Thematic Article
African ecologies: literary, cultural, and religious perspectives – introduction
, , ,Abstract
This article offers an introduction to the special section about the theme of ‘African Ecologies: Literature, Culture and Religion’. It explores the current interdisciplinary field of scholarship on ecology, environment, and climate change in Africa, mapping contributions from across the Humanities and the Social and Environmental Sciences. The article positions this special section in this ever-expanding body of literature, specifically deploying the notion of ‘African ecologies’ as a heuristic lens to examine how the relationship and interaction between living organisms, including humans, and the natural environment is conceived. It argues that social, cultural, literary, and religious ecology provide vital perspectives to enrich and expand the understanding of African ecologies, thereby expanding inventories of possibilities as climate change response pathways. (This article is published in the thematic collection ‘African ecologies: literary, cultural and religious perspectives’, edited by Adriaan van Klinken, Simon Manda, Damaris Parsitau and Abel Ugba.)
Keywords
Africaecologyenvironmentclimate changereligioncultureliteratureCopyright statement © The author(s) 2024. This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License
Cite this article van Klinken, A., Manda, S., Parsitau, D. & Ugba, A. (2024), ‘African ecologies: literary, cultural, and religious perspectives – introduction’, Journal of the British Academy, 12(1/2): a15 https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/012.a15

No Data Found

No Data Found

No Data Found
In the current era of peak youth, young people’s voices and authentic participation are needed more than ever. This article focuses on how youth participation in research can enhance wider understanding of young people’s experiences, perspectives and solutions, while also empowering young people. There is an established tradition of engaging young people and children with the qualitative research process, ranging from youth focussed research to youth-led participatory action research. Within this we occupy a middle ground, arguing for the need to create heterotopic spaces for participation in which both young researchers and professional researchers learn from one another’s expertise. Mindful of the roadblocks to authentic participation, this article systematically approaches engaging young people at six critical stages in the research process, namely: setting the framework; question design; data collection; analysis; validation; and sharing results for discussion and action. Youth co-research offers methodological rigour grounded in a reconceptualization of where expertise can be found, a committed approach to research training and youth empowerment, greater access to hard-to-reach groups of young people and data validity built upon close engagement with young researchers. To demonstrate our approach, we share in this article three youth co-research case studies, which focus on young people experiencing climate change disruptions in Uganda, young people impacted by COVID-19 in Indonesia and Nepal and a youth think tank convened between East, West and Southern Africa. The rigour and value of youth-engaged qualitative methodologies can benefit young people, as well as the academics, policymakers and NGOs with whom they work.
We explore how the government’s messaging on COVID-19 pandemic response perpetuated mistrust and impeded people’s ability to access and utilise sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services. While the need for SRH information increased, public health messages fostered mistrust in sexual and reproductive health services. We draw on in-depth interviews and focus group discussions conducted among women, girls, and healthcare providers in five African countries (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, and Uganda) between May and October 2021. We show how trust was largely eroded through preventive measures, such as stay-at-home directives, social distancing, curfews, and lockdowns. We argue that, on one hand, while state-led epidemic preparedness and response were geared towards the common good, i.e., controlling the virus, on the other hand, de-prioritisation of much-needed services for sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), as well as a lack of transparency among some of the service providers, bred mistrust in healthcare. We conclude that ambiguity in communication and implementation of COVID-19 prevention measures further compromised access to and utilisation of sexual and reproductive health services.

No Data Found
