European colonial history still has an (ongoing and exclusionary) influence on contemporary (scientific) perspectives and structures. Reflexivity is often introduced in order to 'solve' this 'colonialism problem' or at least to prove the integrity of the researcher following 'good' research practices in terms of implementing aspects of research ethics. However, there are pitfalls in doing reflexivity, especially in post/colonial constellations, which can perpetuate the hegemonic hierarchy rather than deconstruct it. Thus, the concept of reflexivity is normatively important but theoretically vague. This paper focuses on this highly relevant concept, contextualizing it within post/colonial research constellations and describing the specificities of being reflexive in this very special context.

The following questions will guide through the presentation:

1. What is (scientific) reflexivity in a first sense?
2. How does the specificity of post/colonial relations necessarily construct the practice of reflexivity, and what are its orientations?
3. What are the theoretical and empirical possibilities of reflexivity? How can it be used profitably?

The presentations topic goes back to my dissertation project 'Inclusive Education in Rural Ghana - Spaces of Knowledge Production in an Ethnographic Study in Postcolonial Constellations', where I illustrate the post/colonial influence on three different levels: methodological (ethnography), theoretical (inclusive education) and epistemic (Eurocentrism & exclusion). Aiming at a post/colonial sensitive and equitable research design and opening up spaces for reflection and discussion on how to understand inclusive education in post/colonial constellations, I started with an ethnographic preliminary study in 2019. After being in the field for two months and planning to return in a few months to collect (more) data, I soon realized that I would not be able to return to the field. Due to these circumstances, I explored the research topic dialogically, adopting a post/colonial, critically reflexive research design, moving between theory, methodology, underlying epistemology and ethnographic data material. I have found that we cannot escape our shared history, especially when doing research (on inclusion) in formerly colonized contexts, or with actors who are marginalized due to the persistence of (neo)colonial structures and narratives in all sorts of other contexts - including Europe, manifested in fascist orientations and racism, e.g. As a result, ethnographic research on inclusive education in post/colonial constellations is subject to broad reflexivity requirements that need to be cultivated and pursued in a contextual (methodological, theoretical, epistemic) relational way. This leads to the following line of argument:

Deeply linked to colonialism, ethnography has developed methodological paradigms that emphasise the 'other' and the 'unknown', perpetuating a Eurocentric focus on difference (Beier, 2005; Churchill, 2005; Malinowski, 1922). Van Maanen (2011) highlights that “posing questions at the margins between two cultures” (p. 4) is central to ethnography, creating spaces for Eurocentric perspectives, particularly in post/colonial contexts.

Second, while inclusive education has gained widespread acceptance (Artiles et al., 2011), it has predominantly emerged in “high income countries for learners” (Muthukrishna & Engelbrecht, 2018, p. 1). Research often emphasizes “what is not happening” (Singal, 2015, p. 12) in the global south, reinforcing Eurocentric structures and narratives. As a result, inclusive education is perceived as a “from the West to the rest” (Grech, 2011, p. 88) approach, which requires a comprehensive ‘(de-)colonisation project’ (Muthukrishna & Engelbrecht, 2018).

Lastly, knowledge production is intertwined with colonialism, influencing what and how research is conducted. The “modern crisis of modern knowledge” lies in its reinforcement of “colonial inequality, giving shape to a monoculture of knowledge” (Santos et al., 2007, p. xxxix). This epistemic framework has been critiqued as a Eurocentric tool that stabilizes colonial structures and narratives (Hall, 2018; Mignolo, 2002; Spivak, 1994).

The methodological approach to the guiding questions is as follows: I. I will define the term 'reflexivity' on three different levels: first, I will define the object of knowledge by introducing a semantic basis. Secondly, I will contextualize the concept of reflexivity within the discipline of social and educational sciences, focusing on the reflexive turn and distinguishing between scientific reflexivity and narcissistic reflexivity by introducing Bourdieu (2016) perspectives. Thirdly, I will consider the concept of reflexivity as a function of coloniality, following Gani an Khan (2024) who bring a reflexive perspective to the concept itself. II. I will then offer a definition of post/colonial constellations and derive at least four key points that are essential to the operating mechanisms of post/colonialism. After that, I will contextualize the notion of reflexivity in post/colonial constellations and offer relevant and concrete approaches for reflection in the pursuit of an inclusive and just post/colonial society and research landscape. I will point out that reflexivity in post/colonial research constellations necessarily means analyzing and deconstructing the way of doing research, as mentioned by Hofhues and Schütze (2022) and Spivak (1994). Finally, I will highlight the “incommensurability” (Tuck & Yang, 2012, p. 4) of doing it 'right' and propose two theoretical approaches to reflect on the concept of reflexivity itself and deconstruct unconscious motivations for doing so. To do so, I will introduce Pillows (2003) reflexive orientations of confession, catharsis and cure and Bogers (2017) reflexive orientations of deconstruction, empowerment and normalization. III. By answering the question of possibilities on a theoretical and empirical basis, I will present concrete approaches to reflect on one's own academic socialization and to irritate one's own way of doing research in order to open up science to plural perspectives, marginalized voices and new ways of doing research. IV. Finally, I will give an insight into the ethnographic data of the PhD project and link them to the key aspects of reflexivity in post/colonial research constellations mentioned earlier.

Reflexivity, if not examined through a post/colonial lens, risks perpetuating the very colonial structures it seeks to challenge. Without integrating a post/colonially informed lens, the following conclusions are drawn at methodological, theoretical and epistemic levels in the context of inclusive education research in post/colonial constellations: Methodological implications: The colonial legacy of ethnography, rooted in the cultivation of the Other, may persist unchecked. Reflexivity limited to self-awareness, without addressing power asymmetries inherent in post/colonial constellations, tends to reinforce Eurocentric narratives of cultural difference. Researchers may inadvertently frame local communities within exoticized or deficit-oriented paradigms, marginalizing indigenous perspectives and reinforcing colonial hierarchies in the research process (Beier, 2005; Van Maanen, 2011). Theoretical implications: Inclusive education, predominantly conceptualized within Western paradigms, risks being uncritically applied to post/colonial contexts. Without post/colonial critique, reflexivity may fail to question the universal applicability of concepts, instead privileging Western ideals as benchmarks. This could perpetuate the notion of inclusive education as a “from the West to the rest” (Grech, 2011, p. 88) framework, overlooking the nuanced ways in which marginalized groups define and enact inclusion. Epistemic reproduction of colonial narratives: Knowledge production risks stabilizing colonial structures by privileging Eurocentric epistemologies and excluding marginalized knowledge systems. Reflexivity uninformed by post/colonial critique may merely acknowledge these dynamics without deconstructing or destabilizing the "monoculture of knowledge" (Santos et al., 2007, p. xxxix). This can undermine the transformative potential of research and perpetuate the asymmetrical global knowledge order. Broader Implications Uncritical reflexivity risks becoming performative, serving as a sign of ethical research without challenging underlying colonial continuities. It may thus fail to contribute meaningfully to a decolonial project, leaving methodological practices, theoretical frameworks and epistemic structures intact. Consequently, post/colonial critique must be central to reflexivity in order to promote justice-oriented, inclusive research that genuinely destabilizes colonial legacies in knowledge production and practice.

Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., & Waitoller, F. R. (2011). Inclusive education: Examining equity on five continents. Harvard Education press. Beier, J. M. (2005). Ethnography, Ethics, and Advanced Colonialism. In J. M. Beier (Hrsg.), International Relations in Uncommon Places: Indigeneity, Cosmology, and the Limits of International Theory (S. 73–95). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403979506_4 Boger, M.-A. (2017). Theorien der Inklusion – eine Übersicht. Zeitschrift für Inklusion. https://www.inklusion-online.net/index.php/inklusion-online/article/view/413 Bourdieu, P. (2016). Narzißstische Reflexivität und wissenschaftliche Reflexivität. In E. Berg & M. Fuchs (Hrsg.), Kultur, soziale Praxis, Text: Die Krise der ethnographischen Repräsentation (4. Auflage, S. 365–374). Suhrkamp. Churchill, C. J. (2005). Ethnography as Translation. Qualitative Sociology, 28(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-005-2628-9 Gani, J. K., & Khan, R. M. (2024). Positionality Statements as a Function of Coloniality: Interrogating Reflexive Methodologies. International Studies Quarterly, 68(2), sqae038. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae038 Grech, S. (2011). Recolonising debates or perpetuated coloniality? Decentring the spaces of disability, development and community in the global South. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.496198 Hall, S. (2018). The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power. In Essential Essays, Volume 2: Identity and Diaspora. Duke University Press. Hofhues, S., & Schütze, K. (Hrsg.). (2022). Doing Research—Wissenschaftspraktiken zwischen Positionierung und Suchanfrage (1. Aufl.). transcript Verlag. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839456323 Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. George Routledge & Sons. Mignolo, W. D. (2002). The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference. South Atlantic Quarterly, 101(1), 57–96. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-101-1-57 Muthukrishna, N., & Engelbrecht, P. (2018). Decolonising inclusive education in lower income, Southern African educational contexts. South African Journal of Education, 38(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v38n4a1701 Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000060635 Santos, B. de S., Nunes, J. A., & Meneses, M. P. (2007). Introduction. Opening Up the Canon of Knowledge and Recognition of Difference. In B. de S. Santos (Hrsg.), Another Knowledge is Possible. Beyond Northern Epistemologies. (S. xix–lxii). Singal, N. (2015). Disability-Education-Poverty: Critique of existing research on Southern contexts. American Educational Research Association, Chicago/Illinois. http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.1.4385.7442 Spivak, G. C. (1994). Responsibility. 21(3), 19–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/303600 Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. 1(1), 1–40. Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography (Second edition). University of Chicago press.