Revisiting decoloniality for more effective research and evaluation

Abstract

Background: There is increasing global resistance against a perceived Eurocentric value hegemony in knowledge generation, implementation and evaluation. A persistent colonial value mindset is accused of imposing outdated and inappropriate policies on former colonised and other countries and needs to be changed to more appropriate processes and results to improve conditions in those countries in the 21st century.Objectives: This article intends to summarise some lessons from the impact of historical colonial value systems and practices in current knowledge generation, transfer and application processes and results in Africa (especially in South Africa). The objective is to identify concrete directions towards 'decolonising' research and evaluation processes and products to be more relevant, appropriate and, therefore, more effective to achieve sustainable empowerment and other desired developmental outcomes not only in lesser developed countries but also in traditionally more developed Western nations.Method: A comparative literature review was undertaken to identify and assess the current state of the debate on the perceived need to decolonise research and evaluation practices in different contexts. The Africa-rooted evaluation movement was used as a case study for this purpose. Results:The current decoloniality discourse is ineffective and needs to be taken in another direction. Mainstreaming culturally sensitive and responsive, contextualised participatory research and evaluation designs and methodology implementation in all facets and at all stages of research and evaluation projects has the potential to fulfil the requirements and demands of the research and evaluation decoloniality movement. Conclusion:This will improve the effectiveness of research and evaluation processes and results.

Towards defining and advancing ‘Made in Africa Evaluation’

“…Furthermore, one aspect of our new definition of MAE is using localised African approaches with the aim of aligning all evaluations to the lifestyles of the African people. This aspect further strengthens the argument for the ubuntu concept as the main fabric of MAE as elucidated by Chilisa and Malunga (2012), Cloete and Auriacombe (2019), and Uwizeyimana (2020). These authors presented ubuntu as epitomising the sense of community, collectiveness, and love amongst the African people, which is consistent with our new definition that places premium on aligning evaluation to the lifestyle and needs of African people whilst promoting African values.…”

“…Yet, whilst some may find it ironic to study African methodologies using a non-African method, we maintain that the tool was appropriate for this type of study, that is, helping to arrive at expert-based consensus. Also, further support of this view is evident in the argument of Cloete (2019) in his critique of coloniality. He argued that to totally reject Eurocentric research and evaluation approaches is rigid and totally misplaced.…”

“…In such communities, no single person can claim to speak for the entire community(Cloete & Auriacombe 2019; Uwizeyimana 2020). A similar philosophy is ingrained in West African culture.…”

Ethics for Evaluation

“…Most recently embodied in the #BlackLivesMatter movement resurging amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, calls have been intensifying for decolonizing actions to go beyond cosmetics, deep into changing systems. In some quarters, the initial rigid notion of decolonisation has been softened by a 'damage minimalisation and improvement' approach where the focus is now not on replacing Eurocentric approaches with Indigenous ones, but to supplement or contrast these approaches with mental models that are more congruent with Indigenous value, cultural and empirical situations and practices (Cloete, 2019). This "second wave of decolonization writings" promote the supplementation of gaps and weaknesses in reductionist Western thought with Indigenous value systems -and in some cases, also the other way around.…”

Science potential for development in Africa not yet fully realised

“…Significant improvements in the nature and constructive impacts of sustainable, decolonised, democratic governance in African countries are possible as explained elsewhere. 10,11 The author also correctly identifies better use of Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies in Africa as a prerequisite for success. However, he acknowledges that the current weak state of digital empowerment on the continent is a potentially serious obstruction (p. 267).…”