Decolonizing knowledge production in Dakar, Senegal
How it started – Some reflection1
My first contact with the group of women who would accompany me throughout the fieldwork was on September 6, 2018. It was a hot afternoon during the rainy season when I was on my way to meet Bineta Fall2, the president of a social cooperative, and the women of her group. I remember it was about 5 pm when I reached her house. I saw her waiting on the balcony, where she greeted me and urged me to come in. So, I got off the motorbike and went straight to the house, entering through an old red door left open for visitors. On the ground floor, I saw several bedrooms and a courtyard. I called her name several times, but nobody answered. Thus, I decided to go upstairs, followed the path, and ended up on a terrace next to a large room. It was then that I discovered that this place was not only her home but also her cooperative’s headquarters. I knocked on the door and entered a room where five women were sitting on the floor shelling millet. On the left side of the room, I saw covered plastic containers that looked like tanks for storing processed food. It was our first meeting and our first conversation, and Bineta began to tell me a little about herself, the community in which she lived, and the project of her social cooperative.
After a brief introduction, she told me quite directly about all the difficulties she had in setting up such a project and getting a microloan from the bank for her and the women’s activities. She also explained how difficult it was to talk to me about her project. While she spoke, I had already begun to form explanations in my mind: Why don’t they get microcredit from the bank? Probably because they can’t guarantee they’ll pay it back. After all, the people in this area suffer from poverty. Why is it so difficult to talk to me about the project? Probably because I’m a white, Western researcher, and they find it difficult to open up to me. As I based my answers on prejudices, stigmas, and arbitrary assumptions, I realized that these explanations were less and less in line with what she was telling me. So, I interrupted her and asked, confused, “You keep talking about how difficult it is for you to get a loan. You talk about how difficult it is to talk about the project. But why, and what is so difficult?” From the other side of the room, a woman’s voice rang out: “We are women, and women belong at home, not in such projects. The banks hardly give us loans. And yes, it’s not so easy for us to talk about the project because it’s usually men who do it for us, and even more so with foreigners.” I was suddenly disoriented and had to rethink my assumptions. I realized then that gender issues were what slowed them down so much in their activities and development. It was at that moment that I understood I couldn’t assume anything without first asking them about their understanding of the issues. I also realized the importance of working more inclusively to gain deeper knowledge and understanding.
Thus, to highlight the importance of inclusiveness in research processes, I will use my example to discuss two practices that can be used in qualitative research for enhancing justice and knowledge inclusiveness, namely 1) the embracement of “other(ed)” ways of knowing and 2) the respect for self-determination.
Focus of work and research location
My research takes place in the district of Thiaroye sur Mer (Dakar, Senegal), which is said to be the cradle of poverty and a source of irregular migration.
Thiaroye sur Mer is a place where European externalization practices are implemented through development projects. In this context, the 2000s marked a key point in time. From that period onwards, women began to be targeted with development projects aimed at poverty reduction. At the same time, bilateral immigration control agreements between Senegal and Europe were signed in 2006, linking development aid to the intention of preventing migrants from leaving home and encouraging undocumented migrants to return. As a result, small local cooperatives and associations at the neighborhood level were formed with the support of foreign NGOs and national institutions.
Under the slogans “fight the poverty” and “stop migration,” the cooperatives aimed to eventually benefit from funding possibilities and run economic activities. In this process, space played a key role: the transformation of residential areas into economic spaces and the (re)use of public buildings by the EU or local institutions were necessary conditions to collectively reach their goals. Thus, in my work, I analyze the role of space in the social and economic inclusion of Thiaroye sur Mer inhabitants through international development projects.
Research methods
My field research took place in Thiaroye sur Mer, where I lived for around nine months. One of my most important goals was to gain a deep understanding of the resident’s daily lives, as well as their interpretations and understandings of specific practices that were unfamiliar to me. For this reason, I shared my daily routine with the inhabitants, taking part in ceremonies and religious rituals, while also helping the people (especially the women) with their daily activities, such as shopping, taking the children to school, and preparing meals. One of my favorite activities was accompanying the fishermen to sea and trying to fish as they did. Despite my curiosity to learn their traditional fishing techniques and my efforts to “bring some fish ashore,” I have to admit that this was one of the tasks that I could only manage to a certain extent. It was a constant reminder that, despite my best efforts, I was not one of them, and that I needed to maintain a certain emotional distance to remain objective during the research. However, sharing my daily life so closely with the fishermen brought me much closer to them, and at the same time, I experienced greater acceptance from them towards me. In other words, I tried to live the same way they did to feel closer to them, being conscious of my identity as a “toubab” (which in Wolof means “white,” a synonym for foreigner) and recognizing that my presence in their lives altered their behavior, at least in part.
My desire to fully understand their realities stemmed primarily from my initial experience with the women in the community mentioned above, which led me to realize that I could not rely on a classic bottom-up approach, as is typically done in field research. Instead, I had to adopt a method that was as inclusive as possible to make room for their knowledge system(s) and enrich my understanding of the facts.
Following this idea, I decided to structure my fieldwork in cyclical processes of participant observation, informal conversations, and interviews, followed by evaluations and reflections on the data, and finally discussion with participants and modification where necessary. I realized that by using this approach, I was giving the participants more space to correct my assumptions and interpretations, while also learning in depth about their feelings and personal experiences. Repeated and regular discussions with the participants about their opinions and views concerning the data took place, enabling me to be more inclusive of the community members’ knowledge and to embrace their ways of knowing. To make this more evident, I would like to introduce two examples that marked my fieldwork and led me to a deeper reflection and to correcting my behavior as a researcher.
During the field research, I realized that to better capture their understanding of space and to produce a more just interpretation of their spatial meanings, I had to focus on both French and local terminology related to space. For example, the French word “concession” is used to define a family unit that consists of multiple generations (the grandfather with his four wives, the children with their respective wives, and their children) living on the same plot of land.
This means that the “concession” refers to a spatial unit that is determined by physical boundaries. Though, this does not correspond to their understanding of a family unit that is expressed through the local word “ndieul.” In Wolof, “ndieul” means “meal of a household” and is not tied to spatial boundaries. In fact, the meal is shared by all members of the household, even those who have moved to another plot, for example, due to a lack of space within the “concession.” Thus, the word “concession” represents a spatial concept that is disconnected from the participant’s understanding of the family unit, eading to a loss of the original and historical meaning.
This is a concept […] that the West has imposed on Africans, I mean their way of life, but the realities and the concept of the family are different in Africa, especially in Senegal, in Thiaroye. They [the French] say the “concessions”, they really don’t consider our households as households […]. The “concessions” are concepts imported from the West. […] [They are] boundaries of households, spatial delimitations on certain plots of land, these are “concessions,” but they do not correspond to our concept of “ndieul” (Pape Medoune Ndyiaye, philosopher in the community of Thiaroye sur Mer).
This example demonstrates one possible way to apply the idea of embracing “other(ed)” ways of knowing. Another central aspect that led me to a deeper reflection concerns the “respect for self-determination,” a method that I applied during my field research that presented new challenges. Following the principle of equity, the “respect for self-determination” emphasizes the decision-making power of the participants in order to give them control during the research process. This inclusive approach helped identify the problems to be studied and determine the major questions and overall design of the research.
Acting in accordance with “respect for self-determination” allowed me to establish greater equity and generate knowledge that reflects the perspectives, priorities, and concerns of the research participants. However, it gave rise to other issues. One challenge I was confronted with was the tendency of some leaders to try to gain individual control within the same group. One of the social cooperatives I worked with was mainly composed of women. During one of the first conversations with the president of that cooperative, Mr. Ousmane Faye, he explained to me that the best way to gain a complete and accurate representation of the events I was researching was to hold my conversations with him, since:
The women of the cooperative did not go to school and have significant difficulties in expressing themselves in a correct way (Ousmane Faye, president of the association)
My decision to place the decision-making power exclusively in his hands caused obvious friction between the president and some of the women in the cooperative, who were warned against giving interviews or holding conversations without his consent. Consequently, the application of “respect for self-determination” led to processes that were inequitable or exclusionary, which silenced certain viewpoints and produced misrepresentative data.
This became particularly clear during the data evaluation process when I encountered a lack of direct information from certain actors of the social cooperatives or I realized that women were underrepresented in the collected data, reinforcing gender disparities within the community. Further reflection on my part to find solutions became necessary to continue the research project without jeopardizing the validity of the data collected. In this context, I recognized that the “right for self-determination” does not necessarily mean placing decision-making power (as usual) solely in the hands of leaders; it also involves hearing the voices of the most marginalized – in this case, the women.
To address this, I initially sought to determine whether the women actively exercised their right to participate in public or community discussions, made real choices that affected their lives, and were treated as legitimate contributors to the collective fight against poverty. To do so, I visited several women in the community and held informal conversations with them.
Once it became evident that most of them were systematically excluded from public discussions and decision-making, I organized a meeting with different leaders and members of different cooperatives.
We discussed the importance of including the voices and opinions of all relevant actors in the research to generate valid and representative data. Despite the openness of all participants, this was a complicated process, as many of the women did not initially feel free to express themselves or offer opinions. The depth of their marginalization became more visible in the context of this meeting. However, by employing a participatory research approach, this marginalization was at least partially addressed, and equity was re-established throughout the field research. With sensitive and empowering facilitation, the groups transitioned from a lack of understanding of the concept of choice to articulating their individual and collective desires for equitable knowledge production.
Concluding remarks
My primary goal during the field research was to incorporate other knowledge systems into the research through knowledge co-production and to establish greater equity.
I argue that research co-production constitutes a prerequisite for knowledge co-production. In this context, research co-production represents a longstanding research tradition. In fact, participatory research, as espoused first by Kurt Lewin in the 1940s (Lewin, 1946; Lewin & Lewin, 1948) and later by Paulo Freire in the 1970s (Freire, 1970), was one of the earliest research practices to focus on co-production.
Research co-production encompasses different meanings. For some, it is about the democratization of science and the right of the focus group to participate in and influence the entire research process, as seen in participatory research (Bowen & Graham, 2013). Other motivations include a desire to improve the quality of research, which is believed to occur when knowledge users are involved, as in participatory action research. This approach enhances the researcher’s understanding of the problem, solutions, and context, seeking policy or strategic solutions in collaboration with research participants. Both should not be viewed as methodologies but rather as orientations to inquiry, as Bradbury and Reason describe in The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (Oliver, Kothari, Mays, 2019).
For me, research co-production (and, with it, co-production of knowledge) means bringing together different ways of knowing, experiencing, and viewing the world. Research co-production brings together cultures and knowledge systems of non-Western individuals with scientific inquiry, aiming to generate new knowledge and understandings while displacing Western thought as the sole perspective for knowledge (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018; Santos, 2015). One of the most important goals during my field research was to achieve equity in research relationships to ensure that space is fairly provided for all knowledge systems and knowledge holders. In other words, I consider the absence of equity as a systemic issue closely related to the invisible power dynamics that are embedded within research frameworks. These dynamics are particularly apparent in studies that involve vulnerable populations. In fact, if not adequately monitored, researchers possess an unequal power to define labels and to alienate oppressed populations (Datta, 2018).
But for me, equitable approaches to research imply a decolonization of research and knowledge. Decolonizing research means centering the concerns and worldviews of non-Western individuals (i.e., knowledge co-production), their knowledge systems, and participants’ cultural approaches, while respectfully understanding research from “other(ed)” perspectives (Battiste, 2000; Datta, 2018; Smith, 2012). The decolonization of research is, therefore, crucial in breaking hierarchical barriers between researchers and participants, which can be achieved by being critically reflexive and enabling reciprocity within relationships. It is therefore necessary to establish collaborations between researchers and knowledge holders, whom I consider co-researchers, for a more inclusive production of knowledge.
Finally, inclusion and exclusion are negotiated in the field, and the decolonization of knowledge, as shown, necessitates a certain degree of mutual control among all research participants (including the researcher) to avoid the emergance of unexpected power relations within the community itself. In this sense, decolonization is not a methodical checklist nor a defined endpoint; it is a life-long process that actively works to dismantle and recreate research both within and outside the academy.
Author biography: Elettra Griesi is a researcher in the field of anthropology of space and place. She collaborates with the CRC 1265 (TU Berlin), is a spokesperson at the Institute for Protest and Social Movements, and is a doctoral candidate in Sociology, at the Faculty VI of Planning, Building, and Environment (TU Berlin). Her research focuses on social and spatial inequalities related to migration and mobility.
References
1 Further reading: Griesi, E. (2021). Between socio-spatial exclusion and new solidarity networks: the Lebou-group from Thiaroye sur Mer (Senegal). Trialog, 138(3), 38-46. https://www.trialog-journal.de/en/journals/trialog-138-cultural-space/
2 Note: the name is not real to protect her identity.
Literature
Battiste, M. A. (2000). Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision. UBC Press.
Bowen, S.J., and Graham, I.D. (2013). From knowledge translation to engaged scholarship: Promoting research relevance and utilization. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 94(1 Suppl),3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.04.037
Bradbury, H., and Reasons, P. (2012). The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. SAGE Publications.
Datta, R. (2018). Decolonizing both researcher and research and its effectiveness in Indigenous research. Research Ethics, 14(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117733296
de Sousa Santos, B. (2015). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Routledge.
Dünnwald, S. (2017). Bamako, Outpost of the European Border Regime? In P. Gaibazzi, A.
Bellagamba, and S. Dünnwald (eds.), EurAfrican Borders and Migration Management: Political Cultures, Contested Spaces and Ordinary Lives (pp. 83–108). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Doi: 10.1057/978-1-349-94972-4
Freire, P. (1970). The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x.
Lewin, K., and Lewin, G.W. (1948). Resolving Social Conflicts. Selected Papers on Group Dynamics. New York: Harper & Row.
Mignolo, W. D., and Walsh, C. E. (2018). On decoloniality: Concepts, analytics, praxis. Duke University Press.
Oliver, K., Kothari, A., and Mays, N. (2019). The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? Health Research Policy and Systems, 17(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books.