Misrepresentation of Marginalized Groups: A Critique of Epistemic Neocolonialism

Abstract

I argue that meta-ignorance and meta-insensitivity are the key sources influencing the reoccurrence of the (un)conscious misrepresentation of marginalized groups in management and organization research; such misrepresentation, in effect, perpetuates epistemic neocolonialism. Meta-ignorance describes incorrect epistemic attitudes, which render researchers ignorant about issues such as contextual history and emotional and political aspects of a social problem. Researcher meta-ignorance can be a permanent feature, given how researchers define, locate, and make use of their epistemic positionality and privilege. In contrast, meta-insensitivity is a special issue that arises when researchers miss multiple opportunities to capture valuable aspects of marginalized groups’ voices or their life experiences and expectations. The problem of meta-insensitivity during fieldwork is more serious because researchers—despite their apparent willingness to be innovative—fail to understand how to be sensitive toward marginalized groups. The perpetuation of these elements’ misrepresentation contributes to long-lasting negative consequences for marginalized groups. To counter this, I introduce and conceptualize the idea of oppositional views which researchers can mobilize to address misrepresentation of marginalized groups and challenge epistemic neocolonialism.

Repoliticizing spirituality: A collaborative autoethnography on Indigenous identity dynamics during an environmental conflict in a Mapuche community in Chile

“…By employing a collaborative autoethnographic approach with an Indigenous activist and academic author, where we were able to redistribute power between researchers and Indigenous peoples. We hope that we made strides towards combating 'epistemic coloniality' (Escobar, 2020;Ibarra-Colado, 2006) through decolonizing qualitative research and thus contributing to epistemic justice in studies on management and organization (Abdalla and Faria, 2017;Abdelnour and Abu Moghli, 2021;Alcadipani et al, 2012;Chowdhury, 2023;Denzin and Lincoln, 2008;Jammulamadaka et al, 2021;Muzanenhamo and Chowdhury, 2023;Smith, 2012). Through collective conversations and interactions in Spanish (which the academic author translated to English), the Indigenous co-author (and Nano) expressed their ideas in their own languages (Abdelnour and Abu Moghli, 2021;Smith, 2012).…”

Toward a Theory of Marginalized Stakeholder-Centric Entrepreneurship

“…Given the aforementioned problems, our starting point for the MSE conceptualization was to reject the separation thesis (Harris & Freeman, 2008;Noland & Phillips, 2010). We disagree with the differentiation of stakeholders, by which we mean that categorizing stakeholders (labeling stakeholders based on their identity, class, and attributes, such as power) is detrimental to forging meaningful, trustworthy, and innovative engagement with any stakeholder (Chowdhury, 2021d(Chowdhury, , 2022. Categorizing or assigning labels to stakeholders (Medina, 2012) encourages firms to set aside the values of MSs from their entrepreneurship activities.…”

Shades of Cultural Marginalization: Cultural Survival and Autonomy Processes

“…Addressing such questions has significant currency for at least three reasons. First, cultural marginalization is not only prevalent but extends across the globe, affecting both the so-called developed and developing nations (Chowdhury, 2023; Grabska, 2006). Second, cultural marginalization has long-lasting effects on individuals, organizations and communities, which are still being uncovered (Djilali, 2017; Soman & Koci, 2023; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015).…”