Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DR. R. M. Achieng’ paper to be discussed at UJ Seminar Series 15th February 2012
UJ Sociology, Anthropology & Development Studies
W E D N E S D A Y S E M I N A R
Hosted by the Department of Sociology and the Department of Anthropology & Development Studies
To be held at 15h30 on Wednesday, 15 February 2012,
in the Anthropology & Development Studies Seminar Room, D-Ring 506, Kingsway campus
Alternative Methodologies for African Environments: Posing
Questions, Seeking Answers
- Please do not copy or cite without authors’ permission -
Roseline Achieng’
Dr, Sociology, School of Social Sciences, Monash
- Programme and other information online at www.uj.ac.za/sociology -
DR. R. M. Achieng’ paper to be discussed at UJ Seminar Series 15th February 2012
INTRODUCTION
African environments are constantly and rapidly changing, necessitating new ways of approaching these new
realities. Dismayingly, how researchers have sought to approach and understand these transformations has not
kept pace with the manifested new ‘social worlds’, necessitating a methodological reappraisal with the aim of
critically engaging new and better suited methodologies that could go a long way in capacitating us to better
grapple with understanding and explaining these challenging new ways of living and their consequences. Such a
stance would better equip us at conceptualizing and formulating new social theories commensurate of the lived
realities, which we are currently observing.
The paper at hand seeks to revisit the assertions that I explored in an article that appeared as a book chapter in
an edited volume titled, Readings in Methodology: African Perspectives. The aim is to pose questions to a wider
audience with the objective of soliciting answers, context specific examples, alternatives and in this way, further
develop the emerging thesis that African environments solicit a different way of approaching lived realities
(methodologies) and consequently a different way of conceptualizing these realities (epistemologies).
Revisiting the article: Autochthones Making their Realities Strange in Order to Better Understand Them
In my paper titled African gnosis as sense making (Achieng’ 2005) one cannot help noticing my heavy borrowing
from already existing debates on methods in the social sciences. One can ‘justly’ claim that indeed, there is
nothing new the paper proposes! Undoubtedly, in as much as we researching African environments would like to
formulate our own methods for doing research, I argue that it would be advantageous for us to first
epistemologically1 reorient our standpoints in order to discover our own methodologies2 and consequently
methods3 of doing research. I further posit that we are not operating in a social science vacuum. Rather, a lot in
terms of knowledge production, transfer of knowledge and exchange has occurred. Such that for researchers in
African environments, the catch 22 is to find our place in the universal wheel of knowledge and contribute to its
recognition and sustenance. It would therefore be justifiable to claim that whereas we could operate with the
already existing research methods, of profound importance would be to discover our own epistemological and
consequently methodological standpoints. To this end, the article at hand is a contribution towards the discovery
of a methodological standpoint for African environments for those subscribing to a particular epistemic
community4.
I argue from the premise that each society has a way in which it organises its knowledge and passes this down
across generations. Varying from context5 to context, this knowledge is handed down through oral, written mode
1 By epistemology I mean how we come to know 2 By methodology I mean how we approach what we want to know 3 By methods I mean the tools we use in searching for what we want to know 4 By epistemic community I mean those subscribing to a particular way of knowing and a particular approach in doing
research 5 Apart from the territorial, in my view context also implies shared experience.
DR. R. M. Achieng’ paper to be discussed at UJ Seminar Series 15th February 2012
of communication or through material culture (mostly artistic works). This knowledge shapes how those who
belong to a given society comprehend, explain and view occurrences within their own world or those of others.
Hence, all of us have a way in which we approach and understand things. Conclusively, one can claim that how
we approach things thus depends on the context from which we are or the context which we have acquired.
The knowledge we produce that flows from a particular context is organised in a particular way.
Phenomenologists call such an organisation of knowledge following certain categories – typifications. We come to
know about this organised knowledge through what is handed down to us as knowledge across time, through
lived experience and encounters, and through observation. This knowledge is presented to us through the
process of socialization. We eventually internalize this knowledge in the process of our interaction with others
sharing the same context. In the process of socialization where knowledge is presented to us one has to be
acquainted with the forms of expression emergent of a context as a medium of grasping this knowledge.
In the very process of internalization, such knowledge becomes so commonsensical, taken for granted or natural.
This is for the reason that one partakes of this knowledge every day. Many things are done in a routinely manner
even unconsciously without every time asking why something is being done in the way it is. This knowledge is so
naturalized such that it becomes difficult for one to see anything ‘strange’ or ‘new’ in it.
Now, if we take the latter as our point of departure, the question that comes to the fore is, given that African
researchers more or less research their ‘own’ naturalized contexts, how do they question this commonsense
knowledge in order to understand it in new ways? Put differently, how do autochthones as partakers of the
naturalized knowledge in their contexts begin to question this very knowledge? How do autochthones begin to
see their everyday realities in a new way in order to explain it differently than from the taken for granted way?
Conceptually, the question at large is how does a subject research itself without being subjective and thus
biased?
It has been variously argued that autochthones cannot ‘objectively’ research their own contexts. At best they can
only regurgitate what is handed down to them as knowledge without raising critical questions about it. For, as the
claim goes, they cannot ‘see’ in new ways and thus conceptualize on the reality that they partake of6! Thus for
African social researchers, the big question is how do I make my everyday reality ‘strange’ in order to better
understand it? Conceptually, the question is how do autochthones strike a balance between being subjective
(knower) and obtaining objectivity (take a distance to what they know in order to explain it in a new way).
Certainly, the question of what is true objectivity is one that is still strewn with philosophical debate. (See the
article in this volume ‘what is true objectivity pp…). My working definition of objectivity is to understand the true
situation as it reveals itself. But what is true and whose truth counts? Truth to me is what is agreed upon by
6 El Kenz (2005) has explored it in terms of the quarrel between ‘anthropos’ and ‘Humanitas’ and the struggle that ensures
when the former wants to become the latter.
DR. R. M. Achieng’ paper to be discussed at UJ Seminar Series 15th February 2012
actors in a context as what holds true for that situation. Such that, truth is relative and can change according to
context. Therefore, there are many truths and this depends on the context we are in. But how does this truth
reveal itself to us as autochthones?
Three theses in support of sense making as a methodological standpoint
As autochthones, we are both the subjects and the objects of research. We have a double effect- like two sides of
the same coin. This I call a mirror effect. Consequentially, we have to make sense of what we see, experience or
partake of. Sense making as a possibility of a methodological standpoint for autochthones is based on two
foundations. On the one hand is getting subjective and maintaining objectivity. On the other hand is representing
social reality as it really is by discovering the hidden meaning behind the reality that is unfolding itself to us (going
to the truth itself).
But how do we take a distance to the reality we partake of in order to better understand it and in a new way or go
to the hidden truth?
a. Trans-historical methodology
This is through analyzing historical periods with an aim of tracing the changes in the social order. The objective
will be to discern which structures were there, what type of action brought a change in the structures and the why
of the change in the prevailing order. These however should not be taken in isolation but inter-linkages analysed
in order to account for continuities, discontinuities or new modes of doing. Furthermore, this trans-historical
methodology should not be understood as going beyond the threshold of history. Rather we confine ourselves to
the past and present times activities in order to understand the there and then and make sense of the here and
now. This means that we have to go deep in the context and excavate all background information. Rich
background information of the changes across historical periodicity helps us in beginning to see things in a
different way and thus begin to question why something is like it is now and not like it was before.
B. A comparative methodology
As we have seen living in different contexts presupposes seeing things in different ways as those living within that
context. Though we are autochthones, we have different contexts, which we can oscillate in order to make the
taken for granted strange. We have rural-urban environments with different kinds of neighbourhoods. The latter
harbour people experiencing diverse lifestyles, living in different conditions and thus bearing knowledge of
divergent realities depending on the context one is in. We have different climatic regions from desert to semi
desert, equatorial rain forests to swamps and grass-lands presupposing different ways of doing and diverse
experiences. We are divided into Northern, Southern, Eastern, Western and Central regions. We interact with
people from different hemispheres. Comparison of one set of circumstances to another could be a strategy for
autochthones to engage in, in order to better understand their reality.
Comparison can be done in three ways:
DR. R. M. Achieng’ paper to be discussed at UJ Seminar Series 15th February 2012
a. Contextual comparison: This is through a deep contextualization process of the social, political and
economic conditions and transformations over time in different contexts. The aim could be to look
at the similarities and dissimilarities, continuations and discontinuations in order to understand and
account for (by giving explanations to the why and how of processes and the changing dynamics)
b. Methods: A triangulation of methods in a comparative way could also aid autochthones make their
realities strange in order to better understand them. The question to ask here is why one method
produces a certain set of information and the other another sort of information.
c. Different categories in society: Through engaging perspectives from different clusters of people in
an intergenerational manner, people from different regions, gender, ethnicity and racial dispositions,
autochthones can make their realities strange. This is for the reason that the different categories in
society will have different explanations to the same observable reality depending on their lived or
shared experience. Such that the task of the autochthon researcher would be to make sense of this
different explanations by trying to find out the hidden meaning in explanations derived from the
different categories of people in society.
DR. R. M. Achieng’ paper to be discussed at UJ Seminar Series 15th February 2012
C. Multidisciplinary
The question of engaging in a multidisciplinary methodological approach is indeed a difficult one. The critical
issue is how scientists with different ways of looking discuss? How can perspectives be integrated? How can one
avoid paradigmatic and conceptual quarrels as different ways of seeing or viewing reality are introduced? In my
opinion engaging in a multidisciplinary dialogue can only proceed at a conceptual level or at the level of
generalizations. This is for the reason that multidisciplinarity necessarily involves different methodologies or ways
of looking at the same reality. To reconcile these divergent ways into one particular way of viewing reality would
be succumbing to the development of dogmatism. I am of the view that methodologically multidisciplinarity as a
standpoint can successfully be adopted at the level of conceptual analysis. A typical example to illustrate this is
research on HIV-AIDS which could easily involve political scientists, social scientists, philosophers, medics, and
those in the medical, chemical and physical sciences. In such a manner different ways of viewing the same reality
is introduced. However, how each scientific discipline is to proceed in viewing the reality is a disciplinary issue
that cannot be resolved in a matter of factual way. As an example, how can political scientists basically interested
in macro structures and their functions reconcile their methodological standpoint to that of chemical or physical
scientists interested in micro organisms? Engaging in the particulars of a discipline would thus not move any
research agenda forward. A multidisciplinary approach would at best dwell on the generalizations
(conceptualizations). The task of the researchers engaged in a multidisciplinary stand point would then be to
account for the why and how of the different explanations with the aim of not only uncovering the underlying
truths but seeing the reality in many different new ways and in this way develop further question into the why of
occurrences.
A note on methods
If we adopt sense making as one of the basis of a methodological approach for people circumscribing to a certain
epistemic community then we will be necessitated to also interrogate our methods of inquiry. For those who are
familiar with the history of qualitative research, then we know that ethnographic methods, mainly of the Chicago
and Manchester schools in the 20s, were involved with the notion of the other. In other words, ethnography grew
out of the interest of knowing how the other (named primitive people) lived. The methods here were mainly
participant observation and the narrative interview method.
Whereas I agree that for African realities, because of the oral tradition that still characterizes our medium of
communication, our version of the narrative interviews or hadithi is still a valid way of collecting information, I
query the credibility of participant observation as a method of collecting information. Participant observation
presupposes that an ethnographer leaves her/his community to go and stay and observe another community that
is not ones own. (See one of the standard books on participant observation Street corner Society where the
author engaged in qualitative research with a gang of street-boys in an Italian town). However, as autochthones,
we are already participants studying our own realities. The paradox is how we as already participants in a culture
do participant observation?
DR. R. M. Achieng’ paper to be discussed at UJ Seminar Series 15th February 2012
I propose a move from participant observation to communicative observation for autochthones. We thus need
to be communicative observers. By communicative observation I mean engaging in critical observation and
critical questioning (elements of which I have explored above). Communicative observation also means that we
become aware of other means of expression in the community like the artistic works and material cultures (song
(music), masks, carvings bill-boards.
The questions
Is a comparison indeed a methodology for African environments? When we talk about multidisciplinarity, is this a
viable option or should our narrative be focussed more on interdisciplinarity? What is our understanding of
communicative observation as our method of inquiry?
In Conclusion
I have argued that African environments pose different realities which can only be analysed through adopting
methodologies that are better suited to interrogating these lifeworlds in a ‘new’ way. I posited that apart from
adopting a comparative methodology, mulitidisciplinarity, a transhistorical analysis, our method of inquiry should
further entail communicative observation. I ended my discussion by posing questions for further discussion and
expansion of the hitherto nascent ideas on alternative methodologies for African lived realities.
Bibliography of basic texts referenced
Achieng’ M. Roseline, 2005, African(ized?) gnosis as sense making?: debating some methodological
considerations, CODESRIA BULLETIN NO 1#2, 2005, pp. 54-57
Achieng’ M. Roseline, 2011, Auchtochthones making their realities strange in order to better understand them, in,
Quedraogo, Jean-Bernard and Carlos Cardoso, eds., Readings in Methodology: Some African Perspectives,
CODESRIA Book Series, Dakar, pp. 139 - 149
Africa Development, 2004, special issue: Philosophy and development, Vol. XXIX, No. I, CODESRIA, Dakar
Africa Development, 2005, special issue: All knowledge is first of all local knowledge, Okere, Theophilus,
Chukwudi Anthony Njoku and René Devisch, eds., Vol:XXX, No. 3, CODESRIA, Dakar
Ake, Claude, 1979, Social science as imperialism. The theory of political developments, University of Ibadan
Press, Lagos
Antia, E., Bassey, 2004, Computational philosophy of science in text, in, Liwuram, Journal of the Humanities of
the Faculty of Arts, University of Maiduguri, Nigeria, Vol.11, pp. 4 – 35
Arbeitsgruppe Bielefelder Soziologen, 1976, kommunikative Sozialforschung, Muenchen, Wilhelm Fink Verlag
DR. R. M. Achieng’ paper to be discussed at UJ Seminar Series 15th February 2012
Bathily, Abdoulaye, 1987, Intellectuals and the state in West Africa: a historical perspective, a paper presented at
the international conference on Intellectuals, the State and Imperialism, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, 20-22
October
Bastide, R., 1961, variations sur la négritude, Présence Africaine, no.36
Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann, 1966, The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of
knowledge, Penguin books, London, New York, Victoria, Toronto, Auckland
Bird, C.S and Karp, I., eds., 1980, Explorations in African systems of thought, Indiana University Press,
Bloomington
Bourdieu, Pierre, 1973, The three forms of theoretical knowledge, in, Social Science Information 14 (6): pp. 19 –
47
Brelsford, V., 1938, The philosophy of the savage, Nada 15
CODESRIA Bulletin Numbers 1&2, 2004, Africanity, pp. 16-33
Denzin, Norman, K., and Yvonne Lincoln, S., 2000, Introduction, in, Norman Denzin, K., and Yvonne Lincoln, S.,
eds., Handbook of qualitative research, Sage publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, California, London, New Delhi
Diawara, Mamadou, 1985, Les recherches en histoire orale menées par un autochtones,ou L’inconvénient d’être
du cru, in, Cahiers d’Etudes Africaines, Vol.25, No. 1, pp. 5 - 19
Douglas, Jack, D., 1971, Understanding everyday life, in, Jack, Douglas, D., Understanding everyday life:
towards the reconstruction of sociological knowledge, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp.3-44
Douglas, D., Jack, ed., 1971, Absolutist sociologies and phenomenological sociologies: understanding everyday
life, in, Understanding everyday life, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, London, pp. 3 -44
Eboussu-Boulaga, F., 1977, La crise du Muntu : authenticité africaine et philosophie, Présence Africaine, Paris
El Kenz, Ali, 2005, The chalk circle, in, CODESRIA Bulletin Nos.3&4, Special Issue: Rethinking African
Development – Beyond impasse, towards alternatives, pp.13-15
Elungu, P.E., 1973, Authenticité et culture, Revue zairoise de psychologie et de pedagogie 2, 1, 71-74
Foucault, Michel, 1972, the archaeology of knowledge, Pantheon, New York
Garfinkel, Henri, 1967, Studies in Ethno-methodology, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall
DR. R. M. Achieng’ paper to be discussed at UJ Seminar Series 15th February 2012
Geertz, Clifford, 1983, Thick description: towards an interpretive theory of culture, in, Robert Emerson,
Contemporary field research, a collection of readings, Little Brown and Company, Boston, Toronto, pp. 37 – 59
Giddens, Anthony,1976, Some schools of social theory and philosophy, in, New rules of sociological method,
Hutchinson and Co Publishers Ltd, London, pp. 23 – 54
Giddens, Anthony, 1976, Agency, act-identifications and communicative intent, in, New rules of sociological
method,pp.71-86
Giddens, Anthony, 1987, Social theory and modern sociology, Polity press, Cambridge, Stanford University
Press, Stanford
Habermas, Jürgen, 1987, The concept of the lifeworld and the uncoupling of system and lifeworld, in, Jürgen
Habermas, The theory of communicative action: lifeworld and system: a critic of functionalist reason, Vol.2, A
translation by Thomas McCarthy,Beacon press, Boston, pp.119 – 152 and 153 -197
Hall, Stuart, 1997, Representations: cultural representations and signifying practices, the Open University, Sage
publications Ltd., London, California, New Delhi
Hardings, Sandra, 1993, Rethinking standpoint epistemology, “what is strong Objectivity?”, in, Linda Alcoff and
Elizabeth Potter, eds., Feminist epistemologies, Routledge, New York and London, pp. 49-82
Heeren, John, 1971, Alfred Schutz and the sociology of common sense knowledge, in, Jack Douglas, ed.,
Understanding everyday life, pp. 45 – 56
Houtoundji, J., Paul,1983, Postscript, in Paul J. Houtoundji, African philosophy, myth and reality, translated by
Henri Evans and Jonathan Ree, Hutchinson University Library for Africa, London, Melbourne, Sydney, Auckland,
Johannesburg, pp. 170 - 183
Hountoudji, J., Paulin, 2002, The struggle for meaning: reflections on philosophy, democracy and culture in
Africa, Ohio University Press
Keita, Lansana, 2004, Race, identity and Africanity: a reply to Eboussi Boulaga, in, CODESRIA Bulletin, No. 1&2,
pp. 16 – 18
Keita, Lansana, 2004, The cultural foundations of philosophy, in, Africa Review of Books, pp.30-31, Forum for
Social Studies, Ethiopia
Ki-Zerbo, Joseph, 1972, The history of Africa yesterday and today (a translation, Hatier, Paris
Knoublauch, Hubert, 1995, Kommunikationskultur: die kommunikative Konstruktion kultureller Kontexte, Walter
de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, New York
Kuhn, Thomas, 1970, The structure of scientific revolution, University of Chicago Press
DR. R. M. Achieng’ paper to be discussed at UJ Seminar Series 15th February 2012
Kuhn, Thomas, 1982, What are scientific revolutions, University of Chicago Press,
Lachenmann, Gudrun, 2004, Researching local knowledge for development, in Nikolaus Schareika, and Thomas
Bierschenk,eds., lokales Wissen – sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven, Mainzer Beiträge zur Afrika Forschung,
Lit.Verlag,Münster,pp.123 - 148
Lincoln, S. Yvonna and Egon,G,Guba, 2000, Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging
confluences, in, Norman, K. Denzin and Yvonna, S. Lincoln, eds., pp. 163 – 163 – 188
Long, Norman and Ann Long, eds., 1992, Battlefields of knowledge: The interlocking of theory and practice in
social research and development, Routledge, London, New York
Mafeje, Archie, 1976, The problem of Anthropology in historical perspective: an inquiry into the growth of the
social sciences, in, Canadian Journal of African Studies 10(2)
Mafeje, Archie. 1994. ‘African intellectuals: an inquiry into their genesis and social options’ in Mamdani, Mahmood
and Mamadou Diouf eds. Academic freedom in Africa. Dakar: CODESRIA
Mamdani, Mahmood and Mamadou Diouf, eds, Academic freedom in Africa, CODESRIA; Dakar
Masolo, D.A, 1994, Logocentrism and emotivism, in, D.A. Masolo, African philosophy in search of identity,
Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, Endinburgh University Press, London, pp. 1 – 45
Mbembe, Achille, 2002, African modes of self-writing, Public Culture 14(1), pp. 239-273
Mbembe, Achille, 2001, the Thing and its doubles, in, Achille Mbembe, On the Postcolony, University of California
Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, pp.142- 172
Mudimbe,V.Y,1988, Discourse of power and knowledge of otherness, in, V.Y. Mudimbe, The invention of Africa;
Gnosis, philosophy and the order of knowledge, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, James
Currey, London,pp. 1 -23,
Mugambi, Nabasuta, Helene, 1998, from story to song: gender, Nationhood and the migratory text, in, Anne
Ngate Ngosz and Didier Gondola, eds., Gendered encounters, pp. 205 – 222
Mugambi, Nabasuta, Helene, 1998, popular music, urban society and changing gender relations in Kinshasa,
Zaire in,Anne Ngate Ngosz and Didier Gondola, eds., Gendered encounters , pp. 65 – 83
Mkandawire,Thandika, 1993, Problems and prospects of social sciences in Africa, in, International Social Science
Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 129 – 140
Mkandawire, Thandika, 1995, Three generations of African academics: A note, CODESRIA Bulletin, No. 3, pp. 9-
12
DR. R. M. Achieng’ paper to be discussed at UJ Seminar Series 15th February 2012
Moore, L., Henrietta, 1999,ed., Anthropology theory at the turn of the century, in, Anthropology theory today,
Polity Press, and Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, Oxford, Malden, pp. 1 – 23
Mudimbe, V.Y, 1988, Discourse of power and knowledge of otherness, in, The invention of Africa: Gnosis,
philosophy and the order of knowledge, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, James Currey,
London, pp. 1 – 23
Neubert, Dieter, 2001, Entwicklung unter dem mikroskop, der akteursorientierte Ansatz, in, Entwicklung +
Zusammenarbeit, Jg. 42, 7/8, S. 216 – 219
Okere, Theophilus, 1983, Culture and philosophy: a question of hermeneutics, Chapter two, in, African
philosophy: A historico-Hermeneutical investigation of the conditions of its possibilities, University Press of
America, Inc, pp.15 - 31
Olukoshi, Adebayo and Paul Tiyambe Zeleza, 2004, Conclusion: the African university in the 21st century, future
challenges and a research agenda, in, Paul Tiyambe Zeleza and Adebayo Olukoshi, African universities in the
21st century: Vol. II, Knowledge and Society, CODESRIA book series, Dakar
Ouédraogo Jean-Bernard and Pierre Bouda, 2011, The Alchemist and the Apprentice Myth-Hunter: Comments
on Social Engineering in African Social Sciences, in, Readings in Methodology: Some African Perspectives,
CODESRIA, Dakar, pp. 17 – 38
Quedraogo, Jean- Bernard and Carlos Cardoso, eds., 2011, Readings in Methodology: Some African
Perspectives, CODESRIA Book Series, CODESRIA, Dakar
Ousmane Kane, 2003, Intellectuels non-europhones, document de travail, no 1, CODESRIA; Dakar
Popper, Karl, 1976, The logic of scientific discovery, Harper and Row, New York
Ricouer, P., 1969, The conflict of interpretation, Northwestern University Press, Evanston
Stuart Hall, ed, ??, the spectacle of the other, in Hall Stuart, Representation: Cultural representations and
signifying practices, The Open University, Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, pp. 223 - 290
Schutz, Alfred, 1971, Collected papers: the problem of social reality, an English translation by Martinus Nijhoff,
The Hague
Schutz Alfred, 1970, On phenomenology and social relations, selected writings, The university of Chicago Press,
Chicago and London
Schutz, Alfred and Thomas Luckmann, 1973, The structures of the life-world, translated by Richard Zaner and
Tristram Engelhardt, Northwestern University Press, Evanston
DR. R. M. Achieng’ paper to be discussed at UJ Seminar Series 15th February 2012
Schutz, Alfred, 1973, The everyday life world and the natural attitude, in, The structures of the life-world, a
translation by Richard M. Zaner and Tristram Engelhardt, Jr, Northwestern University Press, USA, pp. 3 – 18
Srubar, Ilja, 1984, on the origin of phenomenological sociology, in, Human studies, Vol. 7, N. 2, pp. 163 – 190
Strauss Anselm, 2001, Qualitative analysis for social scientists, Cambridge University press
Schwandt, A., Thomas, 2000, Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: interpretivism, Hermeneutics
and Social constructionism, in, Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln, eds., pp. 189 - 213
Wilson, P., Thomas, Normative and Interpretive paradigms in Sociology, in, Jack Douglas,ed., Understanding
everyday life, pp.57 – 80
Wiredu, J.E., 1973, How not to compare African thought with Western thought, in, African Philosophy: An
Introduction, R.Wright ed., University Press of America
Zeleza,Tiyambe, Paul and Adebayo Olukoshi, 2004, African universities in the 21st century: Vol. II, Knowledge
and Society, CODESRIA book series, Dakar