Find how problematic the psychology and psychological researches being too focused on Westernised research and theories can be acccording to the brief bellow
This book has been written by African authors, with many African
examples, and is designed to be used by learners mainly from Africa and
developing countries. But does it reflect an African psychology? What
does the idea of an African psychology mean? Does it make any sense to
speak about an African psychology? This is a much more complex
question than it may at first appear.
As was the case during the 20th century, the discipline of psychology is
currently dominated by developments in North America. This does not
mean that there is not valuable research going on in psychology in Africa,
Asia, Australia and Europe, for example, but the sheer volume of work
and resources put into psychology in the USA ensures that nobody
working in the field can ignore this influence.
Consider an example of how the dominance of European and North
American ideas influences what we come to know of the world. A rapidly
growing field within psychology is that of infant development (see
Chapter 3). Over 90% of infants in the world are born in developing parts
of the world, but over 90% of international journal articles on infant
mental health and development deal with infants in the USA, Canada,
Europe and Australasia (Tomlinson & Swartz, 2003). This means that
there is an enormous imbalance between the context within which most
babies live, and the knowledge that enters psychology about babies and
their development.
Does this matter? International research in psychology has shown that
certain basic principles of human behaviour apply everywhere, but there
are also differences in how people grow and develop in different parts of
the world. While it would be wrong, for example, to throw out all the
knowledge that comes from Europe and North America, it would also be
wrong to think this knowledge can be applied without more thought to
other contexts.
One of the difficulties with this issue is that researchers working in the
developed world may forget or even become blind to the importance of
context. Many researchers based at North American universities, for
example, conduct experiments using first-year psychology students. The
reasons for this are obvious: the students are around, easy to involve in
research and may themselves learn a lot about psychology by
participating in these experiments. There is no problem at all with this.
However, students are by no means typical of the world’s population and
it cannot be assumed that this knowledge is applicable to people of all
ages and cultures. These researchers need to find proof of universality by
looking at the issue in a variety of contexts.
When you read psychology texts, no matter where they are published
or where the research has been conducted, every time you see a
generalisation, try to make an assessment of the basis on which the
generalisation has been made. Where does the evidence come from, and
is the evidence enough to support the generalisation?
There is also another sense in which we need to think about the
debates on African psychology. The spread of psychology from these
northern countries through the rest of the world has been associated with
their political, social and economic influence on the rest of the world. It is
not simply a coincidence, for example, that just as North American ideas
about psychology are known throughout the world, the McDonald’s logo
and the Coca-Cola sign are also known throughout the world. Psychology
has been spread throughout the world in the context of other social
processes, such as colonisation and globalisation.
This raises interesting questions, and not only for social sciences such
as psychology. For example, to what extent is our profession’s knowledge
about people a product of the views of others who, for a range of reasons,
have power? To what extent is our knowledge about people without
much power a product of how they are seen by more powerful people?
These are complex questions which cannot be answered fully here, but
they are important to bear in mind.
In the context of a country such as South Africa, we need to ask other
questions. Who, even within African countries, is producing
psychological knowledge about Africa? Currently, for obvious historical
reasons, most of the people who have written about psychology in South
Africa have been White. The dominance of White voices in the
production of knowledge about psychology is changing (and, indeed, the
diversity of the authors of this book is testimony to this), but the
dominance of White scholars persists.
When we read what psychologists say about people we need to think
about the possible influences that the psychologists’ backgrounds may
have on the conclusions they draw about the people they study. There
have been shameful examples in the history of psychology in South Africa
and elsewhere where psychologists have deliberately produced supposed
scientific knowledge in order to support repressive and racist policies.
But we need to ask a more subtle kind of question. To what extent are
people who are outsiders to a group able to understand that group? How
should we interpret the many conclusions White South Africans have
drawn about Black South Africans, for example? How do we factor into
our analyses that, in South Africa and many other countries,
psychologists try to understand people without even being able to
understand the languages these people speak? Once again, there are no
easy answers to these questions. Blanket generalisations claiming that
outsider psychologists have nothing useful to say or, on the other hand,
that outsider psychologists can say anything they wish without their
outsider status being a problem, are especially unhelpful. We need to
keep thinking about these questions, bearing in mind how complex they
are. In this regard, it is probably not very helpful, as is sometimes done, to
label all of psychology as Eurocentric, and to call for a more Afrocentric
psychology.
Although the authors of the various chapters of this book include
African psychologists, this book will not answer all the possible questions
about what an African psychology is, or could be. As you read this book,
and as you study psychology further, you will return to these questions
and debates, and your participation in these debates can help move the
field forward.
The focus on Westernised research and theories in psychology can be problematic for a number of reasons.
Firstly, it leads to a lack of diversity in the perspectives and examples used in psychological research. This can result in a limited understanding of human behavior and development, as different cultures and contexts may have unique ways of thinking and experiencing the world. For example, the example given in the text about infant development research primarily focusing on developed countries neglects the majority of infants in the world who are born in developing areas.
Secondly, the dominance of European and North American ideas in psychology can lead to bias and stereotypes in research. Researchers from these regions may not fully understand or appreciate the nuances of cultures and communities outside of their own, leading to inaccurate conclusions and generalizations about different groups of people.
Thirdly, the spread of Western psychology through colonization and globalization has implications for power dynamics and social influence. The production of knowledge about psychology, particularly in African countries, has historically been dominated by white scholars, raising questions about whose perspectives are being represented and whose voices are being heard.
In summary, the overemphasis on Western research and theories in psychology can limit the field's understanding of human behavior, perpetuate bias and stereotypes, and reinforce power imbalances in the production of psychological knowledge. It is important for researchers to critically examine the sources of their information and consider the diverse perspectives and experiences that exist outside of Western contexts.