Transcending the colonial worldview to establish a research paradigm through an African lens: Analysis of research modules in archives

1. Introduction

Social phenomena are defined and researched using distinct theoretical perspectives that are linked to various philosophical backgrounds. Hart (2010) defines these as lenses that enshrine the socio-cultural and political cognitive, perceptual, and affective philosophies that underpin research. These lenses are critical in defining belief systems that guide research investigations – not only in terms of selecting a research method, but also in terms of what is perceived to be true in the world (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).

Guba and Lincoln (1994, p. 107) extrapolate that a researcher’s philosophical assumptions frame the search for “truth” through his/her interaction with what is being researched, how it is being researched, and how findings are interpreted in the pursuit of “truth.” According to Owusu-Ansah and Mji (2013), truly relevant research necessitates a better understanding of the philosophical assumptions that subjectively inform a researcher’s actions.

Researchers’ exploration of the deeper meaning of and commitment to the decolonisation of philosophical views in postcolonial research in the African context is hampered by minimal understanding of these philosophical backgrounds. It limits the extent to which modern researchers are willing to look beyond Eurocentric lenses to explore alternative ways of seeking, critiquing, and understanding knowledge. As a result, Wilson (2001a, p. 214) contends that the “dirtiness” of research must be revealed in order to find more than one account of “truth.” According to Daniels (2011), the unmasking of issues that impede progress in the African context can be found in decolonising underlying philosophical assumptions. In the opinion of Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2017), this entails the need to transform and search for underlying philosophical viewpoints in order to recast and reposition research.

According to Keane et al. (2017), Eurocentric paradigms have informed research for generations as a tool for solving “indigenous problems” and finding answers to questions about indigenous people. Seehawer (2018) purports that the result of using these non-indigenous lenses is that those being researched are oftenly marginalised and findings are insensitive, resulting in out-of-context or even incorrect conclusions. For this reason, Asante (1999) began to articulate the need for an Afrocentric research orientation. The author promotes the idea that African societies should be studied as objects of their own histories, rather than as subsets of European experiences. It is necessary to adopt an Afrocentric paradigm in which African interests, values, and perspectives are central (Mazama, 2001; Chawane, 2016). This is supported by Chiumbu (2017), who explains that decolonising research necessitates the reconstruction or reinvention of research’s philosophical foundations. Despite the fact that much has been written to encourage the adaptation of viewpoints toward Afrocentrism, Seehawer (2018) asserts that perceptions of the search for “truth” in African research continue to be based on Eurocentric constructs. This is because researchers have been “schooled” in Eurocentric paradigms, which influence their interests, power dynamics, and cultural biases (Keane et al., 2016). It is necessary to be aware of the inferred bias of Eurocentric paradigms in order to break down barriers to adopting and embracing African lenses through which to construct African research.

The thrust of this article is to highlight the key to the so-called Eurocentric research paradigms and their interrelationships in order to transition to an indigenous Afrocentric paradigm that considers indigenous communities in a respectful, ethical, sympathetic, and beneficial manner. As suggested by Owusu-Ansah and Mji (2013), African researchers must persist in developing alternative lenses for studying reality. Therefore, the aim of this article is to raise awareness and encourage discourse on the importance of reviewing personal research ideas in order to develop a paradigm that serves research in the unique African context. This is accomplished through an analysis of two archives and records management research methodology modules at a comprehensive open distance e-learning (CODeL) institution.

2. Background

In 2015, the CODeL institution conducted sessions with local and international stakeholders from the industry to determine the curriculum for the newly proposed qualification in Archives and Records Management at Honours level. Local stakeholders included the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa, the South African Society of Archivists, archivists and records managers from South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Namibia, academics from higher education institutions and students. International stakeholders included scholars from the University of Northumbria (United Kingdom) and the University of British Columbia (Canada), which has been a leader in the field of archives and records management for several years, who were invited to deliver the annual archives lecture hosted by the department, as well as the East and Southern Regional Branch of the International Council on Archives (ESARBICA). From the discussions, it became evident that the CODeL institution was equipped to offer a modernised qualification in archives and records management based on industry needs in line with technological advancements. Therefore, with the registration of a new Honours degree in Archives and Records Management, the institution would not only be catering to the needs of industry in terms of developing advanced archives and records management skills, but also contribute towards fulfilling the mission of shaping the futures of archivists and records managers in the service of humanity, in Africa and beyond. A lot of people in Africa are interested in archives and records management, and this would make the CODeL institution a leader in these fields.

During this period of development, the institution was coordinating Team Africa for the International Project on Permanent Authentic Records in Electronic Systems (InterPARES) Trust project. Globally, the InterPARES Trust Project was coordinated by the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada and ran for five years (2013–2018). The research was conducted in conjunction with partners from around the world in an international alliance of seven teams inclusive of North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australasia, Africa, and international organisations. The goal of the InterPARES Trust was to:

“generate the theoretical and methodological frameworks that will support the development of integrated and consistent local, national and international networks of policies, procedures, regulations, standards and legislation concerning digital records entrusted to the Internet, to ensure public trust grounded on evidence of good governance, a strong digital economy, and a persistent digital memory” (Katuu, 2022).

Within the African Team, a case study was conducted on the provision of digital records in the curriculum of higher institutions of learning in 38 countries, with the assistance of graduate students from the University of British Columbia (Ngoepe & Saurombe, 2021). The results of this case study showed that higher institutions in Africa were not geared towards a curriculum for digital records management and preservation. Several gaps in the curriculum were revealed by the Team Africa case study for the InterPARES Trust Project. As a result, the International Council on Archives intervened by designing a module at postgraduate level on digital curatorship to be customised by institutions of higher learning. The identified gaps were included in the newly registered Bachelor of Arts Honours in Archive and Records Management qualification. While the qualification consists of five modules, only two that relate to research methodology were analysed, that is, Research Methodology in Archives and Records Management, as well as Research Report in Archives and Records Management.

3. Approach

In the research community, the transition to an indigenous, Afrocentric paradigm has received insufficient attention (Keane et al., 2017). More needs to be done to improve the clarity and application of an African-specific research paradigm. In line with this viewpoint, the article is written in the form of an opinion paper, arguing for the promotion of greater awareness of transcendence towards Afrocentrism when conducting research in the African context.

The perspectives expressed in this article are an attempt to contribute to the debate on the decolonisation of research paradigms through our involvement in the module design. Such discussions are critical to ensuring that researchers benefit from investigating how their inherent lenses influence themselves and connect them and others to their research. According to Seehawer (2018), the exploration and reflection on the construct of the African indigenous paradigm is a learning journey.

4. Eurocentric paradigms

Although the article focuses on transcending from Eurocentric research paradigms to an indigenous paradigm that encourages alternative research viewpoints related to the African context, the aim is not to negate Eurocentric paradigms. Hart (2010) explains that similar to Eurocentric paradigms, indigenous paradigms should develop as a set of beliefs of metaphysics that deals with principles defining the nature of the world, the individual’s place in the world, and the range of possible relationships to that world and its parts. This leads to variants in “ontological (beliefs about the nature of reality), epistemological (study of knowledge), axiological (values and judgements) and methodological (guiding system to methods used for obtaining data) assumptions that inform the frameworks of paradigms” (Wilson, 2001b, p. 175).

As proposed by various paradigms, the nature of reality founded on these constructs is highly complex and often a minefield for researchers to navigate (Bryman, 2006). For example, Reeves (1996) identifies paradigms as analytical-empirical-positivism, constructivist-hermeneutic interpretivism and critical postmodern realism, while Gephart (1999) refers to positivism, interpretivism and critical postmodernism. Chilisa (2005) cites Ubuntunism as a post-colonial participative research paradigm, whereas Hart (2010, 3) refers to a relational paradigm with an emphasis on communitism as post-colonial. Babbie (2014) refers to symbolic interactionism, structural functionalism, and feminist paradigms as examples of alternative paradigms.

To complicate matters further, the concepts of ontology, epistemology and axiology embedded in each of the existing paradigms are Eurocentric constructs and not rooted in indigenous paradigms (Hart, 2010). As indigenous paradigms develop, these concepts may be denounced and replaced with constructs that align to African methods of inquiry. However, as indigenous research paradigms are still evolving, Wilson (2003) proposes the use of a commonality of terminology to create a knowledge system that can be understood by all researchers. For comparison and proposing a transcendent indigenous African paradigm, the key categories of Eurocentric paradigms require a brief mention.

Positivism consists of the assumption that knowledge about the social world can be obtained within an empirical context through objective deductive processes (Crotty, 1998). According to this paradigm, the social and psychological world can be observed, measured and studied scientifically (Maree & Van der Westhuizen, 2007). Reality (ontology) is believed to be objective and external to the researcher. The positivist views knowledge as hard, real, and acquirable (Bridges, 1999), resulting in a detached epistemological approach that is based on the belief that people’s perceptions and statements are either true or false, right or wrong. Methodologies within the positivistic paradigm are reliant on the control and manipulation of reality. Since the aim of positivist research is to validate and establish causal relationships, it favours the recording of facts in terms of quantities or numbers that can be processed by statistical techniques (Du Plooy-Cilliers, 2014).

Housed within the category of positivism is post-positivism, which Taylor and Medina (2013) describe as a “milder form of positivism” that follows the same assumptions as positivism, while allowing more interaction between the researcher and the research subjects. Guba and Lincoln (1994) regard post-positivism as the intellectual heir to positivism that addresses refurbished versions of triangulation in more natural settings, collecting more situational information and reintroducing discovery as an element of inquiry in the social sciences. Post-positivism, which is often perceived as a modified scientific method for the social sciences, aims to produce objective and generalisable knowledge about social patterns (Creswell, 2009). In post-positivism, the purpose of research is to predict results, test a theory and determine the strength of relationships between variables or cause-and-effect relationships. The axiology of this paradigm relates to objectivity, validity, and reliability.

As a family of diverse paradigms, interpretivism is based on hermeneutics (the study of interpretation) and phenomenology (the study of human consciousness and self-awareness), rather than a single paradigm (Williamson, 2013). This family of diverse paradigms addresses an understanding of the world as others experience it. Creswell (2009) explains that researchers following this paradigm believe that reality is socially constructed by people and that there are numerous intangible realities. Individuals develop subjective meanings of their experiences, meanings directed towards certain objects or things.

Interpretivism developed because the world being analysed by social scientists is perceived in a variety of ways (Thomas, 2009). With words and events carrying different meanings in every case, it becomes different for each researcher. The main point of interpretivism is that social scientists are interested in the ways people interrelate, what they think, how they form ideas about the world, and how their words are constructed. From an epistemological point of view, the construction of knowledge is a democratic process, involving both the researcher and research participants (Taylor & Medina, 2013). No claims are made about generalisability or causation. Instead, interpretivism focuses on interpreting evidence and bringing about meaning (Burton et al., 2008). The research process provides equal status to all participants and welcomes a diversity of perspectives. It emphasises the need to contextualise analysis and is concerned with an understanding of the world from the subjective experiences of individuals and the meaning that lurks behind social actions (Kaplan & Maxwell, 2005).

Williamson (2013) opines that, in critical realism, it is believed that reality is constructed and interpreted by individuals or groups as social actors. However, Fraser and Lombard (2002) caution that its focus of inquiry is different, in that critical realism is concerned with issues of power and justice and the ways in which the economy, matters of race, gender, education, religion and other social manifestations interact to construct social systems. With its core belief that people’s cultural and historical conditions limit their experiences, the primary purpose of critical realism is to identify, contest and help resolve power imbalances that contribute to systemic inequalities and injustices (Taylor & Madina, 2013).

Critical realists condemn positivism as being reactionary and interpretivism as unengaged, while they view themselves as forces of liberation engaged in a moral conflict with the powers of oppression (Reeves, 1996). Change is required to provide people with the resources to help them understand and change their world (Trochim, 2002). For this reason, critical realists are often regarded as social activists.

Du Plooy-Cilliers (2014, p. 32–33) explains that ontologically, critical-realists accentuate domination or oppression and argue that social reality has multiple layers. – That which is being observed is often a surface reality, which is partial and often false. Therefore, the focus is on exploring deep structures that form the basis of societal myths and illusions. Such deep exploration should lead to the creation of knowledge geared towards action and, thereby, have practical value. This, the critical-realists argue, may lead to a degree of subjectivism, and supports the idea that it is impossible to conduct “value-free” research, since every choice of change is value-laden.

Within the critical realism paradigm, one can include post-modernism, transformative, and emancipatory paradigms (Fraser & Lombard, 2002). Critical realism defines the individual in terms of social ethics in relation to other people (Muwanga-Zake, 2010). The emphasis is on togetherness as a cooperative and a community, and it implies the empowerment of participants through research. Postmodernism questions the dominance of any one view of the world, insisting that different perspectives should be considered from a variety of different viewpoints, such as those of feminists (Noddings, 2007), ethnic minorities and religious groups (Taylor & Medina, 2013). Transformative and emancipatory paradigms adopt the stance that social reality is historically bound and is constantly changing, depending on social, political, cultural, and power-based factors (Gilligan, 1982).

Eclectic-pragmatism was developed with the purpose of handling the complexity of social and inter-disciplinary interaction (Juuti & Lavonen, 2006). The eclectic component refers to the openness of the paradigm to borrowing methods from other paradigms to solve problems (Feilzer, 2009). With its focus on searching for “truths that work” (Bridges, 1999), eclectic-pragmatism emphasises research that answers practical research questions (Bryman, 2006). As a guide, eclectic-pragmatism can be used for a top-down deductive research design, as well as ground-based inductive or abductive research that is done on the ground.

Eclectic-pragmatists emphasise the research problem and engage all available approaches to understand the problem by using pluralistic approaches to derive knowledge about a problem (Shannon-Baker, 2015). This reiterates the views of Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) that the research question is more important than the methodology used in eclectic pragmatism and using various methodologies will enable researchers to answer questions that otherwise may not have been possible. The emphasis is on making technical decisions about the appropriate use of different methods according to circumstances (Bryman, 2006), and the focus is on creating shared meanings. Qualitative and quantitative approaches are used to complement the search for “truth” and the use of such “truth” to make a difference (Shannon-Baker, 2015). However, the emphasis of eclectic-pragmatism is not on finding “once-and-for-all truths”, but on exploring information-related actions and results within a given context. Interpretation of findings may draw on underlying personal philosophies, extending the notion that “all knowledge is knowledge from some point of view” (Feilzer, 2009). The implication is that axiology should be grounded in sound value systems, based on sound principles of validity, trustworthiness, credibility, applicability, consistency, and neutrality.

5. Alternative viewpoints: inclusion of cutting edge-content and Africanisation of research methodology modules

The Eurocentric worldview dominated the research context until the eighties, resulting in an assumption of the universality of Eurocentric research paradigms, philosophies, and methodologies. The notion was held that only research conducted from a Eurocentric point of view constitutes proper research, appropriate methods, and ethical conduct (Cunneen et al., 2017). However, in contrast to Eurocentric paradigms, community-based research has developed, which incorporates the beliefs, values, and ways of knowing of these communities, and relates to the interconnectedness between “life” and “spirit”. Two of the most prominent alternative paradigms that developed are the indigenous and Afrocentric paradigms.

The basis of the indigenous research paradigm is that research occurrs within community-centred frames of reference and, therefore, research practices should be modified to meet the needs and expectations of the communities involved. As Khupe and Keane (2017) observe, the indigenous paradigm approaches research from a worldview that aligns with the intentions, context and participatory nature of indigenous identities, cultural values, experiences, and knowledge. The indigenous paradigm is unique, in that it has a clear social and political agenda aimed at the decolonisation of indigenous societies.

Although the indigenous research paradigm involves different people in different regions and countries all over the globe, the commonality of their ontologies generally involves a relational worldview, meaning they have a strong focus on people and entities supporting one another in their relationship (Hart, 2010). The focus is on creating connections between intellectual, social, political, economic, psychological, and spiritual expressions of human life. The indigenous paradigm requires a clear connection with the researcher’s own culture, which should be reflected in the ways of conducting research. A similar viewpoint is posited by McKenzie and Morrissette (2003), who explain that indigenous worldviews have emerged because of the people’s close relationship with the environment. Such a relationship may encompass that all things have a role to play to ensure balance, harmony, and overall well-being of life, and that all things are an extension of the grand design that is, in essence, understood as “spirit” that links all things to one another and to creation.

The recognition of a spiritual realm, which is understood as being interconnected with the physical realm, is one of the dominant elements of the indigenous worldview. The indigenous way of knowing, which is transmitted through storytelling, rituals, and ceremonies, is fluid, intuitive, and introspective. It originated in the interconnections between the human, spiritual and physical worlds (Hart, 2010). In this way, indigenous knowledge is characterised by its personal, oral, experiential, holistic nature, and the use of narrative and metaphorical language to transfer knowledge (Hart, 2010).

Because most indigenous societies have a strong sense of commitment to the people and accountability to one another, the indigenous paradigm involves inclusivity as a key element – from the time of joining the community, to negotiating the research purpose, collecting data, and sharing interpretations, findings, and outputs (Khupe & Keane, 2017). Wilson (2001b, p. 177) relates this inclusivity to the researcher’s accountability to all their relations; hence, the term “relational accountability”, which involves two important elements: spirituality and reciprocity (Hart, 2010, p. 3). The recognition of a spiritual realm, which is understood as being interconnected with the physical realm, is one of the dominant elements of the indigenous paradigm. Reciprocity relates to the concept of respectful individualism, which recognises the individual’s right to freedom and self-expression, while considering the needs of the community.

In the view of Drawson, Toombs, and Mushquash (2017, p. 15), the research methods that are endorsed by indigenous societies include storytelling, yarning (a culture-specific type of conversation involving the sharing of stories), the conversational method, photovoice (participants engaging in the research by providing photos or videos and voiceover that serve as the primary research data) and autoethnography (a form of storytelling in which autobiography, stories about ourselves and ethnography, relating to stories about cultures, are combined). In addition, methods related to community-based participatory research (CBPR) and culture-specific research methods can be used. Culture-specific research methods, which have originated from the particular indigenous group that is collaborating in the research, prioritise the needs of the community involved, and they aim at collaboration, research equality and community control (Drawson et al., 2017).

Based on the different people in different regions and countries involved in the paradigm, one of the key features of the indigenous research paradigm is its diversity (Cunneen Rowe & Tauri, 2017). The African people can be identified as “indigenous” because they are the pre-colonial inhabitants of the African continent, who maintain the traditions and knowledge systems of their pre-colonised culture. However, they are only one of the diverse, indigenous groups involved in the indigenous research paradigm. Therefore, Afrocentricity should be considered as a paradigm more suitable for African research and knowledge creation.

The problem espoused by Bhebhe and Ngoepe (2021), is that even in Afrocentrism, there is elitism, as those in charge always push their own agendas. For example, in decolonising archives through a collection of oral histories, national archival institutions in South Africa and Zimbabwe have perpetuated the marginalisation of minority groups by covering only the stories of elite members of society. This example emphasises the presence of elitism and those who continue to be marginalised, even when applying an indigenous research paradigm. This elitism can be illustrated through the parable where the hunters (colonisers) were dominant actors, excluding the subservient hunted (natives) from archival stories. This resulted in an unbalanced, biased power relation in which the natives were underdogs, and the dominant hunters usurped the role of telling the stories of the hunted lions. The lions had no voice of their own; their stories were told by the hunters. Similarly, the application of an Afrocentric paradigm favouring the views of some, may extend previous Eurocentric notions as the lions and lionesses now speak on behalf of the duikers and the anteaters (Bhebhe & Ngoepe, 2021). To clearly understand the purpose and focus of following an Afrocentric paradigm in favour of revealing objective epistemological constructs, caution is required.

Although the notion of black identity and political, cultural, socio-economic, and psychological self-determination dates back to early thinkers like W.E.B. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey and Kwame Nkrumah, among others, it was Molefi Asante’s pioneering work in pursuit of African-centred ideas and theoretical grounding that revolutionised the concept of Afrocentricity and resulted in the establishment of the Afrocentric paradigm (Kuman-Abiwu, 2016).

Asante (2003, p. 2) defines Afrocentricity as a mode of thought and action in which the centrality of African interests, values and perspectives predominates. Asante and Mazama (2005) suggest that afrocentricity can be regarded as the interpretation and/or reinterpretation of reality from an African perspective. Afrocentricity is a term that refers to how important African social and cultural experiences are to African researchers.

In full acknowledgement of the negative impact that Europe has had on the lives of African people, Afrocentricity suggests the restoration of a sense of historical and cultural continuity as the first and indispensable step for Africans’ recovery (Asante & Mazama, 2005). Afrocentricity was introduced as a frame of reference that makes it possible to view and understand a given phenomenon through the lens of the African people. This view is supported by Chukwuokolo (2009, p. 33) who posits that Afrocentrism “… is about placing African people within their own historical framework. It is a demand that the contributions of Africans in all areas of civilization be reflected in world history” (Chukwuokolo, 2009, p. 33).

The different definitions and explanations of the concept of Afrocentricity reveal two common points of interest. The first is that African people have unique cultural values, norms, ideas, and actions that shape their worldview and, secondly, that Afrocentric worldview has emerged to offer alternative ideas to the sustained exclusion and marginalisation of African knowledge systems from mainstream academic knowledge (Kumah-Abiwu, 2016). When the Afrocentric perspective is applied to research, it becomes the core of the idea that all data should be explored and investigated from the stance of Africans as subjects and human agents, rather than objects, as framed within Eurocentric paradigms (Mkabela, 2005). In contrast to scientific distance, the Afrocentric method recommends cultural and social immersion as the best way to understand African phenomena. The implication is that researchers should have some familiarity with the history, language, philosophy, and myths of the people who are involved in the research. Research is to be conducted from an African viewpoint to create a unique African intellectual perspective. The focus is on Africa as the cultural centre for the study of African experiences (Mkabela, 2005). This does not mean that “Afrocentrism as a paradigm reduces the complexities of African people” (Kumah-Abiwu, 2016, p. 11); on the contrary, researchers must remain respectful of the different cultures, histories, and experiences of the African people.

With the emphasis being on African experiences and viewpoints, Thabede (2008) points out that Afrocentricity is mainly a social science research paradigm, based on the philosophical concepts of traditional Africa. Afrocentricity does not support the Eurocentric notion of social science universalism, which means that one theory or paradigm can be used to explain the human behaviour of all people in all cultures. Rather, as postulated by Asante (2002), there is an African cultural system that manifests in diverse ways among people of African descent on the African continent and all over the world. An Afrocentric worldview with similar elements and values among all African people implies that the indigenous African point of view can be used in unique contexts to make sense of the everyday experiences of African people.

From an ontological perspective, the Afrocentric paradigm explores the communal conception of the individual from the view that whatever happens to the individual, happens to the entire group and whatever happens to the whole group happens to the individual. Alternatively, as proposed by the Ubuntu philosophy, the individual can only say, “I am, because we are, and since we are, therefore I am”. To promote Afrocentric research, the collective identity, which is part of the foundation of indigenous African culture, should underpin research activities, approaches and understanding (Mkabela, 2005).

Contrary to Western thought, which generally focuses on the observable, measurable physical reality, and ignores the spiritual dimension in the plausible explanation of physical phenomena, Africa does not ignore the supernatural side of reality. In African thought, supernatural causes play a significant role in explaining phenomena on the physical plane. In this way, Afrocentric ontology has to be “concerned with the spiritual world and the forces that play a role in it” (Thabede, 2008, p. 235). This is required, as African people do not face the world objectively and at a distance; they are part of everything and attuned to the earth and, because they live in it, no objects are regarded as existing outside reality. As a result, the holistic orientation of indigenous African culture should be considered within research constructs (Mkabela, 2005). The main principles of the African-centred worldview can be summarised as: the interconnectedness of all things; the spiritual nature of human beings; collective individual identity; the collective/inclusive nature of family structure; the oneness of mind, body, and spirit; and the value of interpersonal relationships (Thabede, 2008).

An Afrocentric epistemology is founded on the evaluation and articulation of knowledge, grasped from the wisdom of oral tradition, particularly the various creation myths, folktales, and proverbs; the way of seeking truth in social, political, and religious institutions; the work of healers; the avenues used in traditional justice systems; and the ways of solving social conflicts and disputes (Asante & Mazama, 2005). Afrocentric epistemology is rooted in the inclusion of spirituality and the understanding of the world through a spiritual source, communalism, cooperation, morality, ethics and symbolic imagery, and the use of symbols as a way of conveying a precise rationale, self-awareness, and tradition. However, Bakari (1997) remarks on the importance of Afrocentric epistemology, also recognising science, logic, and reason as primary ways of knowing.

Because the African worldview is not limited to the option of being rational or irrational but accommodates the possibility of relating to phenomena through all the patterns of thought and being (Thabede, 2008), it becomes possible to make the epistemological assumption that intellect alone cannot lead to full knowledge or understanding of phenomena and that the idea of paranormal cognition is an important mode of knowing in African epistemology. Because African ontology involves the interconnectedness of the entire reality, the African journey to knowledge begins with epistemological humility, which is the fundamental belief in the inability of a single individual to know the whole truth (Asante & Mazama, 2005).

The strong communitarian position of African ontology and epistemology results in communal values such as generosity, compassion, reciprocity, cooperation and solidarity, that is, values that support the principles of human rights (Higgs, 2010). African people are known for their strong orientation towards collective values, particularly a collective sense of responsibility. Research has largely ignored, misunderstood, or disregarded the value of African indigenous communities’ collective ethic (Mkabela, 2005). The collective ethic recognises that survival derives from group harmony and that all actions occur within a collective context, which seeks to maintain the harmony and balance of an interrelated and essentially egalitarian system. It always stresses humanness, which is rooted in the Ubuntu philosophy and is characterised by generosity, love, maturity, hospitality, politeness, understanding and humility (Mkabela, 2005). It is important to point out that the African indigenous collective ethic should not be revived for its own sake, but to serve as the basis on which research methods can be adapted and used (Mkabela, 2005).

Afrocentric methods should, therefore, be generated for and applied to the construction of research projects and the interpretation of research on African people (Pellerin, 2012). Afrocentric research should be based on a circular approach that is translated into collaborative and cooperative research, on behalf of the community, with the community being part of every step of the research. The community collectively validates the research, thereby guiding the research toward enhancing community and cultural activity. This circular approach will ultimately develop into a renewed collective research value system that strengthens the centrality of African indigenous ideals and values as legitimate frames of reference for collecting and interpreting data (Mkabela, 2005).

A deep understanding of and respect for all parts of human existence means that any research initiative should involve an appreciation of the holistic orientation of the African people. Therefore, the Afrocentric method emphasises a shift from dominant research methodologies to ways that are responsive to a holistic and collective African worldview – one in which the community itself will influence and shape the method (Mkabela, 2005). Pellerin (2012) observes that different research methods can be used in Afrocentric research, such as experiments, survey research, field research, and content analysis, but it is essential that the researcher establish and apply an orientation that is grounded in African signs and symbols, motifs, rituals, and languages.

6. Transcending to a postcolonial African lens

Despite the movements towards decolonisation, indigenisation, and Africanisation, there still appears to be a tendency to see culture from the coloniser’s worldview, without considering the depth of African thinking, and to base African research contexts on Eurocentric paradigms (Mkabela, 2005; Seehawer, 2018). The key question raised in this article is, “What should an indigenous African research paradigm offer in order to be uniquely suitable for conducting research in postcolonial Africa?” Based on this key question, this discussion paper proposes a postcolonial research paradigm that encompasses the African worldview in its totality and provides the African scholar with a perspective on world knowledge. In other words, we are suggesting a postcolonial African research paradigm that characterises and reflects authentic African research, rather than research on African subjects or the study of African phenomena. By proposing a postcolonial African research paradigm, we support the notion of Asante and Mazama (2005), that a true revolution is required that will challenge Eurocentric scholars’ false claims of universalism and superiority of thought.

The postcolonial African research paradigm should display unique characteristics that distinguish it from Eurocentric paradigms. The goal of such a paradigm is to provide a clear social and political agenda that focuses on the overall decolonisation of indigenous African societies, while also taking a critical stance toward Eurocentric metaphysical dualism. The postcolonial African research paradigm should be based on a holistic approach that balances different areas of life and does not separate intellectual, social, political, economic, psychological, and spiritual expressions of human life from one another. In contrast to Eurocentric paradigms, it should provide a clear connection with the researcher’s own culture, which should be reflected in the ways of conducting research and incorporating traditional knowledge related to cosmologies, spirituality, relationships with the natural environment, and the use of natural resources.

The postcolonial African research paradigm should emphasise the importance of cultural centres, which are respected and not weakened by differences in colour, geography, or intercultural relations. The focus should be on cultural and social immersion as opposed to scientific distance, which requires research from an African viewpoint aimed at creating unique African intellectual perspectives. The paradigm should serve as a liberating intellectual movement towards a pluriversal research perspective that is suitable for the path of African empowerment through African self-knowledge, self-definition, and self-naming. The proposed postcolonial African research paradigm implies support for the observation of Gray (2001, p. 3) that

… African people can and should see, study, interpret and interact with people, life, and reality from the vantage point of African people rather than from the vantage point of European people, […] other non-African people, or from the vantage point of African people who are alienated from Africanness.

The focus of the proposed postcolonial African research paradigm is to search for practical solutions based on various iterative analysis processes, methods, and data collection techniques to explore the nature of problems, solutions, and consequences unique to Africa, from within the African context.

Regarding the development of the archives and research methodology modules, to ensure Africanisation of content, we followed the theme of ‘letšema’ (company of workers). This was also guided by the African proverb that says, ‘if you want to go fast, go alone, however, if you want to go far, go together.’ Within the institution, the development approach we followed is known as the framework for the team approach which is aligned to the first three components of the ADDIE model, related to analyse, design and develop. The challenge was then to include the cutting-edge content to ensure that while the curriculum is Africanised, it also has a global appeal.

Barnett and Coate (2005) explain that political debates over the role of higher education have generated theories about its potential to empower and transform the lives of students. Cutting-edge content is imperative to encourage and support such a transformation. The transformative potential of higher education relates to the potential of education to empower individuals. The idea of a curriculum that can be transformative investigates ways in which the educational experience enhances the knowledge, ability, and skills of graduates to empower them (Geyser, 2004). This aligns with the outcomes and employability agenda, suggesting that transformation comes through an education that adds value to students’ lives. For this reason, it is also important for the curriculum to offer cutting-edge details that will cater to societal needs. What society will require in the coming decades are concerned citizens who can think creatively and collaborate to build and strengthen communities, rather than made-to-measure specialists. The curriculum should offer opportunities for students to obtain greater awareness of the impact of problems facing humanity, such as sustainability, climate change, and scarce water resources, and should show that no single discipline can adequately address any of them.

Our focus remains on the development of a research methodology curriculum that re-centre African epistemologies, philosophies and culture through the manner and context in which we aimed to engage the students. We have therefore identified and incorporated goals for each module to ensure that students gain the necessary knowledge that will enable them to convert the accumulated knowledge into practical skills. In trying to infuse African epistemology and philosophy into the curriculum, we looked at the responsiveness of the curriculum to social context, the inclusion of African scholars’ work, incorporating socio-economic issues, African content and languages related to images, videos, films, and terminology, as well as the application of orality as a key theme within the modules’ construct.

The content reflected as part of the modules’ content aligns with industry focus and responds to the recommendations of InterPARES Trust and the International Council on Archives Africa Strategy. The InterPARES Trust emphasised the importance of revising African archival curricula to include new records management trends such as cloud computing, freedom of information, big data, block chain technologies, open data, and so on. Archives and records management in Africa are experiencing similar challenges, so there is a need to standardise archival education across the continent. The greatest concern is that, in South Africa alone, archival programmes differ from one institution to another. There is no standardisation. Modules, on the other hand, try to fill in the gap by teaching things that are recommended for archives and records management programmes in Africa. Linked to Afrocentrism, orality was infused in the research methodology modules to emphasise the need in Africa to retain oral history. For example, we included the governance of oral history as records, the authentication of oral history as evidence, and content related to the collection and curatorship of oral history (Ngoepe et al., 2022). The research methodology modules also included detail on the approach and design of collecting oral history. This has helped to transform the content as oral testimony is used as evidence in court and so are records, both digital and paper based. An example of this infusion can be perceived in an assignment related to one of the modules, where students are required to consider the use of oral records as part of legislative cases (see Fig. 1). This has helped to transform the content in all modules for this programme as oral testimony is used as evidence in court and so are records, both digital and paper based.

OPEN IN VIEWER

In relation to the development of module content, we explored three curriculum conceptions to determine what innovative strategies can be applied to improve the tuition of this module. These concepts are connected to the intended curriculum (what the outcomes state should be achieved), the enacted curriculum (what should happen to encourage active learning), and the experienced curriculum (what students experience, construe and learn because of the enactment). The combination of these three conceptions leads to the development of a responsive curriculum for each module, with the goal of ensuring that the content remains responsive to national and global challenges and changes. According to Moll (2004), such responsiveness is required to ensure that African experiences remain at the core of curricula. According to Billett (2006), a responsive curriculum is necessary to ensure that students are prepared for changing workplace practices and principles while remaining responsive to international and global needs and demands. Curricula should be responsive to institutional context, national context (with its priorities), and international context. This necessitates ensuring that curricula are aligned with international dimensions, market needs, and Africanisation aimed at creating a centrality unique to African identity and culture, applied within the South African context.

The aim of this article was to explore the transition from a Eurocentric research context to a proposed postcolonial paradigm that focuses on and accommodates the distinct African context. Based on our understanding of Eurocentric paradigms and alternative paradigms related to indigenous and Afrocentric constructs, we propose key elements that should be included in a truly postcolonial African research paradigm. Embracing Africa’s uniqueness and conducting research from within the African context, by Africans for Africans, is critical in such a paradigm, so that African communities become respectful participants in the research process. Although indigenous and Afrocentric paradigms cater to some extent to this transcendence, the suggestion is that a new paradigm should expand to become a truly African paradigm, developed for Africans by Africans. As a result, we hope that other African researchers will expand on our initial postcolonial African research paradigm suggestions to develop a research paradigm that embraces the uniqueness of postcolonial African research