Abstract
International comparative research on civil society has subordinated Africa’s diversity and specificities to other geographies
and histories. Results are prejudiced global conceptualisations, questionable enumeration, problematic theory formulation
and ill-conceived approaches to development initiatives intended to make African civil society ‘stronger’ and states more
democratic. This article sets out a case for an endogenous approach to civil society enquiry as a political category sensitive
to the continent’s particularisms. In order to locate discussion about meanings, measures and measuring, a conceptual framework
for research is described which avoids conflation with other epistemologies. Such a contribution will assist in sharpening
thinking and discussion about the boundary characteristics of what is to be investigated.
and histories. Results are prejudiced global conceptualisations, questionable enumeration, problematic theory formulation
and ill-conceived approaches to development initiatives intended to make African civil society ‘stronger’ and states more
democratic. This article sets out a case for an endogenous approach to civil society enquiry as a political category sensitive
to the continent’s particularisms. In order to locate discussion about meanings, measures and measuring, a conceptual framework
for research is described which avoids conflation with other epistemologies. Such a contribution will assist in sharpening
thinking and discussion about the boundary characteristics of what is to be investigated.
- Content Type Journal Article
- Category Original Paper
- Pages 1-21
- DOI 10.1007/s11266-011-9239-8
- Authors
- Alan Fowler, International Institute for Social Studies, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Journal Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations
- Online ISSN 1573-7888
- Print ISSN 0957-8765