UJ Sociology, Anthropology & Development Studies W E D N … 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

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 -

http://www.uj.ac.za/sociology


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.


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.


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:


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.


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?


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


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


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


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


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


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

UJ Sociology, Anthropology & Development Studies W E D N … 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

Documents