the IRB was not misplaced.
Later, though, the research questions underwent some revisions. After some
further consultations at the research site, I realized that my research questions
were heavily biased. For example, I did realize that the questions were not only
too broad, but they were laden with assumptions, that all the products that were
imported into Accra already had problems that related to culture. Even more
so, the questions seemed to make a hasty generalization that all communication
materials imported into the country had problems. Finally, the first question was
too narrow for an emic investigation. Thus, influenced by the context, the focus of
the research questions shifted to reflect the emic nature of the study, by making
it open-ended to allow the data to emerge:
1. How effective are information products and documentation that accom-
pany imported aphrodisiacs (to Ghana) in helping Ghanaian users use the
product? To what extent do these products address the cultural, health,
and linguistic needs of the users of these products?
2. What will be the implications of this project for scholarship, pedagogy,
and practice in the field of professional and technical communication?
Upon the development of these questions, I had two meetings: one with the
local leaders and the other with two officials of the FDB. The purpose was to
discuss the meaningfulness of the focus of the research to the context. Generally,
both the local leaders and the FDB officials agreed that both questions were
purposeful, but the local leaders questioned my intentions for asking the second
question. They wondered why I was inscribing them in a report that would serve
“professionals,” as one of them called it. When I explained that the goal of the
second question was to influence decision-making, they gave me the green light.

Selection of Participants
In the implementation of decolonial methodologies, it is important to not only
consider how the research questions would have mutual benefits for researcher
and participant, but also how the research questions influence the choice of the
participants who would help address the questions [57]. My initial consultations
and observations both outside and within the research site pointed to a number
of constituencies, who were either affected directly by the problem or who were
responsible for regulating either the marketing or importation of the products.
310 / AGBOKA

Ultimately, four groups of people (made up of 23 participants) agreed to take

part in the research: licensed pharmacists; street vendors; representative users;
health officials who work at hospitals and clinics and officials of the Food and
Drugs Board. These participants were made up of ten representative users, two
health personnel, two officials of Ghana’s Food and Drugs Board (FDB), and
nine distributors (including five pharmacists and four unlicensed vendors of the
products). Representative users were not known to be real users of the products,
but people who represented the age and gender group that used the products.
Health personnel participants represented the group that had the specialized
knowledge of the benefits and risks associated with the products. FDB officials
represented the agency tasked with regulating the manufacture and distribution
of food and drugs products in Ghana. Finally, distributors were the group of
participants, through whom users had access to the products and who had infor-
mation about the pattern of patronage and use of the products. Of the two groups
of distributors, only registered pharmacists could legally distribute these products,
but the unlicensed vendors also played an important role in the chain of distri-
bution. Although these vendors were unlicensed under Ghanaian laws, they
displayed their wares in large pans on the streets around truck stations, truck
stops, and in buses. My study revealed that these vendors were not morally
depraved criminals, but people who had to work on the fringe of the law to
support their families and educate themselves; they were people who them-
selves were victims of the historic processes of colonization by foreign nations
and business ventures.

Data Collection
Decolonial researchers point out that misrepresentation of the realities of
research participants could be a function of either deliberate research bias
or methodological and theoretical limitations [4, p. 3]. The methods used in
decolonial research are not rigid, or specific to it; rather, they are fluid enough
to help the researcher employ approaches that can help him or her adapt the
methods to the research context (see, for example, [57]) even when situations
change. In essence, decolonial researchers do not necessarily propose new data
sources, but adapt these sources to the research context. For this project, methods
included collection and analysis of documents, direct observations, semi-struc-
tured interviews, and focus groups with participants (see Figure 1).

Observations

Although I was confident of the value of observations in this project, it was

the site of one of my biggest fears. As well intentioned as my study was, I
was fearful of the challenges it would create among some distributors for whom
marketing the products was an only source of income and livelihood. As such,
I was advised by my informants to stay away from some areas and be invisible,
 DECOLONIAL METHODOLOGIES / 311

Figure 1. A graphical representation of the chain of

data collection methods.

but present in areas that I observed. My data collection started with observa-
tions of participant behavior relating to what types of products were marketed,
who marketed them, who patronized them, and which products had the highest
patronage. Doing these helped me in deciding who to include as participants,
and what types of products to focus my study on. There was a wide range of
locally and foreign manufactured products so I wanted to determine some patterns.
On the one hand, I wanted to assess the distribution and preference patterns
of the local products, and on the other hand, I was interested in finding out which
of the foreign products received the most patronage. Thus, during my first
observations, I had a bigger picture of the demographic group that patronized
these products, as well as the products that received the most patronage. (I later
discovered that the most popular product was Chinese (i.e., 95%)). These obser-
vations also put into perspective the monitoring processes of the FDB at the
various places where unsanctioned products were distributed, including the
age and gender groups who patronized these drugs.
During these observations, I was a participant-observer and a researcher-as-
an-instrument [58] at the same time. As a participant-observer, I developed a
level of closeness with the participants, particularly distributors, by chit-chatting,
eating, sharing jokes, and helping children of distributors with their homework.
As I talked to these distributors, I learned about some of their struggles with
their businesses as well as at home. Although the literacy level of these distributors
was often low, I was surprised to know, during our interactions, that some of them
312 / AGBOKA

wanted to go to school. I used the opportunity to provide them story books and
beginner grammar aids to help them with their journey to school. Most of the
distributors would rather work elsewhere, but given that their educational levels
were low, coupled with the jobless rate of the Ghanaian economy, they resorted
to petty trading to make a living. Some of them sold products which were
unsanctioned by the FDB, and they were equally patronized by users. Although
the FDB mounted raids, the distributors found a way of evading the arrests.
Ultimately, the relationships I built with these distributors iterated the value
of authentic relationships with participants, and how such relationships can build
trust and generate rich data. Obviously, the challenge a researcher who builds
such relationships faces is the temptation to over-commit and lose focus. I spent
between 2-3 hours every day observing specific behavior. In order not to publicly
reveal my research posture, I excused myself at least twice during the obser-
vations to take important notes, so that I did not miss important happenings
during the observation. I recorded the notes, in an unstructured way, of all
the events at the site. After each observation, I transcribed the data into a narrative
that made meaning to me. I came up with two columns, using a Word document,
one of which was used to type the narrative, and the other to record my reflec-
tions on the narrative.

Document Collection

Having identified the most patronized products through these observations,

I focused on four pieces of documentation accompanying these products for
analysis (see Appendixes B and C). I bought these four products with the help of
some research participants. I used these documents in aspects of my interviews
and focus group discussions with participants. I also analyzed other official docu-
ments from the FDB and the Ministry of Health. These documents, which I
was directed to print off the institution‘s website, included policy statements
on the labeling, registration, manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of drugs.
As I was interested in comparing interview responses of officials of the FDB
about the regulation of drugs with what was contained in their policy statements,
the documents became an important source of information and clarification.

Interviews

All interviews were preceded by a phone call or e-mail to schedule appoint-

ments with participants to arrange a time and a setting mutually acceptable to me
and each participant. At the time of setting up an appointment, I either e-mailed
or read a recruitment text that solicited the participation of each participant.
The goal of prearranging interviews was to agree on a place where the partici-
pant felt that the confidentiality of the interview could be maintained and secured.
The specific location for each interview was arranged with each participant
individually in order to ensure a setting that felt appropriate in terms of comfort
 DECOLONIAL METHODOLOGIES / 313

and confidentiality both for the participant and for me. This was to avoid stig-
matization of participants, as most representative users did not want to be seen
being interviewed. In the same vein, FDB officials did not want to be seen in
public being interviewed, given the sensitive nature of the subject matter and
their jobs, so arranging a confidential meeting place became necessary. Further-
more, because unlicensed distributors did not want to be identified by FDB
officials who mounted occasional raids to swoop them, they needed a confidential
place of meeting. Doing these was helpful to me and to the participants. For
me, these meeting places provided comfort and a relaxing atmosphere for partici-
pants to talk in an atmosphere free of intimidation.
All interviews, but two, were face-to-face. The two interviews were con-
ducted on the telephone. One distributor who traveled to his hometown early
for the Christmas festivities offered me a chance to interview him on phone. I
also interviewed one of the representative users, 56-year-old male participant,
via phone because he was too busy to arrange a time and a location to meet. Upon
their return, I had a follow-up interview with them at an agreed upon location.
Typically, interviews took place at restaurants, church buildings, offices, truck
stations, in my car, and, sometimes, over lunch and dinner. In conformity with
the cultural norms, all interviews followed specific protocols depending on whom
I was interviewing. If the participants were in my age group and spoke English, I
did not have to follow any traditional protocols of specific greetings or solici-
tudes, but if the participant was older and/or non-literate in the English language
I had to follow a specific protocol. For older people, I began with a handshake
(for males) or a hug (for females) followed with a traditional greeting in Twi of
maaha (good afternoon) or maadwo (good evening) or in Ga of meeng-gah-bou
(i.e., I greet you). Interviews with this group were interspersed with me pa wo
kyew (please) or Ofaene (please) in Twi and Ga respectively. These practices
marked some of the unspoken rules that everyone had to follow.
Before each interview began, I gave copies of informed consent forms to each
interviewee to read and sign, but I explained that they had the option to not
take part in the research. Originally, there were 24 participants, but given that
one person refused to sign the informed consent I did not include her in the
study, neither did I use any data from her. Each participant or participant group
was chosen because they contributed to specific parts of the research process.
Therefore, questions for individual participants in each category varied because
of differences in their practices, perspectives, and also because answers to inter-
view questions for some participants required follow-up questions for clarifi-
cation. These questions were only starters, because once the interviews began,
participants offered responses that would lead to other questions. During inter-
views, I asked participants to read the documentation that accompanied a specific
product I used for the analysis. I also asked the health personnel participants
about some of the dangers associated with the use of the aphrodisiacs, including
the reported cases of health problems associated with the use of the products.
314 / AGBOKA

When interviewing the officials of the FDB, I was interested in knowing if

the officials were aware of the health problems that related to the use of sexual
enhancement products. I also sought to find out how the unsanctioned products
got onto the market, their screening processes before products got onto the
Ghanaian market, and what measures they employed or had attempted to employ
to control the sale and use of such products. Finally, when I interviewed the
pharmacists and street vendors, I was interested in knowing the reasons why
they sold or did not sell the drugs. I also asked them if they were aware of
health-related problems with the use of the drugs and if they were aware
of problems users have in understanding product advertisements or information
that was packaged with the drugs. For each of these interviews, I used a semi-
structured interviewing format to allow for flexibility during the interviewing
process. This process helped me to both ask follow-up questions and seek
further clarification on responses, while it gave the interviewees some freedom
to explicate their thoughts on the issues that were raised during the interviewing
process. According to Horton et al. [59], semi-structured interviews allow inter-
viewees a degree of freedom to explain their thoughts and to highlight areas
of particular interest and expertise that they felt they had as well as to enable
certain responses to be questioned in greater depth, and in particular to bring
out and resolve apparent contradictions [59, p. 340]. Consistent with this, I had
an interview guide, that is, a list of interview questions that guided the inter-
viewing process, but which also allowed me and the participants a degree of
freedom to both go back-and-forth in asking and responding to the questions.
Additionally, during each interview, I had a prepared interview protocol that I
used in structuring how my information was collected. For example, the protocol
had headings, spaces for recording specific comments, prompts, and question
themes. But, I created more sections as and when the interview required me to. To
prevent data overload, I transcribed the responses by writing them into a narrative
that made sense to me. The goals in doing this were so I would avoid being
overwhelmed, and also to avoid missing key moments during the interviews.
Even more importantly, I e-mailed the narrative or set up a meeting to have
participants read over the narrative to ascertain if their responses were captured
correctly. In many cases, participants agreed that the narratives captured exactly
what they said, but in cases that they disagreed, I made sure I captured their
concerns more correctly. Each interview lasted between 40 and 60 minutes.

Focus Groups

Focus groups were not originally one of the methods when I designed the
research, but as I wanted to record responses from groups and to discuss specific
issues that arose from the research, I employed this approach as an additional
method for gathering data. Each focus group was prearranged at a location
agreed upon by participants and me. These sessions involved select participants
 DECOLONIAL METHODOLOGIES / 315

from groups of participants. I held four focus groups discussions. The first one
involved health personnel and FDB participants, the next involved pharmacist
participants, and then I followed this with one involving unlicensed vendors.
The final focus group discussion involved representative users, although only
two showed up, which is understandable. These discussions were characterized
by prepared discussion questions that participants responded to. Each group of
participants also watched a video of an advertisement on some of the products
after which they responded. I documented all reactions of participants as they
watched the videos as well as documented their responses to their questions on
the focus group sheets.

Final Back-and-Forth with Participants

At the request of some participants and to enhance accurate responses from

participants, I made available the entire research narrative to all participants to
critique. I gave each participant a week to read through the final 22-page narrative.
For participants with low literacy levels, I solicited the help of four university
students to help them navigate the document. It was encouraging to know that
of the 23 participants, 9 responded, with two noting specific areas where there
were inconsistencies.

MAJOR FINDINGS
Although the research findings are not the main point of this article, I describe
here, briefly, some of the most important findings of this research to foreground
the relevance of the research study to decolonial methodology. Basically, although
this is a “small case,” it is a microcosm of the larger and pervasive problem of
colonialism and the problems of the context. For example, the pieces of docu-
mentation I studied were so powerful in sustaining new forms of colonialism
in this era of globalization, particularly in service of foreign commercial interests.
The study itself revealed the obvious neglect of the legal, cultural, health, and
linguistic issues of the local people of Accra. It also revealed the complex issues
involved in the transfer, importation, and exportation of communication involving
some foreign companies, manufacturers, distributors, regulatory officials, and
the government machinery. Finally, the findings brought up important issues
about power and social justice, the communication of risk, tensions between
globalization and localization, local design and distribution of information and
technology products, and the usability of these products in specific cultural and
local contexts. Based on observations of, responses from, and interactions with
participants, it became evident that:
• Years of colonialism had robbed participants of their agency, national
pride, and disengaged them from their histories. Essentially, although formal
colonialism has ended, colonialism has a way of extending itself into tying
316 / AGBOKA

the identities of a people to the apron-strings of their colonizers. As Said

[60] argues, images of colonialism have been maintained, sustained, and
distributed into aesthetic, scholarly, economic, sociological, historical, and
philosophical texts [60, p. 13].
• The designers and manufacturers succeeded in insinuating into the culture
of the participants a non-Ghanaian sexual code, including attitudes toward
women, notions of masculinity, the meaning of sexuality and its place in
Ghanaian life and culture as a whole.
• The manufacturers and distributors took advantage of the economic chal-
lenges, the poor enforcement of regulations, the corrupt political system, and
the poor border security to introduce products into the market.
• The manufacturers/designers circumvented legal and ethical principles,
although there were regulations and laws to that effect.
• The manufacturers, through shrewd marketing strategies, created a depen-
dence on products that may not have been needed by patrons.
• The manufacturers took advantage of the low literacy rate of the local
people to market a product which had obvious health risks. Problems with
lack of or poor translation, and, by extension, effective localization, put the
health of users at risks. For example, 40% of representative users reported
that they either experienced problems or knew someone who had experienced
problems using the products. Also, 50% of unlicensed vendors said they
knew someone who had, or had experienced some problems. Although 90%
of pharmacist participants reported that no client had ever complained of
problems after using the products, they all observed that from their vantage
points as health professionals they were aware that there could be health
problems resulting from improper use of the product, due to improper use of
instructions, or there could be problems if users did not have any specific
instructions that will facilitate their use of the products. Among all partici-
pants, however, 60% indicated that they were aware of someone who had
had complications or had experienced problems after using the product.
Finally, 60.8% of all participants thought these problems could be a function
of lack of or poor instructions, while 29% thought that it could be a function of
both the products and instructions-related concerns.
• Through packaging and advertising, the manufacturers and distributors
devalued local products by presenting more glamorous, cosmopolitan, sophis-
ticated foreign products as better alternatives.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH IN

TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION
My research reveals that flexibility, reflexivity, humility, and respect for
norms within research sites are cherished concepts in intercultural communi-
cation research. All these combined can be crucial in how we generate data,
 DECOLONIAL METHODOLOGIES / 317

what type of data is generated, and the quality of informants who help with the
research process. Although my study is specific to a particular context, it reveals
a number of broad issues and challenges of conducting decolonial research in
intercultural contexts.
Let me begin with some challenges. My own experiences show that enacting
decolonial research is time consuming, but rewarding as well. Attempts at
arranging convenient interview locations and times can present major challenges
for the research, particularly if the researcher, like many in academic contexts, has
limited time. It was not often easy to find a secure place where participants wanted
to meet, particularly given the nature of the research. This may be complicated by
researcher-participant conflicting scheduling issues. Many sponsored research
studies suffer from this, because they have a strict time frame to collect data.
Also important, gaining access to the research site can be very challenging.
Researching the history and the cultural make-up of a group takes time, even
when the researcher is an “insider.” This is because the researcher needs to become
as knowledgeable about the context in order to develop the sensitivity to com-
municate and interact with participants. This process involves the researcher
conducting his or her own initial research outside the site, and then later going to
the site to attempt to build mutual relationships. At this point consultations with
stakeholders are key, because it is only when the researcher succeeds in building
relationships with the participants that he or she can both identify problems and
also receive accurate responses. As I found out during my study, frustrations are
part of this process of gaining entry into the site, because it may not be uncommon
for participants to view researchers with suspicion. Of course, the researcher
may even have to revise his or her research questions in the process. Second, the
processes involved in obtaining IRB approvals for international research may
be tedious and frustrating, because of the added scrutiny many international
research proposals receive from the IRB. More so, the resources required to
undertake decolonial research can be enormous and therefore present major
setbacks for the research. Another related concern is the security of the researcher.
Obviously, there might be security concerns, if meetings are held in places which
are completely out of public reach and view. Overall, though, these actions bring
rewarding results. For example, meeting the representative users at a mutually
agreed upon location afforded them the opportunity to talk with me freely without
feeling that someone would notice them, and then victimize them for using the
products. My experiences have shown that when participants feel uncomfortable
or intimidated, they may not open up to the researcher, which may affect the
quality of the data as well as the final report.
Having highlighted these challenges, let me sketch some of the key issues
in decolonial approaches, at least as they are reflected in my research. First, the
research site (i.e., context) plays a significant role in conceptualizing the focus
of the research and the methods used during the research. Comfortably posi-
tioned in the United States, I had a good understanding of what my research
318 / AGBOKA

questions were. But these assumptions were challenged when I entered the
research site and interacted with stakeholders. As a parallel to the relevance of
context, even after I revised my research questions, I worked with the local
people to negotiate how and who the research was going to benefit. For me,
this was important because the community has equal ownership of the research
results [12]. Obviously, this might be a problem in social science research
given the “dominant discourses of mainstream research approaches” [which] “are
reinforced by the asymmetrical relations of power and privilege which accompany
them” [61, p. 381]. It even raises questions of ownership and who should initiate
research. For example, if a researcher initiates the research, should the community
have a say in the direction of the research? Scholars of social justice approaches
take the position that if the research would affect their personhood, they
ought to have a say in it. In essence, professional and technical communication
researchers should consider the need for a co-construction of research questions
along with prioritizing the existing needs of research contexts. This approach has
the tendency to generate rich and accurate data as well as tie research to personal
well-being, social justice, and emancipation.
Furthermore, decolonizing research necessitates that we consider thought-
ful, purposeful engagement with the research site, as an effective qualitative
decolonial research requires “a “knowingness” [1, p. 7] of the contexts and the
participants. Ultimately, how we insert ourselves becomes important, because it
can influence the data that is generated in the research. It is natural for a colonized
or marginalized group to view a researcher with some suspicion, given the history
of research in the colonial project. But, as I discovered during my research, the
vendors wanted to know my intentions for wanting to interview them. I am sure
they were wondering what I was going to use the results for. Why was I inter-
viewing them? Was I just setting them up so the authorities would arrest them?
These questions needed to be answered satisfactorily. Even when the opinion
leaders arranged a meeting between the participants and me, the participants were
still less convinced about my intentions. But, engagement with the research site
goes beyond just the initial meetings. There were several times during the research
that I played games, ate, and helped participants with several academic-related
tasks. Building trust in the intercultural research site takes a careful, thoughtful
approach, and it can only be accomplished after long engagement with the
community. By doing this, “the researcher will become adequately familiar with
the history, language, philosophy, and myths of the people being studied (see,
e.g., [62]). Researchers who engage with a site participate in the daily routines
of this setting, develop on-going relations with the people in it, and observe all
the while what is going on. This enables the researcher to develop a level of
detail about the individual, group, or place and to be highly involved in actual
experiences of the participants [63, p. 181]. Indeed, the term “participant obser-
vation” is often used to characterize this basic research approach [64, p. 2].
Doing this has two practical reasons. It prevents avoidable “offenses” in cultural
 DECOLONIAL METHODOLOGIES / 319

contexts, and allows the researcher to understand the context from the ground up
and therefore develop rich, accurate data.
Also, enacting decolonial approaches requires that researchers question their
assumptions and engage in self-critique of their assumptions about research.
The goal of my research was basically emancipatory, but what did I also stand
to gain from it? Although my research was not sponsored, I hoped it would
prove to be a major contribution that was probably going to bring some personal
glory. So, was I in it for the glory or the emancipatory project? I was surprised
and excited that the chiefs interrogated my decision to write a final scholarly
report. As custodians of the history of the community, they knew the problems
these reports could create in research contexts. Chiu [55] identifies three levels
where researchers need to question their assumptions during the research process:
self-reflexivity, interpersonal-reflexivity, and collective reflexivity [55, p. 191].
Self-reflexivity asks the researchers to identify what hidden assumptions may
underpin their research [55, p. 121], while interpersonal reflexivity calls for an
evaluation of interpersonal encounters and the researcher’s ability to collaborate
with others [55, p. 122]. The third layer asks about the collaborative processes of
participations, the terms of participation, and how the collaboration determined
the frames of inquiry [55, p. 123]. The merits of doing these are to enable the
researcher to be critical of his or her interactions with participants, and be con-
scious of how these interactions can lead to specific consequences. As a parallel
concern, let me state that being an insider or native to a research context does not
guarantee easy access to the research site or a privileged treatment from research
participants. Indeed, my own experiences show that all researchers, both insiders
and outsiders, must unlearn their cultures and learn, to some degree, the culture of
the site where the research will be conducted—of course that is not to suggest that
we can fully learn “a culture.” What this means is that both insiders and outsiders
can conduct research in intercultural sites, if they can unlearn and relearn.
Of course, I am conscious of the fact that a case could be made that my methods
are also used in traditional qualitative studies. In fact, I can hear my traditional
qualitative research colleagues saying “But we use these methods, too.” Here, I
quote Canagarajah [65] who argues that “There are small, small differences that
make big, big significance” [65, p. 599]. The methods might be the same, but the
approaches to the methods are not. Basically the methods employed in decolonial
approaches are not straightforward or predictable, but unique to specific research
situations. Although many of my methods are used in traditional research
approaches, decolonial researchers apply these purposefully and meaningfully,
and they are also flexible, thoughtful, and reflexive when they used those methods.

CONCLUSION

As research in technical communication crosses national borders and raises

complex questions of ideology and power, we need to make consistent efforts
320 / AGBOKA

to develop research approaches that can address these emerging questions. The
current modernist posture of research approaches may not be helpful in addressing
the postmodern challenges introduced by new questions in intercultural contexts.
My research is a specific study that cannot be used to justify an overhaul of the
field’s research approaches, but it points to some useful possibilities for con-
ducting more research in these sites. A useful contribution of this study is the role
research can play in seeking social justice for international audiences. I call for
more scholarship and research that implement these approaches in other contexts.

APPENDIX A
Food and Drugs Board’s Requirements
for Labeling of Products
In pursuance of Section 47 of the Food and Drugs Law, 1992 (PNDCL 305B)
as amended by the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1996; Act 523, these
Guidelines are hereby made to ensure the proper labeling of all drugs, cosmetics,
medical devices, and household chemicals.

INTERPRETATION
In these Guidelines, unless the context otherwise states –
a) “Board” means the Food and Drugs Board established under Section 27
of PNDC Law 305B
b) “Product” means a drug, cosmetic, medical device, or household chemical
c) “Container” includes bottle, jar, box, sachet, or any other receptacle which
contains or is to contain in it a product regulated under Act. . . . Which is not
a capsule or any other article in which the product is or is to be administered,
and where the receptacle is or is to be contained in another receptacle,
the former but not the latter receptacle.
d) “Label” includes a legend, tag, brand, work or mark, pictorial, or any other
descriptive matter written, printed, stenciled, marked, embossed, or
impressed on or attached to a container of a product regulated under this Act
e) “Carton” means a large cardboard container or box in which goods are
packed in smaller containers.
f) “Brand name” means the proprietary name of the product.
g) “INN” means international non-proprietary name.
h) “Generic” means
i) “IUPAC” means International Union of Pure & Applied Chemistry.
General Requirements
1. Labeling shall be informative and accurate
2. Product labels shall be printed. The print shall be in a clear font and legible.
The print shall be indelible and not fade when exposed to sunlight
 DECOLONIAL METHODOLOGIES / 321

3. The information on a label shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) The name of the product and where applicable, the generic or INN
(2) A list of the active ingredients using International Nonproprietary Name
(INN) IUPAC system where applicable, showing the amount of each
present in a dosage unit
(3) The net content of the container
(4) The batch number
(5) Date of manufacture and best before/expiry date
(6) Directions for use, and any warnings or precautions that may be necessary
(7) Any special storage conditions or handling precautions that may be necessary
(8) Indications, frequency, route, and conditions of use where applicable
(9) The names of any excipients known to be a safety concern
(10) Name, postal address, and premises address of the manufacturer and
distributor
(11) Country of origin
4. The product name, package, or label shall not bear close resemblance to
previously registered product
5. If the original label is in a local or foreign language, the product information
shall be in English or a translation thereof
6. All products that are not recommended for use in or by children, the statement
“not to be taken by children” shall be included
7. All products shall bear the statement “keep out of the reach of children”
8. Products meant for external use shall bear the statement “for external use only”

Cosmetics

9. In addition to clauses 1 to 5, claims on cosmetics shall not imply actions that

are normally considered therapeutic in nature

Herbal Products

10. The name of product shall not be offensive, unethical, socially or traditionally
unacceptable, superstitious, magical
11. A list of the botanical names of all plants used in the preparation
12. A list of all other ingredients including biological substances
13. The list of indications shall correspond to the active ingredients declared
14. For products that are not recommended for use in or by children, the statement
“not to be taken by children” shall be included
15. All dosages should be stated in words
16. For products meant for children, the age ranges shall be specified for each
dosage regimen
322 / AGBOKA

Household Chemical Substances

17. Mode or method of dilution
18. Method of application and protection required
19. For insecticides aerosols, re-entry periods shall be specified
20. Precautions and treatment of accidental ingestion and poisoning
21. Appropriate conditions for disposal of the container

APPENDIX B
This is an image of the document for Korea No. 1.

APPENDIX C
This is an image of the Man & Woman Cream,
with a translation in English.
 DECOLONIAL METHODOLOGIES / 323

REFERENCES
1. L. T. Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, Zed
Books Ltd, London & New York, 1999.
2. H. A. McKee and J. E. Porter, Legal and Regulatory Issues for Technical Com-
municators Conducting Global Internet Research, Technical Communication, 57:3,
pp. 282-299, 2010.
3. C. R. Lovitt, Introduction: Rethinking the Role of Culture in Intercultural Profes-
sional Communication, in Exploring the Rhetoric of International Professional
Communication: An Agenda for Teachers and Researchers, C. R. Lovitt and
D. Goswami (eds.), Baywood, Amityville, New York, pp. 1-13, 1999.
4. A. M. Benson, Salvaging African Perspectives of Reality via Afro-Centric and Inter-
subjective Methodologies. Retrieved October 1, 2010 from http://www.nai.uu.se/
ecas-4/panels/101-120/panel-111/Benson-Mulemi-Full-paper.pdf, 2004
5. G. Dei, Rethinking the Role of Indigenous Knowledge in the Academy, International
Education, 29:1, pp. 37-72, 2000.
6. N. Denzin, Emancipatory Discourse and the Ethics and Politics of Interpretation, in
The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd Edition), L. Denzin and Y. Lincoln
(eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 933-958, 2005.
7. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Quali-
tative Research, in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd Edition),
N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 651-679,
2005.
8. M. E. González y González and Y. S. Lincoln, The Search for Emerging Decolon-
izing Methodologies in Qualitative Research: Further Strategies for Liberatory and
Democratic Inquiry, Qualitative Inquiry, 14:5, pp. 784-805, 2008.
9. D. W. Mignolo, Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and
the Grammar of Decoloniality, 2008. Retrieved December 19, 2009 from: http://
townsendcenter.berkeley.edu/pubs/De-linking_Mignolo.pdf
10. K. Mutua and B. B. Swadener, Decolonizing Research in Cross-Cultural Contexts:
Critical Personal Narratives, State University of New York Press, Albany, New York,
2004.
11. E. Perez, The Decolonial Imaginary, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana,
1999.
12. N. Blyler, Research as Ideology in Professional Communication, Technical Com-
munication Quarterly, 4:3, pp. 285-313, 1995.
13. C. Thralls and N. R. Blyler, The Social Perspective and Professional Communi-
cation: Diversity and Directions in Research, in Professional Communication: The
Social Perspective, N. R. Blyler and C. Thralls (eds.), Sage, Newbury Park, California,
pp. 3-34, 1993.
14. L. Faigley, Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal, College
English, 48, pp. 527-542, 1985.
15. C. G. Herndl, Teaching Discourse and Reproducing Culture: A Critique of Research
and Pedagogy in Professional and Non-Academic Writing, College Composition
and Communication, 44:3, pp. 349-363, 1993.
16. R. Johnson, Audience Involved: Toward a Participatory Model of Writing, Computers
and Composition, 14:3, pp. 361-376, 1997.
324 / AGBOKA

17. C. R. Miller, A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing, College English, 40,
pp. 610-617, 1979.
18. D. Sullivan, Political-Ethical Implications of Defining Technical Communication
as Practice, Journal of Advanced Composition, 10, pp. 375-386, 1990.
19. L. L. Putnam, The Interpretive Perspective: An Alternative to Functionalist, in Com-
munication and Organizations: An Interpretive Approach, L. L. Putnam and
M. Pacanowsky (eds.), Sage, Beverly Hills, California, pp. 31-54, 1983.
20. M. Alvesson, Organizational Symbolism and Ideology, Journal of Management
Studies, 28:3, pp. 207-225, 1991.
21. M. A. Aneas and M. P. Sandin, Intercultural and Cross-Cultural Communica-
tion Research: Some Reflections about Culture and Qualitative Methods, Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 10(1), 43-61, 2009.
22. H. Sun, The Triumph of Users: Achieving Cultural Usability Goals with User
Localization, Technical Communication Quarterly, 15:4, pp. 457-481, 2006.
23. D. Clark, Is Professional Writing Relevant? A Model for Action Research, Technical
Communication Quarterly, 13:3, pp. 307-323, 2004.
24. G. A. Cross, Ethnographic Research in Business and Technical Writing: Between
Extremes and Margins, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8, p. 118,
1994.
25. L. M. Kastman and L. J. Gurak, Conducting Technical Communication Research via
the Internet: Guidelines for Privacy, Permissions, and Ownership in Educational
Research, Technical Communication, 46:4, pp. 460-469, 1999.
26. M. S. McNealy, Strategies for Empirical Research in Writing, Longman, New York,
1999.
27. S. M. North, The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of Emerging Field,
Boyton/Cook, Upper Montclair, New Jersey, 1987.
28. P. M. Boynton, People Should Participate In, Not Be Subjects Of, Research, British
Medical Journal, 317, p. 1521, 1998.
29. A. Haas, Race, Rhetoric, and Technology: A Case Study of Decolonial Technical
Communication Theory, Methodology, and Pedagogy, Journal of Business and
Technical Communication, 26, pp. 277-310, 2012.
30. A. Haas, A Rhetoric of Alliance: What American Indians Can Tell Us About
Digital and Visual Rhetoric, doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
Michigan, 2008.
31. B. Longo, An Approach for Applying Cultural Study Theory to Technical Writing
Research, Technical Communication Quarterly, 7, pp. 53-73, 1998.
32. D. A. Sapp, Global Partnerships in Business Communication: An Institutional Collab-
oration between the United States and Cuba, Business Communication Quarterly,
67:3, pp. 267-280, 2004.
33. J. T. Grabill, Shaping Local HIV/AIDS Services Policy through Activist Research:
The Problem of Client Involvement, Technical Communication Quarterly, 9:1,
pp. 29-50, 2000.
34. R. D. Crabtree, Mutual Empowerment in Cross-Cultural Participatory Development
and Service Learning: Lessons in Communication and Social Justice from Projects
in El Salvador and Nicaragua, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26,
pp. 182-209, 1998.
 DECOLONIAL METHODOLOGIES / 325

35. G. Alred, Teaching in Germany and the Rhetoric of Culture, Journal of Business
and Technical Communication, 11:3, pp. 353-378, 1997.
36. C. Boairsky, The Relationship between Cultural and Rhetorical Conventions:
Engaging in International Communication, Technical Communication Quarterly, 4:3,
pp. 245-259, 1995.
37. N. St. Germaine-Madison, Localizing Medical Information for U.S. Spanish-Speakers:
The CDC Campaign to Increase Public Awareness about HPV, Technical Com-
munication, 56:3, pp. 235-247, 2009.
38. B. L. Thatcher, Cultural and Rhetorical Adaptations for South American Audiences,
Technical Communication, Second Quarter, pp. 177-195, 1999.
39. J. Wang, Convergence in the Rhetorical Patterns of Directness and Indirectness in
Chinese and U.S. Business Letters, Journal of Business and Technical Communi-
cation, 24:1, pp. 91-120, 2010.
40. G. Savage and K. Mattson, Perceptions of Racial and Ethnic Diversity in
Technical Communication Programs, Programmatic Perspectives, 3:1, pp. 5-57,
2011.
41. A. Ryen, Cross-Cultural Interviewing, in Handbook of Interview Research: Context
and Method, J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein (eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, California,
2002.
42. M. B. Debs, Reflexive and Reflective Tensions. Considering Research Methods
from Writing-Related Fields, in Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspec-
tives, R. Spilka (ed.), Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 238-252,
1993.
43. M. Hammersley, Questioning Qualitative Inquiry: Critical Essays, Sage, Los Angeles,
California, 2008.
44. O. Sikes, Decolonizing Research and Methodologies: Indigenous Peoples and
Cross-Cultural Contexts, Pedagogy, Culture, and Society, 14:3, pp. 349-358,
2006.
45. S. M. Adler, Multiple Layers of a Researcher’s Identity: Uncovering Asian American
Voices, in Decolonizing Research in Cross-Cultural Contexts: Critical Personal
Narratives, K. Mutua and B. B. Swadener (eds.), State University of New York
Press, Albany, New York, pp. 107-121, 2004.
46. E. Shohat, Notes on the “Post-Colonial,” Social Text, 31/32, pp. 99-112, 1992.
47. J. W. Scott, Experience, in Feminists Theorize the Political, J. Butler and J. W. Scott
(eds.), Routledge, New York, pp. 22-40, 1992.
48. C. Owu-Ewie, The Language Policy of Education in Ghana: A Critical Look at
the English-Only Language Policy of Education, proceedings of the 35th Annual
Conference on African Linguistics, John Mugane et al. (eds.), Cascadilla Proceedings
Project in 2006, Somerville, Massachusetts, pp. 76-85. Retrieved February 20, 2010
from http://www.lingref.com/cpp/acal/35/paper1298.pdf
49. D. R. Zorc, Overview of African Languages, 2003. Retrieved, February 20, 2010
from http://www.umes.edu/english/newalp/pdf/davidzork.pdf
50. R. July, Toward Cultural Independence in Africa: Some Illustrations from Nigeria
and Ghana, African Studies Review, 26:3, pp. 119-131, 1983.
51. D. Apter, Ghana’s Independence: Triumph and Paradox, Transition, 9, pp. 6-22,
2008.
326 / AGBOKA

52. K. Dawisha and B. Parrot, The End of the Empire?” The Transformation of the USSR
in Comparative Perspective, M. E. Sharpe, Inc., New York, 1997.
53. D. Spurr, The Rhetoric of Empire: Colonial Discourse in Journalism, Travel
Writing, and Imperial Administration, Duke University Press, Durham, North
Carolina, 1993.
54. P. L. McLaren, Field Relations and the Discourse of the Other: Collaboration in
Our Own Ruin, in Experiencing Fieldwork: An Inside View of Qualitative Research,
W. W. B. Shaffir and R. A. Stebbins (eds.), Sage, Newbury Park, California,
pp. 149-163, 1991.
55. L. F. Chiu, Critical Reflection: More than Nuts and Bolts, Action Research, 4:2,
pp. 183-203, 2006.
56. P. L. McLaren, Collision with Otherness: “Traveling” Theory, Postcolonial Criti-
cism, and the Politics of Ethnographic Practice—The Mission of the Wounded
Ethnographer, in Critical Theory and Educational Research, P. McLaren and J. M.
Giarelli (eds.), State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, pp. 271-300,
1995.
57. N. Beeman-Cadwallader, C. Quigley, and T. Yazzie-Mintz, Enacting Decolonized
Methodologies: The Doing of Research in Educational Communities, Qualitative
Inquiry, 18:1, pp. 3-15, 2012.
58. V. D. Craig, Action Research Essentials, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco,
California, 2009.
59. J. Horton, R. Macve, and G. Struyven, Qualitative Research: Experiences in Using
Semi-Structured Interviews, 2004. Retrieved February 20, 2010 from http://www.
download-it.org/free_files/filePages%20from%20Chapter%2020.pdf
60. E. Said, Orientalism, Random House, New York, 1978.
61. P. L. McLaren and C. Lankshear, Critical Literacy and the Postmodern Turn, in
Critical Literacy: Politics, Power, and the Postmodern, C. Lankshear and P. L.
McLaren (eds.), State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, pp. 379-419,
1993.
62. M. Owusu, Ethnography of Africa: The Usefulness of the Useless, American Anthro-
pologist, 80, pp. 310-333, 1978.
63. J. W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (2nd
Edition), Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, 2003.
64. R. M. Emerson, R. I. Fretz, and L. L. Shaw, Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1995.
65. S. A. Canagarajah, The Place of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization
Continued, College Composition and Communication, 57:4, pp. 586-618, 2006.

Other Articles On Communication By This Author

Agboka, G. Y., Liberating Intercultural Technical Communication from “Large Culture”

Ideologies: Constructing Culture Discursively, Journal of Technical Writing and
Communication, 42:2, 2012.
Agboka, G. Y., Thinking and Social Justice: Interrogating the International in Interna-
tional Technical Communication Discourse, Connexious: International Professional
Communication Journal, 1:1, 2013.
 DECOLONIAL METHODOLOGIES / 327

Agboka, G. Y., Participatory Localization: A Social Justice Approach to Navigating

Unenfranchised/Disenfranchised Cultural Sites, Technical Communication Quarterly,
22:1, 2013.

Direct reprint requests to:

Godwin Y. Agboka
Dept. of English
University of Houston-Downtown
One Main Street
Houston, TX 77002
e-mail: agbokag@uhd.edu
Copyright of Journal of Technical Writing & Communication is the property of Baywood
Publishing Company, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.