Epistemological Allyship

Abstract

Discussions about decolonising psychology now abound. A key perspective from which these commentaries have been written relates to a confrontation of the gatekeepers in global psychology. While this approach is valuable to end epistemological violence and other forms of injustice, it also ends up alienating influential scholars in hegemonic psychology who can magnify the impact of the decolonisation effort. In this article, I borrow from the anti-racism literature the concept of allyship to put forward a new concept of epistemological allyship (EA). I position EA to invite, but not to demand, support from and to provide guidance to gatekeepers who truly wish to support the decolonisation efforts. However, unlike the past experiences with ending slavery in which Black people were portrayed to or required to beg for freedom, this concept of EA is not to be understood in this light. Rather it should be understood to imply that while academics from the majority of the world (AMWs) are fighting their own epistemological battles, any helpful support is and should be welcome.

Promoting global ECD top‐down and bottom‐up

“…I am wary about asking for external help to transform the attitudes and behaviors of academics and practitioners from the majority world, as this can exacerbate dependency and may follow a similar pattern of externally imposed ideas that has allowed biased intellectual frameworks such as global ECD to flourish. In line with epistemological allyship , the genuine assistance provided by influential scholars who “genuinely want to see another human being progress rather than seeing the one in need of assistance as merely a member of a marginalised group” (Oppong, 2023, 76), I can live with a little external help to raise the critical consciousness among academics and practitioners from the majority world; after all, many in the majority still think and believe that the best comes from the West (see also Oppong, 2013, 2019).…”

“…They argue, with ethnographic scientific evidence that: (1) childcare ought not to be linked to poverty, (2) the child has multiple social partners who fulfil different needs, and (3) the prescriptions of a certain type of responsive caregiving based on a particular cultural family model are at odds with diverse forms of responsive caregiving in a variety of contexts. Together, these practices and their selective evidentiary bases in global ECD create preconditions for epistemological violence (EV) (Oppong, 2015(Oppong, , 2019(Oppong, , 2020(Oppong, , 2023Teo, 2008Teo, , 2010. EV occurs "when speculative explanations for observed group differences present one of the groups as inferior or weaker relative to the other while, at the same time, those speculations appear as facts" (Oppong, 2020, 468).…”

Developing and Validating a Soft Skills Assessment Scale for Psychoeducational Assessment

“…Muchera and Finch (2010) posited that some scales' lack of construct equivalence is possibly due to some human society's differing nature of beliefs, norms, and values. To a larger extent, Africa has failed and is still failing to produce knowledge, concepts, models, and contextually relevant theories to solve African problems (Oppong, 2013(Oppong, , 2023a(Oppong, , 2023b. A similar construct to western intelligence is wisdom (Oppong, 2020).…”

Early life and infant mental health: Reshaping assumptions in a southern field

“…Scholars across a range of disciplines 2,4 are calling for attention to more diverse evidence sources for better understandings of the syndemic interactions that shape mental health and for interventions that take account of local ideals while retaining a strong evidence base.…”

“…Critique does not mean that the existing scholarship is intrinsically misguided. 4 Rather, it is necessary to ensure that normative assumptions in our disciplines do not diminish our humanity. The idea is to build a fuller picture.…”