Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Advocates for a co-creative research paradigm to enhance global relevance and epistemic justice in psychology.
Mainstream psychological science has achieved methodological rigor and institutional legitimacy, yet it remains constrained by deep epistemological and ethical limitations. Dominated by Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic populations, theories, methods and institutions, psychology continues to universalise culturally narrow assumptions while marginalising alternative forms of knowledge and lived experience. I argue that these limitations are not only methodological but also political, reflecting extractive and hierarchical models of knowledge production. Drawing on Liberation Psychology and Worldwide, In situ , Local, Diverse principles, I advance the co-creative approach as an alternative research paradigm. Co-creation repositions communities as active co-researchers who shape research questions, methods, interpretations and outcomes through shared authorship and power redistribution. By foregrounding lived experience, collective meaning-making and action-oriented knowledge, the co-creative approach operationalises conscientisation and praxis while enhancing global relevance and epistemic justice. Co-creation represents a decolonial, ethically grounded pathway for transforming psychology into a socially accountable and globally representative discipline.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hüseyin Çakal (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: