‘Africana womanism’: Implications for transformative scholarship in occupational science

ABSTRACT

This paper responds to the call for occupational scientists to advance understandings of occupation beyond a Western paradigm by considering the implications of drawing upon Africana womanism as a theoretical underpinning to explore gendered occupation. The uptake of Africana Womanist theory can challenge taken-for-granted assumptions tacitly embedded within occupational science surrounding gender and womanhood, while creating space for alternative ways of being, knowing, and doing in the conceptualization and study of occupation. The dual aims of this theoretical discussion paper are: to outline how Africana womanism both challenges implicit assumptions regarding gender and occupation (specifically gendered occupations) embedded in occupational science, and to critically consider how Africana womanism can advance understandings of occupation beyond a Western paradigm.

KEYWORDS:

• Occupational science
• Africana womanism
• Gendered occupation
• Womanhood
• Dualisms
• Gender equity

This discussion paper is situated within the growing body of critical occupational science literature calling for approaches to conceptualizing and studying occupation beyond a Western paradigm (Guajardo, Kronenberg, & Ramugondo, 2015; Hammell, 2009; Laliberte Rudman et al., 2008). Consistent with the conceptual work the first author has undertaken in her doctoral research, this paper is also situated within a critical paradigm. Explicating one’s positionality is crucial in conducting critically informed, cross-cultural work given that one’s social position and taken-for-granted assumptions inevitably affect one’s worldview and therefore influences one’s scholarship (Hammell, 2009). The first author is positioned as a white female occupational scientist of European descent, requiring continuous critical reflexivity surrounding the ways in which her own cultural background conditioned implicit beliefs of what it means to be a woman within a North American context, and how gender and occupation are inter-connected. The intent of her doctoral work is to advance conceptualizations of gender within occupational science through a critical decolonizing ethnographic approach to explore women’s occupation as resistance to gender inequities in Tanzania; this requires a transcendence of Western perspectives and an uptake of diverse epistemologies. It was through the first author’s engagement with Africana womanism for her doctoral candidacy exam that this paper came to fruition. The remaining authors were members of the candidacy exam committee who supported this critical reflexivity.

Within this discussion paper, Africana womanism is presented as a theoretical lens that challenges implicit imperialistic assumptions embedded within Western thought that can guide scholars in conceptualizing diverse perspectives of gendered occupation from the context of Africana womanhood. The aim is to initiate a dialogue with occupational scientists, challenging researchers to take up a critical and conscious standpoint when addressing gendered occupation and enacting transformative approaches to research (Farias & Laliberte Rudman, 2014; Laliberte Rudman, 2014; Ramugondo, 2015).

In moving towards this transformative paradigmatic shift, this paper argues that Africana womanism is one conceptual lens which can: 1. Aid occupational scientists to re-evaluate ontological and epistemological foundations, and challenge embedded assumptions surrounding gender, womanhood, individualism, and gender equity; 2. Enable the production of diverse, interdisciplinary knowledge beyond a Western paradigm to advance understandings of gendered occupation; and 3. Facilitate the development of strategies to shift disciplinary intention to action, enabling scientists to respond to social injustices and catalyze transformative social change.

To achieve these aims, gendered occupation will first be unpacked in parallel to dialogue illuminating why an alternative theoretical lens is required to expand existing occupational scholarship on gender. Africana womanism and its guiding philosophical principles will then be introduced as a theoretical space that can support knowledge generation beyond a Western paradigm (Cruz, 2015; Hudson-Weems, 2004). Discussions surrounding how each principle can challenge taken-for-granted assumptions and advance conceptualizations of gendered occupation will follow. The paper concludes with discussions of future application of Africana womanism to catalyze transformative research to address occupational and gender inequities.

Attending to Gender and Occupation in Occupational Science: Emerging Critical Lens

In critically unpacking gendered occupation, the distinction between gender and gendered must first be deconstructed. Critical feminist and sociological scholarship spanning back to the 1980s emphasized the distinctive use of gender as a descriptive adjective and causal concept, noting the latter endorses a political agenda (Scott, 1986; West & Zimmerman, 1987). The notion of ‘gendered’ transcends the categorical dichotomy of description, asserting that gender is both relational and political, with existing power relations between the gendered construct and what it is situated in (Scott, 1986; Sharp, Franzway, Mills, & Gill, 2012).

As such, gendered occupation would therefore exemplify a political stance, explicating both subtle and overt illustrations of power and oppression that non-critically oriented explorations of gender and occupation fail to capture. Research examining gendered occupation should destabilize dominant conceptualizations of gender, while also challenging preconceived notions produced and perpetuated by sociocultural and political discourses, particularly when these shape gender inequities. In critically attending to the underlying assumptions embedded within ‘gender’ as a construct, and the power structures which reinforce gender ideology, scholars can begin to unpack ways Western knowledge systems and discourses have influenced how occupational science approaches gendered research.

Disciplinary literature has widely examined women’s occupation, admittedly focusing more attention to the ways women experience and engage in occupation than men (Hocking, 2012). More critical intersections of gender and occupation have also surfaced, including explorations of gender identity, power, and justice. For example, Townsend (1997) highlighted the overarching power structures and organizations impacting women’s occupation, while Smith (2003) attended to the bifurcation of women’s paid and unpaid occupations. Jackson (1998) built on DeVault’s (1991) foundational scholarship to challenge underlying assumptions embedded within occupation and illuminate how social discourses influence women’s occupational roles. Goodman, Knotts, and Jackson (2007) examined the interlinks of social discourses and gender norms as they relate to gender identity and gendered expression, while McKinley (2002) critically explored Maori scientists’ gender identities. Bailey and Jackson (2005) examined the occupation of household finances among lesbian couples, calling for the “redefining of the division of labor approach to household tasks” (p. 65). Jakobsen (2004) and Smith and Hilton (2008) examined occupational justice issues amongst women with disabilities, illuminating barriers to equitable occupational engagement and experiences of domestic violence respectively. Finally, the intersectional nature of gender, race, and class within occupation was also raised within Angell’s (2012) analysis of social difference.

Though this existing body of critical literature on gender and occupation has introduced a feminized lens to occupational science scholarship, it has continued to be primarily situated within a particular class structure and worldview. Despite calls for diverse perspectives spanning beyond the discipline’s dominant ontology and epistemologies, occupational science literature is predominantly positioned within Western thought (Farias & Laliberte Rudman, 2014; Guajardo et al., 2015). Some critical scholars, such as Ramugondo (2015) and Hammell (2011), have noted the implicit hegemonic assumptions embedded within Western knowledge forms, challenging scientists to consciously and critically rethink the foundations that underpin “identities, knowledge and practices of occupational science and their effects on society” (Guajardo et al., 2015, p. 3).

Research from South Africa is challenging some of these underlying disciplinary assumptions, recognizing the implications of perpetuating dominant practices and concepts (Galvaan et al., 2015; Ramugondo, 2015). For example, recent critical research by Cloete and Ramugondo (2015) explored engagement in the occupation of alcohol consumption among pregnant rural women in South Africa. The study focused on the occupational inequities perpetuated by historical, cultural, economic, and socio-political factors that influence women’s daily occupations. The authors intertwine South Africa’s history of Apartheid in their critical analysis, acknowledging the significance of socio-economic and political factors which continue to marginalize women today.

Extending such work out to other African nations might expand the capacity to understand diverse perspectives and contexts influencing women’s occupational engagement, such as colonization and globalization. Without these alternative perspectives to attend to critical issues of power and equity, occupational scientists cannot capture the complexities of all women’s experiences or produce knowledge that appropriately and relevantly represents the realities of all women, including the diverse ways in which women experience oppression.

Critical decolonized knowledge generated from these contexts should also be supported with relevant African philosophies and perspectives of womanhood which enact engagement and action (Mama, 2007). It becomes problematic when the discipline attempts to apply ‘Western’ research approaches and conceptualizations of gender universally, when these perspectives are in fact “minority viewpoints” (Hammell, 2009, p. 8). The promulgation of Western assumptions as universal constitutes both ethnocentrism and theoretical imperialism (Hammell, 2011; Iwama, 2003). Amina Mama (1997) reiterated the importance of relevance in her writings, suggesting the literature on Africana women put forward by Western academics is “predominantly irrelevant to the women experiencing localized oppression on the ground” (Mama, 2009, p. 63). Mama (2004) further emphasized that “unequal power and authority has ensured a dynamic of appropriation and incorporation that constantly subverts and depletes transformative agendas” (p. 121). This further solidifies why conceptual underpinnings specific to Africana women’s unique experiences of oppression is vital. As such, occupational science would benefit by drawing knowledge from an alternative theoretical space: Africana womanism.

Africana Womanism within Occupational Science

Laliberte Rudman and colleagues (2008) pointed out the necessity of multiple and divergent perspectives for scholarship to thrive, particularly within scholarship aiming to attend to the diverse, situated nature of occupation. Interdisciplinary collaborations with the feminist school of thought, specifically with the uptake of Africana womanism, is necessary to diversify conceptualizations of gender. In particular, Africana womanism offers new perspectives when situating ‘gendered occupation’ in research, enabling scientists to push beyond the limits of Western dualisms.

Africana womanism is a theoretical space delineated from feminist thought to both address monolithic tensions within feminism as a whole, and to create space for the perspectives, viewpoints, and dialogues of women of African descent (including African-America, African-Caribbean, and continental African) (Hudson-Weems, 2001, 2004). It encompasses diverse theoretical perspectives while embodying common epistemological assumptions among Africana women. Not only does this parallel the call for diverse perspectives in occupational science, but it lends well to the exploration of novel conceptualizations of gendered occupation from the context of Africana womanhood.

Hudson-Weems (2001) discussed the importance of linguistically establishing divisions among the feminist continuum, arguing for the importance of avoiding the term feminism when situating work within an Africana womanist lens (Hudson-Weems, 2004). She argued that feminism historically focused monolithically on patriarchal oppression, failing to acknowledge the intersectional nature of both womanhood and gender-based oppression (Hudson-Weems, 2004). Conversely, Africana womanism embodies a separate agenda, highlighting and expressing “the unique beliefs, values and oppressions of Africana women” (Hudson-Weems, 2004, p. 28).

According to Yaa Asantewaa Reed (2001), the solutions to oppression already exist within African philosophy, which was embedded in pre-colonial African societies. Therefore, to effectively highlight how the uptake of Africana womanism can advance conceptualizations of gendered occupation and enact transformative research, we explicate these foundational principles in parallel to occupation (Cruz, 2015).

Foundational Principles of African Womanism: Reflections on Implications for Addressing Gendered Occupations in Occupational Science

In this section, the ways in which Africana womanism can challenge implicit assumptions embedded within dominant epistemologies of occupational science, while also advancing understandings of gendered occupation beyond a Western paradigm, will be discussed. The philosophies underpinning Africana womanism, including situationality, holism, and collectivism, are presented as possibilities for advancing and diversifying disciplinary conceptualizations beyond Western paradigmatic viewpoints.

Gender as situational

The African philosophy of situationality offers unique perspectives on gender, which challenge assumptions of gender as a dualistic concept, as well as ‘gender normative’ occupations and occupational roles (Cruz, 2015). Pedwell (2010) noted essentialist binaries such as gender “often position a bounded, ahistorical notion of cultural difference as the fundamental axis of differentiation between groups; they ignore the fluidity, contradiction and change” (p. 15). This is particularly pertinent with situationality, as it rejects the “unequivocal framings” of gender often depicted within Western sociocultural discourse (West & Zimmerman, 1987, p. 127). Instead of a static, dichotomized categorization based on one’s biological sex, situationality highlights gender as a fluid construct dependent on context, where men and women are not positioned at opposite ends of a gender binary (Cruz, 2015; Hudson-Weems, 2014; Norwood, 2013).

The philosophical principle of situationality opposes gender as a dualism, highlighting how women can shift in and out of gender depending on context (Cruz, 2015). Cruz (2015) noted that situationality is grounded in a concern for connectivity; it focuses on how groups interact with and intuit their social links to others (Mikell, 1997). For example, in some East-African tribes, daughters can become an ‘honorary son’ if the family has no other male-born children, illustrating how females can shift to a traditional male role if needed (Amadiume, 1987; Norwood, 2013). In rural Tanzania, economically powerful older women without children become a ‘husband’ by marrying a younger woman of child-bearing age to cohabitate and collectively mother the off-spring (Berger, 2016; Cruz, 2015). This shift is often in response to patriarchal expectations and gender norms relating to women’s roles and reproduction versus sexual orientation. These examples illustrate that gender can be malleable and dynamic according to coexisting sociocultural, political, and economic contexts.

A situational perspective of gender does not appear to have been taken up in occupational science. Instead, the existing literature pertaining to gender and occupation stems largely from perspectives situated in Western gender ideology. For example, Goodman and colleagues (2007) explored the link between women’s gender identity and the occupation of ‘doing dress’, noting the significance of the clothes women choose to wear as a marker of gender identity. The authors acknowledged that dichotomous conceptualizations of gender are problematic; however, for practical purposes, used gender as a static category to highlight gender differentials in dress (Goodman et al., 2007). The philosophy of situationality could be applied to build upon that study when further exploring the malleable nature of gender and gender expression within occupation, as well as how occupation can be a means to situate gender and enact it dynamically.

In moving towards advancing the conceptualization of gender in occupational science, gender fluidity situated in culture, occupations, and social customs could be further explored to increase understandings of women’s occupational possibilities and enactment, as well as occupational identity beyond a Western paradigm. In addition to advancing the discipline’s cultural diversity, the deconstruction of non-binary perspectives of gender, gender identity, and gender expression, can create space for and support diverse voices, such as amongst persons who identify as gender neutral, bi-gender, and/or transgender. Overall, an understanding of Africana womanism can enable occupational scientists to more critically unpack assumptions surrounding gender, and to consider how situational factors shape possibilities and boundaries of gendered occupation.

Womanhood as holistic

Africana womanism and the philosophy of holism can offer unique underpinnings to delve into the complexities of womanhood and women’s occupation, including diverse ways of being, becoming, doing, and belonging. Perceptions of womanhood, or what it means to be a woman, are shaped by epistemic values individuals and societies hold with respect to what counts as knowledge (Kinsella, 2012). Within occupational science, dominant values have shaped binary perspectives of occupation as either ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’, influencing and perpetuating the ideology of what it means to be a woman (Alda-Vidal, Rusca, Zwarteveen, Schwartz, & Pouw, 2017). Such categorization is rooted in a universal perspective of womanhood that implicitly assumes all women identify with dualistic ways of being and doing. This is problematic because it creates opportunity for oppression when certain ‘categories’ of being and doing are valued above others.

Along these lines, Crenshaw (1991) argued a singular view does not encompass the complexities of the intersecting factors that shape the multiple dimensions of women’s experiences (Davis, 2008). According to Cruz (2015), “the philosophy of holism makes sense of societal domains in relation to the whole” (p. 26), considering the dimensions of gender, age, race, class, and ethnicity from a holistic viewpoint. The uptake of a holistic perspective could therefore shift occupational science scholarship to a more intersectional understanding of womanhood and its encompassing ways of being and doing (Crenshaw, 1991).

As one illustration, the bifurcation of paid versus unpaid occupations within occupational science contains underlying assumptions reinforced by sociocultural values of productivity (Smith, 2003). Embedded within these assumptions is the implicit undervaluing of unpaid occupations, such as mothering (Smith, 2003). Mothering from a Western lens is often viewed as a role or one singular dimension of womanhood, instead of as holistic and relational to being a woman (Achebe, 2002). The principle of holism can advance understandings of mothering as an occupation, as it embodies the values placed on motherhood within Africana women’s lives (Cruz, 2015; Emecheta, 1979). According to Cruz (2015), Africana philosophy suggests that paid productive occupations are not the only means for women’s empowerment. In traditional African societies, motherhood was a way to gain status and respect among the community (Cruz, 2015; Emecheta, 1979; Hudson-Weems, 2001). Cultural traditions and customs within African womanhood highlight mothering as an integral part of women’s lives, and also of the community (Amadiume, 1987; Cruz, 2015; Emecheta, 1979). Holism can, therefore, challenge the discipline’s dichotomous assumptions of which occupational roles are considered both productive and empowering for women.

An holistic perspective could also widen and diversify conceptualizations of motherhood, distinguishing it from mothering as an occupation. For example, occupational scientists could consider collective or social mothering as an occupation, expanding on conceptualizations of motherhood beyond a Western paradigm. Galvaan and colleagues (2015) touched on this in their phenomenological exploration of the complex interrelations of live-in domestic workers and their employers in South Africa. The perspectives of women employing domestic workers broached the topic of mothering, where employers shared mothering occupations with their employees and their employees resultantly delegated the mothering of their own children to maintain their employment (Galvaan et al., 2015). This scholarship could be built upon to further examine collective mothering from multiple perspectives and contexts, including how it is used as a strategy of resistance to inequities. In summary, the uptake of Africana womanism can facilitate a more holistic and relational understanding of womanhood as well as its interlink to motherhood. The philosophy of holism can facilitate scholars to challenge assumptions relating to which occupations are deemed productive, as well as critically consider the complexities of unpaid occupations, such as mothering, and the ways in which diverse occupations intersect in women’s lives.

Collectivity to transcend individualism

The African philosophy of collectivity has been previously introduced in the occupational science literature in efforts to transcend individualism (Ramugondo & Kronenberg, 2015). For the purposes of this paper, collectivity highlights how Africana womanism can build on the existing literature that has begun to challenge the individualistic assumptions embedded within the discipline.

Collectivity is underpinned by the African value of community, “in which who and how we can be as human beings are shaped through interactions with one another” (Cornell & Van Marle, 2005, p. 206). Ubuntu (I am we; I am because we are; we are because I am) acts as an ontological orientation on which the foundational philosophies of Africana womanism are based. Ubuntu challenges the Western dichotomous perspective of the individual and the community through highlighting their interconnectivity; it also evokes the spiritual dimension of humanity and human consciousness within a collective (Cornell & Van Marle, 2005). The philosophy of collectivity views the community and individual as having a dynamic relationship where both interact to continuously and ethically create space for one another to become and exist (Cornell & Van Marle, 2005; Ramugondo & Kronenberg, 2015). Therefore, collectivity in an Africana context is grounded in the values of a community-oriented society, where individuals prioritize the needs of others over their own personal values to sustain balanced and harmonious relationships among all members of the group, regardless of gender (Cruz, 2015).

The philosophy of collectivity notably connects to the idea of collective occupations, defined by Ramugondo and Kronenberg (2015) as “occupations that are engaged in by individuals, groups, communities and/or societies in everyday contexts” (p. 10). They argued occupational scientists need to understand how individuals are interconnected through their daily occupations, both in society and culture to address the “persistent dichotomous view of the individual versus the collective” (p. 3). Through the introduction of ‘ubuntu’ as a philosophical underpinning, collective occupations resist the dualistic focus on individualism in Western ideology, serving as an example of what Guajardo and colleagues (2015) referred to as “paradigmatic bias” (p. 5). Hocking (2012) weighed in on this bias when discussing dominant values of self-interest and achievements, rather than shared goals, arguing: “occupational scientists need to move beyond romanticized accounts of individualized experiences if the discipline is to make any contribution to understanding and responding to the occupational issues of people who experience systematic disadvantage or marginalization” (p. 58).

Africana womanism may serve as a useful theoretical tool to advance this existing knowledge surrounding the interplay of occupation and the community (Ramugondo & Kronenberg, 2015). Cruz (2015) wrote, “other empowerment possibilities exist in the form of women’s collective organizations, which make up the tapestry of everyday communal life” (p. 27). For example, ‘susu groups’, or rotating credit associations, enable women engaged in market activities to take turns investing in their own small business (Cruz, 2014). These groups highlight a collective strategy of resistance to the politicization of everyday life, demonstrating how women negotiate and maintain social, political, and economic relations (Enloe, Lacey, & Gregory, 2016). Along these lines, susu groups highlight how women react to the local and global systems that perpetuate poverty, economic dependence, and gender inequities, while also serving as opportunities for transformation (Cloutier, 2006; Cruz, 2014, 2015; Enloe et al., 2016; Grantham, 2016).

Another example within the Africana womanist literature that highlights women’s occupation as collective resistance includes song-singing (Cruz, 2015). Songs are a means for women to engage with their culture, while revealing their resistance to ideologies which oppress them, such as colonization. Chilisa and Ntseane (2010) spoke to this in their scholarship: “singing together allows women to share the pain of oppression and to heal through the knowledge that they can collectively resist the dominance” (p. 628; Elabor-Idemudia, 2002). Singing could therefore be explored as both a collective occupation and collective act of resistance to challenge and reshape dominant culture (Pyatak & Muccietelli, 2011).

A collective viewpoint can address repressive social orders, highlighting how the positioning of marginalized groups within society differentially shapes inclusion and oppression (Angell, 2012; Ramugondo & Kronenberg, 2015). It can also illuminate the “collective nature of healing” through occupation to foster social transformation (Motimele & Ramugondo, 2014, p. 399). The principle of collectivity can, therefore, build on existing work to challenge individualistic assumptions within the discipline, and advance understandings of collective resistance and social transformation through occupation.

Gender equity as holistic

Hammell (2008) discussed human rights within her work on occupational rights, noting its causal link to meaningful occupational engagement and well-being (Hammell, 2015; World Federation of Occupational Therapists, 2006). Frank (2012) noted that the concept of occupation as a human right had surfaced within occupational science, yet she pointed out “the need for critical analysis of such claims with respect to human rights and global transformations” (p. 30). However, scholarship which specifically addresses gender inequities experienced by women of the majority world is lacking. While Hocking’s (2012) critique of gender inequity in occupational science research considers female scientists’ implicit bias towards researching participants similar to themselves, it does not consider how their privilege and status in society influences a discursive understanding of gender inequity.

For example, the gender divide in pay scales or the underrepresentation of women in particular fields are recognized issues of gender inequity in the West, pointedly cited in feminist literature as sexual politics (Sharp et al., 2012). Unpacking how this relates to gender, reveals the embedded issues of patriarchy and female subjugation are rooted in a particular class and worldview. In this sense, gender inequity is a taken-for-granted concept when scholars with the power to create new knowledge only view inequities from a privileged lens. In considering the implications of a monolithic disciplinary perspective of gender inequity, researchers should critically reflect on the implicit privilege underpinning this lack of depth and representation. Alda-Vidal and colleagues (2017) spoke to this, noting “the appearance of neutral scholarship often works to hide gender hierarchies and inequities” (p. 978). Before the discipline can claim its understanding of the complexities of gender and women’s occupational rights, gender inequity should be critically examined from multiple sociocultural and political contexts, to avoid perpetuating an inadequate representation of women’s experiences, including those which are oppressive.

Africana womanism and its underlying philosophies can help scientists unpack assumptions embedded within the concept of gender equity, in order to advance its conceptualization as a human right within occupational science. The intersectional nature of Africana womanism can illustrate an additional alternative perspective to gender inequities. Although the womanist agenda highlights gender as a contributing factor to women’s oppression, it clearly distinguishes that gender is not the only factor, as often portrayed in feminism (Hudson-Weems, 20014). For example, race is intersectional to womanhood; therefore racial discrimination should also be viewed as an integral contributor to gender inequity. According to Hudson-Weems (2014), “the Africana womanist perceives herself as working toward participation in Africana liberation; therefore, in order to address gender, she must also address colour” (p. 30).

Africana womanism can challenge how occupational scientists conceptualize gender inequity, as well as create space for more diverse perspectives of gender-based oppression beyond a Western paradigm. In traditional African philosophy, equality was valued by both men and women with harmonious and respectful relationships (Cruz, 2015). Therefore, these philosophies can enable occupational scientists to shift understandings of gender inequity from a fight for power against patriarchy, to a more holistic and balanced goal of equity. It can enhance awareness of the broad range of inequities experienced by women in the majority world and widen understandings of how women’s diverse experiences of gender and oppression intersect with and through occupational engagement. It can also link to critical conceptualizations of occupational justice, addressing the “sociopolitical roots” of injustices and illuminating directions for social transformation (Farias, Laliberte Rudman, & Magalhães, 2016, p. 234).

Future Directions: Transformations within Occupational Science

In echoing the call for critical and socially responsive occupational science research, scholars have a moral responsibility to attend to issues of social justice (Frank, 2012; Laliberte Rudman, 2014). Scholars have spoken to this transformative potential, noting the capacity of occupation to be both restorative and resistive by nature (Frank & Muriithi, 2015; Laliberte Rudman, 2014; Motimele & Ramugondo, 2014; Townsend, 1997). Transformation through occupation refers to “the opportunities for humans to choose and engage in occupations for the purposes of directing and changing either personal or social aspects of life” (Townsend, 1997, p. 20). The literature has since built on this concept, highlighting human occupation as “a site of resistance to and reproduction of the social order” (Angell, 2012, p. 104), and a catalyst for social change through occupational reconstructions (Black, 2011; Frank & Muriithi, 2015; Motimele & Ramugondo, 2014). Occupational consciousness underpins this resistance, suggesting an awareness of the intersection of oppression and occupation can highlight “how occupation perpetuates discourses that produce and sustain truths in relation to the self and the oppressed” (Ramugondo, 2015, p. 495).

However, the literature has not widely explored how exactly scientists can challenge dominant power structures to resist human rights issues, such as gender inequities. The literature also lacks direction on how to spark large scale social transformations, such as social change to address the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (2015) which emphasize gender equality (UN Women 2013, 2015). This is consistent with several critical scholars, such as Laliberte Rudman (2014), who voiced concern with “a lag between stated intent and action” (p. 377; Frank, 2012; Hocking & Whiteford, 2012).

Africana womanism could be used to build upon existing theories and concepts, such as occupational reconstructions and occupational consciousness, to advance the notion of occupation as a mode of resistance to oppression and a restorative strategy to transcend oppression (Frank & Muriithi, 2015; Motimele & Ramugondo, 2014; Ramugondo, 2015). As one illustration, occupational reconstruction theory paired with Africana womanist conceptual underpinnings can provide a lens to explore the ways in which Africana women navigate gender inequities situated in contexts of colonization and globalization (Frank & Muriithi, 2015). For example, a focus on women who engage in ‘masculine’ occupations, such taxi driving in urban spaces, water service provision, renting land, and the wholesale of livestock and crops to local businesses, has the capacity to unveil new understandings surrounding the ways women resist and transform oppressive gender ideology and discourse (Alda-Vidal et al., 2017; Cloutier, 2006). Exploring how women negotiate barriers of patriarchal gender norms and infiltrate these traditionally male occupational roles may advance knowledge surrounding the ways in which women disrupt the cycle of oppression through occupation, both individually and collectively (Cloutier, 2006; Ramugondo, 2015). Women’s credit groups and social enterprises can be explored through a decolonizing lens to highlight how women use occupation to navigate oppressive local and international systems and both resist and transform experiences of gender inequity (Enloe et al., 2016; Frank & Muriithi, 2015). Understandings of how women transcend gender inequities through occupation (both individually and collectively) has the potential to translate knowledge into action by informing and influencing the development of ethical initiatives targeting women; this could include international organizations, such as the UN and their sustainable development goals, or governmental or non-profit initiatives aimed at achieving gender equity.

Conclusion

Chilisa and Ntseane (2010) argued that research on gender must be “viewed as a revolution” (p. 620). Methodologies enacted should therefore involve reconceptualising issues, shifting questions and attending sharply to the power of dominant values (Chilisa & Ntseane, 2010). Occupational science must radically reconceptualize gendered occupation to situate the discipline towards more critical, diverse, and socially responsive research spaces.

In adopting alternative approaches to research, the coherence of the research context and approach must align to ensure ethical and representative work that does not cause unintentional oppression (Bailliard, 2016). It is therefore important to explicitly state that African womanism should not be universally applied and the recommendations in this paper are tailored for research involving Africana women. Potential limitations in the utility of Africana womanism relate back to the transparency and reflexivity of one’s positionality, and the coherence of one’s paradigmatic location and methodological approach. In the absence of critical reflexivity, through individual and collective means, African womanism can be taken up in ways that unintentionally re-inscribe Western paradigmatic assumptions.

In conclusion, this paper is a response to the call for occupational scientists to diversify disciplinary perspectives beyond a Western paradigm. This introduction of Africana womanism as a theoretical space aimed to initiate a critical dialogue and epistemic reflexivity to advance pluralistic philosophical positions, inform transformative research and propose a direction in which to turn when considering gendered occupation (Kinsella, 2012; Laliberte Rudman et al., 2008; Laliberte Rudman, 2014). Consideration of existing literature examining gender and occupation highlighted the need for work which deconstructs the power and politics within Westernized epistemologies and ideologies surrounding gender. The uptake of Africana womanism can challenge imperialistic assumptions stemming from monolithic perspectives, including dominant dichotomous understandings of gender, womanhood, individualism and gender equity.

The philosophy of holism can advance understandings of womanhood through more intersectional explorations of gendered occupation, such as considering motherhood as relational to womanhood (Achebe, 2002). The values of holism can also facilitate the discipline to re-evaluate and challenge dominant assumptions pertaining to mothering as an unpaid and therefore non-productive occupation, as well as an individual versus collective occupation (Cruz, 2015). The philosophy of situationality can challenge static and binary assumptions of gender and advance conceptualizations of gendered occupation, including gender identity and gender expression. Gender fluidity can illuminate the contextual and situated nature of gender and ways of being. Finally, the philosophy of collectivity, underpinned by notions of ‘ubuntu’, can be used to mobilize transformative occupational science research by challenging ‘status quo’ perspectives of women’s individualistic occupational engagement and advance understandings of spirituality. As conceptualizations of womanhood from multiple contexts evolve, the link to the diversity of gender inequities women experience globally and the ways in which they resist these inequities can also be explored. Particularly, the ways in which occupation can be used as both resistance to and restoration from gender inequity can inform relevant and collaborative approaches for catalyzing meaningful change for women and their communities. Africana womanism can therefore serve as a theoretical space to build upon existing occupational literature, to both transcend a Western paradigm and catalyze socially responsive, transformative scholarship and social impact.

ORCID

Stephanie Huff http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8832-9526

Debbie Laliberte Rudman http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5486-8994

Lilian Magalhães http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3666-3685