A doctoral study was interrupted when Spivak stepped in to ask if the subaltern could speak (1992); what resulted was a productive undoing (Spivak, 2012) of the original research study in order to seek to understand how a research study conducted by a white, middle-class, Western doctoral student from a Western university, could be carried out in a more ethical and equitable way when researching in the Majority World.

The original research study intended to develop a rich, nuanced understanding of children’s play and early learning in the early childhood classes of an NGO run school in India while simultaneously problematizing the universal, uncritical application of dominant Western discourses and research to the lives of marginalised children living diverse childhoods. Combining Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological systems theory and Vygotsky’s socio-cultural historical theory, with postcolonial theory the study was designed to collect data by ethnographic observations in the school and wider society, along with participatory methods with the children, and interviews with teachers and parents. Three years in, after fieldwork had been completed, along came Spivak, demanding to be heard; prompting questions about voice, power, authority, agency, ethics, and equity. Was the voice of the researcher taking up space that wasn’t hers to take? Was her voice colonizing the research space?

After a process of hyper-self-reflexivity (Kapoor, 2004) and critical consciousness (hooks, 1989), the research study was productively undone which allowed for every choice that was made: the methodology, the theoretical framework, the research tools, the ethical approval application, as well as the research questions and motivations, to be seen as data that was plugged in (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012; 2013) to multiple theories and interdisciplinary perspectives to allow for an interrogation from a multi-perspective analysis. Post-colonial theories, de-colonial theories, anti-racist theories, and feminist theories were used for the plugging in process.

Drawing on an ethnographic tradition, four research trips of between one and three weeks were carried out over three years. A case study approach was taken in order to explore the lived experiences, behaviours, emotions, interactions, and the impact of culture and society on the play and early learning experiences of children. Arts-based methods were also employed to build a ‘living picture’ (Clark & Moss, 2005; 2011) the children’s experiences of play and early learning, as well as the attitudes of the parents, teachers, school managements, and the wider community. One hundred and ten children aged between five and eight years of age took part in the research. Photographic observations, field notes, and formal interviews were conducted as well as drawing and a photovoice exercise with the children. A guide and interpreter was employed in the field. Rather than analysing the original data for themes, trends and results, the data and individual pieces of the research study were taken apart and played with. They were pushed, pulled, unthreaded, ripped, braided, and re-ruptured. The data was then viewed from different theoretical perspectives (Jackson and Mazzei, 2012; 2013; Mazzei, 2014) and interdisciplinary perspectives, before gently, and with productive intention, put back together to offer possible insights and considerations for more ethical possibilities when researching in the Majority world for educational researchers. Format, form, and voice were played with using a narrative inquiry approach (Clandinin, 2013;2016) to the writing process allowing the authority of the researcher’s voice to be interrupted, challenged, or joined by the voices of children and the interpreter /co-researcher.

The doctoral study was put back together at the end of the process to produce ‘learnings’ rather than findings. The learnings built on a rich tradition of questioning the privileged voice and authority of the ethnocentric researcher and the (re)production of inequalities, inbuilt systemic oppression, and privilege of the Academy (Andreotti, 2006; hooks, 1994; Kloß, 2017; McIntosh, 2012, Patel, 2014; Tuck, 2009). Data was not created, ‘collected’, or analysed in isolation. The children, the school, and the interpreter/guides were co-researchers and co-creators of knowledge. The school and children, as co-researchers wanted equal recognition and as such, after a revision of the Maynooth University Ethical Approval application, the children and staff of Emmanuel Public School, Pune, India are now named in the dissertation and any further publications. Suresh, the interpreter/guide is recognised and acknowledged as a co-researcher. The observations of, and interactions with, the children, when seen through de-colonial and children’s rights lenses highlighted the children’s successful attempts to decolonize the research process by turning the gaze and camera lens back on the researcher and by setting their own agenda and researching a topic they were interested in researching. No longer seen in a deficit lens, children are seen as agentic. By not privileging adults’ ways of doing things - training in research methodology - their natural method of researching, that of playing, is acknowledged, and given due weight. By de-centering the adult researcher, this study centers the children’s inherent ways of being and researching, and it values them.

Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy & Practice (Centre for Global Education), 3, 40-51. Clandinin, D. J. (2016;2013;). Engaging in narrative inquiry. Routledge. Clark, A & Moss, P. (2011). Listening to young children: the mosaic approach (Second ed.). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Clark, A. & Moss, P. (2005). Spaces to Play, More listening to young children using the Mosaic approach. London: National Children's Bureau. Hogan, D. (2005). Researching 'the child' in Developmental Psychology. In S. a. Greene, Researching Children's Experiences: Approaches and Methods (pp. 22-41). Sage. hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge. Jackson, A. & Mazzei, L. (2012). Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research - Viewing data across multiple perspectives. London and New York: Routledge. Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2013). Plugging One Text Into Another: Thinking With Theory in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(4), 261–271. Kapoor, I. (2004). Hyper-self-reflexive development? Spivak on representing the Third World 'Other'. Third World Quarterly, 25(4), 627-647. Kloß, S. T. (2017). The global south as subversive practice: Challenges and potentials of a heuristic concept. The Global South, 11(2), 1-17. McIntosh, P. (2012). Reflections and future directions for privilege studies. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 194-206. Mazzei, L. A. (2014). Beyond an easy sense: A diffractive analysis. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 742-746. Patel, L. (. (2014). Countering coloniality in educational research: From ownership to answerability. Educational Studies (Ames), 50(4), 357-377. Spivak, G. C. (1992). Can the Subaltern Speak? In P. Williams, & L. Chrisman (Eds.), Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory (pp. 66-111). New York: Columbia University Press. Spivak, G. C. (2012). An Aesthetic Education in the Era of Globalization. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press. Tuck, Eve. 2009. “Suspending Damages: A Letter to Communities.” Harvard Educational Review 79: 409–427.