Applying Ubuntu principles to decolonise social work research: A mixed method study on intimate partner violence among women in two refugee camps in Ghana

Abstract

Global social work research has been predominantly influenced by Eurocentric paradigms, leading to the coloniality of knowledge production. This article reflects on the processes and methods used in mixed-methods research – guided by the African philosophy of Ubuntu as the theoretical framework – on intimate partner violence among women in refugee camps in Ghana. The research shows that community stakeholder consultations, use of local languages, use of talking circles, and integration of community perspectives in research can serve to decolonise. The article offers valuable insights into why social work researchers globally should adopt a decolonising approach to avoid coloniality of knowledge production.

Introduction

This article comes from a doctoral research project of the lead author which examined the experiences and responses of intimate partner violence (IPV) among refugee women in camps in Ghana with the four co-authors as supervisors. Studying IPV among refugee women was significant due to its high prevalence among the Ghanaian population. Evidence from the Ghana Demographic and Health Survey conducted in 2022 shows that 36 percent of ever-partnered women have experienced physical violence, sexual violence, and emotional violence (Ghana Statistical Services, 2024). In addition, previous studies have revealed the nature and implications of IPV among women in mainstream Ghanaian society (Issahaku, 2017; Tenkorang and Owusu, 2018) and the devastating consequences that IPV has on vulnerable populations (Adomako and Baffour, 2021). It also revealed the scarcity of research on IPV among refugees in Ghana. These set the foundation for the main research.

Globally, conducting research in refugee camp settings has posed many challenges. McAlpine et al. (2020) associated these challenges with the dynamic nature of events that sometimes occur in camps, high security, and the remote nature of the camp environment. Besides, research has shown that African values like protecting the family, taboos surrounding divorce, social stigma, cultural expectations for women in marriage, norms associated with early marriage and patriarchy contribute to IPV among refugee women (Fan and Koski, 2022; Okenwa-Emegwa et al., 2016). Moreover, African values and community approaches are used in responding to IPV among refugee women (Kawaguchi, 2020). The influence of African values on experiences and responses to IPV among refugee women may pose challenges when researching this phenomenon within societies that practise such values. In addition, the need to scrutinise the objectives of data collectors, concerns regarding the security of both the population and the researchers, as well as the intricate processes involved in obtaining research approvals are some of the challenges identified in research among refugees. Refugees are individuals who have experienced prolonged displacement and lack immediate opportunities for achieving a sustainable resolution to their predicament by voluntary repatriation, local integration, or resettlement (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR], 2022). Research has shown that refugees in Africa encounter significant difficulties (Dako-Gyeke and Adu, 2017; Rugunanan and Smit, 2011; Teye and Yebleh, 2015) as compared to their counterparts in other parts of the world. Research among such vulnerable groups needs particular consciousness of these issues to generate knowledge that aligns with their specific local history, culture, and philosophy.

In this article, we contend that global social work research has been predominantly influenced by Eurocentric paradigms. The use of theoretical frameworks influenced by Western paradigms in areas like Africa, whose philosophical underpinnings may be different from those of the West, will lead to the coloniality of social work knowledge production. This article proposes that social work research in Africa, particularly concerning refugee women, should be informed by the Ubuntu paradigm. The significance of this research arises from the scarcity of Ubuntu philosophy in social work research conducted in Africa, particularly on IPV within refugee camps. Ubuntu positively impacts the international social work profession and was the first theme for the Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development 2020–2030 (Mayaka and Truell, 2021). It is therefore important to consider it as a theoretical framework for creating scientific knowledge within the social work profession.

The main research had four objectives, which were to (a) find the extent of IPV among refugee women in Ghana, (b) establish the relationship between neighbourhood conditions in refugee camps and IPV among refugee women in Ghana, (c) find the family and communal responses to IPV among refugee women, and (d) find differences concerning risk and protective factors which impact IPV occurrences and responses across two refugee camps in Ghana. This article projects how we employed the Ubuntu paradigm as a theoretical framework to decolonise social work research on IPV among refugee women in camps in Ghana using quantitative and qualitative methods.

Colonial influences on social work research

Social work research has been largely characterised by the prevalence of colonial scientific methodologies on a global scale, resulting in a reliance on Western theoretical frameworks, procedures, and approaches. Such practices have significantly influenced the coloniality of knowledge production and research methodologies (Chilisa, 2012; Seehawer, 2023). Over the period, there has been a paradigm shift in social work and social science research which has been classified as positivist and post-positivist (Fazlıogulları, 2012). For instance, Bottomore in the 1970s proposed structural-functionalist, evolutionist, phenomenologist, and structuralist paradigms (Cohen, 2000). The notable and basic scientific research paradigms are those proposed by Guba and Lincoln in the late 1980s, which they classified as positivist, constructivist and critical paradigms (Guba and Lincoln, 2005). Globally, these Eurocentric worldviews and their associated knowledge systems have been regarded as superior, leading to the marginalisation and suppression of Indigenous knowledge and perspectives (Chilisa, 2012; Khupe and Keane, 2017; Mugumbate and Chereni, 2019).

Colonising research approaches result in research that inadequately encompasses the complex nature of social issues and possesses limited efficacy in addressing the problem (Chilisa and Tsheko, 2014). The application of colonial concepts in research, regardless of context, may overlook the influence of social and cultural elements on the individuals being studied (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018). Incorporating ideologies, cultural contexts, and belief systems that influence individual experiences in research has received less attention (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2020). To ensure the relevance of research to the specific local context and the welfare of research participants, scholars (Chilisa, 2012; Hayward et al., 2021; Keikelame and Swartz, 2019; Khupe and Keane, 2017; Mugumbate and Chereni, 2019; Oviawe, 2016) have advocated for the decolonisation of the methodologies, approaches, and perspectives that inform research activities. For instance, Oviawe (2016) suggested the Ubuntu paradigm as an alternative theoretical framework that is less positivistic, Eurocentric and individualistic when conducting research in the African context. Decolonisation does not suggest a whole elimination of the predominant Eurocentric paradigms but using methodologies through the lens of Ubuntu ontologies, epistemologies and axiologies to foster holistic, transformative and emancipatory research (Oviawe, 2016; Seehawer, 2023) in social work and social sciences. In this regard, Khupe and Keane’s (2017) framework of African research methodologies suggested among other things that researchers should use Ubuntu perspectives and cultural approaches that focus on establishing respectful relationships with the people, the role of elders, using community researchers, using local cultural protocols, the importance of place or context, using local language, managing expectations, using community participation or Ubuntu frameworks, community values and ensuring the research provides some benefits to the community or participants. In addition, Baffour et al. (2022) posited that social work researchers with a decolonial mindset should exhibit awareness of various factors, including historical context, administrative structures, cultural dynamics, and environmental or contextual conditions.

The role of Ubuntu philosophy in decolonising research

Ubuntu is the African philosophy known as biako ye among the Akan tribe in Ghana. It is passed down through the family by siblings, peers, men, women, and elders (Mbiti, 1990). It encompasses interdependence among individuals, manifesting as a comprehensive theoretical approach and philosophical worldview (van Breda, 2019). Ubuntu is rooted in moral ethics, and a way of knowing that maintains that problems arise in the context of the community and that individuals find identity and meaning in the community (Ibhakewanlan and McGrath, 2015; Seehawer, 2018). The other core values are familyhood, communality as well as value of the environment and spirituality. In the context of IPV as a social problem, these core values are useful in engaging individual and family members in resolving IPV cases, emphasising collective responsibility. Ubuntu as a philosophy is based on generic life values of justice, responsibility, equality, collectiveness, relatedness, reciprocity and community (Mayaka and Truell, 2021; Mugumbate and Chereni, 2019; Mugumbate and Nyanguru, 2013; van Breda, 2019). Mbiti described Ubuntu as ‘I am because we are’ (1990), which means whatever happens to an individual affects the family or community (group) and whatever happens to the family or community (group) affects the individual (Seehawer, 2018). In recent times, Ubuntu has been applied as both a philosophy and theoretical approach to decolonise educational research to achieve contextualisation and ensure research relevance (Chilisa, 2012; Mugumbate and Nyanguru, 2013; Mugumbate et al., 2023; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018; Schreiber and Tomm-Bonde, 2015; Seehawer, 2018; van Breda, 2019). In Oviawe’s explanation:

As a paradigm, Ubuntu helps to deal with the nature of being (i.e., ontology) regardless of whether this knowledge is intrinsic or extrinsic and provides a framework to distinguish belief from opinion (i.e., epistemology). It also involves the theoretical and systematic analysis of a set of procedures through which a particular belief system is practiced (i.e., methodology) (Oviawe, 2016: 3).

In Ubuntu philosophy, the basis of reality or being human includes the interconnections between humans, the natural environment and other living things (Chilisa, 2017; Mbiti, 1990; Sachikonye and Ramlogan, 2024). This is similar to the constructive paradigm which posits reality as individual perceptions and interaction with the environment (Asghar, 2013). Being human or humanness refers to humble togetherness that embraces caring relationships among humans (Sachikonye and Ramlogan, 2024). What makes us humans is described as relationality, not rationality (Mbiti, 1990). These interconnections, along with the associated practices that emphasise the importance of relationships, networks, and connections, constitute the fundamental systems that shape and influence the construction of knowledge and the understanding of reality (Chilisa, 2017). The above ontological positions inform the methodologies in the Ubuntu paradigm (Chilisa, 2017). Based on this, we believe IPV does not exist in isolation because it involves both a perpetrator and a victim (social actors) and is motivated by social, cultural, economic, and geographical factors. As a result, IPV is believed to occur when a man is not human or humbled enough to care for and interact with his partner in a relationship in ways that are just, reciprocal, responsible and equal. In other words, IPV may occur when a man does not relate positively with his partner and does not have the common good of his family and community at heart. To that end, the experience of IPV and the meanings ascribed to it can be constructed (Bryman, 2012) through interaction between the researchers and those who have experienced and witnessed it.

Our epistemological position is informed by the Ubuntu paradigm which posits that knowing is socially constructed by people with interactions and connections to one another, as well as the environment (Chilisa and Tsheko, 2014). This implies that knowledge generation processes are constructed from researchers’ interactions with people, concepts, and ideas as well as our self-reflections about them as we interpret and analyse them (Wilson, 2001). Specific to data collection, the use of Ubuntu approaches such as talking circles, or focus group discussions encourages community engagement, interconnectedness of individuals, respect for individual innate self-esteem and highlights the significance of collective problem-solving (Borti et al., 2024). Seehawer (2018) posits that this method of data collection demonstrates the Ubuntu principle of collective knowledge creation. Aside from this, Ubuntu epistemology feeds into the intention of decolonisation (resisting and addressing the coloniality) of knowledge production (Khupe and Keane, 2017; Seehawer, 2018). Relationality in Ubuntu also emphasises accountability which means being answerable to all your relations including research participants (Chilisa, 2017; Sachikonye and Ramlogan, 2024). As researchers, we were guided by moral ethics and responsible for relating positively with our research participants (Seehawer, 2018).

Methodology

Approach for this article

This article is based on analysis, accounts and reflections of processes and methods that were used in research on IPV among women in refugee camps in Ghana. The research was planned in 2021, data collected in 2023 and analysis and reporting were done in 2024. We took this ethnographic approach, motivated by the idea that a researcher is not separate from the methods they use even though other branches of thought say there should be separation to achieve objectivity. Ethnographic research demonstrates self-awareness regarding the researcher’s role and acknowledges the complexity of the research process (O’Reilly, 2012). Ethnography, shaped by Ubuntu, positions the community as the primary knowledge holder. To decolonise this research, the Ubuntu principles of community, collectiveness, reciprocity and relationality were utilised. The lead author made consultations with community members, which were integrated into the study before the ethics application and data collection. For instance, we formed a camp advisory committee comprised of all refugees, recruited refugees as research assistants (RAs), and made changes to the research objectives. We ensured that research participants led the discourse on IPV during data collection in refugee camps. As producers of knowledge, we engaged in respectful relationships, engaged community elders as stakeholders, respected local protocols and ensured reciprocity in the benefits of the research (shared benefits to researchers and community) (Khupe and Keane, 2017). These concepts will be elaborated later in the article.

How Ubuntu shaped the research approach

In African societies, problems are resolved through consensus-building and communal participation. When a problem emerges, individuals are called upon and informed about the issue, leading to collaborative conversations aimed at resolving the problem. During these discussions, duties are distributed among members of the community. The aim is to address the problem by having some people donate material and others provide non-material resources. Our philosophy of inquiry was shaped by this impact, leading us to adopt a position that posits the creation of solutions to societal problems through diverse approaches. A major relevant aspect of indigenous research and finding solutions to societal problems is that it necessitates a pragmatic approach that employs many methods if it can provide us with the information we want (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). The Ubuntu paradigm is similar to the constructivist paradigm, which uses several methodologies to address ontology, epistemology, and the nature of the world, to critical theory, which is adaptable to incorporate any methodology or practice that may contribute to the improvement of the inequitable social system (Asghar, 2013), and to the pragmatic paradigm, which selects methods and approaches based on their usefulness in addressing research questions. This implies that the Ubuntu theoretical framework can be integrated into the constructivist, critical and positivist paradigms to achieve its purpose of knowledge production.

How Ubuntu shaped the research questions

The research was conducted for a ‘productive purpose’ (Mugumbate and Nyanguru, 2013) with a mindset on refugee women who have experienced IPV. According to Mugumbate et al. (2023), the key research component involves conceptualising the problem. Mugumbate and colleagues contend that worldviews influence researchers’ perception of social problems or gaps in research, which in turn directs their objectives. The Ubuntu philosophical principles of knowledge acquisition through shared experiences, human connection with the environment, sense of community belonging, interconnectedness, social support, and responsibility towards one another influenced our research questions. The first research question, which sought to answer the extent of IPV among refugee women in camps in Ghana, was guided by the Ubuntu principle of understanding through shared experiences. Another research question examined the influence of community characteristics such as social support, social cohesion, informal social control, poverty, cultural perspectives, and beliefs shaping IPV in the refugee camps. This objective was influenced by the Ubuntu principle of people’s interconnections with their environment in terms of social, economic and political factors (Chilisa, 2017; Mugumbate and Nyanguru, 2013). Finally, we wanted to find out how the family and community responded to IPV in the camps. This question was informed by the Ubuntu principles of connections and ties among people, a sense of support and responsibility people have for each other in a community.

Model applied in the main research

Based on the objectives, we used a mixed-methods approach that involved mixing research philosophies, data collection and ethics. A model of mixing research philosophies to decolonise and indigenise research was developed by Chilisa (2017). According to Chilisa (2017), any research that seeks to decolonise must protect, restore and revitalise the indigenous and local knowledge. For Chilisa, the key element and starting point is philosophy, without valuing the philosophy of the colonised, both decolonisation and indigenisation won’t succeed. Also, decolonising mixed method means using research methodologies that are relational, inclusive and collaborative to project communities’ voices (Chilisa, 2017). Chilisa proposed four different approaches and levels to decolonisation and this has been expanded in her other works as follows:

1. Least indigenised approach – paternalistic recognition of decolonial approaches, pretence or false recognition.

2. Integrative approach – both indigenous and Western are used but there is less conscious decision about the role of indigenous approaches, often they get sidelined.

3. Predominantly indigenous framework.

4. Third space methodologies – this approach mixes indigenous and non-indigenous approaches by taking the best of both.

To decolonise the larger research, we employed third space methodologies at level four. We incorporated qualitative approaches grounded in the African Ubuntu approaches to explore research objectives (c) and (d). In addition, Social Disorganisation theory (Shaw and McKay, 1942) and quantitative approaches rooted in Western ideologies were employed for research questions (a) and (b).

Population characteristics

The research was conducted in Ampain and Krisan refugee camps in Ghana, West Africa. Ampain camp was established in 2011 to shelter displaced refugees from Cote d’Ivoire after the 2010 presidential election conflict. The camp is the largest in Ghana with about 2500 people comprising 99 percent from Cote d’Ivoire with Nigeria and Democratic Republic of Congo (1%) nationals (UNHCR, 2022). Krisan camp was established in 1996 to house people from Liberia who fled their country because of political unrest. Krisan camp also shelters nationals from Sierra Leone, Togo, Sudan, Congo (the Democratic Republic of Congo and Congo Brazzaville), Rwanda, Chad and Cote d’Ivoire. The two camps are located in the Western Region of Ghana. A total of 26 participants including 15 women leaders participated in talking circles and 11 community leaders for individual interviews. In Ampain camp, seven women leaders were included in the talking circle and five community leaders participated in individual interviews. In Krisan camp, eight women leaders and six community leaders participated in a talking circle and individual interviews respectively. Also, 228 refugee women were surveyed for the quantitative section of the study. The history of our research collaborators was critical in connecting their past experiences to their present situation, which was essential in helping the researchers develop empathy and cultural humility throughout the research (Potter, 2021). In addition, knowledge of participants’ history provided information about their cultural and philosophical viewpoints.

Ethics application

The researchers employed formal procedural and relational ethics throughout the study processes (Bilotta, 2022). In terms of formal procedural ethics, approval was given by the Human Research and Ethics Committees at the University of Wollongong Australia (2022/330) on 11/04/2023, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (Ref: CHRPE/AP/054/23) on 20/01/2023, and the Ghana Refugee Board (Ref. No: RB:0140/VOL/3/0d11) on 21/07/2021. Recruitment of the study participants started on 20 May 2023. The researchers demonstrated respect towards all elders and leaders by engaging them, explaining the research and obtaining their agreement before commencing the study. The researchers cultivated a cordial rapport with each resident in the refugee camp by extending greetings to every person encountered within the camp. To ensure reciprocity, which is central to the concept of Ubuntu (Borti et al., 2024), each participant was given a token of AUD5 (GHS30) as a sign of appreciation for participating in the study. Participants were given a piece of paper with a date and confidential code signed by the RAs to return on a specified date and the gift was given to them. The token was also an acknowledgement of how we cared about the difficulties the communities experienced.

Community leaders were seen as stakeholders in this research, and they helped to engage effectively with people in the refugee camp, considering their diverse cultural backgrounds. Participants had the right to decide whether to participate in the study or not. They were also given the option to skip any questions they felt uncomfortable answering. We anticipated that women participants could face further abuse from their partners for their involvement in the study. Furthermore, women could face possible stigmatisation by the community for disclosing their intimate relationship issues. To minimise community stigmatisation of women’s participation, the researchers reoriented and promoted the survey as addressing women’s health, living conditions and safety in the camps as recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) (Watts et al., 2001). This was done to mask IPV from the community as the study’s central purpose but not to create any deception, which is consistent with ethical guidelines (Watts et al., 2001).

Results

Community entry

The study involved African populations where participants included refugee women, refugee camp management, women leaders, and other important informants. Before undertaking any assignment in this land, one must first pay a courtesy call on community elders, managers, or leaders (Baffour et al., 2022). We discussed how the community leaders in the camps were approached and informed about the study before any activities took place in the camps.

Meeting with camp leaders

As a sign of humility and respect, entry to the camp began by first meeting the camp managers as a custom demands. After securing approval of entry to the refugee camps from the Ghana Refugee Board, the lead author went to the camp managers, introduced himself, and showed them a copy of the letter. Although the researcher had received an approval letter as a sign of permission from the Ghana Refugee Board to conduct the study, such an act is considered foreign in African societies (Chigevenga, 2022). Therefore, it was appropriate to seek approval from the camp managers and community authorities. The goal of this introduction was to explain the research’s purpose in the camps, establish a relationship, negotiate for their partnership, plan the research process with them, and secure their interest in cooperating with the research (Khupe and Keane, 2017; Schreiber and Tomm-Bonde, 2015). These meetings were in acknowledgement of the fact that camp leaders are experts on their experiences, and the researcher has to learn from them (Schreiber and Tomm-Bonde, 2015). In addition, the meetings were important to seek permission from the leadership to enter the camps and have access to participants. It also encouraged the community’s participation in the research and provided the platform for the researcher to negotiate the research purpose (Khupe and Keane, 2017) with the respective local leadership in the camp.

Meeting with community leaders

The camp managers indicated that, as a standard procedure, they were supposed to notify camp leaders about our presence in the camps. The camp managers, serving as gatekeepers, introduced the lead author to all leaders in the camps during their monthly gatherings, which are often held under the supervision of the camp manager. At this stage, the researcher introduced the study to the community leaders as comprising women’s health, living conditions and safety. The leaders were invited to seek clarification and ask questions about the study. During the meeting, the researcher formed a Camp Advisory Committee of three leaders in each camp. This committee met periodically during the study to analyse how the research was going and address any ethical breaches. The committee was also consulted to clarify what beliefs, values, and norms of the people needed to be respected.

Meeting with women

The managers introduced the researcher to the target group (refugee women) and explained why the researcher was in the camp. An RA translated the conversation from English to French for the women in Ampain camp. In Krisan camp, an RA from Sudan translated from English to Arabic for the Sudanese women who could not understand English. The women were given the chance to raise questions during this discussion.

Recruitment and training of suitable RAs

Khupe and Keane (2017) emphasised the importance of context in all research and encouraged researchers to respect local cultural protocols in the research site. One important means to respect local cultural protocols is to use the local languages that participants speak. We recruited five RAs who spoke the same language as participants. Also, we knew that women may be uncomfortable discussing their IPV experiences with the same gender as the lead author (Ellsberg and Heise, 2005), so we recruited RAs of the same gender as female participants for data collection. Based on recommendations by the camp managers, RAs were recruited due to their ability to communicate in English and other local languages and their previous experiences as RAs to past researchers in the camps. Three RAs were recruited in Ampain camp and two in Krisan camp. All three RAs in the Ampain camp were Ivorian refugees who had been there for 12 years and were fluent in both English and French. In the Krisan camp, one RA was a Ghanaian who could communicate in French, while the other was a Sudanese who could speak both English and Arabic. Using RAs from the refugee camps fostered trust and openness among the study participants. The RAs were trained by the lead author for 8 hours for two days on how to conduct the survey, publicity, and recruitment of participation, the use of Kobocollect application for the survey, ethical considerations in conducting violence research among women, how to identify and respond to any signs of emotional distress, and self-awareness about personal emotions being affected by the topic.

Talking circle with a sacred object

Talking circles were conducted with women leaders in the refugee camps. A talking circle enhances the bonds between members of the community and respects the oral traditions and communication methods of Africans (Lavallée, 2009). The adoption of a talking circle is a frequent practice among African groups, in which elders recite folktales and stories to family members late in the evening. In local African cultures, the same techniques are utilised to organise family meetings, which coincides with the epistemological value of building relationships. The talking circle represents and supports the exchange of ideas, respect for one another’s opinions, unity, and never-ending compassion and love for one another (Chilisa and Tsheko, 2014). The use of the talking circle stems from the familiarity of individuals of African descent with this method of group communication. Talking circles described as a relational approach in communication (Brown and Di Lallo, 2020) facilitated the establishment of a dialogue between the researcher and participants, fostering an environment of reciprocal respect between participants and the researcher. During the meetings, women leaders were informed about the study objectives, benefits to them and the processes involved in participating in the study. The talking circle in Ampain camp was done at the office of the neighbourhood security watch team and that for Krisan camp was done at the community centre.

During the talking circles, the lead author began with greetings, distributed copies of the information sheets to the participants, provided explanations, and addressed their questions. Subsequently, the researcher obtained verbal consent from all participants. The researcher sought permission from the participants and the discussions were audio-recorded. The arrangement of the circle involved seats positioned in a circle, without the presence of tables or barriers to separate them. The setup was designed to ensure that all participants in the discussion were visible to each other, forming a continuous circle with no distinct starting or end point. There was no specifically assigned seat of authority, allowing everyone to choose their preferred seating position. The researcher initiated the topic for discussion and a feather was given to the person sitting to the left of the researcher in the circle. Each participant had to hold the feather before they could have their turn to talk. When a person finished talking, the feather was passed to the next person to the left in a clockwise manner. This provided the opportunity for everyone to speak without fear, intimidation or interference. Holding the sacred object is an indication that what you are going to say is your truth, with no malicious intent. In addition, using the feather promoted the practice of attentive listening and critical reflection which inhibited the practice of engaging in one-on-one debates or personal attacks (Mehl-Madrona and Mainguy, 2014). The talking circle helped to promote multicultural understanding, encouraged respect for individual differences, and enhanced group cohesion (Wolf and Rickard, 2003).

Discussion

From a social work perspective, this research was consciously decolonised by applying Ubuntu to the research approach, questions, methods, and ethics applications. African indigenous knowledge is best produced by people who understand or believe in the values rooted in Ubuntu (Seehawer, 2018). We knew that our experiences and beliefs would impact the research and intended to use cultural values, language and methods that appreciate the ways of life of the researched (Keane et al., 2016). The research participants were Africans, and the researchers’ application of Ubuntu values provides a pathway for future social work researchers to adopt research procedures to prevent individuals and the knowledge produced from being marginalised (Ibhakewanlan and McGrath, 2015).

The application of Ubuntu approaches benefitted the research participants and the community at large. Decolonising the research contributed to community researcher training and support (Keane et al., 2017). Also, the use of local languages during data collection honoured local culture and encouraged frequent engagement between the research team and participants. Our research advocates for the utilisation of native languages or language translators, if feasible, by social workers in indigenous communities to enhance the effectiveness of intervention techniques.

Our research agrees with authors like Baffour et al. (2022) and Khupe and Keane (2017) that researchers should engage in respectful research to decolonise. The researchers collaborated with community leaders during the research processes. We respected the community by adhering to their culture and values. For example, we observed that it was considered disdainful to use your left hand to give something to someone. Also, giving up your seat to the elderly in instances where seats were limited was seen as respectful. We had a memorandum of understanding with community leaders on the research activities and the community stakeholders monitored the research through the camp advisory committee. Agreements with community stakeholders on the research were legitimate and respectful research practices encouraged collaboration, trust, and equal power-sharing with community members (Keikelame and Swartz, 2019). Community members’ input in this research upheld the Ubuntu principles of communitarianism and inclusiveness. Our research advocates for social workers to demonstrate respect towards community leaders and collaborate with them during research.

Ubuntu approaches can be implemented in social work research conducted among migrants, and it protects participants when researching sensitive topics such as IPV. The values of relationality, interconnectedness and responsibility, if adopted well in social work research among IPV survivors, can serve as a source of collective healing and reconciliation for community interventions towards IPV. Given the recognition of Ubuntu as the global agenda for social work (2020–2030), it can be used by all researchers, in Africa or outside, with Africans or not, in conducting social work research. Its uniqueness adds to other research processes and methods available and expands options for researchers, which is one of the goals of de-imperialising research (Ndlove-Gatsheni, 2018). We suggest that future research implement other approaches proposed by Chilisa (2017), which are the least indigenised approach, the integrative approach, or the predominantly indigenous framework, to decolonise social work research. Our decolonising approach can guide future researchers who intend to research IPV in humanitarian communities like refugee camps, in Africa in particular and globally in general.

There are limitations to this research approach. We acknowledge that some of the underlying principles of Ubuntu are similar to those of other philosophies outside of Africa, such as the buen vivir (sumak kawsay or suma qamaña) of South America (Acosta and Abarca, 2018), and Tanoa Ni Veiqaravi (serving bowl of serving others) in the Pacific (Ravulo, 2018), and they can’t be credited to Africa alone. Obtaining ethics from committees that may not be acquainted with the Ubuntu approaches (or other Indigenous approaches) and the context in which it is being applied may pose challenges. Although Ubuntu has been lived and practised for time immemorial, its implementation in social work research is growing. Consequently, the literature on the methods involved is limited. In addition, applying Ubuntu methods in a research context unfamiliar with the philosophy may be challenging. Although this study highlights the importance of Ubuntu in social work research, it acknowledges that intimate partner violence is a violation of fundamental human rights that affects women and children; therefore, resolving such issues among community members through Ubuntu should not be limited to the principle of reconciliation and community but justice, including criminal justice which can be dealt with not only at the family and community level but also at the societal level through laws for each country.

Conclusion

Decolonising social work research in refugee camps on IPV helps to eliminate numerous challenges associated with research in secure sites like refugee camps, improve participation and community acceptance, and protect participants from harm. We conclude that Ubuntu provides a clear roadmap for contextualising social work research and bridging the gap between Western and African research methodologies. While it is an African philosophy and research approach, it can be integrated with Western philosophies and methodologies to accomplish decolonising objectives.