Reimagining Indigenised social work in Uganda: Voices of practitioners

Abstract

Using thematic analysis, this study examined social workers’ (n = 21) descriptions of what Indigenised social work practice in Uganda entails. Responses from semi-structured interviews revealed the following three themes that inform social workers’ understanding of Indigenised social work practice: (1) collective action and mutuality, (2) communal welfare and respect for life and (3) liberation and restoration. The discussion aims at understanding the hallmarks of each description in relation to the notions of Indigenised social work as culturally inclusive and responsive practice, developmental social work and political action.

Introduction

In the last four decades, social work scholars have longed for Indigenised social work to effectively address social problems in the global south (Gray and Coates, 2010; Rankopo and Osei-Hwedie, 2011). This enthusiasm emerges from the following two sources: first, the obvious mismatch between social work skills, methods and practices in the global south that use Western models and concepts of social work, and the social problems that they seek to address (Kee, 2008). It is said that such social work skills, methods and practices fail to address challenges of poverty, oppression, corruption and human rights abuses that are predominant in developing countries (Gray and Simpson, n.d.). Second, the Western social work principles and values sometimes conflict with non-Western cultures and philosophies (Midgley, 1981). Hence, social work scholars see Indigenised social work as a better alternative for responding to the local conditions (Ugiagbe, 2014).

Literature presents Indigenised social work in the following three central themes: first, as a social work approach that attempts to promote cultural relevance and culturally specific knowledge and practices (Gray and Coates, 2010; Rankopo and Osei-Hwedie, 2011). This understanding is driven by the idea that social work is not a universal profession, given the differences in contexts and cultures across the globe. It should rather emerge within the culture, reflect local behaviours and practices, and be interpreted within a local frame of reference (Gray et al., 2008). In this case, Indigenised social work strives to tailor social work theories and approaches to the needs and cultures of Indigenous societies (Gray and Coates, 2010). Second, Indigenised social work is construed as a movement within social work to counter colonisation (Gray et al., 2008; Rankopo and Osei-Hwedie, 2011). This view emanates from the perception that social work is a modernist Western invention that silences Indigenous voices. Thus, proponents of Indigenised social work are critical of the illusion that the West is the centre of legitimate knowledge and an arbiter of what is regarded as knowledge (Gray, 2005). Therefore, Indigenised social work is intended to safeguard against cultural standardisation and professional imperialism.

Third, Indigenised social work is presented as an approach that re-examines knowledge, theories and practices imposed by Western forms of social work to deconstruct the Western ethnocentric views that epitomise the social work profession (Yunong and Xiong, 2008). This includes decolonising social work education to mainstream local realities, cultures, beliefs and social milieu into social work studies (Ibrahima and Mattaini, 2017). This article agrees with Gray and Coates (2010) that Indigenised social work is about developing theory, research and practice by analysing locality-specific, culturally relevant social work practices and research within a globalising world. In this article, Indigenised social work adapts imported ideas to fit local needs (Gray and Coates, 2010) such that different marginalised voices and Indigenous knowledge inform social work practice. It appreciates the universalisation of social work values and assumes that these can be modified to attain localised social work practice. However, Indigenous peoples predate colonialism; hence, all people in Africa who originated on the continent before the colonisation process of the 19th and 20th centuries are Indigenous peoples (Breidlid and Krøvel, 2020). This excludes all whites and non-whites (Arabs in the Maghreb, the Dutch and Indians) who trace their ancestry to continents other than Africa (Mapara, 2017).

The foregoing demonstrates that Indigenised social work is well explained within social work scholarship. Notably missing, however, are empirical studies exploring the features of Indigenised social work practice. This has delayed its application. To cover this research gap, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore social workers’ perspectives on the features of Indigenised social work practice in Uganda to provide a fair picture of what Indigenised social work practice entails, to facilitate its application in the country. The study presents social workers’ experiences and, in their own voices, descriptions of Indigenised social work practice.

Indigenised social work practice and some conceptual considerations

Indigenised social work practice is usually associated with culturally inclusive and responsive practice, developmental social work and political actions (Gray et al., 2008; Hochfeld, 2002).

Culturally inclusive and responsive practice

Proliferating literature suggests that Indigenised social work practice is culturally inclusive and responsive (Gray et al., 2013), underpinned by Indigenous peoples’ cultures, knowledge and worldviews (Hurdle, 2002). To that effect, Gray and Allegritti (2002) opine that culture is the fulcrum of Indigenisation. This implies that culture is a powerful tool for addressing local problems and understanding the African world. This kind of thinking fostered an opinion that social work roles must be made appropriate to the cultural needs of a particular society where they are being practised (Okoye, 2014). This implies that social work practice ought to be country specific, since different countries have different cultures, worldviews and orientations. Indeed, this narrative has dominated the discussion about Indigenised social work practice in Africa, where it is linked to the ubuntu worldview (Mugumbate and Nyanguru, 2013). Ubuntu as an African philosophy implies that community strength is derived from community support and that human dignity and social functioning are attained through the values of mutualism, empathy, reconciliation, caring, wholeness and harmony (Swanson, 2007). This philosophy originated in sub-Saharan Africa and is widely held across African countries, though under different names (see Mugumbate and Chereni, 2019). It forms part of the Indigenous knowledge and wisdom of how African communities should live regardless of differences in history, language and culture. The goal of ubuntu is to bind people together and enhance connectedness between all peoples at all levels (Mugumbate and Nyanguru, 2013).

Ubuntu is increasingly relevant in Indigenising social work practice. For example, the collectivist values that underlie ubuntu are used to design programmes to support equitable distribution of resources, inclusive governance that is critical in maintaining peace and poverty reduction (Rankopo and Osei-Hwedie, 2011). Ubuntu values have also guided the development of social welfare policies in South Africa, Botswana and Zambia (Mupedziswa et al., 2019). More significantly, the ubuntu notion that emphasises that problems must be addressed using a communal approach has revitalised community practice underpinned by social planning, social action and community development interventions designed in accordance with the cultural values.

Developmental social work as an Indigenised practice

Developmental social work is another conceptual framework that attempts to explain Indigenised social work practice, particularly in the context of sub-Saharan Africa (Hochfeld, 2002; Patel and Hochfeld, 2012). Developmental social work practices are people-centred, multidimensional and macro-level interventions intended to alleviate poverty and social injustices (Gray et al., 2018). This approach emerges from the recognition that for developmental efforts to be meaningful and impactful, people should partake in the matters that concern them. It is multisectoral, since poverty itself is multidimensional. Gray et al. (2018) suggest that developmental social work exploits people’s collective capabilities to develop appropriate solutions. They further argue that in a multisectoral approach, social workers collaborate with other professionals in sectors like agriculture, infrastructural development, education and primary healthcare. Hence, social workers operate as brokers between service providers and service users. Given the nature of developmental social work, rights based approaches, democracy and participation, and income generation and micro-enterprises are its major features (Lombard, 2008). Developmental social work is seen as an Indigenised social work practice, especially when contrasted with the remedial models of social work, because it mobilises, empowers and organises local communities to influence local development.

Political action as an element of Indigenised social work practice

Literature maintains that Indigenised social work practice has political overtones (Gray et al., 2008), premised on the notion that Indigenised and/or Indigenous social work intends to reclaim the position of Indigenous people and challenge governance deficits that lead to poverty, social exclusion and poor service delivery. Hughes (2003) provides a compelling explanation of the political nature of Indigenised social work. To Hughes, Indigenised social work practice includes Indigenous peoples claiming their rights, self-rule and self-expression. Briskman (2014) argues further that Indigenised social work practice is by nature political, since it is underpinned by the principles of human rights and social justice. Like Hughes, Briskman acknowledges that Indigenous people are challenging domination and colonialism to attain self-rule. In Africa, Indigenised social work is a deliberate political process framed within the discourse of human rights and social justice to challenge state policies that marginalise local people in economic, social and cultural terms (Spitzer, 2017). This develops from the reluctance of most governments in this continent to acknowledge political and legal rights of Indigenous communities. Social work-guided political action with Indigenous communities has been supported by civil society organisations in some countries like Rwanda, Burundi, Cameroon, Morocco and Chad. In these countries, efforts have been made to demand representation of Twa people in the National Assembly in Burundi, recognise the rights of ‘pygmies’ in Cameroon, compensate and resettle Indigenous people affected by the pipeline construction in Chad and Cameroon and reinstate teaching of the Berber language in schools in Morocco (Mutume, 2007).

Methods

Research context

The study was conducted in Uganda in the five districts of Luwero, Wakiso, Gulu, Jinja and Hoima, representing the central, eastern, northern and western regions, respectively. The selection of these districts was intended to provide a rich account of the perceptions of Indigenised social work. Social work as a profession in this country was introduced in the early 1950s by the British colonial administration to address the challenges of urbanisation (Wamara, 2017). The introduction of probation services, child protection and community development services necessitated the employment of professional social workers. In 1952, the British colonial administration established the Nsamizi Training Institute for Social Development to train and professionalise social workers (Wamara and Carvalho, 2019). This was followed by the Department of Social Work and Social Administration at Makerere University in 1963 to offer pre-service and in-service training in social welfare. At the time of writing, 22 institutions of higher learning in Uganda were offering an entry-level degree in social work (National Council for Higher Education, 2020).

The main social work approaches in the country include the therapeutic approach, which focuses on addressing social problems like domestic violence, child abuse and mental health issues through psychosocial support. Another common social work approach is that of community development, which involves poverty reduction interventions, adult education and use of self-help groups to engender community resilience and empowerment. This is done through community-based organisations and government social services workers employed at the subcounty level as Community Development Officers (CDOs). However, a few social service workers have a formal qualification in social work due to lack of licensing mechanisms (Wamara and Carvalho, 2019). The structural social work approach, which focuses on questioning political choices and challenging governance deficiencies, is just emerging. Indigenised social work is equally emerging in the country, mainly due to the growing push for culturally relevant interventions (Twikirize et al., 2019). It has delayed taking shape because the current social work education curriculum is based on Western models, which do not recognise post-colonial theories and models of social work. It also lacks clarity on what it entails and how it should be implemented.

Research design and data collection methods

A qualitative approach informed this study, since the paradigm allows researchers to discover the participants’ perspectives and, further, to figure out how meanings are shaped (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). In-depth semi-structured interviews were used to gain a detailed account of the respondents’ perspectives through follow-up questions (Patton, 2002). In addition, the study used telephone interviews to obtain responses from three social workers, because of the COVID-19 pandemic. A set of three interview questions were developed to guide the interviews, seeking to reveal what social workers regarded as Indigenised social work practices, to gather social workers’ descriptions of Indigenised social work and to learn what concepts would describe Indigenised social work practice.

Sampling procedures

Purposive sampling was employed to identify respondents for this study. According to Maxwell (2013), purposive sampling provides useful information through selecting willing people with the required knowledge and experience. To find genuine and willing participants, the principal investigator liaised with the Chief Administrative Officers and Directors of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). For government-employed participants, the Chief Administrative Officers directed the District Community Development Officers (DCDOs) to contact social workers in their departments about participating in the study. The Directors of NGOs also contacted social workers in their organisations and shared the contacts. The principal investigator contacted all the respondents before the interviews to provide detailed explanations about the study. The study considered only individuals with training and with at least a bachelor’s degree in social work, and who willingly provided consent. All the 21 social workers, comprising 10 men and 11 women, who agreed to participate in the study were interviewed between January and September 2020. Thirteen of the interviewed social workers worked with NGOs, while eight worked with the government as CDOs.

Data analysis

Participants’ descriptions were analysed using thematic analysis to determine the relevant themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The principal investigator transcribed the audiotapes verbatim to ensure no relevant data were omitted. All the authors read the descriptions severally to identify possible themes. We identified similarities in descriptions, for example, those with features like ‘solidarity’ and ‘interconnectedness’. We realised that such descriptions indicated wider themes. We further read the transcripts multiple times, and created a table in Microsoft Excel to capture raw data, categories and themes and to ensure consistency in the identified categories and themes. Categories that deviated from the study objectives were abandoned. To gain credibility and trustworthiness, we questioned and made comparisons of the text in the table, to develop holistic themes.

Ethical considerations

The study received ethical approval from the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology (reference number SS5049) and Uppsala Regional Ethics Board in Sweden (reference number 2019-02916). Participants were provided with consent forms to sign, with the exception of those interviewed by telephone, who provided oral consent. Participants were also informed of the reasons they were selected for the interviews, the purpose of the study and the corresponding benefits. They were further accorded time to seek clarification about the study and informed about their right to withdraw at any time without any consequences.

Results

Analysis of social workers’ descriptions of Indigenised social work practice produced the following three main themes: (1) collective action and mutuality, (2) communal welfare and respect for life and (3) liberation and restoration. Quotations from the field are included to illustrate and enliven the analysis.

Collective action and mutuality

Participants described elements that promoted collective action and mutuality as part of Indigenised social work in Uganda. To the participants, such elements facilitate individuals supporting each other against social problems like poverty and unforeseen shocks like bereavement and sickness. Social workers cited self-help and mutual aid groups as part of the Indigenised problem-solving practices. Participants explained that community members form self-help groups not only to support each other to alleviate poverty but also to demonstrate that poverty results from a lack of both money and cooperation. The self-help groups were reported to be involved in productive activities such as weaving, tailoring and food selling to generate supplementary income. Some of the self-help groups mentioned were Tweyambe group, Bagamba kamu women’s group, Twimukyangane youth group, Balandiira kimeze, Muno mubulwande and Muno mukabi. Besides the economic empowerment component, participants believed that self-help groups demonstrate love and respect for humanity. Many participants also believed that self-help and mutual aid groups were Indigenised practices because members were adhering to the African philosophy of living together and for each other. According to the participants, group members were united like peas in a pod. Participants further explained that mutual aid groups were Indigenised because they reflected that traditional Ugandan people are located within the web of human interactions. Indigenised practices were developed upon realisation that total reliance on Western approaches would not address poverty or help them to cope with immediate concerns, whereas Indigenised practices were more concerned with the immediate needs of the people.

Another Indigenised practice that demonstrated mutuality and collective action was the shared cultivation groups for widows, locally known as Aleyaru. Participants from Gulu noted that Aleyaru comprised widows in the village who team up to support a village female member who has just lost a husband. They dig a new garden for the widow and support her with the planting, weeding and harvesting. To the social workers, the practice guaranteed food security and self-sustainability for the widows. Related to this example were the farm working groups (awak). These were formed and coordinated by the chief of the hoe (rwot kweri), who had a lot of power to decide what to plant, and where and when to plant. One social worker reported,

I regard farm working groups and the women’s groups that support widows as indigenised because they are founded based on mutuality and cooperation and the belief of living for one another, which is in line with our own culture. (SW 13, Gulu)

Communal welfare and respect for life

Many participants believed that Indigenised social work was more concerned with communal welfare and improvement of human existence. Participants mentioned interventions such as communal work (tic karacel pi ber bedo alwak in Gulu and bulungi bwa’nsi in other districts), which involved people working together on a given date to maintain a road, a community well and a school for the good of the whole community. In communal work, individuals were motivated by communal welfare goals because, to Indigenous people, community interests superseded personal interests. One participant explained that a person’s survival depends on the well-being of other people. So, when the rest of the people in the community are OK, then he or she is equally OK (SW 5). Another participant intimated, ‘Welfare to people of Gulu not only implies the existence of schools and health centres but also communal solidarity, because it is through solidarity that humanity is served’ (SW 7, Gulu).

The other practice that exemplified this was the local government bottom-up planning meetings that involved communities identifying their needs and priorities for consideration in the higher local government development plans. To the participants, local government bottom-up planning meetings provided platforms for the people to meet and identify priority community issues that they wished government to address. This practice was said to be Indigenised because it was in line with the local people’s values of wholeness and communalism. Another practice that was reported as exemplifying Indigenised social work was the community development forum, which brings together community people and their local leaders to identify, plan and implement community projects as a team, to bring about social change. Under this practice, communities were motivated by community welfare issues to hold their leaders accountable for their decisions affecting the community.

Reflecting on the respect for life, participants mentioned that Indigenised social work puts much emphasis on the importance of humanity. They described respect for life from the perspective of human welfare, noting the different Indigenised practices that had been adopted to promote humanity and respect of life. Participants from Gulu, for instance, mentioned that local associations such as Devine Family Uganda and Laroo Peace Women’s Association were formed to foster and give hope to orphans and street children in Gulu district based on the Indigenous values that children belong to the whole community and that it takes the whole community to raise a child. Another Indigenised practice that emphasised respect for life was the Indigenous psychological healing ritual known as lwoko pik wang (washing away of tears). According to participants, people were affected by the northern Uganda civil war for 20 years, and consequently, many people lost their entire families. Social workers work with communities and traditional leaders to provide psychological support to help the war victims recover from the traumas of the war. Participants narrated that counselling and support were provided by the community, social workers and traditional leaders, and some rituals of ‘washing away of tears’ were performed to avoid cases of war victims committing suicide:

We work with the community and traditional leaders to provide counselling and psychosocial support to the victims of the Kony war. Many people in this district lost their dear ones during the war, and they have so many psychological challenges. As social workers, we coordinate community and traditional leaders to perform the lwoko pik wang as a way of providing psychological support. (SW 7, Gulu)

Respect for life was also presented from the perspective of reciprocal relationships. Participants insisted that interventions that reflected the importance of kinship and family in the care of individuals formed part of the Indigenised social work, because such activities were in line with Indigenous values of interdependence, love for humanity and cooperation. Participants revealed that family and kin were the primary caregivers. Such care was said to be reciprocal, and a huge sense of future social security was expressed:

We have social support systems that depend on family and kinship. The family bond is an asset and the driving force towards individuals caring for one another. Everyone is under obligation to provide. If you do not help your family members, then you will never be helped in time of need. So, for any practice to be regarded as indigenised it should work towards facilitating families to provide care to all family members. (SW 14, Jinja)

Participants also provided the example of the family and kinship food banks. Some families kept granaries (locally known as enguli, dero) to store foodstuffs, usually millet, maize, sorghum, dry cassava, bananas and yams. This helped to avoid food shortages in homes, and every member of the family including distant family members was entitled to access food. Social workers recounted that they encouraged communities to keep granaries:

As a CDO, I still value the idea of food banks. I sensitise families and communities about keeping a granary in every home. Our parents did this, and so we must do it to store food and dry vegetables to avoid food shortages. (SW 13, Hoima)

Most of the participants from Gulu mentioned the traditional practice of Mato Oput, a clan-centred reconciliation practice meant to reconcile and bring peace among clans that had been estranged by the killing of a clan member. Through this practice, the importance of life is emphasised. If a person killed a member from another clan, the two clans would meet and the suspect would admit and explain the circumstances surrounding the killing of that person. After the guilty person had demonstrated profound remorse and pleaded for clemency, the clan leaders (rwot okoro) would make their ruling and determine the reparation. Notably, the reparation was not paid by the perpetrator of the crime but by the whole clan. When the clan leaders had received the full reparation, the Mato Oput ritual was performed by the atekere (ritual performer) to appease the spirit of the dead and bring peace between the two clans. To the respondents, this tradition was based on the belief that respect for life included acknowledging guilt and remorse and granting forgiveness.

Liberation and restoration

The participants described Indigenised social work practice as liberating and restorative. They expressed that Indigenised social work practice was underpinned by the desire to liberate people from oppression and restore human dignity. A majority of the participants described interventions and practices that promoted local voices as part of the Indigenised social work. They explained that communities were disempowered by social conditions such as poverty. Hence, social work interventions that empowered local communities to stand against injustices were seen as not only pro-people but also Indigenous. Among the examples of such intervention cited were the community-based civic education clubs. According to the participants, civic education clubs employed a forum theatre approach to provide communities a voice to participate in decisions that concerned them. One respondent presented forum theatre as

an interactive drama between actors and viewers on specific problems. The viewers give feedback on the play and how it is relevant in their daily lives and suggest ways of addressing the problems. This gives the community members knowledge and voice to overcome such challenges in their localities. (SW 8, Luwero)

Participants revealed that the forum theatre had increased communities’ confidence to challenge injustices such as corruption, discrimination in budget allocations and land grabbing. In addition, these civic education clubs had created platforms for the community to share ideas and experiences about their local problems, which participants equated to the traditional central fireplace where people gathered to listen to stories, proverbs, riddles, puzzles and folk songs. More importantly, many participants believed that community-based education clubs embraced the principles of open sharing and solidarity that epitomise the local culture. Another example of Indigenised practice was that of the community information centres, which participants described as thriving on the local values of open sharing, accountability and cooperation. While reflecting on Indigenised practices as liberating, participants mentioned the youth budget-advocacy groups that had been formed to challenge discrimination in budget allocations:

The youth formed their own groups that they called youth budget-advocacy groups to advocate for a bigger youth budget in this district. This to me is indigenised because the youth used their own voices to liberate themselves from the institutional discrimination. (SW 7, Jinja)

To further emphasise their description of Indigenised practices as liberating, participants referred to the solidarity groups that were said to have been formed in Amuru district to challenge land grabbers and multinational corporations that were evicting people and grabbing land from the local communities. According to the social workers, solidarity groups mobilised people to resist land grabbing and evictions. The older women in solidarity stripped in public to protest unlawful land evictions, a practice they said would evoke a curse on the land grabbers. Social workers also mentioned the Bukigindi women’s tree-planting group that had petitioned the Ugandan parliament to challenge the lease of Bugoma forest to a sugar company in Hoima.

Regarding restoration, participants stressed that interventions emphasising restoration of the environment were Indigenous. They explained that the relationship between Indigenous people and their environment was strong, and the preservation of the environment signified continuity of life. Life began with the preservation of the environment and ended with preservation of the environment for the future. As examples, they pointed to the following three important traditional practices in Luwero and Hoima: (1) planting a tree or banana offset where the placenta was discarded after childbirth, (2) laying of tree seedlings on the casket and (3) gifting the bride’s family with tree seedlings during traditional weddings. According to social workers, the three practices not only demonstrated the continuity of life but also signified that the environment must be preserved in all circumstances. For instance, social workers described the Bukigindi women’s group tree-planting project as follows:

The reliance on Bugoma forest by the nearby communities motivated local women around the forest to form the Bukigindi women’s tree-planting group to mobilise women to plant indigenous trees upon the news that their forest had been leased to a sugar company. This group has done wonders; more than 40 acres have been planted with indigenous species. (SW 9, Hoima)

According to the participants, the Bukigindi tree-planting group was motivated by the desire to restore the Bugoma forest, and also to liberate the community from the dangers of living without the forest, which they relied on for food, medicine and firewood.

Discussion

The results not only affirm information that is already known but also provide novel findings. The three images of Indigenised social work presented by participants define the helping philosophy not only in Uganda but more broadly in Africa. Helping in Uganda is mutual, collective, rendered to preserve life and in the interest of the community. It is apparent that most of the practices discussed point more to community-based practice than to casework, which is more Euro-American. Furthermore, the three descriptions of Indigenised social work affirm that it is culturally oriented and directed towards asset building and livelihoods, and that is what distinguishes it from Euro-American social work. While the descriptions portray Indigenous helping practices, we cannot claim that these are the images of Indigenous social work, given that these practices were described by social workers who were attached to formal organisations. Moreover, many of the practices were transmuted to suit the local conditions which makes them Indigenised practices.

The central theme that emerged from the social workers’ descriptions of Indigenised social work practice was that of collective action and mutuality. The results highlight consensus among participants that survival of individuals depends on interdependence and interconnectedness. This points towards the values of wholeness, familism and cooperation emphasised by ubuntu philosophy (Mugumbate and Nyanguru, 2013). The results also confirm the earlier claim (Swanson, 2007) that an African society is, in general, humanist, community-based and socialist in nature. Collective action and mutuality as a mechanism for attaining full social functioning is also reported in Ibrahima and Mattaini’s (2017) work on social work in Africa. More importantly, the findings signify that the collective life defines the African conception of life, knowledge and reality, a finding also reported by Owusu-Ansah and Mji (2013). This is contrary to the person-centred models of Western social work that are associated with individualism (Lymbery, 2012).

The description of Indigenised social work as being based on collective action and communal welfare is similar to the community development approach, which also emphasises a bottom-up approach and community ownership of the development process (Aimers and Walker, 2011). In this study, participants mentioned interventions such the lower local government planning and budgeting meetings and communal work on public facilities as part of the Indigenised social work. The results are also in line with what Mupedziswa et al. (2019) described, that community practice had become an inherent approach of social work, since it was concomitant with the local values of solidarity, cooperation and mutuality rooted in the people’s cultures and history.

Indigenised practices were epitomised by empowerment and community participation. It is apparent that the civic education clubs and community information centres were meant to empower local communities and spawn community participation, somewhat related to the human rights-based approach (HRBA). Concepts such as empowerment and community participation are among the principles of HRBA (Briskman, 2014). Moreover, the association of Indigenised social work with HRBA has been reported by Whiteside et al. (2011), who claimed that empowerment and participation serve as important frameworks for social work practice with Indigenous communities. Studies have attributed the association of HRBA with Indigenised practice to the injustices Indigenous communities face (Briskman, 2014).

In addition, the description of Indigenised social work as a practice that liberates and restores dignity and humanity of all members correlates with the concepts of human rights and social justice emphasised by the Western form of social work (International Federation of Social Workers, 2014). It is clear in the literature that human rights are the mechanism through which dignity and humanity are protected and served (Briskman, 2014). More so, the association of Indigenised social work practice with human rights and social justice correlates with the existing literature (Gray et al., 2008; Hughes, 2003) that portrays Indigenous communities as struggling for their rights and justice. The solidarity groups that challenged land grabbing and demanded fairness in the allocation of land resonate well with the earlier position of Briskman (2014) that Indigenised social work practice was underpinned by the struggles for human rights. The findings are further in line with the claims of Gray et al. (2008) that Indigenous people yearn for their collective rights to be recognised, to achieve their rights to land and healthy living environments.

Similar findings to those of previous studies were evident in the use of political action as a conceptual framework for understanding Indigenised social work practice. The previous studies (Briskman, 2014; Gray et al., 2008) have pointed to Indigenous resilience where local communities are resisting oppression. In this findings, participants, while emphasising Indigenised social work as liberating and restorative, described practices that promoted local voices in protecting land rights and forest resources as Indigenous. This is not surprising, given that Indigenous peoples are often presented as victims in many societies due to the internalised oppression they suffer that culminates in their powerlessness (Gray and Coates, 2010). The findings also echo the earlier proposal by Mmatli (2008) that some social problems may not be addressed without undertaking political actions, given the political and structural nature of social problems in the developing world.

It is also apparent that there is a close resemblance between developmental social work and Indigenised social work. Participants in this study illustrated Indigenised social work with empowerment and community participation practices. Notably, such activities were also identified with developmental social work in a study reported by Patel and Hochfeld (2012). Moreover, the practical examples of collective action and mutuality presented in this study, such as mutual aid and self-help groups, were people-centred and oriented towards self-sufficiency, which are the same critical elements of developmental social work revealed by Lombard (2008). More significantly, our findings support the work of other studies (Patel and Hochfeld, 2012) that have found developmental social work to be a conceptual framework that can be relied on to explain Indigenised social work practice.

Our findings indicate that the Indigenised practices mentioned to exemplify the descriptions of Indigenised social work were carved out of the cultural values. They are rooted in people’s traditions, values and history. This finding supports the claim by Gray et al. (2013) that Indigenised social work accentuates cultural relevance and culturally specific practices that are not cross-Indigenous. This finding also points at the impossibility of having a unitary Indigenised social work practice for Uganda given the multiple number of native communities in the country with different value and belief systems. This difficulty had been pointed out by Ugiagbe (2014), who suggested that Indigenous social work was bound to fail due to the significant diversities within and between ethnic groups in the African countries.

Another important finding of this study is that participants believed that Indigenised social work was a remedy for challenges that Western-oriented interventions had failed to effectively address. Indigenous communities reverted to Indigenised practices such as mutual aid and self-help groups to build enough social capital to propel them towards development. The results are congruent with the arguments of Gray et al. (2008), who associate the quest for Indigenised practice with the lack of effectiveness of Euro-American social work approaches coupled with the consequence of the decades of mistreatment and exploitation under various government policies aimed at colonisation. In this study, participants relied on the local values of solidarity, love, cooperation and sharing to form mutual aid groups to enhance self-sufficiency and reduce poverty.

Limitations of the study

The concept of Indigenised social work was not clear to some social workers, especially those who had graduated before 2010. Hence, it was associated with traditional practices. This is partly because Indigenised social work is just emerging in the country. To address this limitation, the principal investigator considered for inclusion those with some information about Indigenised social work in order to make the interviews sites of knowledge.

Conclusion

The descriptions of Indigenised social work in terms of collective action and mutuality, liberation and solidarity, and communal welfare and respect for life provide important lessons to make social work in Uganda more relevant and effective. While social workers are called to Indigenise social work practice, a huge gap exists concerning what Indigenised practice entails, which has delayed its application in practice. It is clear that interventions and programmes that identified with people, designed in respect of local values, traditions, support networks and Indigenous resources, and promoting local voices against injustices, were characterised as Indigenous. This suggests the following two critical points: first, for social work practice in Uganda to bear fruit, it must understand and mainstream Indigenous resources, traditions and cultural values of the people. This, however, requires rigorous and robust research to clarify how such important and progressive cultural elements can be mainstreamed in social work practice to bolster problem solving in the country. Second, the emphasis on the local voices and participation of Indigenous peoples highlights the importance of local partnerships between social workers and the service users in designing, implementing and monitoring of social work interventions to attain what participants mentioned as pro-people interventions.