Education and Epistemicide in Africa

Abstract

Epistemicide is the exclusion or elimination of indigenous knowledge systems at the expense of the imperious, domineering, and colonial knowledge systems. To combat epistemicide in Africa and liberate the minds of the current generation, the authors propose a comprehensive ubuntu based model of education. This model suggests four interrelated strategies of liberation: 1) decolonization, 2) revalorization, 3) revitalization, and 4) construction and creation (DRRC) of knowledge. This chapter examines the contextual and conceptual background of education in Africa through a historical lens, provides a detailed description of the proposed model, and outlines some potential implementation challenges.

Achieving Equitable Education

“…The continuous extension of deadlines set in Jomtien, Dakar, and now for the SDGs has led a variety of influential practitioners and thinkers to question whether global education commitments have been effective and sufficiently funded (Klees, 2017;Wulff, 2018), and more fundamentally if they are a form of continued neo-colonialism Ntihirageza & Ibrahima, 2021). Others have noted that although progress has been made, the nature of data gaps has meant that those most disadvantaged learners -who have been signalled as a priority since 1990 -are often missing in datasets and, therefore, missing from trends of improvement (or stagnation) (Faul, Montjouridès, & Terway, 2021;IDMC, 2019;Johnstone, Schuelka, & Swadek, 2020;Montjouridès, 2013;Olusanya et al, 2021).…”

“…There are also important gaps in terms of the use of data and the alignment of data to the needs of policymakers and practitioners who can enact improvements to education systems that could actually improve learning Ntihirageza & Ibrahima, 2021). Such missing uses of data would include the use of data to inform subregional education policies and intersections of vulnerability among education stakeholders.…”

“…Such missing uses of data would include the use of data to inform subregional education policies and intersections of vulnerability among education stakeholders. These missing uses may also belie a more fundamental mismatch between global education data regimes and local needs (Ntihirageza & Ibrahima, 2021).…”

“…The global education data regime is not simply a technocratic machine, it is both shaped by politics and interests, and in turn exerts influence on global and national education systems (Fontdevila & Grek, 2020;King, 2017;Olusanya et al, 2021;Unterhalter, 2019). Data are both a manifestation of our life worlds and an instrument that shapes them, and in so doing can perpetuate and deepen inequalities Mignolo, 2011;Ntihirageza & Ibrahima, 2021). Therefore, throughout this book the authors have addressed not just the technical, but the social and political dimensions that influence (and are influenced by) data production and use.…”

Conclusions on missing education data and the SDG 4 data regime

“…There is also the deeper question of whether SDG 4 and its data regime only represent a global monitoring engine for accountability, or if they can support the achievement of the SDG 4 goal by informing changes in policy and practice, for example, through facilitating cross-national learning and amplifying civil society advocacy. Critiques of the SDG 4 targets and data regime range from the effectiveness of global goals, to critiques of quantitative governance that can exclude through categorization, and epistemological critiques that such global education development goals and data regimes marginalize local epistemologies (Hoppers, 2015;Klees, 2017;Normand, 2020;Ntihirageza & Ibrahima, 2021;Olusanya et al, 2021). This, in turn, is connected to the challenges highlighted by the chapters on the relative importance of SDG 4 data alignment for educational policies at the national, local, or community levels.…”