Reflections on the decolonisation of knowledge in the Strengthening Postgraduate Supervision course

Corinne KnowlesCentre for Higher Education Research, Teaching and

Learning

Points to Ponder

Points to Ponder

This is the second in a series of supplementary notes for the

Strengthening Postgraduate Supervision course. In the first ‘Points to

Ponder’, Carol Thomson provided us with guidelines about giving

feedback in ways that will enhance engagement and conceptual depth.

In this ‘Points to Ponder’, Corinne Knowles challenges us to

consider how the course can contribute to significant conversations

taking place around de-colonising the curriculum. She not only

provides the context for this important conversation but makes

practical suggestions for facilitators to take this forwards.

As with the previous ‘Points to Ponder’, these notes have been

developed for the Facilitators of the course, but they may well be

of interest to course participants and others and so you are free to

distribute them as you see fit. As with all materials associated

with the course, these materials are licensed under Creative Commons

and belong to all who read and use them.

Sioux McKenna, Chrissie Boughey, Harry Wels, Henk van den Heuwel and

Jenny Clarence

SPS Management Team

September 2015

http://www.postgraduatesupervision.com

Losing my religion: reflections on the decolonisation

of knowledge in the Strengthening Postgraduate Supervision

course

Corinne Knowles

[email protected]

Postgraduate supervision requires a set of skills, knowledge and

orientations, which the Strengthening Postgraduate Supervision course seeks

to instil. Lee opens her discussion on the development of effective

supervisors with the claim that “researchers skills will become ever

more needed, but only if they enable constant inquiry, scrutiny and reframing” (Lee

2007: 680 emphasis added). So a course which aims to inspire and

equip supervisors in the South African context could and should

enable the kind of scrutiny and reframing that makes it relevant to

the shifting terrain of a transforming university sector.

Necessarily then, the political context of research and supervision

practices in South Africa and the continent, and indeed the global

practices, are important to consider in order to frame such a course

in a relevant way. Peter Mayo asks us to acknowledge “the political

nature of all educational interventions” (Mayo 1999: 24), and in the

light of this, we need to acknowledge that a supervision course, for

instance, is not a ‘neutral’ offering, but carries within it a

political agenda.

In the Minister’s preface to the White Paper for Post-school Education and

Training, Dr Blade Nzimande, suggests that “the education and training

system should not only provide knowledge and skills required by the

economy. It should also contribute to developing thinking citizens,

who can function effectively, creatively and ethically as part of a

democratic society. They should have an understanding of their

society, and be able to participate fully in its political, social

and cultural life” (2013: viii). Any tertiary course, including a

postgraduate supervision course, should and does contribute to the

kinds of citizens that function as part of a democratic society, and

perhaps we need to take care that as course providers we also ensure

the “effectively, creatively and ethically” qualifiers of

citizenship. Part of a democratic society is about contestation,

and in the context of higher education (HE) studies, this includes

the contestation of knowledge. South African universities are

currently caught in a conversation and contestation about what it

means to decolonise knowledge and the curriculum – largely inspired

by the #RhodesMustFall movement and events (see

http://rhodesmustfall.co.za/) , and followed by, for example, the

recently released Luister video released by students from Stellenbosch

University and its consequences (see

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Nzimande-wants-answers-from-

Stellenbosch-on-Luister-20150826 ). What does this mean for a course

on postgraduate supervision?

Rethinking supervision from a theoretical perspective has dovetailed

for me with rethinking the decolonisation of the curriculum across

all HE levels. So as I contemplate the ideas and theories around

supervision that resonate with me, I am also in the process of

relocating myself as an academic into uncertain new epistemic

terrain. For me this has meant questioning my assumptions, making my

biases visible, and seeking new voices and ways of thinking that

have Africans as subjects, not objects, of pedagogy. The process is

not dissimilar from losing one’s religion, as it requires a shift of

paradigms that are the foundations not only of thought but also of

action. Not only does it inspire me to dislocate from a colonial,

western framework that has been our pedagogic inspiration for so

long; it is also a comprehensive project that can shape how I know,

how I teach and supervise, and how I live. So while there are valid

and interesting ideas from a variety of writers in the ‘canon’ of

supervision pedagogy, we also need to look for different thinkers

and orientations, which are not necessarily part of the canon we are

introduced to in the PG Supervision course.

This is not necessarily a simple process. The internationalisation

of Higher Education and HE studies has meant that the emerging

intellectual conversations around HE practices and knowledge draw

heavily on a western canon, which is establishing itself in the

thinking on, for instance, supervision practices in South Africa.

Scholars in this country have tended to work with and cite this

canon in order to frame our orientations. We have sought to make

these western frames relevant to our South African context with some

success. But is there more we can do to re-orientate ourselves to be

more relevant, in order to supervise research that provides African

solutions for African problems, and which places Africa as the

subject, and not the object of research, in order to inspire

effective, creative and ethical citizenship of the continent? What

will it take to develop a critical voice from within an alternative

canon?

Mignolo claims that “it is not enough to change the content of the

conversation” but also “that it is of the essence to change the

terms of the conversation” in which “it is necessary to focus on

the knower rather than on the known” (Mignolo 2009: 4). These are

key ideas that can shape how we supervise and think about

supervision. The coloniser’s pedagogic framework has become part of

who we are as thinkers and teachers, and is part of the content and

terms of our conversations, as well as whom we inspire our

postgraduates to become. Firstly, while it may not be “enough to

change the content of the conversation”, it is part of the

decolonising process. If you run a search for African theorists for

instance, particularly on the subject of postgraduate supervision,

you have to search really hard to find new voices that approach the

subject from a distinctly African perspective. Because the western

canon is self-referential, African authors are seldom cited, and we

need to do the required labour to find the many relevant voices that

have so far remained largely invisible on our radars. Mbembe,

however, warns us that decolonisation is not a removal of western

thought – as he suggests, “the Western archive is singularly

complex. It contains within itself the resources of its own

refutation. It is neither monolithic, nor the exclusive property of

the West. Africa and its diaspora decisively contributed to its

making and should legitimately make foundational claims on it”

(Mbembe 2015:npn). He goes on to say that decolonisation of the

university means reforming it “with the aim of creating a less

provincial and more open critical cosmopolitan pluriversalism – a

task that involves the radical re-founding of our ways of thinking and

a transcendence of our disciplinary divisions” (ibid). His argument

demonstrates that even critical African thinkers are caught up in a

canon that infuses and has been infused by African thought. So part

of my decolonisation process is to follow African thinkers outside

of the western canon, not only for ways in which their thinking

overlaps with my own, but to see where they lead me, who they cite,

and into conversations that have been going on without us for

decades.

Secondly, Mignolo asks us to “change the terms of the conversation”,

which requires a process of re-orientation. As a start, this will

perhaps require us to trouble or problematise the western canon, by

noticing our location as African scholars in relation to it. Mbembe

argues that this has to do with “creating a set of mental

dispositions. We need to reconcile a logic of indictment and a logic of self-

affirmation, interruption and occupation” (Mbembe 2015: npn). Mamdani goes

deeper than this idea, when he argues that part of the political

work of decolonisation, including the liberation of indigeneity from

its colonial constrictions, “is to rethink the institutional legacy

of colonialism, and thus to challenge the idea that we must define

political identity, political rights, and political justice first

and foremost in relation to indigeneity. Let us reconsider the

colonial legacy that each of us is either a native or a settler. It

is with that compass in hand that we must fashion our political

world” (Mamdani 2005: 17). This is critical work, neither easy nor

simple, and requires us not only to shift what and how we know, but

also perhaps who we are.

Related to this, Mignolo calls for a “focus on the knower rather

than on the known” (Mignolo 2009: 4). In the supervision courses

that are run nationally, groups are likely to be diverse in their

understandings and experiences of supervision. Mbembe warns that

“Western epistemic traditions are traditions that claim detachment

of the known from the knower. They rest on a division between mind

and world, or between reason and nature, as an ontological a priori.

They are traditions in which the knowing subject is enclosed in

itself and peeks out at a world of objects and produces supposedly

objective knowledge of those objects” (Mbembe 2015:npn). So perhaps

a good start in this process of decolonisation is to pay attention

to the knowers we work with: each person has a contribution to make

to the knowledge we co-create in these courses. If the course takes

into account the humans that we work with, then group activities

will not merely be a performance of knowledge, but a genuine sharing

of ideas and experiences that allow for more authentic learning.

Ntseane argues that an “Afrocentric paradigm privileges collective

creation of knowledge” (Ntseane 2011: 315), suggesting that care

must be taken to facilitate all voices and ideas in our courses and

how they relate to each other. Resonating with this, and relevant

to how we work with ideas around supervision, Mkabela tells us that

the Afrocentric perspective “should be understood in the context

of multicultural realities of South Africa, as the African

paradigm serves as a liberating intellectual movement towards a

pluriversal perspective in research. Afrocentrists argue for

pluralism in philosophical views without hierarchy” (Mkabela

2005: 180).

Postgraduate supervision courses are diverse, depending on where

they are held, who facilitates, and who participates. In order

for them to be most meaningful, each grouping will be able to

address these concerns about our canon in their own way. But

taking the discussion above into account, there are perhaps three

ideas to start with. Firstly, a short session (perhaps an hour)

could be held at the start of the course to reflect on the canon,

and locate the participants in relation to it. One idea here

would be to discuss a reading which provides an alternative view

to the western ideas – for instance Mkabela (2005) or Ntseane

(2011), or other material known to participants or facilitators.

Secondly, to be aware of the kinds of tasks that are set that

privilege certain voices, and setting tasks that subvert this in

some way. At these courses, some people feel more comfortable

with the material than others, and could dominate the

participation. What kinds of group tasks would challenge this?

Thirdly, and related to the previous point, start group work by

allowing group members to introduce themselves, in which they

share something about themselves that makes them unique to or

different from the others around the table. This acts as a way

for people to respond to each other as individuals (Mignolo’s

focus on the “knower” discussed above) before grappling with the

task. In order that these courses provide opportunities for

meaningful life-learning, this kind of exercise introduces both

vulnerability and mutual respect as a starting point.

These are many points to ponder, in order to contribute to the

ongoing efforts of academics to become careful, aware, and

appropriate supervisors. The decolonisation of knowledge has

begun, and it is an exciting journey ahead.

References:

Lee, A.M. (2007) Developing effective supervisors: Concepts of research

supervision SAJHE 21 (4) 2007 pp. 680–693

Mamdani, M (2005). Political identity, Citizenship and Ethnicity in Post-colonial

Africa. Arusha Conference keynote address “New Frontiers of Social Policy” December

12-15 2005.

Mayo, P.(2003). A Rationale for a transformative approach to education. Journal of

Transformative Education Vol. 1 No. 1 38-57

Mbembe, A (2015) Decolonizing Knowledge and the Question of the Archive Lecture:

UCThttps://africaisacountry.atavist.com/decolonizing-knowledge-and-the-question-of-the-archive

Mignolo, W.D. (2009) Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and De-Colonial

Freedom. Theory, Culture & Society (SAGE, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and

Singapore),

Vol. 26(7–8): 1–23

Mkabela, Q. (2005) Using the Afrocentric Method in Researching Indigenous African

Culture. The Qualitative Report Volume 10 Number 1 March 2005 178-189

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-1/mkabela.pdf

Ntseane, P.G. (2011) Culturally sensitive transformational learning: Incorporating

an Afrocentric paradigm and African feminism. Adult Education Quarterly 61(4).

White Paper For Post-School Education And Training (2013) , Department of Higher Education and

Training, South Africa