Ngopi as Methodology: Reclaiming Indonesian Practices for Knowledge Co-Creation

Abstract

This paper proposes Ngopi—the culturally embedded practice of informal coffee gatherings—as a decolonial methodology for qualitative research in the Indonesian context. Grounded in everyday social interactions, Ngopi offers a space for organic, trust-based conversations that reflect local ways of knowing, sharing, and co-creating knowledge. Unlike Western extractive models of data collection that often impose rigid researcher-participant boundaries, Ngopi operates through relationality, fluidity, and mutual exchange. As a decolonial approach, it challenges dominant paradigms by centering a culturally embedded practice within Indonesia and honoring the lived experiences, language, and social rhythms of participants. Through Ngopi, this paper argues for a methodological shift that not only reclaims local traditions of knowledge-making but also repositions them as legitimate, rigorous, and vital in the landscape of global research practices.

Introduction

In global academic discourse, mainstream knowledge systems, particularly those rooted in Western academic traditions, have historically privileged certain worldviews, experiences, and groups, while systematically excluding or devaluing others (Wynter, 2003). These Western epistemological frameworks have not only shaped what counts as legitimate knowledge but have also functioned as tools of power, sustaining colonial structures and hierarchies in the production of knowledge (Ryan, 1999). As a result, ideas and methodologies emerging from Europe and North America have been positioned as universal and superior, while diverse ways of knowing from other parts of the world have been marginalized, dismissed, or rendered invisible.

This process has led to an epistemicide, the erasure of non-Western ways of knowing and knowledge-making (Moyo, 2020). Moyo (2020) further referred to this as “methodicide,” describing the systematic obliteration of Indigenous epistemologies from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The consequences of this are profound: entire communities are denied the opportunity to participate in knowledge production on their own terms, and their intellectual traditions are excluded from the global conversation. This erasure is not a relic of the past, but a continuing form of epistemic violence that demands urgent redress.

In response to these historical imbalances, scholars have increasingly embraced more humanizing approaches to knowledge production. This includes exploring alternative epistemologies and methodologies that empower traditionally marginalized groups to actively collaborate with academic researchers as equal contributors, rather than passive subjects of study, fostering more inclusive, grounded, and ethical ways of knowing. This includes the use of varied Indigenous methodologies, such as Liming (Stephens-Peace, 2024), Talanoa (Nakhid-Chatoor et al., 2018), The African Oral Tradition of Storytelling (Osei-Tutu, 2022), and Charlas and Comidas (Ortega, 2023). These methodologies represent a shift from decolonizing approaches to what Nakhid (2022) refers to as affirming methodologies. These affirming methodologies prioritize local and Indigenous voices in the research process and acknowledge the inherent value of their knowledge-sharing practices, independent of being measured against Western frameworks (Nakhid et al., 2023).

This article contributes to ongoing discourses on decolonial methodologies by introducing Ngopi as a culturally grounded approach to knowledge co-creation—deliberately positioned as an alternative to the often-extractive connotations of “data collection.” Within this approach, conversation becomes a relational space where stories, reflections, and aspirations are shared and interpreted collectively. Ngopi draws deeply on the Indonesian cultural disposition of being nyantai—a term that encapsulates being relaxed, laid-back, happy, unhurried, and content, akin to what Forshee (2006, p. 210) describes as senang-senang. In Indonesian social life, meaningful exchanges rarely occur in rigidly structured or formal settings; instead, they emerge organically from moments of togetherness; sitting, sharing coffee, and talking freely. Rooted in the Indonesian context, Ngopi reflects the importance of methodologies that are not only contextually relevant but also ethically attuned to local ways of knowing and being. In doing so, it seeks to address a notable gap: while African and Latin American Indigenous methodologies have gained some traction in global scholarship, Southeast Asian epistemologies remain underrepresented, despite their richness and rootedness in complex, living traditions.

Ngopi, the practice of gathering to converse over coffee in Indonesia’s ubiquitous Warung Kopi (coffee-houses), is more than a casual pastime, it is a deeply social, dialogic, and reflexive space. Although coffee itself was introduced during Dutch colonial rule, the contemporary practice of Ngopi has undergone globalization (Lako, 2016; Ritzer, 2011), embedding itself within local rhythms, values, and modes of being. Today, Ngopi represents a uniquely Indonesian cultural form through which people reflect, debate, and co-create meaning in everyday life. As such, it offers a valuable methodological framework, one that centres hospitality, dialogic engagement, and cultural specificity.

Decolonizing Methodologies: Diverse Ways of Researching

Research has long been criticized for serving as a tool of domination and exploitation (Tuhiwai-Smith, 1999). In response, recent years have seen the emergence of decolonial approaches, especially those that center Indigenous methodologies when working with Indigenous and local communities, as alternative paradigms aimed at challenging dominant Western research traditions. Within Black and Caribbean communities, Liming has emerged as a critical Black methodological approach (Santana, 2022; Stephens-Peace, 2024). Rooted in Caribbean cultural traditions, liming refers to an informal practice where community members—known as limers—gather to talk, connect, and share time together. However, liming is far more than casual socializing; it functions as a decolonial, grassroots space for knowledge exchange and political reflection. As a methodology, it promotes inclusivity, operates outside of formal institutional settings, and is community-driven and open to all, providing a space where voices often excluded from traditional academic discourse can be heard. In doing so, liming centers lived experience and collective reasoning as valid and powerful forms of knowledge production, particularly around social and political concerns.

Ortega (2023) proposes Charlas (chats) and Comidas (meals) as an Indigenous and culturally grounded methodology for humanizing focus group discussions and interviews within the Colombian context. In this approach, participants engage in focused conversations while sharing food, creating a relaxed and relational environment. This setting allows for the blurring of traditional research boundaries—such as those between researcher and participant, objectivity and subjectivity, or scientific rigor and emotional expression. In doing so, it challenges dominant assumptions around validation, the legitimization of knowledge, and authoritative representation, echoing critiques put forward by Tuhiwai-Smith (2021) in decolonizing methodologies.

Within Pacific contexts, Talanoa has been proposed as an Indigenous methodology that centers culturally grounded ways of engaging in dialogue (Nakhid-Chatoor et al., 2018). Rooted in Pacific Island traditions, Talanoa refers to open, respectful, and heartfelt conversations. It is used to describe dialogic processes in which participants engage over extended periods of time, allowing discussions to naturally evolve based on the interests, experiences, and concerns of those involved (Halapua, 2000; Vaioleti, 2016). These conversations can encompass a wide range of communicative practices, including storytelling, debating, reflecting, gossiping, joking, and the exchange of genealogies, food, and other culturally significant elements, making Talanoa a holistic and community-centred approach to knowledge sharing (Nakhid-Chatoor et al., 2018).

The African Oral Tradition of Storytelling is another Indigenous research methodology where stories are told in a particular way, putting the focus on some aspects of the story and ignoring others in order to express passion or build an argument (Mnyandu, 1997), utilizing imagery, allusion, symbolism, as well as techniques like parallelism, piling, association, tonality, ideophones, and digression (Osei-Tutu, 2022).

Williams et al. (2022) proposed Rastafari and Groundings as an Indigenous methodology. Rastafari, a spiritual, cultural, and political movement from the Caribbean, particularly Jamaica, is rooted in the Black radical tradition, challenging Eurocentric ways of knowing and being. Groundings, as defined by Rodney (1969), is both a methodology and reasoning tool, involving gatherings where individuals engage in dialogue for political or social mobilization. In times of political unrest, Groundings provided a platform for marginalized communities, especially Rastafari, to discuss issues like repatriation, self-liberation, and resistance to colonial oppression.

As mentioned earlier, there has been a growing shift towards affirming methodologies, where Indigenous methodologies are proposed to research Indigenous communities in participatory, non-hierarchical ways that are grounded in culturally relevant contexts. However, it is unfortunate that in Southeast Asia, Indigenous methodologies have yet to be fully conceptualized, despite the rich collective traditions that could contribute valuable, culturally relevant approaches to researching these communities. In this context, Ngopi aligns with the spirit of Indigenous methodologies. While it is not a practice exclusive to tribal or Indigenous groups, Ngopi embodies the same decolonial and ethical intentions that underpin Indigenous approaches to knowledge-making. It is best understood as a decolonial and culturally grounded methodology, rooted in the everyday social practices of Indonesian culture, that challenges hierarchical, extractive research paradigms while remaining deeply attuned to local values, relational ethics, and ways of knowing.

Positionality

I write from the positionality of a 34-year-old Javanese woman, a multilingual lecturer at a public university in Indonesia, as well as a wife and mother. My everyday life is shaped by the cultural rhythms of Javanese society, where calmness and relaxed social interaction are often valued. These cultural dispositions influence not only how I navigate personal relationships, but also how I approach academic work and research.

As someone who is deeply embedded in Indonesia’s Ngopi culture, I often find inspiration, comfort, and community in moments spent over a cup of coffee. At the same time, I experience a tension in my identity as a researcher: while I enjoy intellectual inquiry, I frequently feel discomfort during the research process, although this seems to be considered the norm (Söderström, Holdo, & Junman, 2024). This discomfort contrasts with the relaxed, communal, and spontaneous nature of living in Indonesia. The possibility that research might also be approached in a way that is relaxed, enjoyable, and grounded in cultural practices intrigues me.

My proposal to integrate Ngopi into research practice emerges from this personal tension. It reflects my curiosity about how culturally familiar practices, such as sharing coffee, engaging in informal conversation, and creating social warmth, might support more comfortable, humanized forms of knowledge production. My positionality as a Javanese woman, academic, and participant in Ngopi culture shapes not only how I interpret research spaces, but also how I imagine alternative, culturally resonant modes of inquiry.

The Coffee Culture in Indonesia

In Indonesia, the practice of Ngopi (coffee drinking) constitutes a significant aspect of daily life, extending beyond the consumption of a beverage to serve as a symbol of hospitality during social interactions, such as meetings with friends, colleagues, or casual gatherings (Said, 2012). In my observation, the Indonesian coffee culture is distinguished by a unique feature: Ngopi is not confined to the mornings or afternoons, as I have seen in some European cultures where coffee shops often close before 10 p.m. In Indonesia, however, Ngopi extends into the evening and often continues until the early hours of the morning. This extended timeframe fosters conversations on a wide array of topics, making Ngopi an ideal space for sharing knowledge, engaging in discussions, and co-creating ideas over coffee.

In rural areas of Indonesia, coffee is often preferred over tea when welcoming and conversing with guests (Sungkar, 2015). In traditional Indonesian coffee establishments, known as Warung Kopi, coffee drinking facilitates communication across different social classes (Farokhah & Wardhana, 2018), with discussions ranging from political and economic issues (Widyaningsih et al., 2021) to personal matters, such as family affairs and deep conversations (Rahma et al., 2019). These interactions often take place over unfiltered Robusta coffee, known as Kopi Tubruk, commonly enjoyed in roadside Warung Kopi by men accompanied by light snacks and cigarettes, particularly favored by the Javanese (Oktafarel et al., 2021; Widyaningsih et al., 2021).

Many coffee shops in Indonesia, such as Kopi Koe and Ngopijakarta, host community gatherings where people engage in discussions on specific topics over coffee (Rahma et al., 2019). With the arrival of Starbucks and other U.S.-based coffee shops, middle-income young people in urban areas have adopted coffee drinking culture, now favoring sweeter, milk-based beverages. This shift reflects the use of coffee as a symbol of status and self-actualization, marking a departure from the traditional roadside Warung Kopi culture (Purnomo, Yuliati, Shinta, & Riana, 2021). However, as Indonesia is a major coffee producer, local entrepreneurs quickly adapted to this change by embracing the influence of global coffee chains while also ensuring that consumers are aware of the coffee production process and the importance of fair treatment for local workers and farmers. This approach counters the hegemony of U.S.-based coffee chain cultures (Purnomo et al., 2021). Leveraging the rise of technology and ride-hailing services, semi modern coffee shops (Kedai) like Kopi Tuku have popularized local coffee culture, making it an accessible part of people’s everyday routines (Widyaningsih et al., 2021). As Ngopi continues to evolve, Ngopi culture in Indonesia remains a significant platform for discussion, knowledge sharing, and conversation.

Ngopi as Knowledge Co-creation

My proposition to use Ngopi as a methodology for knowledge co-creation emerged from a sense of discomfort I experienced during the data collection phase of my thesis research in Indonesia. While conducting research with several teachers, I observed that the semi-structured interviews I employed often produced a tense and overly formal atmosphere. The conversations felt constrained, and the responses tended to remain at a superficial level. Participants appeared cautious and uneasy, as though the interview setting limited their ability to speak openly and authentically.

To address this challenge, I began complementing the interviews with what Swain and King (2022) describe as informal conversations—interactions that naturally unfolded when I spent time with teachers at coffee shops, or in this case, during Ngopi. I did not use a recorder; instead, I relied on my memory to capture the information shortly after returning home. The result was rich, detailed data, with teachers offering in-depth explanations on various aspects of my research that had not emerged during the formal interviews. At the time of my thesis, I understood these sessions simply as “informal conversations,” because a methodology like Ngopi had not yet been conceptualized or articulated in academic literature. However, through this experience, it became clear that Ngopi is much more than casual talk. This experience intrigued me and led me to propose Ngopi as a decolonial methodology.

In this context, Ngopi embodies decolonial elements. It is deeply rooted in decades of coffee-drinking culture that spans various social classes in Indonesia, from rural communities to middle-income urban dwellers, across both urban and rural areas (Ridaryanthi et al., 2022). Despite the evolution of coffee culture over time, Ngopi has endured and flourished across generations, indicating that coffee culture is deeply embedded within the Indonesian context. This cultural familiarity helps both researchers and participants feel at ease during the research process. Since Ngopi aligns with their everyday routines, it provides a more comfortable and natural way of conversing compared to other data collection methods, such as interviews, which may cause discomfort or unease for participants (Soderstrom et al., 2024). In this case, Ngopi offers comfort, similar to methodologies like Talanoa, Charlas and Chamidas, and Liming, allowing both participants and researchers to enjoy the process of co-creating knowledge rather than merely fulfilling the researchers’ objectives.

Ngopi also facilitates knowledge co-creation through its informal and non-hierarchical nature, creating a space for open dialogue where participants can freely share their perspectives. As a methodology, Ngopi is non-extractive; it moves beyond merely collecting information from participants to fostering a collaborative process in which researchers and participants engage as equals. This makes the approach inherently democratic. Its effectiveness lies in the fact that Ngopi is deeply rooted in the Indonesian social way of connecting—an interactional ethic grounded in comfort and relational ease, often described as nyantai, or what Forshee (2006, p. 210) refers to as senang-senang. This cultural disposition underpins the relaxed atmosphere that nurtures authentic dialogue, allowing conversations to unfold spontaneously and fluidly. Such openness creates opportunities for candid insights and deeper reflections that are often difficult to elicit through more structured or formal data collection methods. In this context, Ngopi can serve as an alternative approach that enables research to be “more respectful, ethical, sympathetic, and useful” (Tuhiwai-Smith, 1999, p. 9).

Ngopi also encourages participation from a diverse range of individuals. By integrating a wide variety of perspectives, it enriches the data and broadens the scope of the research, capturing a more comprehensive view of societal dynamics. Finally, Ngopi is a low-cost method. It requires minimal resources compared to formal research approaches that may involve special equipment, venues, or compensation. Additionally, its flexibility allows for easy adaptation to different settings, locations, and contexts, making it an accessible and cost-effective option for researchers.

Core Values of Ngopi

To engage in Ngopi as a methodology means practicing the core values that underpin the co-creation of knowledge. These values include being (a) relationality, (b) dialogic, (c) situated, (d) respectful, and (e) reciprocal. Together, these principles position Ngopi as an ethical, culturally grounded process of collective meaning-making.

Relationality

Ngopi is inherently relational in both form and intent. It operates on the understanding that knowledge emerges through relationships rather than detached observation or extraction. Within a Ngopi setting, the boundaries between researcher and participant dissolve as all parties engage in dialogue rooted in shared sociality. Knowledge is not gathered about people but with them; through stories, reflections, and collective sense-making that unfold organically.

Relationality emphasizes that to know is to be connected to people, to place, to memory, and to lived experience (Moreton-Robinson, 2017). Ngopi embodies this principle by situating research in everyday spaces of connection, such as warung kopi (coffee stalls) and communal gathering areas, where trust and familiarity are naturally cultivated. The act of sitting together over coffee affirms relational accountability: each person’s voice is valued, and understanding is co-created through interaction rather than imposed through formal inquiry.

Ngopi also reflects relational ethics by ensuring that the research process is guided by mutual care. The researcher enters the space not as an authority but as a participant in a shared dialogue, accountable to the relationships that sustain the exchange. This aligns with the idea that relationality shapes every stage of research; from the questions asked, to the interpretation of insights, to how outcomes are shared back with the community (Kennedy et al., 2022).

Dialogic

Ngopi is dialogic in that it creates an open and inclusive space where people from diverse backgrounds, experiences, and worldviews can meet, listen, and learn from one another. Drawing on Panikkar’s (1999) notion of “dialogical dialogue” (p. 30), Ngopi enables a form of communication that goes beyond the mere exchange of information. It fosters a transformative encounter in which participants engage not to persuade or debate, but to understand and be understood. Within this dialogic process, differences are not erased or forced into agreement; instead, they are acknowledged and valued as sources of new insight.

Because Ngopi takes place within a relaxed and unhurried environment, it naturally creates a reflexive space. In Ngopi, reflexivity emerges through shared reflection, as researchers and participants think together about what is being said, how it is being interpreted, and what it means for each of them. Reflexivity here refers to a deliberate awareness that involves both a contemplative stance and intentional action aimed at recognizing difference and generating knowledge (Ben-Ari & Enosh, 2010). Through this relational reflexivity, Ngopi allows knowledge to evolve collectively, ensuring that understanding is co-created rather than imposed.

Situated

Ngopi is also situated. In this context, being situated means that methodologies are always shaped by the specific cultural, social, and historical contexts in which they are created, practiced, and understood (Hui, 2023). Methodologies do not exist in isolation or operate as universal frameworks; they are embedded within particular relationships and power structures. Ngopi emerges from Indonesian social and cultural life, reflecting local ethics such as nyantai (relaxed ease) and kebersamaan (togetherness). It is meaningful precisely because it is grounded in these relational and cultural values. As such, Ngopi can only be fully understood and practiced within its own cultural context; it cannot simply be transplanted into Western research setting and retain the same meaning or ethical significance.

Respectful and Reciprocal

Finally, Ngopi is both respectful and reciprocal. It is respectful because it honors participants’ knowledge, authority, and ways of understanding the world (Omodan, 2025). This aligns with de Sousa Santos's (2014) concept of an “ecology of knowledges” (p. 185), which recognizes that scientific knowledge is only one among many valid systems of understanding, none of which is universally superior. In this spirit, Ngopi values participants’ ways of knowing as equally legitimate.

At the same time, Ngopi is reciprocal because it is grounded in exchange rather than extraction (Omodan, 2025). Through shared dialogue, reflection, and understanding, both researchers and participants contribute to and benefit from the process. This reciprocity directly challenges the colonial patterns of research ownership that have historically positioned researchers as the sole producers and legitimizers of knowledge, while participants have been rendered passive subjects whose contributions are rarely acknowledged or rewarded (Patai, 1988; Stanfield, 1993). Such practices reproduce unequal power relations, particularly when researchers study communities that are economically, politically, or socially less powerful than themselves (Bishop, 1998; Tuhiwai-Smith, 1999).

In contrast, Ngopi redistributes this power by creating a collaborative and egalitarian research space. Situated within Indonesian social life, it embodies a nyantai atmosphere that nurtures ease, humor, and togetherness, conditions that strengthen reciprocity and allow both researchers and participants to benefit equally through shared dialogue, enjoyment, and mutual learning.

Application in Research

To demonstrate how Ngopi can operate as a research methodology, I reflect on one extended session conducted with five secondary school teachers in East Java. All five pseudonymized participants were teachers from various schools in East Java, with some having experience teaching in remote rural areas of Papua and other isolated regions of Indonesia (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Table of Participants

Participants’ names	Age/sex	Occupation	Teaching experience
Revan	33/M	Former teacher in Papua and public high school in East Java	4 years
Winda	34/F	Former teacher in Sorong and teacher at a private international high school in East Java	More than 6 years
Amin	33/M	Former teacher in Papua and teacher at an international private school in Central Java	More than 6 years
Yono	34/M	Former teacher in Papua and entrepreneur in East Java	4 years
Diana	34/F	Former teacher in Sorong and public high school in East Java, and teacher at a public high school in East Java	More than 6 years

Rapport, Consent, and Comfortability

We first gathered at a local warung kopi and later moved to a participant’s home, where our conversations continued for several hours. Throughout this process, ethics were practiced through relationships rather than through paperwork, which Western research often upholds as the gold standard for informed consent (Lindegger et al., 2006). In Ngopi, however, consent is ongoing; continually negotiated through conversations rooted in mutual trust and shared meaning-making. This approach prioritizes reciprocity over extraction, enabling participants to engage because the interaction feels meaningful and fun, rather than obligatory.

Rather than providing short or cautious responses, the teachers engaged in relaxed, unfiltered dialogue. They joked, debated, and shared frustrations towards school and government-policy. Importantly, knowledge emerged through interaction, not as isolated answers, but as co-constructed meaning. For instance, one teacher spoke critically about policy-driven pedagogies:

“I hate the big words — they make us feel like we have to apply them in every situation. Why don’t policymakers understand how diverse classrooms are?” (reconstructed dialogue based on fieldnotes originally narrated by Revan)

Others immediately built on this, collectively articulating shared dissatisfaction. Ngopi facilitated this type of communal reasoning, grounded in everyday language and cultural expressions such as ngomong kelobot (empty talk), as illustrated when another participant commented:

“We have to go to these workshops just to get remuneration. It’s all ngomong kelobot. I don’t learn anything. It feels more like a performance than actual development.” (Winda)

Additionally, Ngopi encouraged dialogic exchange that challenged hierarchical assumptions about expertise. Participants felt comfortable questioning my academic perspectives, reinforcing their own authority as practitioners:

“I don’t think what you learn in a Western university will help much — same with what I studied. The classroom is a completely different species. What works elsewhere doesn’t always apply here. We don’t have time for that.” (reconstructed dialogue based on fieldnotes originally narrated by Amin)

There were also moments of epistemic contestation, where participants challenged the very premise of grounding pedagogy in Indonesian cultural values:

“I also don’t think that what you say about theorizing from our culture will work. Our culture has been destroyed by capitalism. Going back to it only brings trouble. Students want global opportunities — studying abroad, entering good universities. How can they compete if we use ancient values?” (reconstructed dialogue based on fieldnotes originally narrated by Winda)

Such disagreement, expressed openly toward the researcher, illustrates how Ngopi transforms power relations. Participants asserted their own perspectives and negotiated meaning collectively, demonstrating that knowledge production is not simply a process of eliciting responses but a dialogic space where ideas are tested, debated, and reshaped.

As discussions deepened, participants paused to reflect together, asking what the conversation revealed about their shared experiences, what they were learning from each other, and how these insights could inform their practice. These reflective moments acted as communal sense-making. Participants collectively articulated which issues mattered most, questioned taken-for-granted assumptions, and explored possibilities for action; in this case, rethinking professional development practices and imagining forms of teacher solidarity across regions. These moments were not researcher-driven prompts but arose naturally from the relational trust established in the Ngopi setting. In this way, co-creation did not occur through structured tasks or predetermined questions, but through dialogic reflection, emotional resonance, humor, disagreement, and mutual recognition.

Recording, Member Checking, and Data Analysis

To preserve the natural flow of Ngopi, I intentionally chose not to use audio recordings. Instead, I took brief notes during the sessions in a way that minimally disrupted the conversation. Following Rutakumwa et al. (2020), I argue that not recording is the most appropriate way to honor the conversational flow and ensure participants feel comfortable and authentic in their interactions. This approach aligns with methods used in informal conversational research (Swain & King, 2022), where maintaining ease and spontaneity is essential. Immediately after each Ngopi session, I expanded these notes into reconstructed dialogues to capture key exchanges that felt important.

Although member checking is often recommended in qualitative research (Kornbluh, 2015), I found that formal verification would disrupt the informal, relational nature of Ngopi. Asking participants to review reconstructed dialogue would impose additional work, introduce unnecessary formality, and potentially reproduce extractive dynamics. Instead of formal member checking, I relied on the continuity of relationships and repeated informal conversations, where themes naturally resurfaced and could be clarified without burdening participants.

For data analysis, I employed “re-storying” (in Indonesian, bercerita). Rather than fragmenting participants’ accounts into coded categories or abstract themes, restorying involves weaving together the stories shared during Ngopi in a way that preserves their narrative wholeness and relational context. This process began with my ngopi notes and reconstructed dialogues, which captured the tone, flow, and emotional texture of each conversation. From these notes, I identified narrative threads—not as analytical themes, but as meaningful elements of the story, such as memories, metaphors, significant moments, or expressions of emotion. These threads guided the writing of a re-storied narrative that followed the participant’s own style of storytelling, maintaining their voice and cultural expressions while reflecting the relational dynamics of the interaction. In this sense, the act of story-weaving is itself the analysis, allowing meaning to emerge organically rather than through reduction or abstraction. Each narrative is accompanied by a light interpretive reflection to offer insight into what the story reveals, while still keeping the participant’s voice central. Restorying aligns with decolonial and relational principles by honoring how knowledge emerges naturally in ngopi; informally, collaboratively, and through shared understanding, without imposing rigid structures.

In this research, participants were actively involved in the co-construction of the narratives that emerged from the Ngopi sessions. Because Ngopi is dialogic and relational, stories were not extracted but developed through back-and-forth exchange, where participants shaped the direction, depth, and meaning of the conversation. They held narrative authority by choosing what to share, framing the significance of their experiences, and guiding the emotional and cultural tone of the interaction. This collaborative meaning-making continued in the restorying process, where the narratives were woven from the threads participants emphasized during the conversation, retaining their expressions, metaphors, and interpretive frames. In this way, the resulting stories reflect not only participants’ voices but also the relational engagement through which those voices were articulated.

Conclusions

This article introduces Ngopi as a decolonial and culturally grounded alternative to traditional data gathering methods, particularly in the context of Indonesian society. By drawing on the rich coffee culture of Indonesia, Ngopi offers a platform for more natural, informal, and non-hierarchical dialogue, which fosters collaborative knowledge co-creation between researchers and participants. It challenges the extractive nature of conventional research approaches and emphasizes a shared, democratic process that honors local traditions and epistemologies. As demonstrated in the example above, Ngopi is an effective method for generating rich, in-depth data that reflects diverse perspectives while maintaining cultural relevance. Furthermore, it provides an accessible, low-cost approach to research, making it adaptable to various contexts and settings. By proposing Ngopi, this article contributes to the growing body of work that seeks to decolonize and diversify research practices, ensuring that traditionally marginalized voices are not only heard but also respected and integrated into the academic discourse.