Decolonizing Cultural Probes in Ethnographic Research: Perspective of African Scholars

Introduction

Cultural probes is the systematic collection of tools, artifacts, and tasks aimed at eliciting information from respondents. This is achieved through dialog between the researcher and people within the community being investigated. Cultural probe enhances the philosophical assumptions behind ontology (i.e., the nature of reality), epistemology (i.e., what is real knowledge and its nature), and axiology (i.e., values) in the ongoing search for ways of decolonizing research paradigms (Chilisa, 2012; Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Gaver et al., 1999; Held, 2019; Martens, 2015; Starkman & Chow, 2018; Wilson, 2008). Gaver et al. (1999) first used the term cultural probe in their ethnographic study conducted in Oslo, Amsterdam, and Peccioli, respectively, to understand how elderly people within the communities could be involved in research conducted in their respective environment (Gaver et al., 1999). In alignment with the findings from the above research, it has been argued that African scholars have the potentials to understand issues within the Africa space more than European scholars who research African (Lincoln & Gonzalez, 2008). This is essential to curtail the hegemony of Western epistemology that merely reduce Africa scholars to a mere data collector or research assistant. This conception is reflected below by Alatas’s (2008) definition of academic dependency.

a condition in which the knowledge of certain scholarly communities is conditioned by the development and growth of knowledge of other scholarly communities to which the former is subjected. The relations of independence between two or more scientific communities, and between these and global transactions in knowledge, assumes the form of dependency when some scientific communities (those located in knowledge powers) can expand according to certain criteria of development and progress, while other scientific communities (such as those in the developing societies) can only do this as a reflection of that expansion, which generally has negative effects on their development according to the same criteria.

The work of Gaver et al. (1999) had introduced a parallel approach to research, and it might have caught the attention of other researchers as well. For example, Goopy and Lloyd (2006) started to use similar techniques to elicit an empathic engagement described as “understanding the human condition.” Goopy and Kassan (2019) have quoted Goopy and Llyod (2006) as having posited that:

[This methodology] acknowledges the subjectivity inherent in studying humans and embraces inter-disciplinarity. The subjective measure of a person’s wellbeing, quality of life (QOL) has no objective reality that stands independent of its creator and therefore does not lend itself to be easily understood through the scientific-realist paradigms. To study the quality of life is to study the subjective experience of well-being and destiny. How to capture, understand and make sense of this subjective experience, this quality of life, was the starting point….

The above is the reason why cultural probe involves the use of cameras, maps, diaries, sketchbooks, videos, smartphones, postcards, and timelines, among other interactive and creative means, to elicit subjectivity (Goopy & Kassan, 2019). Cultural probes emphasize the presentation of experience through the visual, such as photographs, drawings, sketches, and objects, thus lending credence to what Knowles (2006) had said:

What we see and how we see it, is intricately connected with the forms of social organization within which we are all. . .located and with which we have a matrix of connections.

The episteme of the cultural probe is polarized, as the concept has different interpretations to various scholars. For instance, the conception of cultural probes by scholars in the global North is not the same as the ideology of scholars in the South. This difference is necessitated by the different experiences and values within both societies. The European hegemony overshadows the research environment in the South, especially in Nigeria, to the extent that young researchers willingly accept the superiority of European scholars above themselves. This inferiority complex among younger scholars is also reflected in other aspect of life as Sesanti (2020) argued against the false consciousness that stated that Africa is the center piece of patriarchy. He argued that such ideas was initiated, and propagated by the colonialist, and because they were not challenged earlier, they have gained momentum in the African space. Corroborating this nuance, Sesanti (2016) suggested that Africa must reclaim it culture, which places women at the center of development. This is because, contemporarily, men have consistently or unconsciously relegated women liberation in politics within the African space.

The engagement of cultural probes in ethnographic research is to gain an interpretative understanding of indigenous respondents (Duval-Diop, 2016). The crux of the issue is that a single methodology cannot be used to conduct research globally. For example, the birth of Sociology in Europe was a response to the social change associated with the French and Industrial revolution in the 18th century. Sociological theories was then an ideological attempt to explain and proffer solution for European problems. The adoption of such methodologies to provide the solution to African problems may not be successful due to contextual issues and environmental differences. Colonialism promoted an education policy that psychologically reduce Africa to second class (Sesanti, 2015). Over-dependence on foreign standard in the educational space, unconsciously limit development and progress. This is because, a researcher in the North may not deeply understand African values, norms, and behavioral concerns. However, as noted by Asante (2020), the media has been used to indoctrinate the ideas and culture of the Africa people without many people understanding that their way of life has been relegated as inferior compare to European.

In many ways, the use of cultural probes in qualitative ethnographic research design is Eurocentric, and, even though its usage may be growing in the West, awareness about its potentiality and value, perhaps, remain limited in the African academy space. In the same vein, the failure of Africa (economically, politically, socially, and in other contexts) despite the dominance of European conceptualization of development is a sign that Eurocentric conception of development does not really work in the Africa space (Gumede, 2017). The bane of the issue is that, development processes, and terminology are defined by the West, and Africa leaders have been influenced to internalize Western ideas. Thus, this development process in Africa can only be progressive when the process is decolonize to liberate Africa (Gumede, 2017).

Effective decolonization of Africa economic space need to commence from within African scholars in order to unlearn and learn, unthink and rethink dominant thoughts that has infiltrated their mind over the years (Gumede, 2011, 2017). Thus, cultural probe must be critique before acceptance, based on possible refinements and reflections that are germane to the African experience. This paper argues that unless the intended interrogation is widespread among African scholars, the application of cultural probes when researching within African communities will remain a challenge.

Theoretical frameworks

This discourse is informed by the theories of post-colonialism, decolonialism, and critical cultural theory. The post-colonial theory posits that post-colonial populations are usually “individuals without an anchor,” and, therefore, cannot return to their pre-colonial roots (Fanon, 1963). This theory takes colonialism as a phenomenon that perpetuates oppression driven normally by two vectors categorized by Hall (1999) as “the vector of similarity and continuity that usually connects current practices in the educational systems (for instance, Africa with colonial experience) (Elder and Odoyo, 2018). In like manner, the vector of difference and rupture dislocates the social and education systems onto what is known as a different trajectory that is inherently different but simultaneously influenced by the first vector” (Elder & Odoyo, 2018). Therefore, as the nation or continent arrives at the point of rupture, there is a tendency to create some tension between the past and the present experiences and realities. The rupture normally gives room for new contexts and structures to emerge that influence the development of new ways of knowing what we now know.

The theory of decolonization, on the other hand, posits that research must be conducted in the local language and rely on the indigenous ways of knowing, knowledge, ideologies, and values whilst giving local participants dominant roles to play in the process of research (Freire, 1970; Smith, 1999). The critical cultural theory is conjectured to repudiate the perspectives of cultural disability in which one culture is seen as inherently weak and negatively discerned, and, therefore, in need of what is termed as medicalized cultural fixes (Ferri, 2006; Humphrey, 2000). These theories were formulated and marketed by researchers in the global North. African scholars have adopted their theoretical framework without interrogating the contextual values and applications (Elder & Odoyo, 2018).

Cultural Probes and the African Context

Some scholars have argued that putting sufficient emphasis on the promotion of bilingual and multilingual data and texts as well as ensuring more and more collaboration between Western and non-Western scholars should produce credible decolonization of research methodology and research itself (Gonzales et al., 2008; Robinson-Pant, 2005; Temple, 2006). However, the African context has its peculiarities and personal character that must be addressed very squarely if something valuable and sustainable must come out of the recent demands for the introduction and use of cultural probes to make meanings out of this context. The mere use of African scholars as data collectors, while the scholars in the North do the write-up in research conducted in Africa may not fully capture the context of the issue. This is because the process of writing itself is influenced by experience and physical observation.

Other scholars have equally tendered the view that, perhaps, introducing the use of cultural probes in qualitative research methodology is capable of producing the additional credibility urgently needed in decolonizing research methodology and design (Gaver et al., 1999). Cultural probes entail understanding group norms, culture, behaviors, and attitudes within a community to gain an interpretative understanding of their way of leading (Starkman & Chow, 2018). The challenge, however, is that any episteme from the North is globally accepted as high quality as against episteme that generates from the South. This perception has been critique and criticize by eminent Afrocentric scholars such Molefi Kete Asante, Gumede Vusi, Sesanti Simphiwe, among others. In addition, even within the South, there is disagreement on the appropriate design of epistemology due to the multi-ethnic nature of the Africa society.

Cultural probes in qualitative research designs in the African context entail the involvement of African scholars who live in Africa, in the design and development of research. These scholars would be able to give a proper interpretative understanding of the problems within the systemic context of the people. This is contrary to the pervasiveness of a single-line narrative approach in the use of cultural probes which portends academic genocide. This narrative is also found in the study of Africa philosophy as Sesanti (2015) had earlier noted, that Africa philosophy should be at the core of teaching in the African institutions. This is because, at the present, the European perceive Africans as sub-humans that lack rationality. For a very long time, Africa beliefs were regarded as fettish and devilish.

In the view of Oyebade (1990), there is a profound marginalization of Africa philosophy and scholarship in the universities in Africa. Thus, Sesanti (2015) request for more space to discuss Africa philosophies in African universities. These agitations propel scholars to demand for flipsides of methodologies to cushion the tension of methodology supremacy of the global North, especially with qualitative research conducted in Africa (Abdi, 2015; Ochoko et al., 2010). The search for liberating methodologies such as those being suggested in this discourse may help put in check neo-colonialism and the reification of what Mwaura (2005) called “imposed Northern oppression.”

According to Omobowale and Akanle (2017), the application of Western theories in the study of the Africa population within the continent was aimed at understanding the culture of the indigenous people within the context of mainstream ideology. It is, therefore, not surprising that Western theorists and scholars have often described Africa culture as primitive and crude that needs a Western ideology to develop. This misnomer of universalism has made ethnographers champion contextual explanation or interpretation of non-western indigenous culture.

We propose that to effectively decolonized the use of the cultural probes in ethnographic research in Africa, research should be conducted using indigenous language. In addition to the use of the local language, researchers ought to embrace the indigenous ways of knowing, epistemology and axiology whilst at the same time ensuring that the local participants themselves direct studies based on cultural probes. Smith (1999) had earlier thrust that decolonizing research should be guided by concern for whose research it is in the first place, whose interests are being served, who benefits the most from the research, who framed the research questions and determine the scope of the study, who implements the study, and how will the results be disseminated.

Challenges and Mitigations

Africa’s colonial past and several decades of oppression, discrimination, poverty, neglect, stagnation, and apartheid experiences should attract an immense amount of sensitivity in ethnographic research based on cultural probes. Action research always seeks to find solutions to the dominant challenges facing the people. Therefore, any participatory action learning and action research aimed at working with Africans to solve challenges, need to carefully consider user sensitivity as suggested by Crabtree et al. (2003) and Gaver et al. (2004). This is because the sole reliance on observation in ethnographic studies conducted in Africa may not be completely effective. For observation, as a tool of research, in sensitive settings such as is common in many Africa communities may frequently be perceived as suspicious, intrusive, disruptive, inappropriate, and typical of the master-servant relationships which Africans have been subjected to in the past. It must be for this same reason that Elder and Odoyo (2018) have suggested that ethnographic researchers interested in African issues should appropriately evolve methodologies based on community-based participatory and decolonizing research with a distinct academic spirit. This distinct academic spirit should be one that can shift the construction of Africa as one of the “poorest” continents always in need of aids from the global North. Rather, there should be the desire to reframe Africa as a geographical space that holds immense potential for creativity, resourcefulness, and resilience that can inform the Northern practices in social and educational sectors (Elder & Odoyo, 2018). Appropriate decolonization of the cultural probe, for that reason, demands paradigm shifts constructed and managed by researchers who understand the renewed African spirit and mind.

The idea of our argument is that research design conceptualized by Non-Africans who have never been to Africa may not adequately capture the contextual meaning of the way of knowing within Africa. For instance, during collaborative research between scholars in North and South (in particular African scholars), scholars in the global North often design the survey and write up the report. This is a bane because these scholars may not adequately understand the way of life, norms, and beliefs system of Africans. Therefore, in such an instance, the way of living of Africans may be labeled as crude by the scholars in the North. This becomes a grief to the recipient of the environment where such study was conducted.

Furthermore, there are differentials in value systems between the scholars in the North and people living in the environment where a study was conducted in Africa. What the European researcher may deem valuable could be useless to the respondents/participants of research conducted in Africa. For example, whilst the researcher from Europe may perceive the consumption of water from fishpond as unimproved and dangerous to the health, the people in the indigenous communities in Africa may perceive it as the transmission of hereditary practices as their ancestors who consumed water from the same source lived long. In addition, the European researcher may not value the use of traditional herbs for health management whilst the Africans may strongly rely on its effectiveness for health care. This bipolar health belief system creates differential ideas as the European researcher may describe the use of herb by Africans as crude but the Africans on the other hand will describe the use of orthodox medicine as the perpetuation of colonialism. Therefore, it is more appropriate for Indigenous scholars who live in the continent to conduct contextual researches and report findings within the praxis of the culture of the people.

Extrapolation of processes and actions from one side to the other can pose some challenges. For instance, a few researchers may conceive that the success of the concept of “ludic pursuits” that emerged from Gaver and colleagues’ “Presence Project” can work elsewhere, especially in Africa. Crabtree et al. (2003) have quoted Gaver et al. (1999) as having introduced the concept of “ludic pursuits” to draw attention to the so-called “playful” character of human life. It is said to imply the notion of “playfulness” in the highly personal and diverse ways in which people tend to “explore, wonder, love, worship, and waste time” together and in some other ways engage in activities which they consider as “meaningful and valuable” (Gaver, 2001). The challenge here is that the “ludic pursuits in Site A can differ very much from that in Site B.” In other words, what may make one group happy in one place may just as well not make another group happy. For example, the color “red” may have different connotations and meanings for people in different ways. Whereas, some people may perceive the color “red” as indicating danger, depending on the situation and location, other groups of people may see that same color as connoting dignity or joy. This shows that methodological generalization may not be applicable for single research across the continent as a contextual application is necessary.

David Schneider in his article titled “American Kinship: A Cultural Account” written in 1968 highlights the importance of indigenous scholars’ contributions to ethnographic study within their space. His remarks merit full quotation:

There is another reason why the study of kinship in America is especially important to Americans and that is that as Americans, this is a society and a culture, which we know well. We speak the language fluently, we know the customs, and we have observed the natives in their daily lives. Indeed, we are [emphasis in original] the natives. Hence we are in an especially good position to keep the facts and the theory in their most productive relationships. We can monitor the interplay between fact and theory where American kinship is concerned in ways that are simply impossible in the ordinary course of anthropological work. When we read about kinship in some society which is different to our own, we have only the facts which the author chooses to present to us, and we usually have no independent source of knowledge against which we can check his facts. It is thus very hard to evaluate his theory for ordering those facts.

Whatever the contributions of knowledge made by Western ethnographers studying Africa anthropology, there is still a major problem of data quality in ethnographic fieldwork. This is caused by the absence of the use of indigenous vernaculars in collecting data, which often results in serious errors during data translation. Africa culture for instance differs from Western culture. Thus, the contextual meaning of ideas, thoughts, and interpretation of data collected differs with time and space. Western scholars and Anthropologist has written extensively about the African environment and they have done this while persuading readers that Africans are primitive. It is worrisome to read these Western reports about Africa because it remains unclear if these Western Anthropologists reported objective facts about Africa or whether they interpreted reports given to them by field workers whose reports were influenced by their subjective fantasies.

It is not professional and non-ethical to outline articles to buttress the point been made in this article. However, this distorted intellectual write-up has implications on the general perception of the African space. Therefore, this study is designed to examine and re-examine cultural probes in Africa. Among the argument of this article is that the use of indigenous languages for data collection is bound to give appropriate contextual meaning to reports or data collection. For instance, the work of ethnographers such as “Meyer Forthies” “The Dynamics of Clanship among the Tallensi in 1945” and “Evans-Pritchards” “The Nuer in 1940 has been overly quoted as a pinnacle for ethnographic studies in Africa.” Sadly, these studies contain no Africa vernacular, nor, showed any sign that data were collected using Africa languages before been transcribed to English.

The bane of the issue is that these writers may likely not have the ability to fluently speak the indigenous vernacular, thus, putting to doubt the quality of their data and report about an environment they do not understand the language and way of life of the people. The mere reliance on data collectors or field workers who are Africans and live in Africa may not provide sufficient interpretative understanding of the subject. This is because these data collectors were not involved in the study design, and thus, may pay less attention to the quality of data collected. These data collectors may pay little attention to data quality as they are only concern about stipend to be paid to them for services rendered. Lack of knowledge of the indigenous language has severe implications on data quality.

The use of field workers or informants’ compound interpreter’s bias in ethnographic research due to intercultural translation. Ability to speak and understand indigenous languages is indispensable if ethnographers are to avoid misleading and erroneous theoretical conclusions and reports. Africans shift from language to language and contexts when communicating with each other. For example, in Nigeria where there are over 340 languages. A person could mix Yoruba, Igbo, and vernacular languages in a single sentence. Thus, interpretation is contextual as there is no single universal meaning of certain sentences.

Although, some African scholars may argue that since the English language is officially spoken in many countries in the region, the use of English for data collection does not influence the outcome of the data quality. This is not true. How can the English language be used to collect data among indigenous aged illiterates women in rural communities in Mmaku town in Enugu State, South-East Nigeria? Even within the people in South-East Nigeria, there is a variant in the spoken Igbo language. The spoken Igbo language in Mmaku is different from Igbidi town, a neigboring village. Surprisingly both towns are in the same geographical space and local government area in Enugu State, Southeast Nigeria. This shows that language has a serious impact on research if the proper outcome is to be derived from such endeavor. Therefore, researching Western languages without incorporating indigenous languages within the study location may give wrong contextual interpretation to reports and research outcomes.

Western domination of African academic space is so deeply rooted that it is hardly perceived by many as a problem. In the higher institutions in Africa, the library is filled with Western books and foreign academic materials. Many students now perceive indigenous books as inferior to western books published outside the shores of Africa. In the academic environment, much adore and respect are given to foreign Journals more than Journals that are domicile in Africa. This inferiority perception has lingered for long to the extent that younger scholars assume that it is and should be the norm. This post-colonial imperialism is deeply rooted in Africa’s academic space. However, it is the authors believe that this academic dichotomy is designed by Western scholars for Western scholars. This is a fact

Ethnographic knowledge can only be beneficial to Africa society when data are collected using the indigenous language of the people. The ethnographer’s depth of knowledge of the indigenous language would enable the researcher to administer the research question appropriately to the respondents. This would enable the researcher to establish a good rapport with the respondents. In doing so, language becomes a tool for efficient data collection. Note that we have not condemned the idea of Western scholars using field workers to administer questionnaires when researching in Africa. However, the transcription and interpretation of data by field workers and not the researcher themselves often distort data outcomes. This is because the fieldworker would likely report what the Western scholars’ desire and not the actual outcome from the field. Therefore, this article argues that ethnographic probes should be conducted by researchers using indigenous languages. It makes sense, therefore, to argue that Western scholars may not accurately report about Africa more than African scholars who live and grew up in Africa.

Conclusion

This article encouraged the interrogation of cultural probes in ethnographic studies. Contextualizing researches conducted in Africa within the context of Africa cultures and values will help solve Africa’s problems. Scholars who live in Europe and have never been to Africa, but conduct their research about Africa are more likely to be biased in their report due to cultural and ideological differences in values. In addition, the use of Africa scholars as mere data collectors in Africa may still not be helpful to Africans as long as the design of the study and reports were crafted with European ideology. The thrust of this study is that sensitivity is required of ethnographic researchers who contribute to the development of Africa. Researchers, therefore, need to be objective, creative, and innovative when adapting cultural probes in research conductive in Africa.