Beyond Theory: Material Decolonization in IR Knowledge Production

The movement to decolonize International Relations (IR) requires material reparative actions in knowledge production rather than further intellectual elaboration, according to an analysis published by E-International Relations on June 9, 2026. The report asserts that theoretical shifts are insufficient without concrete changes to the institutional structures that govern academic research.

The analysis argues that the current approach to decolonizing IR often focuses on “intellectual elaboration,” which involves expanding theories or diversifying reading lists. E-International Relations claims this approach risks turning decolonization into a theoretical exercise that fails to disrupt the actual power dynamics of the academy.

Why is theoretical decolonization considered insufficient?

Theoretical decolonization often manifests as the addition of non-Western perspectives to existing curricula. The E-International Relations report suggests this “additive” method does not challenge the underlying structures of who is allowed to produce knowledge and how that knowledge is validated.

When decolonization remains purely intellectual, it can become a performance of inclusivity. The report argues that discussing coloniality in a classroom does not remove the material advantages held by Western institutions, such as control over prestigious journals, tenure requirements, and research grants.

This creates a gap between the rhetoric of decolonization and the reality of academic labor. Scholars in the Global South often continue to face systemic barriers to publication and funding, even as their theories are cited by scholars in the Global North.

What constitutes material reparative action?

Material decolonization requires tangible changes to the resources and permissions that enable knowledge production. According to the report, reparative action must target the physical and financial infrastructure of the discipline.

Proposed material actions include:

• Funding Redistribution: Shifting research grants and financial resources directly to institutions and scholars in the Global South.
• Hiring Reforms: Changing institutional recruitment to prioritize scholars from previously colonized regions in permanent, tenured positions.
• Archive Access: Repatriating colonial archives or providing unfettered, free digital access to records held in Western capitals.
• Validation Metrics: Overhauling the peer-review and citation systems that currently privilege Western-based journals.

The report posits that these steps move the discipline beyond “inclusion” toward “reparation.” It argues that true decolonization is not about adding new voices to an old system, but about changing who owns and controls the system itself.

How does this differ from the Global IR movement?

The call for material decolonization contrasts with the “Global IR” movement, which sought to make the field more representative by incorporating diverse regional perspectives. While Global IR focuses on the “what” of knowledge—adding more global content—material decolonization focuses on the “how” and “who.”

The E-International Relations analysis suggests that Global IR can inadvertently maintain a Eurocentric core by treating non-Western knowledge as “contributions” to a Western-led discipline. In contrast, material reparative action seeks to dismantle the hierarchy that designates certain regions as the “center” of knowledge production and others as the “periphery.”

This distinction is critical for scholars who argue that the “extractive” nature of academic research persists. This extraction occurs when Western researchers utilize data and insights from the Global South to build their careers without providing reciprocal material support to the communities or scholars providing that data.

What are the consequences for academic institutions?

Implementing material reparative action would require Western universities to relinquish a degree of institutional power. The report indicates that this shift involves more than syllabus changes; it requires a reallocation of budgets and a restructuring of academic prestige.

If institutions continue to rely solely on intellectual elaboration, the report warns that the decolonization movement will remain a superficial trend. The result would be a discipline that speaks the language of liberation while maintaining the material structures of colonial-era intellectual dominance.

IR’s decolonization movement requires material reparative action in its knowledge production processes, not extensive intellectual elaboration.

E-International Relations