黑料网

Decolonization; Community Psychology; Collaborative Autoethnography; Academic Institutions; Colonized Mindsets; Marginalized Communities

Introduction

The legacy of colonialism continues to shape academic institutions, influencing the ways knowledge is produced, validated, and disseminated. These colonized mindsets, often deeply ingrained, perpetuate power imbalances and marginalize voices that challenge dominant paradigms [1]. Community psychology, with its focus on social justice and empowerment, provides a critical framework for examining and addressing these issues within academia. However, even within this field, the remnants of colonial power structures can influence both theory and practice. This paper uses collaborative autoethnography as a methodological approach to explore the intersection of decolonization and community psychology in the academy [2]. By reflecting on our own experiences as scholars and practitioners, we critically analyze how colonial legacies manifest in our work and the broader academic environment. Our goal is to highlight the potential of community psychology to contribute to decolonization efforts and to advocate for more inclusive and equitable practices within academia [3 4]. Through personal narratives, we aim to provide insights into the challenges and possibilities of decolonizing the mind and the institution.

Materials and Methods

This study employs a collaborative autoethnographic approach, allowing the authors to critically reflect on their personal experiences within the academy. Autoethnography, a qualitative research method, combines the personal with the cultural, offering a means to examine individual experiences within broader societal contexts [5- 7]. In this collaborative format, multiple authors engage in shared reflection, discussion, and analysis, creating a collective narrative that explores common themes and insights [8]. The authors, each from different backgrounds and stages in their academic careers, participated in a series of structured and unstructured discussions over several months. These conversations were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed to identify key themes related to colonized mindsets, the practice of community psychology, and the process of decolonization within the academy [9]. The collaborative nature of this method allowed for a diversity of perspectives, enhancing the depth and richness of the analysis. The data was further analyzed using thematic analysis, focusing on how colonial legacies impact both the authors' experiences and their work in community psychology [10]. The authors also reflected on the methodological implications of using collaborative autoethnography as a tool for decolonization, considering its potential to disrupt traditional power dynamics in research.

Conclusion

The findings of this study underscore the pervasive influence of colonized mindsets within academic institutions and the challenges they pose for community psychology. The use of collaborative autoethnography revealed how these colonial legacies impact both the personal and professional lives of scholars, shaping their interactions, research, and teaching. However, this method also highlighted the potential for resistance and transformation, demonstrating how personal narratives can serve as a powerful tool for decolonization. The study concludes that while community psychology holds significant promise for challenging colonial power structures, this potential can only be realized through intentional efforts to decolonize both the minds of practitioners and the institutions in which they operate. The authors advocate for greater recognition of the role that colonialism plays in shaping academic practices and call for a more inclusive, socially just approach to knowledge production and dissemination. By embracing methodologies like collaborative autoethnography, scholars and practitioners can contribute to the ongoing work of decolonization, fostering a more equitable and inclusive academic environment.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

1. Biederman J, Petty CR, Wilens TE, Fraire MG, Purcell CA, et al. (2008) . American Journal of Psychiatry 165: 107-115.

, , Crossref

2. Cortese S (2020) New England Journal of Medicine 383: 1050-1056.

, ,

3. Ohan JL, Visser TA, Moss RG, Allen NB (2013) Psychiatric Services 64: 1270-1273.

, ,

4. Quesada D, Ahmed NU, Fennie KP, Gollub EL, Ibrahimou B, et al. (2018) Archives of psychiatric nursing 32: 495-504.

, ,

5. Al-Yagon M, Lachmi M, Danino M (2020) Manual-based personalized intervention for mothers of children with sld/adhd: Effects on maternal and family resources and children’s internalizing/externalizing behaviors. Journal of Attention Disorders 24: 720-736.

, ,

6. Motahhari ZS, Ahmadi K, Behzadpoor S, Azmoodeh F (2014) Family Counseling and Psychotherapy 3: 591-613.

,

7. Efron D, Furley K, Gulenc A, Sciberras E (2018) Archives of disease in childhood 103: 841-846.

, ,

8. Zoghipaydar MR, ghaseni m, Bayat A, Sanayee Kamal S (2015) Journal of Exceptional Education (J Except Educ) 8: 5-14.

, ,

9. Constantine NA, Jerman P (2007) Journal of Adolescent Health 40: 108-115.

, ,

10. Assari S, Caldwell CH (2019) Children 6: 10.

, ,