Abstract
One of the most critical tasks we have as political scientists is to find ways to communicate the social phenomena we observe, and we do this through the process of conceptualisation. The process of capturing social meaning is imprecise, subjective, power laden, and often problematic. This chapter therefore explores the idea of decolonising the conceptualisation process within International Relations as it allows more voices to emerge in the construction and use of concepts.
The first section explores the concept of ‘empowerment’ within Western academia and how knowledge of and narratives surrounding concepts has been developed. The second section outlines a participatory illustration tool which has been developed to assist in the facilitation of strong narratives around concepts and ultimately identify more holistic and culturally relevant understandings around the concept of ‘empowerment’. After detailing the tool itself, the final section will explore the conceptual construction of ‘empowerment’ in relation to the cases of Kenya and Morocco. We conclude with a discussion about the complication and challenging of dominant discourses around ‘empowerment’ as a neoliberal construction.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Despite the unique mix of faculty represented in each university, little variation can be found in their pedagogies alone. For example, curriculum for University in Quito and UF demonstrate similar themes for the education of their students including peace and conflict, etc., mission statement, reflect identical approaches (See: https://www.flacso.edu.ec/portal/academico/detalle/especializacion/estudios-internacionales-2018-2021.135 and UF Curriculum).
- 2.
By ‘development inquiry’, we contend with the methodological dimensions of research. In other words, the business of gathering and interpreting field data that can be used to inform development projects. This differs, for example, from interpretations of development inquiry that take on a more conceptual and critical lens.
- 3.
Harriot Beazley and Judith Ennew provide a summary and analysis of participatory methods and approaches used in development inquiry in Doing Development Research (Desai & Potter, 2006).
- 4.
There are a number of identity cleavages that would be appropriate to organise participant group discussions. Depending on the concept and topic of interest, it may also be important to organise participant groups by religion, ethnicity, political ideology, or any number of factors that may be particularly salient to the study at hand. This methodology is detailed in greater discussion in McOmber et al. (2022).
Bibliography
Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2007). Why is there no non-western international relations theory? An introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific., 7(3), 287–312.
Alejandro Leal, P. (2007). Participation: The ascendancy of a buzzword in the neo-liberal era. Development in Practice, 17(4–5), 539–548.
Alkire, S., Meinzen-Dick, R., Peterman, A., Quisumbing, A., Seymour, G., & Vaz, A. (2013). The women’s empowerment in agriculture index. World Development, 52, 71–91.
Alsop, R., Frost Bertelsen, M., & Holland, J. (2006). Empowerment in practice: From analysis to implementation. World Bank Publications.
Anghie, A. (2006). Decolonizing the concept of good governance. In Gruffydd Jones, B. (Ed.) Decolonizing international relations, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD (pp.109–30).
Auer, M. (2000). Who participates global environmental governance? Partial answers from international relations theory. Policy Sciences, 33(2), 155–180.
Batliwala, S. (2007). Taking the power out of empowerment—An experiential account. Development in Practice, 17(4–5), 557–565.
Bexell, M. (2012). Global governance, gains and gender: UN–business partnerships for women’s empowerment. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 14(3), 389–407.
Bleiker, R. (2001). The aesthetic turn in international political theory. Millennium, 30(3), 509–533.
Callahan, W. A. (2015). The visual turn in IR: Documentary filmmaking as a critical method. Millennium, 43(3), 891–910.
Campbell, J. (2002). A critical appraisal of participatory methods in development research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5(1), 19–29.
Chambers, R. (1994). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development, 22(7), 953–969.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the first last, Whose reality counts? Putting the first last (p. 320). Intermediate Technology Publications.
Chambers, R. (2006). Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: Whose map? Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 25(1), 1–11.
Chambers, R. (2009). So that the poor count more: Using participatory methods for impact evaluation. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 1(3), 243–246.
Chant, S. (2000). Men in crisis? Reflections on masculinities, work and family in north-west Costa Rica. The European Journal of Development Research, 12(2), 199–218.
Connell, R. (2012). Gender, health and theory: Conceptualizing the issue, in local and world perspective. Social Science & Medicine, 74(11), 1675–1683.
Cornwall, A. (2007). Buzzwords and fuzzwords: Deconstructing development discourse. Development in Practice, 17(4–5), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520701469302
Desai, V., & Potter, R. (Eds.). (2006). Doing development research. Sage.
Djebar, A. (2003). Writing in the language of the other. In Isabelle de Courtivron. (Ed), Lives in Translation: Bilingual writers on identity and creativity.. Palgrave McMillan
Enloe, C. (1989). Bananas, beaches and bases: Making feminist sense of international politics. Pandora.
Escobar, A. (2010). Latin America at a crossroads: Alternative modernizations, post-liberalism, or post-development? Cultural Studies, 24(1), 1–65.
Escobar, A. (2012). Ontology of design (Unpublished Manuscript). University of North Carolina. http://sawyerseminar.ucdavis.edu/files/2012/12/ESCOBAR_Notes-on-the-Ontology-of-Design-Parts-I-II-_-III.pdf
Fals-Borda, O., & Rahman, M. A. (1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with participatory action research. Intermediate Technology Publications.
Freire, P. (1970). Cultural action and conscientization. Harvard Educational Review: September 1970, 40(3), 452–477.
Friedman, J. (1992). Empowerment: The politics of alternative development. Blackwell.
Galligan, D. J. (2015). Concepts the currency of social understanding of law: A review essay on the later work of Willing Twining. Oxford of Legal Studies, 35(2), 373–401.
Gaventa, J. (1980). Power and powerlessness. University of Illinois Press.
Glaw, X., Inder, K., Kable, A., & Hazelton, M. (2017). Visual methodologies in qualitative research: Autophotography and photo elicitation applied to mental health research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1).
Harman, S. (2018). Making the invisible visible in international relations: Film, co-produced research and transnational feminism. European Journal of International Relations, 24(4), 791–813.
Hoffman, S. (1977). An American social science: International relations. Daedalus, 106(3), 41–60.
Hyde, S. (2015). Experiments in international relations: Lab, survey, and field. Annual Review of Political Science, 18, 403–424.
Kabeer, N. (2000). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development and Change, 30, 435–464.
Law, J. (2004) After method: Mess in social science research. Routledge.
Literat, I. (2013). “A pencil for your thoughts”: Participatory drawing as a visual research method with children and youth. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 84–98.
Lukes, S. (1986). Power. New York University Press.
Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view. Palgrave Macmillan.
Malapit, H.J., Sproule, K., Kovarik, C., Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A., Ramzan, F., Hogue, E., & Alkire, S. (2014). Measuring progress toward Empowerment: Women’s empowerment in agriculture index: Baseline report.
McOmber, C. (2018). The feminization of rural space: Exploring gender, power, and demographic change in Africa [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida] University of Florida Digital Collections.
McOmber C., McNamara, K., & McKune, S. L. (2022). Community concept drawing: A participatory visual method for incorporating local knowledge into conceptualization. Field Methods (forthcoming 2022)
Menon, N. (2015). Is feminism about “women”? A critical view on intersectionality from India. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(17), 37–44.
Mosedale, S. (2014). Women’s empowerment as a development goal: Taking a feminist standpoint. Journal of International Development, 26(8), 1115–1125.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001) Rethinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Blackwell Publishers.
O’Hara, C., & Clement, F. (2018). Power as agency: A critical reflection on the measurement of women’s empowerment in the development sector. World Development, 106, 111–123.
Oren, I. (1995). The subjectivity of the “democratic” peace: Changing US perceptions of imperial Germany. International Security, 20(2), 147–184.
Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087.
Oxaal, Z., & Baden, S. (1997). Gender and empowerment: Definitions, approaches and implications for policy. (Report No. 40). Institute of Development Studies
Pan, C. (2018). Toward a new relational ontology in global politics: China’s rise as holographic transition. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific., 18(3), 339–367.
Picq, M. L. (2013). Critics at the edge? Decolonizing methodologies in International Relations. International Political Science Review, 34(4), 444–455.
Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G. S., Schneider, F., Speranza, C. I., Kiteme, B., Boillat, S., Serrano, E., Hirsch Hadorn, G., & Wiesmann, U. (2010). Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: Experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Science in Public Policy, 34(4), 267–281.
Querejazu, A. (2016). Encountering the Pluriverse: Looking for alternatives in other worlds. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 59 (2).
Rasch, E. D., & Köhne, M. (2016). Micropolitics in resistance: The micropolitics of large-scale natural resource extraction in South East Asia. Society & Natural Resources, 29 (4), 479–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1086458
Richards, N. (2011). Using participatory visual methods. Realities at the Morgan Centre, pp. 1–8. https://www.representingageing.com. Accessed 30 November 2020.
Sanín-Restrepo, R. (2016). Decolonizing democracy: Power in a solid state. Rowman & Littlefield.
Sen, G. (2019). Gender equality and women’s empowerment: Feminist mobilization for the SDGs. Global Policy, 10, 28–38.
Sharma, A. (2008). Logics of empowerment: Development, gender, and governance in Neoliberal India. University of Minnesota Press.
Solomon, T., & Steele, B. J. (2017). Micro-moves in international relations theory. European Journal of International Relations, 23(2), 267–291.
Syed, J. (2010). Reconstructing gender empowerment. Women’s studies international forum (Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 283–294). Pergamon.
Tickner, A. B., & Blaney, D. L. (Eds.). (2013) Thinking international relations differently. Routledge.
Tucker, K. (2018). Unraveling Coloniality in international relations: knowledge, relationality, and strategies for engagement. International Political Sociology., 12(3), 215–232.
World Bank. 2006. Gender equality as smart economics’: A World bank group gender action plan. World Bank.
Zanotti, L. (2013). Governmentality, ontology, methodology: Re-thinking political agency in the global world. Alternatives, 38(4), 288–304.
Addtional Readings
Batliwala, S. (2007). Taking the power ot of empowerment—An experiential account. Development in Practice, 17(4–5), 557–565.
Bleiker, R. (2019). Writing visual global politics: In defence of a pluralist approach—A response to Gabi Schlag, “Thinking and writing visual global politics.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society,32 (1), 115–123.
Callahan, W. A. (2015). The visual turn in IR: Documentary filmmaking as a critical method. Journal of International Studies, 43(3), 891–910.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the first last, Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. pp. 320.
Cornwall, A.. & Eade, D. (2010). Deconstructing development discourse: Buzzwords and Fuzzwords. In Cornwall, A. & Eade, D. (Eds.), Dictionary of gems and gemology. Practical Action Publishing in association with Oxfam GB. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/28921707/deconstructing-development-buzzwords.pdf?1349342419=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DParticipation_the_ascendancy_of_a_buzzwo.pdf&Expires=1605287819&Signature=MgZYVJFpIx~7fO0PZo1E28jlDa-mJKZ, accessed November 13, 2020.
Kessler, O., & Guillaume, X. (2012). Everyday practices of international relations: People in organizations. Journal of International Relations and Development, 15(1), 110–120.
Möller, F., & Shim, D. (2019). Visions of peace in international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 20(3), 246–264.
Querejazu, A. (2016). Encountering the Pluriverse: Looking for alternatives in other worlds, Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 59(2).
Tucker, K. (2018). Unraveling coloniality in international relations: Knowledge, relationality, and strategies for engagement. International Political Sociology, 12(3), 215–232.
Primary Sources
Focus Group Participants. (2014, October 20). Young Women’s Focus Group in Village B, Morocco.
Focus Group Participants. (2015, May 18). Elderly Women’s Focus Group in Village A, Kenya.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Classroom Activities
Classroom Activities
Classroom Exercise 1
Use an abbreviated version of the CCD method to explore the plural understandings of empowerment within the classroom.
Objective: To understand how individual experiences, beliefs, and knowledge can shape diverse understandings of a concept within and among a community.
- 1.
Ask students to draw what an empowered woman looks like in their community (however they define ‘community’, acknowledging that students may have different understandings of what that means). Ask students probing questions:
What does her physical appearance look like?
What does her family look like?
What do her assets look like?
What does she do for work?
What does she do for fun? What does her social life and networks look like?
What are her roles and responsibilities in the community, her workplace, her family?
Is there any other component that we have not already discussed that makes this woman empowered? If so, draw that now.
Of all the things that you have drawn here, what are the three most important in determining that this woman is empowered in the context of your community.
- 2.
Now students will pair with another classmate in order to share what they drew and to compare their illustrations. Consider these questions as they compare:
Describe the ‘community’ setting that this empowered woman is meant to represent?
What were the three most important factors in determining each woman’s empowerment?
What is similar between your drawings? Discuss why you think these similarities exist in your drawings.
What is different between your drawings? Discuss why you think these differences exist in your drawings.
Was anything surprising in your partner’s drawings? Discuss why this was surprising to you.
- 3.
Now return together as a class and have partner groups report to the class what they illustrated, and what they learned from their partner’s illustrations. Develop a list of similar and differing indicators of empowerment. Discuss why these similarities and differences exist within the classroom community.
- 4.
Discuss how plurality in concept formation exists in real-life contexts. What are some instances where the concepts we use in International Relations do not always represent local interpretations of the concept? What is the potential effect of this? What is the potential harm of this? Do scholars and practitioners within International Relations have a responsibility to acknowledge and incorporate local knowledge into the concepts and the policies that emerge from them?
Classroom Activity 2
Learning to critically analyse the roots and implications of concepts within IR.
Objective: To critically engage with prominent concepts within IR, and to understand how to form more effective concepts that speak to diverse experiences and foster an ontological pluralism within the discipline.
- 1.
In small groups, students brainstorm components that produce effective concepts within IR. The class then comes together to share those components as a class. Students thendiscuss and deliberate over which components are required for effective conceptualisation within IR.
- 2.
As a class or in small groups, students explore and discuss examples of well-defined and poorly defined concepts. What makes such concepts effective or not? What is their explanatory power in diverse contexts?
- 3.
Instructor will identify a concept prominent in IR (e.g., democracy, nationalism, cooperation, terrorism). Students will (individually or in small groups) analyse this concept by (a) identifying critical attributes of the concept, (b) researching the way that scholars define this concept, (c) identifying normative assumptions associated with the concept, and (d) creating their own definition of the concept.
- 4.
Students will come together to share and discuss their findings as a class, comparing their conceptual definitions with other groups.
- 5.
End class with discussion about the ways that language perpetuates colonial legacies in our world today. Discuss the ways in which concepts are created and utilised can either promote or breakdown colonial legacies. Finally, as a class, discuss ways to remedy the potential harm that may come from such colonial legacies within concepts used by IR.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McOmber, C., McNamara, K. (2022). Decolonising Empowerment in Africa: Illustration as a Tool. In: Cooke, S. (eds) Non-Western Global Theories of International Relations. Palgrave Studies in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84938-2_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84938-2_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84937-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-84938-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)