Comment
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01971-0
Avoid the reproduction of coloniality in
decolonial studies in ecology
María N. Clerici Hirschfeld, Luiz R. R. Faria & Carlos Roberto Fonseca
Calls to decolonize disciplines and institutions
circulate in the scientific community. In
ecology, only the surface of the colonial
structure has been scratched. We propose
that two gaps must be filled to decolonize
the ‘decolonial turn’ itself: recognition
of decolonial theories produced in the
Global South and a deeper historical and
socioeconomic analysis of forms of production
and validation of knowledge in ecology.
Decolonial studies are a mature and broad body of analyses focusing
on the Global South that intend to identify mechanisms of subordina-
tion within Western scientific and political worldviews1. Many theorists
from the Global South have contributed to the development of this
field, including researchers from Africa2–4, Latin America1,5–8, and India
and the Middle East9–11. Furthermore, researchers from Europe have
contributed with important works that are in dialogue with decolonial
studies of the Global South12,13. The contributions of all these research-
ers have introduced many fundamental concepts that are essential
for decolonial analyses, such as the coloniality of power, knowledge,
being and nature (Box 1).
Although studies of coloniality have recently gained visibility in
the biological sciences in general, the theoretical and practical develop-
ment of this phenomenon dates back decades in the Global South. For
example, at the beginning of the twenty-first century in Latin America,
the consolidation of research on coloniality provoked the so-called
‘decolonial turn’6, a proposal that brought theoretical and methodo-
logical changes to the analysis of reality, within a theoretical, practical,
political and epistemological framework that sought to understand
and act in a world moulded by the permanence of global coloniality.
This decolonial turn is approached through two movements: the iden-
tification and diagnosis of coloniality and systems of domination, and
critical reflection on ways to overcome these systems6.
It may be said that the ecological sciences are beginning to
undergo a decolonial turn, which urgently necessitates collectively
thinking about alternatives that contribute to the transformation of the
production mode of ecological knowledge. The first step, of diagnos-
ing the problem (that is, recognizing the pervasiveness of coloniality),
is beginning14–18. But there is still a long way to go, something that is
evident when one examines (for example) the reference lists of studies
on coloniality from within ecology14,19–21, in which the approaches are
mainly — or even totally — constructed from theoretical frameworks
and views from the Global North, and without consideration of fun-
damental concepts such as the coloniality of power, nature, being
nature ecology & evolution
Check for updates
and knowledge. In short, coloniality is still being discussed by those in
positions of power. Consequently, despite the positive effect that these
studies have had by generating different reflections in the field, some
of the concepts used are not novel and some statements are superficial
or biased — ending up reproducing the coloniality of knowledge itself
(as defined in Box 1). For us to transit a decolonial turn in ecology, it is
paramount to critically analyse the evidence through the lens of deco-
lonial theory (that is, through the set of theoretical and methodological
approaches developed over decades by authors from the Global South
in relation to colonialism, coloniality and decoloniality).
Towards a decolonial turn
Solutions proposed so far within ecology generally revolve around
more-inclusive and ethical research practices22–24. Indeed, equity, diver-
sity and inclusion are crucial and legitimate, and are increasingly being
discussed, criticized and refined under various approaches that aim to
recognize intersectionalities and promote positive changes in work,
teaching and learning in ecology. Shifting focus, inclusion and partici-
pation, however, does not necessarily lead to decolonization. Without
a critical thinking process, inclusion can only be symbolic. Diversity
is a fact of life that cannot be promoted without explaining why it has
previously been relegated25, because in doing so we risk reproducing
the same unequal power structures. What we need is theoretical and
practical research that contributes to a change in the structures that
we inhabit as researchers, teachers and students. By contrast, current
proposals in the field focus on the use of guidelines with a specific
number of steps to be followed to achieve decolonization. Although
helpful in some cases, it is important to emphasize that decolonization
is a complex process that requires a paradigm shift in the way we do
science. As stated by Adebisi25: “[d]ecolonisation is not about ticking
a box: it must disrupt”.
In this sense, a central proposal of decolonial studies and practices
is to “know the past to walk in the future”5 — that is, to research the his-
tory of knowledge beyond the West, and the ways in which knowledge is
constructed and validated — as an indispensable tool to move towards
a decolonization of science7. Therefore, for a radical transformation
in the way we think, view and do science, we need to understand the
historical and epistemological basis of knowledge. After all, a his-
torically and epistemologically contextualized education can improve
the interpretation of research results and generate more-consistent
conclusions about ecological problems. Decolonization offers a way
to historically and geographically break racialized and hierarchical
epistemic hegemonies25.
However, ecology is a modern science with a complex history that
has been poorly investigated26. For Worster27, even though ecology
had become in the 1970s a “large and significant component of the
scientific enterprise”, it was a “stranger who has just invaded the city, a
presence without a past”. Later, Nicolson28 stated that the challenge fac-
ing the ‘post-Worster’ historian of ecology was not merely to describe
Comment
Box 1
Important concepts in decolonial studies developed in the Global
South
Academic dominance
Domination of standards of research, teaching and learning that
translates into a logic of classification and hierarchization, on a global
scale, of the construction of valid knowledge7.
Coloniality
A term that alludes to situations of power, control and hegemony that
arose during colonial times and continue to the present day. It should
be noted that not all situations of oppression (for example, patriarchy)
are consequences of colonialism, although they can be reinforced or
reproduced by it8.
Coloniality of being
Power relations that naturalize the physical and symbolic domination
of non-Western human populations. These relations accept
the premise established by colonization that there are humans
considered inferior, so that their cultures — and therefore their
languages, traits and customs — are also inferior, taking away their
autonomy6.
Coloniality of knowledge
A form of domination of the subject, objects and methods of
knowledge. This domination presents itself in various ways, such
as through the creation of a subject who leads the research and
determines which object is to be studied; the decision about which
scientific objectives are relevant; and searches for neutrality that seek
to separate the production of knowledge from its social, political and
economic context and/or seek answers to a problem with a universal
pretension1.
Coloniality of nature
A conception of nature which conceives it as an object or thing that
can be dominated, exploited or reconfigured according to the needs
the historical development of ecology, but to explain it — that is, to
understand the historical forces and circumstances that have caused
ecological knowledge to possess specific characteristics at particular
times. Five decades later, we do not see a great advance. We know little
about the history of how the field developed outside of the USA, UK and
a few other European countries, which — besides being an obvious gap
— has consequences for the development of ecological science itself.
It should be also realized that colonial history may be more impor-
tant for ecology than for scientific fields whose objects are less local29.
Since colonial times, scientific knowledge about nature grew through
expeditions and encounters of naturalists with the knowledge of Indige-
nous, enslaved and local peoples. Thus, observations related to species
identification, life histories, behaviour and geographical distribution
in colonized regions laid the foundation for the emergence of ecology
as a self-conscious discipline30. Scientific institutions that emerged
nature ecology & evolution
of the current regimes of accumulation, and which therefore has
no rights6.
Coloniality of power
A structural pattern of power that is typical of modernity, based on
a hierarchical and unequal social classification, formed by a system
of exploitation and various forms of oppression, and defined on
the basis of gender, ethnic or racial boundaries, which allow for
the political, ethnic and epistemic subordination of populations
oppressed by colonization8.
Epistemic extractivism
A process of appropriation of non-Western knowledge to gain
symbolic capital34.
Epistemic injustice (‘epistemicide’)
A process of invisibility and concealment of cultural and social
contributions that are not assimilated by Western knowledge.
Epistemic injustice is also defined as a form of cultural injustice
that occurs when the concepts and categories by which people
understand themselves and their world are replaced or affected by
the concepts and categories of the colonizers11.
Globalized localism (methodological globalism)
Analyses or works that include studies from only one part of the
globe but define themselves as global because they are located in
the power centres of the Global North5.
Internal colonialism
Given the existence of heterogeneous groups within any society,
internal colonialism is defined as the internal exploitation brought
about by colonial structures that leads to social, political and
economic inequalities within the dominated regions but is stimulated
by inequalities between regions5.
in colonial contexts (for example, botanical gardens, museums and
private collections) created important bases for ecological research
that helped to shape the main ecological concepts, including eco-
logical community, ecosystems and species diversity30. This is directly
associated with what Mignolo31 termed the “colonial and geopolitical
difference of knowledge”, a product of the accumulation of knowledge
and resources in some European countries during the colonization
process. Thus, since the eighteenth century, the exploration of nature
through overseas voyages — which was an important way of control-
ling knowledge, nature and society — enabled the development of
ecology as a modern science. The links between natural history and
politics, between knowledge and power, and between ‘discovery’ and
possession were then more-pronouncedly established. Although many
dimensions of the asymmetrical power relations that are consequences
of colonialism have changed, coloniality (that is, situations of power,
Comment
Decolonial turn in ecology
Research
Validation
Guiding questions for decolonial research




Whose research is it? Who will carry out the research?
Where will the research be done? Who will analyse and write up the research? Where will the data
Who will benefit? Who will have access and in
which language?
How will precedent research
be acknowledged? Which references will be selected?
Fig. 1 | Guidance for decolonializing research in ecology. Key questions to consider when designing and implementing a decolonial research agenda.
control and hegemony that arose during colonial times and continue
to the present day) persists at all levels of scientific practice.
For example, coloniality has shaped how we conceptualize nature,
our relationship with it and, as a consequence, the way that we conceive
of studying it. Nature is understood as something external that must
be discovered, and in a context where little relevance is given to the
historical and social component of the places under study. Theory and
the scientific method should not be seen as a way to obtain representa-
tions that correspond to a nature that is independent of the observation
system, at the risk of biases being produced or reproduced. We must
realize that legitimate scientific practices can change from place to
place, and also depend on the gender, age, academic standing, research
group, institution, and other social and cultural characteristics of
those involved. However, social aspects of scientific work are often
neglected, as explicit discussions of the social and cultural context of
science are rare in ecology32.
Therefore, it is important to understand ecology as a social, geo-
graphical and historical phenomenon to transit a decolonial turn (note
that this does not mean that we advocate scientific relativism; rather,
we propose a plural science). Beyond steps or tick boxes to achieve
decoloniality, interactions between values and interests should be
placed in the formula for understanding the process of theory con-
struction. For example, some questions — posed by Indigenous peoples
about Western science33 — should guide researchers (Fig. 1), including
to whom the research belongs; what interests the research serves; who
will benefit from the research; who designs the questions and frames
the scope of the research; who carries out the research; how results will
be disseminated; and who will write up the research. To this, we add
questions around what references are cited and how they are selected;
what language or languages these references are in; and what will be
done with the data, and where it will be done. Having addressed these
points, we can take a different path to the future. But, to transit the
decolonial turn, we need internal knowledge and an understanding of
the formation of ecological knowledge, and must consider power rela-
tions and sociohistorical contexts as central elements of the analyses.
Without democratic critical analyses, solutions are destined to fail
— mainly because we need solutions that agree with the diverse local
nature ecology & evolution
Application
Education
Communication
How will the data be available?
be disseminated?
Where will the results be applied?
Who will profit from the research?
realities and therefore with analyses based on the local–global history
of this diversity. Only then we will be able to build an anticolonial, plural,
diverse and horizontal ecological science.
María N. Clerici Hirschfeld    1  , Luiz R. R. Faria2 &
Carlos Roberto Fonseca    1
1
Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do
Norte, Natal, Brazil. 2Instituto Latino-Americano de Ciências da Vida e
da Natureza, Universidade Federal da Integração Latino-Americana,
Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.
 e-mail: maria.clerici.h@gmail.com
Published online: xx xx xxxx
References
1. Lander, E. A. A colonialidade do saber: eurocentrismo e ciencias sociais. Perspectivas
latino-americanas (CLACSO, 2005).
2. Césaire, A. Guaraguao 20, 157–193 (2005).
3. Fanon, F. Black Skin, White Masks (Pluto, 1986).
4. Mbembe, A. Arts Humanit. High. Educ. 15, 29–45 (2016).
5. Rivera Cusicanqui, S. Ch’ixinakax utxiwa: una reflexión sobre prácticas y
discursosdescolonizadores (Tinta Limón, 2010).
6. Castro-Gómez, S. & Grosfoguel, R. El Giro Decolonial (Siglo del hombre, 2007).
7. Grosfoguel, R. Rev. (Fernand Braudel Center) 25, 203–224 (2002).
8. Quijano, A. Int. Sociol. 15, 215–232 (2000).
9. Visvanathan, S. in Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement
(eds Leach, M. et al.) 83–97 (Zed Books, 2005).
10. Spivak, G. C. Can the Subaltern Speak? (Routledge, 1994).
11. Bhargava, R. Glob. Policy 4, 413–417 (2013).
12. Bhambra, G. K. Crit. Times 4, 73–89 (2021).
13. Sousa Santos, B. Rev. (Fernand Braudel Center) 30, 45–89 (2007).
14. Maas, B. et al. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12797 (2021).
15. Nuñez, M. A. et al. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 4–9 (2019).
16. Mohammed, R. S. et al. Am. Nat. 200, 140–155 (2022).
17. Rau, J. et al. Ecol. Austral 27, 312–496 (2017).
18. Raja, N. B. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 145–154 (2022).
19. Trisos, C. H., Auerbach, J. & Katti, M. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 1205–1212 (2021).
20. Eichhorn, M. P., Baker, K. & Griffiths, M. Front. Biogeogr. 12, 1–7 (2020).
21. Baker, K., Eichhorn, M. P. & Griffiths, M. Biotropica 51, 288–292 (2019).
22. Brandt, S. et al. Ecol. Evol. 10, 12450–12456 (2020).
23. McGill, B. M. et al. Ecol. Evol. 11, 3636–3645 (2021).
24. Melles, S. J. et al. Ecoscience 26, 323–340 (2019).
25. Adebisi, F. Decolonisation is not about ticking a box: it must disrupt. criticallegalthinking.
com, https://criticallegalthinking.com/2020/03/12/decolonisation-is-not-about-ticking-
a-box/ (12 March 2020).
Comment

26. Güttler, N. Ber. Wiss. 42, 235–258 (2019).
27. Worster, D. J. Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas, 2nd edn (Cambridge Univ.
Press, 1994).
28. Nicolson, M. Hist. Sci. 26, 183–200 (1988).
29. Lewinsohn, T. M. Filos. História Biol. 11, 347–381 (2016).
30. Raby, M. The Study of Ecology in Latin America and the Caribbean (Oxford Univ
Press, 2021).
31. Mignolo, W. D. Coloniality at Large: Time and the Colonial Difference
(Taylor & Francis, 2020).
32. Simpson, D. Y., Beatty, A. E. & Ballen, C. J. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 4–8
(2021).
33. Smith, L. T. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples
(Zed Books, 2013).
34. Grosfoguel, R. Tabula Rasa 24, 123–143 (2016).
Acknowledgements
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nivel
Superior – Brazil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001. M.N.C.H. received a PhD studentship from
CAPES. C.R.F. was supported by CNPq (PQ 306812/2017-7).
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

nature ecology & evolution