Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education
Vol. 30, No. 4, December 2009, 413426

Building bridges across knowledge systems: Ubuntu and participative
research paradigms in Bantu communities
J.W.F. Muwanga-Zake*
School of Education, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
This paper discusses how Ubuntu as a philosophy and a methodology was usedamong Bantu in South Africa together with participative Western paradigms inevaluating an educational computer game. The paper argues that research among
Bantu has to articulate research experiences within Ubuntu paradigms if valid
outcomes are to be realised.
Keywords: Ubuntu in research; African indigenous knowledge systems;
participative research

Background
Globalisation has increased the infusion of mainly Western knowledge systems into
African developing communities such as those of Bantu, through formal educationand commercial interests, leading to a demand for greater focus upon inter-culturalresearch. Steve Biko (in Forster, 2006) noted the pre-occupation of the West withperfecting their knowledge without concern of the impact upon knowledges of thecolonised. This trend submerges most African indigenous knowledge systems (IKS).
Thus, African IKS are still framed by theoretical and colonial-administrative
concerns reflective of Western understanding (Leach & Fairhead, 2002), which
diminish and misrepresent African IKS (Scidev, 2002). In response, Mkabela (2005)
proposes Afrocentric research paradigms, which among Bantu should take Ubuntu
into account. Similarly, I used Ubuntu as an Afrocentric research paradigm together
with some Western paradigms to improve validity and usefulness of outcomes. This
paper describes part of an evaluation process of a computer educational programwith 26 Bantu teachers in South Africa during 2002 and 2003.
Indigenous knowledge systems
Culture is the life ways of a group, including its distinctive commitment to certain
values and subsistence patterns (Eisenhart & Borko, 1993, p. 43). Eisenhart andBorko explain that cultures are coherent, profound and systemic to the extent that‘discrepancy in school achievement’ could be the manifestation of discontinuity
between culture at home and the expectations at school. Hence, Ditton (2007)
recognises different epistemologies in different contexts, and cultures. It is therefore
argued in this paper that each epistemology represents an IKS for a given culture.
Cosijn, Pirkola, Bothma, and Järvelin (2002, p. 221) refer to IKS as a body of local*Email: jmuwanga@une.edu.au
ISSN 0159-6306 print/ISSN 1469-3739 online# 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/01596300903237198
http://www.informaworld.com

414

J.W.F. Muwanga-Zakeknowledge and skills unique to a culture, often outside ‘the formal education systemthat enables communities to survive’.
Much of African IKS remains tacit, sacred and embedded in practices,
relationships and rituals (Bhola, 2002; Cosijn et al., 2002), often transferred orally
between generations (Kawooya, 2006; Mbow, 1992). Lack of documentation, clear
ownership, and development makes it easy to ignore African IKS in favour ofWestern knowledge systems. Ditton (2007) notes the mono-cultural predominance of
Anglo-American-Australian educational approaches to serve the business andcapital interests of these countries. An example is Western curricula in Bantu
educational institutions that mainly grow Western knowledge systems, and not somuch Bantu IKS. Indeed, a candidate must show how his/her research contributes
towards established Western ‘knowledge’.
Since validity has the power of truth and identifies acceptable research as well as
accurate construction of knowledge (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006; Lincoln &Denzin, 1994), these and other authors such as Pinkus (1996) and Ogunniyi (1996)
recommend research paradigms that are compatible with contexts, and which include
participants’ perspectives and interpretations, instead of satisfying universal or
global ‘truths’. It is in that light that Mkabela (2005) notes the absurdity researchingin Africa using external methodologies. However, this absurdity resonates with therejection as worthless of African IKS, such as the traditional acquisition and oraltransmission of knowledge (Kawooya, 2006; Mbow, 1992; Raseroka, 2005), with amindset that anarchy would prevail if research were not controlled (Brenton &Largent, 2000). Yet, such externally imposed paradigms create ‘social disharmony,
unhappiness, blind obedience, inner deadness, injustices, epidemic substance andprocess addictions, economic exploitation, cynicism, as well as chronic stress’(Brenton & Largent, 2000), which detrimentally affect people’s livelihoods (Scidev,
2002).
Formal educational systems and imported paradigms have re-defined and oftensocialised Africans such as Bantu out of their IKS to suit a more foreign-based albeit
sometimes, false ‘global view’ of who they are. Fanon (1970) observes that education
imposes inferiority complexes among Africans because they strive to feel equal to theEuropeans, who assume superiority of knowledge and truth, and define lifestyles for
Africans. This assumption is an extension to the insult in African school curriculathat Europeans discovered Africa. Africans seem oblivious to Fanon’s (1970)
assertion that the Europeans have a fixed inferior view of Africans and of Bhabha’s(1994, p. 70) argument that the colonialists’ discourse portrayed the colonised asdegenerate races. Prior (2006, p. 163) summarises the assumed racial inferiority innoting that, ‘specimens and remains of Indigenous colonised people are objects ofscientific interest in European museums and laboratories, with little regard for theircultural significance’. ‘The colonial mentality persists among elite Africans’(Kawooya, 2006, p. 2) causing an addiction to Western paradigms that present toAfricans ready-made approaches, theoretical assumptions, ontologies, and epistemologies  these are assumed to be ideologically and politically correct (Robbotom& Hart, 1993). Afer all, Western paradigms offer employment, and according to
Brenton and Largent (2000), a paradigm could be perpetuated through employment.
Every professional job requires a certificate, issued by the same paradigm. Therefore,
the research discourse that supplies certifiable knowledge required for employment
has to be instrumentalist and imposed; the research process and data are validated

Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education

415

and interpreted for the candidate and the researched (Robbotom & Hart, 1993),
African academic systems perpetuate Western paradigms, and fail researchers whoalign themselves with African methodologies. According to Brenton and Largent(2000), such academia ignore or suppress knowledge of anomalies. This positivist
stance and demand for objectively proven findings along Western paradigms rarely
augurs well with the socially oriented and qualitative nature of African cultures suchas Ubuntu. Lather (1991, p. 10) reports on similar covert positivism in some researchparadigms when the researcher acts as ‘the great interpreter’ with an assumed ability
to understand, interpret and adjudicate what goes on during the research, for thesake of scientific objectivism; indeed the researcher pretends that data are
independent of the academic and political spheres of power relationships between
the researcher and the researched. This approach distances the researcher from theresearched, who often has to adopt the researcher’s interpretations.
Thus, an academic African is assimilated into Western intellectual bondage
without concern of growing African IKS that, Raseroka (2005, p. 6) asserts:
African communities generally have a diminished appreciation of IKS. Imperialism
successfully implanted the perception that IKS is worthless or shameful because it did
not fit into the colonial education system, its scientific notions and/or the missionary
worldview. (E.g. perception of all traditional healing practices as witch craft resulting insome cases to criminalization of the practice of this form of healing; the demonisation ofbelief in the ancestral spirit world.)

Consequently, Bantu have rarely, if at all, initiated qualifications on foundations of
Bantu IKS (BIKS), and research among Bantu has often yielded naught contribution to their development. Indeed, the ‘educated’ African is often an accomplice inperpetuating foreign paradigms and in the genocide of African IKS.
A need to transform research among Bantu
Prior (2006) notes that indigenous cultural values have little influence in shaping
research agendas or methods of inquiry in Australia and advises changing thisthrough knowledge and understanding of the sociocultural context in which researchis conducted. The change requires the adoption of Foucault’s advice (e.g., in
Mphahlele, 1996) against a subversive genealogy, which, according to Denzin (inLincoln & Denzin, 1994, p. 579), ‘refuses to accept those ‘‘systems of discourse(economic, political, scientific narrative)’’ that ignore who we are collectively andindividually’. Additionally, Fish (in Lincoln & Denzin, 1994) advises for uniquestandards or versions of proofs of truth or validity in distinctively different
interpretive communities, while Brenton and Largent (2000) propose a change inour view of reality and in the way we think and value the world. The challenge
among Bantu is that their paradigms are yet to be ‘internationally recognised’, suchthat the decision of who is ‘educated’, as well as what is to be accepted as valid anduseful research and knowledge, is still held outside Bantu IKS.
However, there is evidence of international resistance against non-participation
research among Indigenous populations in the form of ‘sanitised’ information orbiased data, with undercurrents of a ‘give them what they want’ mentality (Prior,2006). Similarly, ‘African scholarship is becoming more commonly accepted andsought after in the academy’ (Forster, 2006, p. 1): Africans have started the416

J.W.F. Muwanga-Zake

transformation in research, considering developments like the Indilinga; a journal of
IKS hosted by the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa.
Du Plessis and Raza (2004, p. 3) believe that the transformation in researchwould ‘provide the necessary intellectual tools for expressing and exploring theinsights of traditional African thinking in a systematic way’. Furthermore, researchamong Bantu should include curbing imported ideas and encouraging local
initiatives to create academic independence (Ogunniyi, 1996). For example, quoting
Asante’s works, Mkabela (2005, p. 179) presents a case for ‘Afrocentricity’ as an
essential core in research by which culture would be considered.
A need to transform research among Bantu is motivated by a need to improvevalidity of the process and findings from research. Among the various kinds ofvalidity, Ubuntu can be used to improve:. Technical validity  fit between research questions, data collection procedures,
and analysis techniques, and the effective application of specific datacollection and analysis techniques (Eisenhart & Howe, 1992; Heron, 1996;
Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995) by using the vernacular.
. Psychosocial validity  the practice, both in the way it is done and in its
outcomes (Heron, 1996) by removing Western distortions, restrictions andrigid norms and values through the adoption of social norms such as Ubuntu.
. Value validity  the evaluation process contributes to valuable personal andsocial transformation according to the inquirers’ and participants’ views(Heron, 1996; Le Compte, Preissle, with Tesch, 1993) by incorporating into
the evaluation Bantu participants’ values and discourses (Ubuntu).
. Fairness  obtaining balanced representations of the multiple realities in asituation (Le Compte et al., 1993) by incorporating Bantu values.
These validities improve interpretive validity; the understanding participants have ofresearch processes and findings (Gay et al., 2006).

UbuntuUbuntu is a Bantu characteristic of relationships and Bantu means people (KiZerbo, 1989, p. 114). Bantu cover almost a third of sub-Saharan Africa and speak
over 400 Bantu languages (Lwango-Lunyiigo & Vansina, 1992, p. 75), in South
Cameroon, south-eastern region of Nigeria, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Republic ofCongo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Kenya,
southern Somalia, Tanzania, Angola, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe,
Namibia, Botswana, and South Africa (Ki-Zerbo, 1889, p. 114). Lwango-Lunyiigo
and Vansina (1992, p. 75) explain that all Bantu languages have the root ‘ntu’, withthe prefix ‘ba’, which denotes plurality (like in Bantu), while the prefix ‘mu’ refers to
an individual person (like in Muntu in Luganda or Umuntu in isiZulu). ‘Ubuntu isfound in diverse forms in many societies throughout Africa’ (Murithi, 2006, p. 28).
However, the term Ubuntu as used in this paper is a Xhosa and Zulu reference to thesocial conduct of a Muntu. Other Bantu languages such as Luganda (by Baganda in
Uganda) would translate Ubuntu as Obuntu bulamu. That is, different Bantu
languages would have different terms of Ubuntu.

Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education

417‘ . . . ‘‘ubu’’ refers to the abstract, whereas ‘‘-ntu’’ is a reference to the ancestor who
spawned human society and gave human beings their way of life’ (Forster, 2006, p. 4)

Ubuntu is a communal way of life which deems that society must be run for the sakeof all, requiring co-operation as well as sharing and charity (Broodryk, 2006).
Therefore, Ubuntu is the quality of being human (Murithi, 2006, p. 8). Additionally,
Ubuntu involves caring, sharing, respect, compassion and ensures a happy andqualitative human community life in the spirit of family (Broodryk, 2006, p. 13).
Mtuze (1999, p. 84) gives the fundamentals of Ubuntu thus:
In this kind of existence, one person’s personhood and identity is fulfilled andcomplemented by the other person’s personhood. Each person is because the otherperson is. Each person exists because the other person exists.

In that existence, Louw (2004) suggests Ubuntu defines the individual in terms ofrules of conduct or social ethics in relation with others. For example, Bantu arewelcoming, hospitable, warm and generous, and are willing to share (attributes that
one could argue contributed to the colonisation of Bantu). Bantu are available toothers, willing to affirm others, and are able to do well to others because of theassurance that they belong to a community.
Hence, Ubuntu is about amicable personal relationships, accentuates theimportance of agreement, and has, according to Mkabela (2005), a capacity forthe pursuit of consensus and reconciliation. Bantu democracy relies on extensive
discussions that provide a platform to every person until some solidarity is reached.
It is during such discussions that each Muntu exposes him/herself to others, andduring which differences are ironed out to a homogeneous agreement that is
cognisant of norms and values of that community. Discussions confront plurality
and interrogate truths or credibility (Louw, 2004). Louw explains further that‘Ubuntu respects the particularity of the other’, and therefore links up closely to its
respect for individuality, that is not Cartesian. According to Louw, the shortcomingsof Cartesian models, especially the modernistic, individuals is that they exist prior to,or separately and independently from the rest of the community or society such thatthe ‘rest of society is an added extra to a pre-existent and self-sufficient being’.
Cartesian individualism is solitary, sometimes against communal interests. Collective
Cartesian individuals often translate into competitiveness; this is Western democracy
and capitalism.
In contrast to the absolutist Cartesian individual, while there are individual
decisions and capital ownership, competition would not be severe in Ubuntu because
Ubuntu defines the individual in terms of relationships with others. The Bantu
discourages a Muntu to take precedence over the community. The ‘individual’
Muntu flourishes but assists, and interacts with, others. Hence, a Muntu signifies aplurality of personalities in a community.
Ubuntu as a research paradigm
Tutu (2004) identifies Ubuntu-based research with participative research paradigms
in stating that ‘we are bound with others . . . in Ubuntu’ (my emphasis). Broodryk(2006, p. 6) supports Tutu’s view: ‘the emphasis is on togetherness . . . as acooperative and community we are heading for the same end result . . . we can

418

J.W.F. Muwanga-Zake

share what we have, our thoughts included’. Thus, Ubuntu inter alia implies
empowering participants in research (i.e., as social responsibility), and emphasises
unity or consensus in decision-making, and the processes that lead to decisions.
Essentially, Ubuntu as a research philosophy gives the research process a humanface, as opposed to some top-down imposed research processes, and advocatescollaboration with the participants and community humanely, with respect to their
spirituality, values, needs, norms, and mores. Therefore, Ubuntu ameliorates tensions
in research discourse and brings the researcher to the level of the participants. Greet
Bantu, sit with them, understand their needs, and if possible eat with them. In shortbecome a Muntu for full co-operation of Bantu in research.
How I used Ubuntu and some aspects of Western participative paradigms
On the one hand, Ubuntu formed the ground for entry into local schools: Ubuntu
considered the teachers’ social fabric, local context, priorities, and culture (Evans &Powell, 2007; Wells & Wells, 2007). On the other hand, Western-based researchparadigms were necessary, since the computer programs have been designed along
Western-based epistemology, bearing in mind that no universal truths in ICT
applications in education exist (Pedro, Enrique, Ernesto & Lucio, 2004): technology
is not value neutral, but has inbuilt assumptions and ideologies, which influence use(Jefferies, Carsten-Stahl, & McRobb, 2007).
According to Prior (2006, p. 165), ‘decolonising research decentres the focus fromthe aims of the researcher to the agenda of the people, and advocates a research
relationship that engages the subjects’. Prior adds that the cultural values of the
Indigenous people have to be embedded in the research design. Heeding Lincoln and
Denzin’s (1994), Pinkus’ (1996), and Mammo’s (1999) call for inclusion ofcommunity values, together with participants, I combined the Indigenous local
discourse which is Ubuntu, with the internationally renowned evaluation paradigms
into unique and suitable processes for the participants and the ICT application; theseemergent processes simultaneously authenticated and validated the evaluation. The
involvement of teachers in planning and executing the evaluation injected Ubuntu
into the process.
This participatory approach engendered a working relationship (Mkabela, 2005)
such that the teachers clearly and co-operatively stated their priorities in theevaluation process. For example, a computer program would be a priority if it
contributed towards poverty alleviation. I had to show how the pedagogical use of
the computer program would contribute towards learning, and eventually to job
creation or employment. Evaluation skills of computer educational programs would
prevent misuse or purchasing useless programs. Figure 1 summarises the evaluation
processes. The considerations indicated in Figure 1 are described below.
Qualitative evaluation
The evaluation was qualitative for two reasons: first, the teachers’ actions could not
be quantified (Myers, 2000; Savenye & Robinson, 2001), and second, because
Ubuntu involved social transactions that were mostly qualitative: these include
discourses such as the nature of greeting and quality of socialisation. The otherphilosophical genre included the developmental, post-modern, interpretative, andQualitative
Unquantifiablesocial interactions

Case study
Local contexts – Bantu culture

Empowering
participants withevaluation
skills/training

Teacherinterpretations,interests andneeds
Need fordevelopment andemancipation

Figure 1.

Developmental
Teacher participants
develop evaluation
skills; new skills
and knowledge
Post-modern
No formalities
Sensitivity to
Ubuntu, teacher(participant)interests andcapacity
Constructivist
Teacher participants
contribute towards
the evaluation
process; IKS

ActionTeachers as co-evaluators;
training in school andclassroom contexts; IKS
growthContextual observation
Observe teacher participants’practices, interactions; talkaloud protocol
Ethical considerations
Ubuntu – permission fromeducational authorities;
teachers and schoolparticipants’ convenience;coded records
Interpretive
Teacher and vernacular;
discourse

Data analysis

Accessing andincorporatingteacherparticipants’values – Ubuntu

419

Constant comparative; Discourse analysis

Methodology

Data

Philosophy

Methods

Considerations

Questionnaires; Interviews; (focus groups & dialogue);Contextual observations, vernacularInterview scripts; Video or audio records; Questionnaire
responses

Bantu IKS (Ubuntu)
Local realities: e.g., poverty

Contexts
guiding
choices ofresearch
philosophies

Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education

The conceptual framework used in the evaluation process in a Bantu community.

constructivist approaches (Greene, 1994; Reeves & Hedberg, 2003), and these wereagain best described qualitatively than quantitatively. The subjectivity and bias
among participants (Hickey & Zuicker, 2002) were reduced by Ubuntu communal
consensus.

Post-modern evaluation
In line with the definitions of post-modernism of Nichols and Allen-Brown (2001),
Kincheloe and McLaren (1994), and Yeaman, Hlynka, Anderson, Damarin, andMuffoletto (2001), this evaluation rejected the use of absolute Western paradigms byshifting the responsibility of the evaluation to participants and incorporating Ubuntu.
Furthermore, teachers benefited from the evaluation process (Reeves & Hedberg,
2003), and included Ubuntu.

Developmental evaluation
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) (cited in Raseroka, 2005)
desired a people-centred and inclusive development. The development of teachers(Reeves & Hedberg, 2003) included: interpreting findings; implementing the findings;
and gaining skills in the evaluation of the computer program. In turn I developed agreater understanding of the teaching community and its social dynamics in relation to
the evaluation.

420

J.W.F. Muwanga-Zake

Constructivist evaluation
It is possibly true of every knowledge system, including Ubuntu, that people naturally
confirm or form new constructs from interpreting experiences (Cobern, 1996; Wilson,
1995). Participants were partners in constructing their development and in designing
the evaluation scheme (Willis, 2000; Winn, 1997) in a way outlined by Cennamo, Abell,and Chung (as cited in Willis, 2000), who advise for ‘client-centred negotiations that
nurture reflexivity and questions rather than asking them to complete tasks’. For
example, some started by practising computer skills, whilst computer-literate teachers
focused on the pedagogical value of the computer program. Each teacher designed theimplementation of the computer program in the classroom practice according to local
realities in the school. Hence, the evaluation procedures suited Mkabela’s (2005, p. 179)
‘Afrocentric’ suggestion of participants being subjects and human agents (Bantu) as
opposed to objects or simply ‘data’ or informants ‘in the Eurocentric frame ofreference’.
The second way and specifically Ubuntu-related, was Social Constructivism,
which, according to Gergen (1985, p. 266),
views discourse about the world as an artefact of communal interchange, and isconcerned with explicating the processes by which people come to describe, explain, orotherwise account for the world (including themselves).

Ubuntu as a philosophy meant that teachers collaborated in the evaluations between
themselves even though they each had developed unique ways of using the computer
program.

Methodology (evaluation processes)
I used three tenets of Ubuntu, which were in accord with traditional Westernevaluation methodology: (1) a respect for others; (2) an agreement on criteria; and(3) dialogue or ‘mutual exposure’ of beliefs. In Figure 1, methodologies as
understood from Crotty (1998) that were compatible with the three tenets of
Ubuntu briefly explained below included: ethical considerations, action evaluation,interpretative approaches, case study, and discourse analysis.
Through Ubuntu, I communicated, and agreed on methodology throughdialogue with the teachers. This dialogue was easier because I, the facilitator, wasa Muntu. That is, a non-Muntu facilitator would have to transform into a Muntu(Mkabela, 2005, p. 179), from ‘solitary to solidarity, and from independence tointerdependence’ (Louw, 2004), with the Bantu community. Becoming a Muntu is amethodology involving submitting one self to Ubuntu. The Ubuntu-becoming
process would require ‘cultural and social immersion as opposed to scientificdistance . . . to understand African phenomena’ (Mkabela, 2005, p. 179). For
example, it was Ubuntu to share my family history, clan, and totem, which madeparticipants more at ease with me because then they ‘knew’ me. The depth ofknowing me determined the quality and quantity of local knowledge I gained accessto. Fortunately, a Muntu perception of the other is not fixed or rigidly closed, but isadjustable or open-ended and allows the other to be (Louw, 2004). Thus, a nonMuntu would also be able to become a Muntu.

Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education421

It was an ethical requirement that teachers demanded assurance that I had
obtained permission from the education authorities to conduct evaluation (Merriam,1998), but also an Ubuntu obligation to acknowledge the elderly, spiritual leaders,chiefs, and other forms of leadership around the schools, including those who were
not participants. Additionally, in view of oneness in Ubuntu, seeking approval fromelders and royalty increased the teachers’ participation as their local leadershipblessed the evaluation. Asking for willing teacher volunteers (Cates & Goodling,1997) and how much exposure they wished to give (Mkabela, 2005) reduced tensions
and improved power relations between participants and me.
Decolonising research considers the dissemination of research outcomes as acollaboration that acknowledges the contribution of Indigenous peoples and, mostimportantly, informs them of the methods of dissemination (Prior, 2006). Thus,
Ubuntu ethics included clearly identifying participants’ contributions to outcomes,
sharing, analysing and discussing the findings with the teachers, declaring fully myintentions in conducting the evaluation, clarifying the participants’ and my actions,needs, and benefits. Results were therefore idiosyncratic, constructivist and interpretive. In the words of Harding (cited in Mkabela, 2005, p. 180), I avoided
invisibility, anonymity, and authority, against the popular ‘scientific’ reporting ofdata in the passive, devoid of the human element, as if I had no influence upon theproceedings and results.
It was ethical, albeit an Action Evaluation, in that participants were allowed todevelop evaluation skills in their schools (Stevenson, 1995), and a case evaluation in
the uniqueness of Bantu as a group and of Ubuntu, as well as translations into
vernacular of some of the terminologies, procedures and questions (Hitchcock &Hughes, 1995; Neuman, 1997).
Prior (2006, p. 165) notes that decolonising research is not simply giving a ‘voice’
to participants, but evokes discourse through a process, which ‘develops meaning or‘‘truth’’ through a relationship of trust, reciprocity and co-operatively evolved
methods of research that remain true to the context’ in harmony with the culturalvalues and epistemology of the Indigenous peoples. This case evaluation consideredthat Bantu communicate through discourses that might be unique, and hence require
the discourse analysis of Ubuntu  i.e., attitudes, gestures, glances, thoughts, values,and emotions such as the way they greet a facilitator (Foucault, in Mphahlele, 1996).
These discourses were measures of acceptance that seriously relate to the validity offindings. For example, serving me with tea could be an indication of complete
acceptance, and therefore revelations of authentic values teachers attached to the
ICT program. Discourse analysis included understanding translations of questions
and responses between vernacular and English since English was a second languagein those Bantu communities. The recognition of community unity under a hierarchy
additionally helped in making sure that individual responses were not compromisedby community opinions. For example, teachers tended to use ‘we’ instead of ‘I’.

Methods
Although vernacular was not recognised in scholarly communication (Raseroka,2005), it conveyed more accurately participants’ understanding of the evaluation
process and its outcomes.

422

J.W.F. Muwanga-Zake

It is in the realm of Ubuntu to concur within a community before committing
themselves to responses in a manner similar to Social Constructivism. Thus, focus
groups or socialising between participants and myself were more appreciated than
individuals interacting with me in line with Broodryk’s (2006) notion of Ubuntu
inclusivity. In this regard, Ubuntu bears similarity to the Western management
practice of teamwork where everyone brings something the team needs and the teamdefines a common goal.
Data were analysed from an idiosyncratic constructivist and interpretive approach, with clear revelation of my deeds (Gay & Airasian, 2000) and interests,
besides those of participants within the framework of discourse analysis. Then weused a constant comparative method to analyse some of the participants’ statements
to determine recurring themes and patterns in participants’ responses as suggested by
Maykut and Morehouse (1994), Hitchcock and Hughes (1995), and Denscombe (1998).
Problems in Ubuntu
Anonymity has often been factored out through Ubuntu communalism. Hence,
Ubuntu could have easily derailed the evaluation into useless collectivism orcommunalism, in order to achieve solidarity. Additionally, communalism can bevery endless, lengthy and expensive. An individual could be isolated and be labelled asan ‘informant’ if s/he sticks to an opinion that differs from a community view. This isbecause to agree is more important than to disagree; conformity is cherished if conflictcan be avoided. Additionally, Olinger, Britz, and Olivier (2005, p. 6) note that Ubuntu:
is sustainable at a local village level, but is difficult to exercise beyond the boundaries ofeveryday relationships. Individuals have a limited capacity to relate to other people interms of sheer numbers of relationships, and since relationships are a cornerstone to
Ubuntu, the practice of Ubuntu occurs primarily within the boundaries of theindividual’s primary relationships.

Therefore, evaluations done in one community might not be valid in anothercommunity and might not be generalised in the whole country. This implies thatevery community would require its own evaluations, which is an expensive anddifficult task.
Suggestions for practiceThere are of course likely to be tensions between the demands for ‘internationally’recognised paradigms and Ubuntu. However, this evaluation showed possibilities ofbuilding bridges between global paradigms and Ubuntu, in concert with Eisenhart
and Howe’s (1992) and Heron’s (1996) advice about the need for clarity about the
grounds of validity and on the extent to which those validities have been reached.
Fundamentally, Ubuntu should be the benchmark for evaluations among Bantu inline with Bhola’s (2002) advice for accessing feelings about knowledge from theindigenous community in consideration of the following.
An innovation, and process such as a research or evaluation should beincorporated into the potential users’ value system in contrast to the usual
imposition (LeCompte et al., 1993; Prior, 2006). Among Bantu, this implies making
sure that the framework of an evaluation framework fits Ubuntu. For example,

Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education

423

Bantu IKS is communal such that it is important and ethical to make sure that thewhole community (not a selected individual) understands and views an evaluator’s
aims in light of how an innovation fits and helps the community.
This implies that Bantu have to be empowered in the process of the project. Sinceaccording to LeCompte et al. (1993) and Greene (1994) the questions and values thatare addressed and promoted are important in determining the framework andmethodology, the evaluation processes and outcomes ought to be beneficial andshould contribute towards the social transformation through Bantu participation. It
is likely that people would be enthusiastic about a project if they benefit from thatproject (Muwanga-Zake, 2007). Among Bantu, the evaluation and empowerment are
Ubuntu driven. Bantu IKS plays a role since it provides the foundations upon which
benefits and further development can be made.
Adopting Ubuntu in the process of evaluation improves validity as the fit
between evaluation questions, data collection procedures, analysis techniques, anddata required (Eisenhart & Howe, 1992; Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995) increases.
Hence one has to make sure that Bantu participants understand the project (Reeves& Hedberg, 2003), within the framework of Bantu IKS and Ubuntu. This, forexample, implies formulating questions that do not violate their Ubuntu. Embarrassing questions are likely to attract wrong answers, to the extent that researchers
wrongly concluded that Bantu do not talk about sex  they do, but only with people
Ubuntu assigns for that. Additionally, language problems sometimes require an
evaluator to include translation into a local Bantu language and to constructquestionnaires as well as analyse responses together with participants  this isUbuntu, which in Western IKS could be interpreted as social constructivism.
Valid processes, responses and useful outcomes require clear revelations of thevoice and interpretations of the participants, besides the researcher’s interpretationsof the participants’ voice (Prior, 2006). Bantu views, however ‘uneducated’ theymight look, are relevant. LeCompte et al. (1993, pp. 315316) emphasise this view‘kinds and degrees of truth are held . . . differentially for different audiences andconstituencies’. That is, the epistemological position that the participants’ realities
are paramount, and therefore, the ontological position that knowledge is primarily
subjective to the holder and secondarily objective only when the subjectivities lead toan agreed meaning, should be considered. This is fortunately a tenet of Ubuntu.
Conclusion
The experience of conducting this evaluation showed that introducing a project into
Bantu communities is not a matter of explaining a few things to participants or inviting
Bantu to workshops in remote centres. Every project among Bantu requires collaboration and therefore Ubuntu, with unequivocal recognition of the culture and needs of thecommunity. The values Bantu attach to the project or alternatively the extent to which
the project solves their problems plays a role, but communities should not be ‘pushed’ toadopt projects in recognition of Ubuntu. A push would gainsay the interpretative,
developmental, and constructivist frameworks, and Ubuntu courtesy and negotiation
cannot be hastened. The UbuntuWestern participative paradigm provides a platform
for Bantu to be part of an implementable and sustainable development.
The challenge is building bridges between Ubuntu and Western participative
paradigms that are short but which capture all the relevant inputs from stakeholders.

424

J.W.F. Muwanga-Zake

This building includes, inter alia, understanding the social, historical and economic
situation of Bantu participants, while improving participants’ understanding ofWestern paradigms.

References
Bhabha, H.K. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
Bhola, H.S. (2002). Reclaiming old heritage for proclaiming future history: The knowledgefor-development debate in African contexts. Africa Today, 49(3), 321.
Brenton, D., & Largent, C. (2000, April 20). The paradigm web. Retrieved March 31, 2009,
from http://www.trufax.org/paradigm/paradigm/welcome.html
Broodryk, J. (2006). Ubuntu African life coping skills: Theory and practice. Retrieved June
12, 2007, from http://www.topkinisis.com/conference/CCEAM/wib/index/outline/PDF/
BROODRYK%20Johann.pdf
Cates, W.M., & Goodling, S.C. (1997). The relative effectiveness of learning options in
multimedia computer-based fifth-grade spelling instruction. Education Technology Researchand Development, 45(2), 2746.
Cobern, W.W. (1996). Constructivism and non-western science education research. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 295310.
Cosijn, E., Pirkola, A., Bothma, T., & Järvelin, K. (2002). Information access in indigenous
languages: A case study in Zulu. In H. Bruce, R. Fidel, P. Ingwersen, & P. Vakkari (Eds.),
Emerging frameworks and methods. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS 4), July 2125, 2002, Seattle, USA(pp. 221238). Retrieved March 28, 2009, from http://www.info.uta.fi/tutkimus/fire/archive/
CPBJ-Zulu.pdf
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. London: Sage.
Denscombe, M. (1998). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Ditton, M. (2007). Intercultural qualitative research and Ph.D. students. Intercultural
Education, 18(1), 4152.
Du Plessis, H., & Raza, G. (2002, December). Linking indigenous knowledge with attitudes
towards science among artisans in India and South Africa * A collaborative cross-culturalproject. Paper presented at the Foundation of Education, Science and Technology 7thInternational Conference on Public Communication of S&T Conference. Retrieved June 12,2007, from http://ma.caudillweb.com/documents/bridging/papers/duplessis.hester.pdf
Eisenhart, M., & Borko, H. (1993). Designing classroom research. Themes, issues, and struggles.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Eisenhart, M.A., & Howe, K.R. (1992). Validity in educational research. In M.D. Le Compte,
W.L. Millroy & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 643680). New York: Academic Press.
Evans, M.A., & Powell, A. (2007). Conceptual and practical issues related to the design forand sustainability of communities of practice: The case of e-portfolio use in preservice
teacher training [Electronic version]. TechnologyPedagogy and Education, 16(2), 199214.
Fanon, F. (1970). Black skin, white masks. St Albans, UK: Paladin.
Forster, D. (2006). Identity in relationship: The ethics of Ubuntu as an answer to the impasse ofindividual consciousness. Pretoria, South Africa: UNISA. Retrieved June 12, 2007, fromhttp://www.spirituality.org.za/files/ubuntu%20and%20identity%20D%20Forster%202006.doc
Gay, L.R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis andapplication (6th ed). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis
and applications (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson; Merrill Prentice Hall.
Gergen, K.J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American
Psychologist, 40, 226275.
Greene, J.C. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation: Practice and promise. In N.K. Denzin &Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 531542). London: Sage.
Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition. London: Sage.

Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education

425

Hickey, D.T., & Zuicker, S.J. (2002). A new perspective for evaluating innovative science
programmes. Science Education, 87, 539563.
Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher: A qualitative introduction toschool-based research (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Jefferies, P., Carsten-Stahl, B., & McRobb, S. (2007). Exploring the relationships between
pedagogy, ethics and technology: Building a framework for strategy development[Electronic version]. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 16(1), 111126.
Kawooya, D. (2006, August). Copyright, indigenous knowledge and Africa’s university libraries:
The case of Uganda. Paper presented at the World Library and Information Congress: 72nd
IFLA General Conference and Council, Seoul, Korea. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from http://
www.ifla.org/IV/ifla72/papers/116-Kawooya-en.pdf
Ki-Zerbo, J. (1989). African linguistic classification and the language map of Africa. In J. KiZerbo (Ed.), General history of Africa, I. Methodology and African prehistory (abridged ed.,pp. 113121). London: James Currey with UNESCO.
Kincheloe, J.L., & McLaren, P.L. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research.
In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118137).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New
York: Routledge.
Leach, M., & Fairhead, J. (2002). Manners of contestation: ‘Citizen science’ and ‘indigenous
knowledge’ in West Africa and the Caribbean. International Social Science Journal, 54,
299311.
LeCompte, M.D., Preissle, J., & with Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design ineducational research (2nd ed). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Denzin, N.K. (1994). The fifth moment. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Louw, D.J. (2004). Ubuntu: An African assessment of the religious other. Philosophy in Africa.
Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Afri/AfriLouw.htm
Lwango-Lunyiigo, S. & Vansina, J. (1992). The Bantu-speaking peoples and their expansion.
In I. Hrbek (Ed.), General history of Africa, III. Africa from the seventh to the eleventhcountry (abridged ed., pp. 7588). London: James Currey; Paris: UNESCO.
Mammo, T. (1999). The paradox of Africa’s poverty: The role of indigenous knowledge,
traditional practices and local institutions*The case of Ethiopia. Lawrenceville, NJ: Red Sea
Press.
Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophical andpractical guide. London: The Falmer Press.
Mbow, A.M. (1992). Preface. In I. Hrbek (Ed.), General history of Africa, III. Africa from theseventh to the eleventh country (abridged ed., pp. viixi). London: James Currey; Paris:
UNESCO.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised andexpanded from case study research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mkabela, Q. (2005). Using the Afrocentric method in researching indigenous African culture.
The Qualitative Report, 10(1), 178189. Retrieved December 6, 2007, from http://
www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-1/mkabela.pdf
Mphahlele, M.K. (1996). Supervision of science education research: Critique of the discourse.
Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting, 2528 January. South African Association for
Research in Mathematics and Science Education, 236249.
Mtuze, P.T. (1999). Hidden presences in the spirituality of the Amaxhosa of the Eastern Capeand the impact of Christianity on them. Unpublished thesis, Rhodes University, South
Africa.
Murithi, T. (June, 2006). Practical peacemaking wisdom from Africa: Reflections on Ubuntu.
The Journal of Pan African Studies, 1(4). Available in booklet form and from http://
www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P3-1124823841.html
Muwanga-Zake, J.W.F. (2007). Introducing educational computer programmes throughevaluation: A case in South African disadvantaged schools. International Journal of
Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT),
3(3), 3048.

426

J.W.F. Muwanga-Zake

Myers, M.D. (2000). Qualitative research in information systems. Retrieved May 21, 2000,
from wysiwyg://3/http://www.Auckland.ac.nz/miss/isworld/index.htm
Neuman, W.L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rded.). London: Allyn and Bacon.
Nichols, R.G., & Allen-Brown, V. (2001). Critical theory and educational technology:
Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ogunniyi, M.B. (1996). Science, technology and mathematics: The problem of developing
critical human capital in Africa. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 267284.
Olinger, H.N., Britz, J.J., & Olivier, M.S. (2005). Western privacy and Ubuntu  Influences in
the forthcoming data privacy bill. In P. Brey, F. Grodzinsky, & L. Introna (Eds.), Ethics of
new information technology  Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Computer
Ethics: Philosophical Enquiry (CEPE2005) (pp. 291306). Enschede, The Netherlands.
Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://www.mo.co.za/abstract/ubuntu.htm
Pedro, H.K., Enrique, H.S., Ernesto, L.M., & Lucio, R.F. (2004, October). Technology inschools: Education, ICT and the knowledge society. Retrieved June 23, 2007, from http://
www1.worldbank.org/education/pdf/ICT_report_oct04a.pdf
Pinkus, J. (1996). Foucault. Retrieved April 14, 2001, from http://www.massey.ac.nz/ALock/theory/foucault.htm
Prior, D. (2006). Decolonising research: A shift toward reconciliation. Nursing Inquiry, 14(2),162168.
Raseroka, K. (2005). Africa to Africa: Building its knowledge community. Speech by Presidentof the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) to AEGIS,
Africa-Europe Group for Interdisciplinary Studies European Conference of African
Studies, at the School of Oriental and African Studies and the Institute of CommonwealthStudies, London, June 29 to July 3. Retrieved March 31, 2009, from www.aegis-eu.org/
archive/ecas2005/KayAEGISLondon%20final%20version.doc
Reeves, L.P., & Hedberg, J.G. (2003). Interactive learning systems evaluation. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Robbotom, I., & Hart, P. (1993). Towards a meta-research agenda in science andenvironmental education. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 591605.
Savenye, W.C., & Robinson, R.S. (2001). Qualitative research issues and methods: An
introduction for educational technologists. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of researchfor educational communications and technology (pp. 11711195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Scidev. (2002). Indigenous knowledge. Retrieved February 6, 2007, from http://www.scidev.net/
dossiers/index.cfm?fuseactiondossierfulltext&Dossier7
Stevenson, R.B. (1995). Action research and supportive school contexts: Exploring thepossibilities for transformation. In S.E. Noffke & R.B. Stevenson (Eds.), Educational action
research: Becoming practically critical (pp. 197209). New York: Teachers College Press.
Tutu, D. (2004). God has a dream: A vision of hope for our time. New York: Doubleday.
Wells, R., & Wells, S. (2007). Challenges and opportunities in ICT educational development: A
Ugandan case study. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 3(2),100108. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewissue.php?id12
Willis, J. (2000). The maturing of constructivist instructional design: Some basic principles
that can guide practice. Educational Technology, 40(1), 516.
Wilson, B.G. (1995). Metaphors for instruction: Why we talk about learning environments[Electronic version]. Educational Technology, 35(5), 2530.
Winn, W. (1997). The impact of three dimensional immersive virtual environments on modern
pedagogy. Retrieved November 16, 2000, from http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-97-15/
Yeaman, A.R.J., Hlynka, D., Anderson, J.H., Damarin, S.K., & Muffoletto, R. (2001).
Postmodern and poststructural theory. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research foreducational communications and technology (pp. 253295). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Copyright of Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education is the property of Routledge and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.