“8. Critical Digital Pedagogy and Indigenous Knowledges: Harnessing Technologies for Decoloniality in Higher Education Institutions of the Global South” in “Critical Digital Pedagogy in Higher Education”
8 Critical Digital Pedagogy and Indigenous Knowledges Harnessing Technologies for Decoloniality in Higher Education Institutions of the Global South
Jairos Gonye and Nathan Moyo
In this chapter, we rethink critical digital pedagogy as a heuristic for a reimagined liberatory pedagogy that both acknowledges the significance of African Indigenous knowledge systems and disrupts the neo-liberal epistemological hegemony that still pervades the Global South despite the physical departure of the Global North as a colonial “master” (Mitova, 2020). The chapter is largely meditative and reflective as we, the researchers, suggest the notion of digital hegemony as a novel yet potentially insightful framework for a nuanced analysis of digital pedagogies (for more on digital hegemony, see Chapters 9 and 10 of this volume). Digital hegemony, an offshoot of critical pedagogy (Freire, 1990; Kincheloe, 2008), as a heuristic of analysis, complicates the often used yet conceptually inadequate descriptor “digital divide,” exposing its limitations in conceptualizing the situation among citizens of the Global South and in advancing a transformative critical pedagogy of the “digitally oppressed.” Even as educators, we have become aware that “access to digital networks does not necessarily prompt meaningful participation” (Köseoğlu & Bozkurt, 2018, p. 158). In the Global South, generally, there remains the unfortunate popularization of the narrative that higher education institutions simply needed to adopt digital technologies and their online learning platforms. In this way, it is assumed, we can narrow the digital divide. The idea of digital hegemony sensitizes us to the reality that the global architecture of knowledge is skewed in favour of the Global North. For instance, the epistemologies of the Global South (Santos, 2014) extant in Indigenous knowledge systems are conspicuously absent in the dominant narratives that define the world.
Breidlid (2009, p. 141) bemoans the Eurocentric denial of any technological or scientific content and method in Indigenous knowledge systems: “Western knowledge and science have played a hegemonic role in the developmental efforts in the South, whereas indigenous knowledge has been characterized as inefficient, old-fashioned and not scientific, and relegated to the realm of insignificance.” In today’s digital era, we suggest, digitization of pedagogies tends to replicate, and not recreate, what is known and validated as legitimate scientific/technological knowledge. Mere digitization without a critical literacy that decentres the embeddedness of technological gadgets is likely to perpetuate the exclusionary practices of the knowledges conveyed.
It is against the above backdrop that we seek to unmask the complicity of technological/digital gadgets with the marginalization of African Indigenous knowledge systems in Zimbabwean higher education. We do so by advancing a critical digital literacy that troubles the taken-for-granted neutrality of technology and digitization in knowledge production and learning in the technology-receiving Global South. We draw from our previous works, “forged in the crucible of the anticolonial struggles against Western European imperialism that deployed racism as a tool to oppress Africans” (Gonye & Moyo, 2018, p. 158), to question the hegemonic educational practices fuelled by Euro-American ideologies under the banner of globalization and its concomitant technologization and digitization of knowledge production and learning. As lecturers stationed at a state university located 300 kilometres south of the capital, Harare, and whose mandate is to drive heritage- and culture-based education, we find ourselves appropriately situated to discuss the interplay of digital hegemony and Indigenous knowledge systems. Since at Great Zimbabwe University we are currently involved in the training of pre-service student teachers and the upgrading of already trained in-service teachers, whose clients are mostly Zimbabwe’s outlying rural primary and secondary schools, we consider the interrogation of the digitization of pedagogy and knowledge at the expense of Indigenous knowledges as critical. In this chapter, we extend and deepen our original analysis to focus primarily on how technology and digitization, by virtue of their origins in the Global North, are deeply implicated in the coloniality of power and knowledge (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018), hence the need to deploy a digitally conscious decolonial pedagogy to counteract their effects. To this end, we have argued for an African critical race theory (Gonye & Moyo, 2018), an African-stance theory that posits the inclusion of African Indigenous knowledge systems as an epistemic insurrectionary practice for unsettling the dominant grammars of knowledge production and epistemological value from the Global North.
The research question that we address in this chapter is how are African (Zimbabwean) Indigenous knowledge systems marginalized, trivialized, and commercialized through digitization and thus deprived of their cultural and liberatory potential? In answering this question, we explore and suggest critical discursive pedagogies aware of the subtle yet real politics of knowledge construction that permeate technology/gadgets and the digitization of knowledge through online learning platforms. Our argument is that the digital affordances of online learning packages and the gadgets themselves ought to be sensitive to the multiplicity of knowledges, cultures, and histories, and even the languages, of the formerly colonized. It is pertinent to note here that African communities in countries such as Nigeria, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, among others, have demonstrated how Indigenous knowledge systems have facilitated their survival in the past and present in terms of agriculture, health, ecosystem maintenance, food preservation, and traditional education.
Our chapter is organized as follows. The introduction has outlined the research problem that informs this study. The next section establishes our positionalities as critical pedagogues in higher education. Then we explain briefly and justify the concept of critical friendship. Our dialogue as critical friends then ensues as we reflect on our research and practice in order to reposition ourselves continually in the face of incoming digital hegemony. Then we deploy a reimagined critical digital pedagogy to interrogate representations of African Indigenous knowledge systems in YouTube in relation to the disciplines in which we teach. The conclusion sums up the strengths and weaknesses of the implementation of a critical digital pedagogy in higher education.
Authors’ Positionality
The critical research approach that we foreground in this chapter recognizes the embodiedness of knowing and is avowedly political (Kress, 2011). This requires that we make explicit our subjectivities and how they are central to the ways in which we research and teach.
Jairos Gonye: Given my literary studies and theories background, I have been fascinated by postcolonial theorists and writers’ act of “appropriating”—be it language, literature, or film—in order to undertake liberatory self-representation. In doing so, I have realized that self-representation does not necessarily bring material empowerment for people of the Global South. As I continue to interrogate the legacies of colonialism as manifested in postcolonial practices, I am even more convinced that there is a need to go beyond the rhetoric—“our African ways were/are also good”—to the act of problematizing how Indigenous knowledge systems are good and sustainable though under threat. Evidence is that digital pedagogy is one of those white normative epistemological promises that needs to be critiqued through African critical digital pedagogy, which interrogates whether these pedagogies can accommodate IKS [Indigenous knowledge systems], be adaptable, or be used sustainably. Thus, my passion is representations of African dance in literature and other media. I have drawn from critics such as bell hooks, Ojeya C. Banks, Brenda D. Gottschild, and Thomas DeFrantz, who reconstruct the denigrated and later commercialized African body as capable of staging its liberation through that body’s dance.
Nathan Moyo: I think of myself as both a colonial and a postcolonial subject, having lived through both the colonial and the postcolonial phases of the Zimbabwean nation. My study of African history at university heightened my awareness of injustice and exclusion and the search for social justice and inclusion. Whose story is being told and to whose benefit informed my fascination with critical disciplinary history. In becoming a teacher and later a teacher educator, I encountered the work of Paulo Freire, among other critical theorists, and have embraced his call for an education for liberation as opposed to an education for domestication. Since then, I have become acutely aware of the power-knowledge axis as central in knowledge selection. Hence, I teach undergraduate history education in ways that highlight the problem of representation in a world that remains painfully hegemonic.
Toward a Shared Understanding of Digital Hegemony
In this section, guided by the logic of critical friendship in research (Carlse, 2019; Costa & Kallick, 1993), we recapture our dialogue through which we reflected on Eurocentric hegemonic practices. This dialogue illustrates our continued search for an alternative global architecture of knowledge that affirms and validates the peoples, cultures, resources, and epistemologies of the Global South. Such an alternative had to resonate with a critical media literacy that would be useful in unpacking (mis)representation via digital gadgets and ubiquitous online learning platforms. Through such critical engagement, we sought to “make sense of complex ideas and construct [our] own understanding” (Storey & Wang, 2017, p. 112) of a reimagined critical and emancipatory pedagogy for the digitally oppressed of the Global South. The dialogue unfolded as follows.
Nathan Moyo [NM]: In our previous co-authored work, we appropriated the term “coloniality of power” to show how colonialism attempted an epistemicide of African Indigenous knowledges through denigration and erasure. In particular, African histories and dance practices were targeted. We have argued for an insurrectionary pedagogical practice that recognizes the politics of knowledge in order to include knowledges still marginalized.
Jairos Gonye [JG]: Yes, in this current context of ubiquitous technologies, I watch with interest how the fight between post-2000 Zimbabwe and Britain and the West has been playing out on the techno-digital front following the Zimbabwe Information Ministry’s decision to harness popular Zimbabwean anticolonial dances such as kongonya through live streaming of all-night musical galas. As you are aware, in 2000 the Zimbabwean government began a program of compulsorily acquiring land that was previously owned by white settlers of mostly British descent, and the program had to be defended digitally. Hence, musicians considered patriotic were/are invited to perform in defiance of the Western European media’s representation of that controversial post-2000 land reform program as racial and human and property rights issues. Some of these dance videos are available on the internet (mmeproductions, 2013; Red Fox Wayout Records, 2012).
Again, Nyaradzo Mtizira, the author of Chimurenga Protocol, satirizes the West’s attempt to control what is disseminated and consumed via digital television through two of his fictional European characters. In the novel, the two characters attempt to control what the viewing public can access on TV by activating the mute mode of the remote control. It is important to recognize that Mtizira recognizes this digital warfare over the airwaves, which, though metaphorical, suggests a self-liberating nation’s attempt to free itself from economic exploitation and cultural hegemony and misrepresentation. Yet, when it comes to institutions of higher learning, the government authorities, seemingly aware of the implicatedness of digital technology, encourage wholesale adoption of Western European technologies and the proliferating mass online pedagogies. Worrisome is that the authorities do not bother to encourage research on the neutrality of these innovations prior to their adoption. It is therefore our responsibility as scholars and educators to carry out research that debunks the seeming neutrality of digital pedagogies. Such critical digital pedagogies could promote a return to and harnessing of IKS.
NM: I agree that it is us critical scholars who should be at the forefront of sensitizing students and the public at large about what you have rightly called the digital hegemony of the West. This resonates with the power-knowledge nexus in the Foucauldian sense. Foucault sees knowledge as imbuing the powerful with the means to control and determine narratives that may later on be accepted as neutral in the same way as digital technologies are currently considered as politically disinterested. So, in advancing a notion of criticality that is apposite, the media representations embedded in the technologies seek to promote regimes of “truth” that define what valid knowledge is. These regimes of truth (otherwise false) are by definition exclusionary and hence likely to exclude epistemologies of the Global South, including IKS. Therefore, our critique should seek to expose the immanent digital hegemony.
JG: Yes, for me, digital hegemony is a reality that pervades the Global South. Digital hegemony means that the recipients and users of digital technologies and platforms such as WhatsApp, Twitter, and Facebook blithely accept that this is the new, universally efficient way of social communication and learning. It becomes hegemony when these users from the Global South fail to question whether access is fair to them all as well as whether such platforms could accommodate their local ways of solving problems, whether the platforms allow real collaborative and critically informed discussions between lecturers, between researchers, and between students and their lecturers and among themselves.
NM: The examples of latest online digital platforms such as WhatsApp and Twitter that you cite above remind me that even the early anthropologists who came to explore Africa used the technological gadgets available to them then. For example, they had voice recorders, then called tape recorders, as well as black-and-white cameras. These anthropologists used these gadgets—in fact, they manipulated their use to tell particular stories. They chose where and when to photograph the Natives so that this would portray the narrative of Africa consistent with what for [Edward] Said was the Occident’s view of the Orient. The same would apply to the stories that they chose to record. At bottom, then, technology, as little developed as it was then, was about purging the African Indigenous practices of their usefulness and authenticity in their contextual circumstances and sanitizing them for the consumption of the West.
JG: I find your last illustration above quite apt as it shows that digital technology is capable of freezing, fossilizing, and putting Indigenous practice into some kind of lab where it can be analyzed through received information and communication technology and from the perspective of the digital owner. Such so-called scientific processes often ignore the worthwhile local knowledges of the object of analysis and dismiss their locally framed practices. Therefore, it is in this context that critical digital pedagogy has the potential to give voice to the receiving southerners so that they could handle the non-neutrality dimension of digitalizing an unequal world. Critical digital pedagogy could be stretched by infusing to it an African critical race theory praxis that could generate debate on how to facilitate the emancipation of Africans from a digital hegemony that came wrapped in information and communication technology. With digital pedagogies that draw from African critical race theory and reclaimed IKS, it would become possible to rethink and promote locally generated solutions. That way we might deepen criticality and collaboratively find solutions to the legacies and new hegemonies that impinge on the production and representation of knowledge in higher education as we teach.
NM: Agreed. I see the challenge as being about how we recreate what we have called transformative uncolonial learning for transformative practices through a critique that exposes the politics of representation implicit in the technologies and consequent digitization of knowledge. As you have already noted above, YouTube has video recordings that reproduce African Indigenous knowledge systems [AIKS] such as stories and dances that could provide an ideal platform for analysis in our respective modules. It would thus be interesting to re-examine them in the context of both history and dance as repositories of AIKS that the West has sought to sanitize digitally in order to make it non-threatening to the neo-liberal hegemony that pervades the Global South.
JG: Yes, digitization in this view is a continuation of the displacement and/or consignment of Indigenous knowledges to the fringes of knowledge. The coming of digital technology follows the beaten path: that is, from the technologically advanced and skilled to those who lack the technology, skills, and competencies to operate and maintain them. Thus, critical digital pedagogy strengthened by our African critical race theory’s emancipatory tenets relevant to the African educator and student would promote critical inquiry. Through collaborative research and discussion, like in our case, many scholars and students could realize that simply accepting digital technologies from the Global North only promotes transfer of knowledge and technology and not generation of locally valid knowledge.
A cursory inspection of how the new digital technologies work convinces me that they have to be appropriated and manipulated first. This should begin with addressing their stubbornness to continually reject or translate the Indigenously informed input that we would have commanded into them (computers), such as our Indigenous mother languages, names, spellings, and syntactic systems. It would also be useful to encourage students to critically analyze how some of the contents and methods that they gain from these internet connectivities illustrate the desire to maintain the Global South as the passive non-negotiating recipient. Thus, critical digital pedagogy and African critical race theory jointly applied might spur the participants to liberate themselves from oppressive and disorienting pedagogies.
Having concluded this dialogue, we agree that critical digital pedagogy could work better if it drew from Indigenous knowledge systems to strengthen the notion of critique in a world where technology has become ubiquitous. Hence, we insist that African critical race theory be the underpinning construct that recognizes the need for technology recipients of the Global South to critique the neutrality of technologies and their embedded digital pedagogies. In the following section, we describe our attempts to enact a critical digital pedagogy in the context of the online representations of AIKS through song as history and then dance representation.
Enacting Critical Digital Pedagogy on Online Representations
The representations that we subject to a digitally conscious critical pedagogy are drawn from YouTube, which most higher education students in the Global South find readily accessible. It is highly likely that some students consume these products in a rather uncritical manner that does not trouble the underlying assumptions of what the representations intend them to think and do. First is an account of the fall of the last Ndebele king, Lobengula, in 1893. King Lobengula’s rule sprawled over what today are the Bulawayo, Matabeleland North and South, as well as parts of the Midlands provinces of Zimbabwe. AIKS, through song, records this episodic event in the lives of the Ndebele nation. The song is entitled “Kudala kwakunganje” (translated to mean “Things were not like this in the past”). Through digitization, this song has been recorded and is available on YouTube (Lezulu, 2020). The lyrics of the song in Ndebele are given below:
Kudala kwakunganje
Umhlaba uyaphenduka
Kwakubusa uMambo Lo Mzilikazi, Sawela
uTshangane saguqa ngamadolo
Inkos’ ULobengula yasinyamala
Kwasekusini izulu
Wasenyamalala.
Translated into English, the song goes thus:
A long time ago, it was not like this
The world changes
Mambo and Mzilikazi ruled
We got to Shangani (river) and knelt down
Then King Lobengula disappeared
It started raining and he disappeared
And he disappeared.
The song recaptures the collapse of the then powerful Matebele kingdom following the British colonization of Zimbabwe. During the battle in 1893 of the Shangani River, the Ndebele Impis with only their spears were defeated because of the superior fire power of the invading British mercenary force. King Lobengula fled and is said to have disappeared. Vanquished, the Ndebele were left to sing this mournful song in remembrance of their fallen kingdom. As such, the song constitutes a specific and painful historical record, yet representations of the song fail to capture the lamentations of a people who have just lost their kingdom and independence as well as the defiant warrior spirit of arguably one of the fiercest precolonial armies. Now, choreographed and sung following the patterns of Eurocentric joyful choral church music, complete with flowery attire and a flamboyant conductor, the representations and cadences of the song are a far cry from the lamentations of a people who had built their nation through valour and bravery in war. Equally lost is the symbolism associated with the “kneeling” associated with the rain. The act of bending the knee could be interpreted as an act of supplication for divine assistance at a time when all hope was lost, with the enemy forces in hot pursuit. Thus, the sombre yet dignified posture of appeal to the divine in readiness to fight to the bitter end is lost. That it then rained is symbolic in three respects. First, the rain flooded the river, leading to the massacre of the invading foreign battalion. Second, the rain that falls after the death of a great man is meant to mark one’s departure from the terrestrial world by erasing the footprints of those who attend the funeral. Third, the rain is a form of welcome into the celestial world. Such an interpretation would be enhanced by reliance on traditional oral repertoire extant in AIKS. This suggests that relying on the digital recapturing alone resembles listening to one side of the story.
For a fuller appreciation, students have to consider critically whether the recording has captured the sense of both loss of and nostalgia for the kingdom as well as the defiant, never-die spirit that seeks a reincarnation of the kingdom. YouTube, like a film, has “a mode of address” (Ellsworth, 1997, p. 7) through which it seeks to position viewers socially. This process makes viewers think in a way that the filmmaker wants them to think. Informed by such modes of address in digital representation, our students tease out how digital reportrayals of historical or cultural events select angles for emphasis in representation. In this case, “the pains of colonialism” (Lunga, 1997, p. 191) are not experienced, thus making the song non-threatening to the neo-liberal epistemological order that prevails.
In developing further our reimagined critical digital pedagogy, we similarly focused on how the function and appreciation of Zimbabwean traditional dances such as jerusarema and mbakumba could be transformed through representation and consumption via online media such as YouTube. The discussion is housed in the “Theories of Literature and Criticism” module. The module is taken by MEd (English) students at our university. The purpose of the module is to enhance students’ appreciation of various literary theories and their application in interpreting cultural/literary representations in which students discuss theoretical concepts such as “framing.” Before delving into a discussion of specific literary theories, we ask students to comment on Zimbabwean traditional dances performed for uploading on YouTube.
Students are expected to interrogate how the producer frames the dance in the same manner that they might engage with how literary artists frame their texts. In the discussion in the April–August 2020 semester—conducted online on WhatsApp because of COVID-19—students worked collaboratively and tweeted responses that resonated with how artists used frames that suited their preferred interpretations of the dances as well as influenced the interpretations of viewers. With such an interactive introduction, students were better prepared to appreciate how the application of theory enhanced their understandings of the form, content, and value of a text. For instance, they would understand better the meaning of judgments such as “this is a pagan form of dance” when they applied a theory that focused more on formal textures. Interestingly, through collaborative interaction, students also realized how the West, represented by UNESCO, had framed the Indigenous African dances as suddenly in danger of extinction, hence the need to record them. Students commented, for instance, on how jerusarema was declared one of UNESCO’s masterpieces of oral and intangible human heritage that needed to be safeguarded, despite the Rhodesian (Rhodesia was the colonial name for Zimbabwe) colonial administrators and missionaries having banned it for being licentious and pagan and promoting idleness (Gonye & Moyo, 2015). This apparently renewed interest has led to uploading on YouTube of performances, even by dancers far removed from the first context of performance, including non-Indigenous dancers and local secular musicians or pupils in modern, out-of-context arenas.
To appreciate the political and cultural import of some traditional dances technologically reclaimed and posted on YouTube, there was a need to reimagine their original performances. That is, in the original lived world, the African/Zimbabwean dancer freely moved her or his body and stamped the ground with energy in sync with prevailing social, political, and cultural functions. It was by defiant performances of the banned dances, particularly jerusarema, in their colonized communities that Africans demonstrated their latent desire for liberation. IKS becomes important in appreciating how one way of defying colonial administration and missionary censure was by expressly emphasizing, in their dance, the sexually suggestive gyrations that the authorities had criticized. Although the picture of a small schoolchild performing an African dance suggests the intention to preserve and sustain it, viewers should wonder whether the pupil understands the underlying meanings considering that the curriculum did not emphasize the teaching of dance functions. For secular and non-Indigenous dancers, the appropriation of traditional dance forms through globalizing digital video facilities illustrates the apparent commercialization and commodification of African traditional dance and does not necessarily celebrate what that performance originally meant. There is a need, therefore, for critically conscious video producers to ensure that what appears on YouTube is not, at best, the sexually appealing African body to be gazed at or, at worst, an insipid, non-politically provocative dance form that viewers in the Global North can consume at ease.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we outlined the need for a critical digital pedagogy that would enable the reimagining of an emancipatory pedagogy couched in African Indigenous knowledge systems and, at the same time, interrupt what we, as the researchers, conceive as a digital hegemony stalking the Global South in the wake of global digitization. Being largely meditative and reflective, the chapter presented our ongoing engagement with oppressive epistemologies and negative frames from the Global North that find their way through a non-critical digital pedagogy. We found the term “digital hegemony” to be more useful in describing the condition that the Global South finds itself in rather than the usual term “digital divide.”
To tease out the subtle power of digital technologies, we re-examined how digital reportrayals of African historical events and traditional practices demonstrated the salient features of digital hegemony. We found that analyses of both digital recreations of actual African historical moments and traditional dances resonated with the question that Johnson (2014, p. 20) poses: “Who does this film (video) think I am, and am I willing to be that person?” We argued that some YouTube uploads, such as the song “Kudala kwakunganje,” are imbued with a framing that privileges certain social positions that disempower viewers in the digitally receiving Global South. This calls for a critical digital pedagogy that exhorts African scholars/educators and students to draw from local theories, such as African critical race theory, as they negotiate new knowledges and pedagogies such as those assumed in new digital and online platforms. Such African-informed critical digital pedagogies, we suggest, can help to address the perennial question of the marginalization of AIKS in Zimbabwean institutions of higher learning, which have shown an increasing appetite for digital technologies and pedagogies. In short, we believe that such all-embracing pedagogies can promote sensitive inclusivity that respects the multiplicity of cultures with multifarious forms of equally valuable Indigenous knowledge systems; at the same time, they emancipate students and scholars from the encroaching digital hegemony.
It is our wish, therefore, that the students whom we teach (both practising in-service and pre-service student teachers) appreciate more the implicated nature of the digitization of pedagogy in African countries such as Zimbabwe. Armed with an African-inspired critical digital pedagogy, our graduating teachers might be able to promote, among their young learners in Zimbabwe’s primary and secondary schools, an understanding that there are hidden meanings to what they have been offered/are being offered via seemingly neutral and progressive digital platforms. Drawing from an African critical race theory, our students and readers in general can find ways to integrate digital technologies and their assumed knowledges, and AIKS, to level the epistemic field that for long has been tilted unfavourably against African epistemologies and technologies. It is therefore incumbent on us to empower the young generation of learners, at the mercy of digital hegemony, to reflect critically on the implicatedness of technology. This we do by encouraging them to interrogate dialogically—as they interact with—saliently powerful and ideologically framed technologies from the Global North.
Key Takeaways
- Digital technology/digitization is politically implicated in the production/reproduction of knowledge and learning.
- Critical digital pedagogy can disrupt the subtle hegemonic and oppressive tendencies of technology.
- Representations of Indigenous knowledge systems through online technologies such as YouTube tend to be sanitized and rendered non-disruptive or offensive to persistent neo-liberal hegemony.
- Decolonial pedagogy informed by African critical race theory works to encourage African learners to trust their Indigenous knowledge systems.
- Teachers exposed to critical digital pedagogy might reflect more critically on how they work with technology in their engagements with learners.
References
Breidlid, A. (2009). Culture, Indigenous knowledge systems and sustainable development: A critical view of education in an African context. International Journal of Educational Development, 29, 140–148.
Carsle, J. E. (2019). Writing centre consultants as critical friends. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 57, 183–194. https://doi.org/10.5842/57-0-817.
Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 49–51.
de Sousa Santos, B. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Paradigm Publishers.
Ellsworth, E. (1997). Teaching positions: Difference, pedagogy, and the power of address. Teachers College.
Freire, P. (1990). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
Gonye, J., & Moyo, N. (2015). Traditional African dance education as curriculum reimagination in Zimbabwe: A rethink of policy and practice of dance education in the primary schools. Research in Dance Education, 16(3), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647893.2015.1036020.
Gonye, J., & Moyo, N. (2018). African dance as an epistemic insurrection in postcolonial Zimbabwean arts education curriculum. In A. Kraehe, R. Gaztambide-Fernández, & B. Carpenter II (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of race and the arts in education (pp. 157–174). Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnson, T.R. (2014). The other side of pedagogy: Lacan’s four discourses and the development of the student writer. State University of New York Press.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy. Peter Lang.
Köseoğlu, S., & Bozkurt, A. (2018). #DigPed narratives in education: Critical perspectives on power and pedagogy. Online Learning, 22(3), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i3.1370.
Kress, T. M. (2011). Stepping out of the academic brew: Using critical research to break down hierarchies of knowledge production. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(3), 267–283.
Lezulu, I. (2020, April 30). Kudala kwakunganje [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=074QW74Fy8I.
Lunga, V. B. (1997). An examination of African postcolonial experience of language, culture and identity: Amakhosi Theatre AkoBulawayo, Zimbabwe. Amakhosi Theatre.
Mitova, V. (2020). Decolonising knowledge here and now. Philosophical Papers, 49(2), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/05568641.2020.1779606.
mmeproductions. (2013, October 19). Sister Constance live @ Zim Dance Gala @33 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gtupRtlIVg.
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. (2018). Epistemic freedom in Africa. Taylor & Francis.
Red Fox Wayout Records. (2012, December 12). Mic Inity at Unity Gala 2012 Gokwe Centre [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzuK6pXDC2w.
Storey, V., & Wang, V. (2017). Critical friends protocol andragogy and learning in a graduate classroom. Adult Learning, 28(3), 107–114.
We use cookies to analyze our traffic. Please decide if you are willing to accept cookies from our website. You can change this setting anytime in Privacy Settings.