The dominance of western methodology in research conducted in Africa continues to preoccupy academics. The result, they argue, has been the silencing of Indigenous knowledge. Indigenous ways of knowing are not making the contribution they could to the knowledge ecosystem. Samuel Ojo Oloruntoba and Zainab Monisola Olaitan have researched the impact of this skewed approach on various topics. They answer questions aimed at unpacking the problem and explaining what’s at stake.
What is knowledge generation?
Knowledge generation is the process of using different methods to collect, synthesise and analyse data to produce information which is then processed, analysed, and interpreted in a way that adds context and meaning.
It involves interaction with existing knowledge to produce additional knowledge. This can then be shared through various means such as articles, books, videos and podcasts.
For various communities in Africa data generated through oral history is a valid source of knowledge.
What are some examples you can point to?
In a recent paper we argued that the curriculum for teaching international political economy in the global north has largely excluded Indigenous knowledge and perspectives from the global south. Yet, scholars from the global south have offered insights on international political economy that could enrich the discourses, learning and teaching of the subject.
We have also looked at research on Indigenous entrepreneurship. Since colonial times, the teaching of entrepreneurship has largely centred on individual achievement and accumulation. These are important. But this Eurocentric approach is inconsistent with the dominant values of sharing, community ownership and sensitivity to the environment that underpin Indigenous entrepreneurship in some communities.
For example, according to the social science scholar Terence Jackson, indigenous perspectives on entrepreneurship among the Maasai in Kenya, Batwa in south-western Uganda, Basongora in western Uganda and Khoi San people in southern Africa are different from Eurocentric researchers’ conceptions of the term. Many African communities engage in economic activities as economic, social and spiritual imperatives.
And socially, work is done not only for individual accumulation but for sharing with the community. Spiritually, work is done with respect to the land, nature and the environment.
The absence of this understanding in knowledge creation affects the usefulness of the knowledge in solving unemployment problems in these communities.
What other gaps are there in knowledge creation on the continent?
There are several.
The voices of women are not given the recognition that they deserve. One of the findings at the methodology workshop that we organised in Nairobi, Kenya in May 2024 was that in some communities in Africa women are not allowed to respond to researchers in the presence of their husbands.
This points to the need for researchers to change the way they elicit women’s responses to ensure their voices are heard.
In addition, Eurocentrism still dominates the methodology of research in the way data is collected and analysed. Data collection is usually done through the design of research instruments such as questionnaires, interview guides or telephone surveys. But due to language and cultural barriers, these may not be applicable in some communities.
For example, orality, which is data collected in the form of storytelling, memories of events and narration of life experiences, is discounted as lacking in credibility. Yet, in various African societies, oral evidence is an authentic form of knowledge through which one generation connects with the next.
On top of this, research in Africa is informed by theories generated elsewhere. In many instances, they aren’t relevant to the socioeconomic realities of selected case studies in Africa.
Respect for the cultural practices of the communities in which research is being conducted is another gap. For instance, during the methodology workshop the idea of offering introductory gifts to prospective respondents and elders in Indigenous communities in Africa was discussed. Indigenous communities are those that have maintained their traditional lifestyles and have little or no engagement with Euromodernity.
It was clear from the discussion that not all African respondents should be offered gifts. Nevertheless, there was a strong view that it is an acceptable norm to community elders, women and storytellers. In orthodox research this may be considered unethical because it is believed that gifts can influence the responses from the respondents. Yet securing the consent of the members of the Indigenous communities is critical to knowledge generation if it is to be done in partnership.
What alternative approach would work better?
Indigenous knowledge research methodology provides a better approach by ensuring that the agency and the voices of the communities are recognised, respected and recentred.
An example is the concept of the Ownership, Control, Access and Possession principles. This asserts that First Nations in Canada have control over data collection processes, and that they own and control how this information can be used. An Indigenous approach of this type provides agency and voice for Indigenous people on research that concerns them. It seeks to promote the voices of women, young people and elders within the contexts of their cultural standards.
This can involve offering introductory gifts, ensuring that the communities own the data and ensuring that the researchers report back to the communities. Co-creation of knowledge provides a better alternative to research as it recognises the agency of the communities.
This approach has become commonplace when research is done in Indigenous communities in Canada. In our view it could be applied in Africa.
The study of international political economy and research on Indigenous entrepreneurship, our areas of research expertise, are good examples of where this approach should work.
How has your work as political scientists informed these views?
This has been through our understanding of how the asymmetry of power between the global north and south shapes knowledge production.
From the colonial times to the present, knowledge production has been shaped by the dynamics of unequal power. In this context, our research has shown how Eurocentrism has informed theories, methods and praxis. This has been through:
the distortion of history
deliberate silencing of knowledge produced from Africa
rejection of African methods of data collection such as oral evidence
the silencing of women.
Changing this will ensure that knowledge produced in Africa is placed on an equal footing with knowledge produced from other parts of the world.
