Criteria for Rigour in the research of Oral Tradition and/of Indigenous Knowledge Systems

Saturday, 3 april, 2010.
This is part of an email that I sent to the practitioner-researcher list as a response to Jack's request for comments on his AERA paper available on actionresearch.net

Context ...
I need to contextualise what follows in a brief description of the group of researchers with whom I work. We have been working together in a research support group since 1997. Our group is proportionately representative of the ‘rainbow’ demographics of the New (post-1994) South Africa. We live and work mostly in Zulu/English/Afrikaans, all of which can be used as lingua francas in the group, depending on who is around. We are all educators in formal state education institutions, private education institutions, or in communities. The urban-rural demographics are interestingly blurred. So the question of 'educational influence' is primary in our thinking, but with particular reference to the oral tradition and /of indigenous knowledge as a process of learning, teaching and assessment. I believe that there is no finer 'outcomes based education system' than the oral tradition. After all, all capacity in the oral tradition is demonstrated by action, not by writing a paper about it! Original Action Research? I can think of no better.

Your paper ...
In your AERA paper, Jack, I have found that you have referred to the notion of APPROPRIACY 13 times in the 31 pages. The final statement on page 31 resonates and reverberates, bouncing around in my bodymind, and making connections to all sorts of issues. Wonderful!!! Your statement is "As Individuals research their forms of life in enquiries of the kind, ‘How do I improve what I am doing?’ they often need to find or develop appropriate research methods."

And this takes me back to early 2003.

In early 2003, the group (some of whom you met in December,2009), had been working together for between one and seven years, during which time we had focused on masters and doctoral degrees in the field of orality-literacy studies, and the oral tradition and /of indigenous knowledge systems. Since 2001, I, and, increasingly, members of the group, had been focusing on the question "Given that we are told that complex and sophisticated thought is impossible without scribal alphabetic writing, how do we account for evidence to the contrary?" This had happened partially out of my own observations in the field, but increasingly because of what the rest of the team were bringing back into the research conversation out of their field work experiences.

So in 2003, we - Jerome Gumede, Clementine Yeni, Christina Ngaloshe, Theo Nyawose, Nonhlanhla Khuzwayo, Tra Bi Goh, Jill Frow, Vuyi Kona, Jane Tarr, myself and others (?) - questioned ourselves along the lines of "What is our research supposed to be doing?" "How do we know that our research is doing what it is supposed to do?" "What are we doing when our research does what it is supposed to do?" In other words, we were reflecting critically on our practice, and searching for what you term "our living standards of judgement" arising out of "our lived experience" and "living contradictions" of our research practice in the field. The whole process of answering these questions took place over a period of 10 Saturdays, working from about 09.00-15.00 on each day. We worked in small groups answering the questions on sheets of flip-chart-paper which we stuck up on the walls of the community hall which was our venue. These were then further critiqued, and analysed and summarised. At the end of it all, we came to the following conclusions. We called what we found : "Criteria for Rigour in Research into the Oral Tradition aka Indigenous Knowledge Systems" © Joan Conolly, 2003

We decided that APPROPRIACY was overarching and key to every other criterion. We used, and continue to use, the question "In what ways is what is being researched and the manner of research appropriate in the community and cultural context, in terms of each of the following … ?"

We then identified 6 criteria which qualified the overarching criterion of appropriacy ...

1. AUTHENTICITY, asking "In what ways is the researcher researching his or her own personal and/ or community knowledge?"

2. SUFFICIENCY, asking "In what ways have sufficient information and insights been explored and shared to make a difference?

3. SIGNIFICANCE, asking "In what ways is the research significant and to whom?

4. CURRENCY, asking "In what ways is this knowledge currently useful and applicable?

5. RELEVANCE, asking, "In what ways is this research relevant to the people and community that are being studied?

6. VALIDITY, asking "In what ways is this study investigating what it claims that it is investigating?"

Key to all these criteria is the notion of what is appropriate. Appropriacy is key specifically and significantly iro perspective, lens, and world view because of the "Complex Ecologies in a Changing World", and applies to each of the questions cited above because of the multiple perspectives, lenses, and world views, which constitute those same "Complex Ecologies in a Changing World".

Which brings me to ask "What is it that has changed, and is changing, in the world?" And I can only answer that question from my own "lived experience". My world has changed, and continues to change on a daily basis - sometimes from hour to hour, and even from minute to minute - in so many ways that I am sometimes overwhelmed. But what I perceive is that these changes, while NEW TO ME, HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL. It just so happens that they were never part of MY world until they BECAME PART OF MY WORLD. And in becoming part of my world, they enrich me with perspectives, lenses, and world views NEW TO ME. And these perspectives, lenses, and world views in turn have impacted and continue to impact on my values, my beliefs and appreciation of the world's "complex ecologies". I have come to appreciate increasingly the 'epistemologies, ontologies and axiologies' in the oral traditions of the world. And if this is true of me, I can hazard that it is true to a greater or lesser degree of my fellow humans. In addition, I have observed that there are many instances where my fellow humans and I have acted, and continue to act, in ignorance of these different perspectives, lenses and world views, and wittingly and unwittingly, do great harm. Adichie Chimamanda reminds us of this so well, and with such elegant humorous irony, in her talk 'The Danger of the Single Story'. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html

I also have come to see that alphabetic scribal literacy has the capacity to colonise the oral tradition to the point of its obliteration, and the obliteration of its knowledge bearers. This is not a possibility or probability. This is a fact of history recorded in the oral tradition, notwithstanding the insufficient scribal documentation of its occurrence. We ignore this at our peril. And I do mean, literally, at our human peril. Ken Robinson on TEDTALKS http://www.ted.com/search?q=ken+robinson&x=11&y=10 cites Jonas Salk who claims that "If all the insects on earth disappeared, within 50 years all life on earth would disappear. If all humans disappeared, within 50 years all species would flourish as never before." This is the kind of wisdom that has been known in the oral tradition of knowledge all over the planet for much longer that we have had access to scribal alphabetic writing. (see Greg Braden's "The Divine Matrix" for more on this.) But as recorded in the oral traditional archives in many languages and cultures, "If it is not written down it does not exist."

As a group, then, we have been looking for ways to record the oral tradition in ways that are appropriate. Since 2004, we have been asking "How do we bring the oral traditions and/of indigenous knowledge into the formal academy ON ITS OWN TERMS." This question is not motivated by a whimsical and romantic notion of reclaiming the past, but of the urgent need to have access to all of the available knowledge on the planet, instead of only the estimated 10% available in script of one kind or another. Armed with all the available knowledge, I believe that we have a better chance of addressing our ecological disasters of all and many kinds.

I would now like, very briefly, to return to the 'Criteria' questions and their implications.

When we talk about Authenticity, we have found that this criterion is key to 'authority'. Authenticity is about honouring and valuing "lived experience", and acknowledging its authority. By way of example, when I am talking about how I am feeling about something, no one knows better than I how I am feeling. I am sure that I am not alone when I cite instances of being told that, in respect of discrimination clearly connected to my gender, my age or marital status, inter alia - "You should not feel like that. There is no need to take this personally." The inappropriacy of such a judgement is clear. Once I understood that, I was/am able so much more easily to understand what constituted/s (in)appropriate (in)authentic research. Hence the value of 'self study', 'living theories methodologies', auto-ethnographies and their ilk.

When we talk about Sufficiency, it is inappropriate to measure by number, although there are instances where some numbers are useful. Sufficiency is appropriately measured by the quality, the richness, of the evidence presented.

When we talk about SIGNIFICANCE, we need to be wary of delivering only what is significant to the academy. Instead, we need to ensure that what we record and report is appropriate to the interests of the original knowledge bearers, whoever they may and regardless of their status, and particularly they orality-literacy status. "What is important TO THEM?" we ask. And what is revealed is very often at odds with what the academy values. Then the question of academic freedom and scholarly integrity is challenged. With interesting and informative outcomes.

When we talk about what is CURRENT, we have to be mindful that not all orally traditioned knowledges are currently applicable, and /or all the time, and the appropriacy of the application in many instances depends on the context. Maklinowski's adage of "There is no text without context" comes to mind.

When we talk about RELEVANCE, once again the context will decide what is appropriate to the people and community. This is fluid and constantly changing, and requires frequent readjustment. Hence emerging methodologies and questions.

When we talk about VALIDITY, we return to the convention of asking frequently "In what ways is this study investigating what it claims that it is investigating?" This is significant in terms of the appropriacy of the approach, the perspective, the lenses and the worldviews, and so brings us back full circle.

I hope that what I have recorded here is of some use.