Decolonising Evaluation Practice in International Development Cooperation Through an African Religion Lens

Abstract

This paper critically addresses the pervasive neglect of indigenous approaches to social transformation within the field of international development cooperation. It shows how commonly used evaluation frameworks—shaped by Western assumptions about evidence, measurement, and progress—tend to exclude non-Western knowledge systems. Focusing on African Initiated Churches (AICs) as exemplars of development actors with transformational approaches that incorporate the spiritual, this study explores the possible reforms required in mainstream evaluation practices to recognise and include development alternatives. An analysis of AIC evaluation practices reveals the potential for decolonised frameworks rooted in African and Indigenous epistemologies, including relational, communal, and spiritual ways of generating evidence. This paper argues that fostering mutual learning and dialogue in the field of development evaluation is fundamental to driving more inclusive and sustainable social change.

1. Introduction

Over the past 60 years, the established international development sector has championed the values and norms of Western modernity1, the universal and best approach to achieving social transformation (Esteva 1992; Escobar 1995; Sachs 2019). However, the current global landscape, characterised by an ecological crisis, continuing poverty, and increasing distributional injustice, gradually challenges the promises of established development approaches as a means to achieve a better life. There is a momentum that prompts a reflection on the role that the “Western” approaches might play in perpetuating social and economic inequality, as well as environmental degradation. It brings attention to theories that advocate the value of alternative approaches and knowledge systems in fostering societal wellbeing (Kothari et al. 2019). Taking into account that religion and spirituality are fundamental aspects of life for the majority of people in the “Global South”, the international development discourse rarely incorporates spiritual pathways into its considerations (Ver Beek 2000; Öhlmann et al. 2020, p. 2). While post- and decolonial perspectives on development have pointed to the need for acknowledging “indigenous”2 alternatives to social transformation for a considerable time (e.g., Shiva 1988; Esteva 1992; Escobar 1995), there have been few attempts made to promote approaches outside the norms of Western modernity in operations and practices of the international development sector.3

In this paper, I explore what needs to change in the field of international development cooperation for it to become more inclusive towards concepts situated outside mainstream development practices. I argue that the decolonisation of evaluation processes within the development sector is a crucial step towards accepting development alternatives since the established evaluation systems work as a guide and a corrective shaping the types of development interventions that are implemented.

Through the case example of African Initiated Churches (AICs) and their development and evaluation practices, this paper seeks to draw attention to the existence and potential of alternative (indigenous religious) notions of development and development evaluation.

I start with a brief analysis of the ideological basis of the contemporary international development sector and recent calls for decolonisation that are inter alia expressed in post-development discourse. This is followed by a presentation of research findings from my fieldwork on perspectives and experiences of development and evaluation approaches among AICs in Ghana, South Africa, and Botswana. I conclude with a discussion and analysis of how the inclusion of these alternatives may contribute to social transformation through reimagining traditional evaluation practices in international development.

2. Contesting Paradigms in International Development: Western Models and the Challenge of the Religious Sphere

The international development landscape, when viewed through a historical–hermeneutic lens, unveils a strong reliance on the paradigms of Western donor countries, rooted in the principles and values of Western modernity. “The quest for modernity has been a driving force in development” (Decker and McMahon 2020, p. 282). It has been executed in the belief that modernity has its historical origins in the West (ibid.) and with the intention of bringing enlightenment advancements to the rest of the world (Decker and McMahon 2020).

While the categorisation of modernity is a topic of ongoing debate in the humanities, there are certain characteristics consistently emphasised in “classical” modernisation theory (Degele and Dries 2005, pp. 16–18). Central to these are the pervasive faith in (instrumental) rationality and the objectivity of science (Weber 1958a; Habermas 1984), encompassing a trust in the power of technological innovations and technocratic governance (Habermas 1984; Rostow 1960). Further, there is a pronounced belief in the efficacy of a capitalist market economy (Weber 1958b; Rostow 1960) and the democratic principles underpinning modern nation-states (Welzel and Inglehart 2005; Marshall 1992). These are associated with notions of universality and progress in which the emphasised characteristics are seen as the highest form of knowledge (Taylor 2007).

These classical belief systems of modernity have also been embraced and advocated within the domain of international development cooperation, which is echoed within the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), World Bank reports, and national development plans.

Generally, international development cooperation puts great emphasis on empirical science and technologies assumed to be the most effective means for societal wellbeing, clearly articulated by the United Nations by stating that “Technology, science and capacity building are major pillars of the Means of Implementation of the Post-2015 Agenda (…)” (UN n.d.). The belief in the transformative power of technology is also emphasised in SDG 9, i.e., “to build resilient infrastructure, promote sustainable industrialization and foster innovation” (SDG 9), and plays a crucial role in many of the other goals promoted in the United Nations Agenda 2030, for example, SDG 2, achieving zero hunger through modern agriculture; SDG 3, promoting good health and wellbeing, e.g., through modern medicine and vaccines; SDF 6, to ensure good water and sanitation; and SDG 7, to foster clean energy (UN 2015).

In line with the ideologies of Western modernity, the development sector also exerts a critical scrutiny of traditional authorities, norms, and religious beliefs that have been historically juxtaposed with the advancement and promotion of empirical evidence, logic, and rationality (Hume 1993; Voltaire 1935). Accordingly, in the framework of today’s established development cooperation, religion is generally not seen as a valid and reliable means to shape and direct development processes: “(…) Western-led modern global development institutions that have emerged since the Second World War have tended to be secular in nature” (Tomalin 2018, p. 1).4

Tomalin identifies secularisation as (only) emanating on the macro-level in many nation-states, especially in the Global North, as well as in most international institutions (Tomalin 2018, p. 7). “Accordingly global development institutions are part of an overall secular systemic order (…)” (ibid.).

In other societal realms, religion never vanished (ibid). Bayly points to a secular international middle class as the holders of secular notions (Bayly 2004, p. 362), while when viewed more broadly, religion has reportedly experienced a great revitalisation—characterised by religious actors covering religious and social needs that are no longer served by other establishments (Bayly 2004, p. 330).

While a new focus on religious actors by international development organisations may appear to signal reconciliation and the integration of religious pathways at the secular macro-level, there are limits to this endeavour. In an attempt to integrate religious communities, religion is often viewed as a factor to be regulated and controlled on a secular basis (Tomalin 2018, p. 2). Accordingly, when dealing with religious actors in their development work, the majority of development institutions generally ask if religion is beneficial or destructive to the secular development goals (Öhlmann et al. 2020, pp. 1–2). This amounts to coupling religious actors to the values that are rooted in secular development propositions and instrumentalising them for gaining access to extensive networks that these religious actors have in local communities (Clarke and Jennings 2008). Religious approaches as valid and helpful pathways towards sustainable development, by contrast, remain widely marginalised (Denk 2023, pp. 132f).

As a conclusion, the international development sector rarely identifies counter-hegemonic situated approaches towards development, including religious approaches, and as such does not recognise their contribution towards creating a better society. There seems to be a strong conviction among major donors that the paradigms of Western modernity work as the main solution for human wellbeing if the approaches are implemented correctly (Ferguson 1994); however, post- and decolonial approaches to development, as well as post-development studies, have challenged this assumption.

3. Decolonising Evaluation Practice: Cultural and Religious Alternatives?

Despite introspection within the sector or possibly ideological resistance, one possible explanation for why it takes and took so long for the sector to actively address these concerns about coloniality within international development cooperation could be that when it is discussed, issues are seen as too abstract and detached from practical realities (Pieterse 2000) that could be adapted by practitioners and policymakers.

I hypothesise that one terrain for promoting possible change is the well-established evaluation system(s) within international development cooperation. Evaluation practices in international development are used as a guide and a corrective for promoting development ventures. We can assume that if evaluation systems were decolonised, this could serve as an effective catalyst for rehabilitating alternative knowledge systems that are located outside of dominant, largely Western, secular notions of development and might by chance open space for more sustainable pathways towards measuring development success and social transformation.

The scope of this article is to deconstruct taken-for-granted assumptions of established evaluation methods, show their cultural situatedness, and identify possible alternatives that could encourage knowledge practices “guided by principles of cognitive justice” (Mormina and Istratii 2021, p. 13). This approach challenges the assumption that “Western evaluation frameworks and methodologies provide the most rigorous and trustworthy results” (Kelly and Htwe 2024, p. 73).

From a post-development perspective, one of the core problems is the persistent hierarchical treatment of different forms of knowledge, where one type—expert knowledge which is presumed to be universally applicable and advocated by authoritative figures—is granted privilege over localised and indigenous ways of knowing often labelled “unscientific” knowledge (Ziai 2017, p. 2551).

Western academic traditions have long reinforced hierarchies of knowledge that systematically sideline indigenous epistemologies, often viewing them as less valid or credible. This legacy of academic imperialism persists, sustaining institutional frameworks that continue to marginalise indigenous knowledge (Smith 2012) often dismissing them as unscientific. This labelling is deeply problematic, as it reflects a narrow, Eurocentric definition of science overlooking the rigour, contextual validity, and relational epistemologies embedded in indigenous ways of knowing.

While the field of development evaluation is not static nor monolithic and has evolved over time—from mid-20th century quantitative methods rooted in statistical analysis to the inclusion of qualitative and participatory approaches in the 1980s, later adopting mixed-methods and constructivist frameworks that recognise the subjective nature of knowledge (Greene and McClintock 1991)—it remains largely shaped by Eurocentric frameworks from the Global North. Alternative epistemologies from the Global South are mostly marginalised.5

Even though discussions on localisation, indigenisation, and decolonisation have entered international development evaluation discourse (e.g., Chilisa and Mertens 2021; Asante and Archibald 2023; Kawakami et al. 2007; Hopson et al. 2012), they are so far rarely implemented (Kelly and Htwe 2024, p. 69). Kawakami et al. (2007) suggest replacing common top-down evaluation designs with participatory processes that engage local stakeholders as co-creators of evaluation criteria, focusing on collective decision making rooted in cultural traditions such as storytelling and indigenous practices of relational accountability. Chilisa and Mertens (2021) and Asante and Archibald (2023) anchor Africa Ubuntu epistemology where relationality, consensus building, and indigenous spiritual and religious dimensions are foundational. Hopson et al. (2012) also call for the use of dialogic processes that ensure that communities not only contribute data but also influence methods, interpretation, and conclusions with their own epistemic traditions. This step “requires unlearning some traditional definitions of “good evaluation” to create space for broader understandings of validity and rigor, of utility and relevance” (ibid. 2012, p. 79).

One of several reasons of the rare implementation of the proposed alternatives is an apparent lack of understanding about indigenous knowledge systems in the international development sector and how other knowledge systems and (religious) worldviews might deepen the discussion and enhance innovations in development evaluation and social transformation.6

The expanding academic discussion on indigenous research methods shows that spiritual inspiration holds legitimacy for many communities (Wilson 2008; Smith 2012; Chilisa and Mertens 2021). Thus, to meaningfully engage with indigenous epistemologies, development actors must consider how religious beliefs and evidencing systems inform understandings of development.

In what follows, this article aims to elaborate a deeper understanding of other epistemologies drawn from the life worlds and evaluations practices of AICs and to consider their implications of epistemic pluralism in the emerging field of decolonising methodologies. Their worldview provides a unique epistemic contribution that challenges dominant Western paradigms of knowledge production. As will be shown, their communal evidencing practices—rooted in Ubuntu und spirituality—are distinct contributions of African Christianity to decolonising methodologies.

A particular emphasis is placed on AICs their and spiritual knowledge, as it represents an epistemic challenge to Western paradigms of valid forms of knowing and is one of the most marginalised epistemologies in this field.

Both Gloria Anzaldúa (1987) and Walter Mignolo (2011), in their conception of epistemic plurality, recognise the value of the religious. For Anzaldúa, the spiritual is inseparable from the intellectual, offering an embodied and intuitive mode of knowing that challenges disciplinary Western epistemologies. Similarly, Mignolo’s concept of epistemic disobedience calls for recognising marginalised knowledge systems—particularly those grounded in religious worldviews—as valid alternatives to dominant Western rationality.

Similarly, and in line with these approaches, Majid Rahnema suggests that a deep desire for “spiritual” and less technical approaches towards development is at the centre of the widely applied development critique (Rahnema 1997, p. 401). Thus, the case study of selected AICs in Ghana, South Africa, and Botswana, with their approach to development and their perspectives on evaluation practices, will serve as an entry point for considering alternative ways of approaching the evaluation of social transformation. By drawing on the field of religion and the African cultural context, I hope to derive critical understandings of and learn lessons from alternative development evaluation practices.

4. Development Evaluation and the Case of African Initiated Churches

Many AICs emerged as African-founded congregations that blended Christian frameworks with indigenous customs, liturgies, and philosophies. Beyond their religious role, AICs are often situated within a broader landscape of anti-colonial resistance (Barrett 1968; Anderson 2001), embodying movements for self-determination. They are often perceived as efforts by Africans to counteract colonial domination, serving as defences against Western control. This perception is contested in other studies, which suggest that most AICs are not deliberately engaged in political activities to gain autonomy from Western colonial influence (Turner 1980; Schoffeleers 1991; Oosthuizen 1997).7 Bridging the two different perceptions, I want to suggest that while there might not be deliberate resistance in many cases, their independence in adopting their own traditions and developmental strategies practically constitutes a case of counter hegemony against the dominant Western models of progress (see also van der Puije 2024). AICs have often been identified as grassroots development actors (Swart 2020) who have established a “development” practice based on their local knowledge, values, and needs. This approach corresponds with the post-development endeavours to foster self-determined ways of living. AICs are, therefore, suited for a deeper analysis, as examples of distinct development movements from below (Swart 2020; Bompani 2010).

5. Methodology

To investigate and learn from the development and evaluation approaches of AICs, a qualitative study involving participants from AICs in Greater Accra Region (Ghana), Cape Town (South Africa), and Gaborone (Botswana) was conducted between 2022 and 2024. All consulted stakeholders are by their self-definition pastors and members of AICs.

The sampling methodology employed in this study is a combination of convenience sampling and non-probability sampling techniques. This spectrum includes prominent churches, such as the Church of Pentecost (Ghana) and Nazareth Baptist Church (South Africa), as well as lesser-known smaller AICs (ranging from 8.8 million to 100 members). Collection methods included semi-structured in-depth interviews with seven pastors and three engaged members of, in total, ten AICs.

Table 1. Overview of Key Informant Interviews and On-Site Visits with African Initiated Churches (AICs).

Type of Interaction	Position	Gender	Church Name	Location
Key informant interview	Pastor	Female	Orion Church International	Cape Town, South Africa
Key informant interview	Church family member	Female	Fair Heavens Pentecostal Church	Cape Town, South Africa
Key informant interview	Pastor	Male	The voice of Galilee Church of Christ Zion S.A.	Cape Town, South Africa
Key informant interview	Former pastor	Male	Christian Family Ministries	Cape Town, South Africa
Key informant interview	Member	Male	Nazareth Baptist Church	Durban, South Africa
On-site visit	AIC		Orion Church International	Cape Town, South Africa
On-site visit	AIC		Nazareth Baptist Church	Durban, South Africa
Key informant interview	Pastor	Male	The Territory of Christ in Zion	Gaborone, Botswana
Key informant interview	President and bishop	Male	Emisiya Apostolic Church in Zion	Gaborone, Botswana
On-site visit	AIC		The Territory of Christ in Zion	Gaborone, Botswana
Key informant interview	Member	Female	Global Evangelical Church	Greater Accra Region, Ghana
Key informant interview	Pastor	Male	God’s solution centre	Greater Accra Region, Ghana
Key informant interview	Chairman and Apostle	Male	The Church of Pentecost	Greater Accra Region, Ghana
On-site visit	AIC		The Church of Pentecost	Accra, Ghana

provides a detailed overview of the interviewees’ backgrounds.

Together with the interviews, this study involved participatory observation during church services. While the interviews contributed to understanding the roles of AICs in development on a theoretical level, participatory observation during Sunday services provided deeper insights into the practical implementation of some of their approaches.

During the interviews, several questions were posed to the participants. The first question sought to explore the developmental approaches employed by the selected AICs. It involved questions on the strategies, frameworks, and philosophies that guide their ventures towards societal wellbeing. The main focus then shifted to investigating the evaluation methods of the selected AICs. It involved an exploration of the data collection and knowledge creation, as well as the procedures they utilise to plan and access their activities.

Stakeholders were consulted in a second round to present and share findings, provide feedback (instead of mere data retrieval), and prevent major biases in representation, thus enabling co-creation.

6. Results

6.1. Development Approaches of AICs

Through the active members and pastors consulted, I found that the selected AICs exhibit a diverse range of development approaches.

As will be elaborated on in the following sections, in many ways, their approaches strongly differ from dominant notions of development, while simultaneously advocating for certain mainstream development ventures. In this context, my focus is on “AICs within a discussion of hybridity” (Venter 2004, p. 7), particularly in relation to colonial entanglements and globalisation, which forces to pay “proper attention to power dynamics” (ibid, p. 7), which are characterised by both adoption and resistance.

Key development areas emphasised by the AIC members and pastors could be summarised as spiritual empowerment, economic development and financial support, education, and healing—although issues are addressed very differently from international development practices through spiritual connotations and local customs, as will be shown in the following.

6.1.1. Spiritual Empowerment

For all the AICs that were engaged during the fieldwork, spiritual empowerment emerged as a significant objective, playing an important role in facilitating social transformation. As a church member in South Africa stated, “Spirituality plays a big, a big role in all of this” (Member, AIC—Durban; February 2023).

When interviewees were asked about their view on development, spirituality was seen as an integral part of development and not as separated from it. The central function of spirituality was similarly articulated by a pastor: “So what must be done then you also add the spiritual aspect to that issue. And that’s where the solutions can happen” (Pastor, AIC—South Africa; February 2023). The statement indicates that emphasis is put on spiritual development as a driver of transformation. This stands in contrast to Western development approaches—which put the focus less on spirituality. For AICs, social change is supposed to start from the spirit. When asked which mechanisms could promote structural change in society, the pastor noted that “Since prayer has been dismissed from the school structure we find within our schools, the kids are more violent” (ibid.)—suggesting that for this pastor, there is a correlation between spiritual and societal wellbeing.

This sentiment is also observed by religion and development scholars who suggest that “Religion is part of development and development is part of religion” (Öhlmann et al. 2016, p. 10). Through practices like prayer, counselling, reliance on the Holy Spirit, and healing ministries, faith and the power of the Holy Spirit manifest in the material lives of AIC believers (Öhlmann et al. 2016). This sets free motivational forces, shapes new subjectivities, and fundamentally affirms the individual’s agency (Öhlmann et al. 2020, p. 13) and becomes part of development.

AICs view themselves as actively involved in initiatives aimed at spiritually empowering individuals. The approach of AICs can, therefore, be interpreted as situated knowledge, including distinct ontologies in which the spirits affect the material world. As Ter Haar and Ellis (2006) emphasise, in African societies, the invisible is not separated from the visible and invisible entities are not necessarily dependent and connected with an institutionalised religious (church) setting. The local recognition of transcendent elements influencing material progress stands in sharp contrast to Western concepts of development, which are founded on a belief system characterised by a secular–religious dichotomy. While there is almost no reference to transcendence in Western development endeavours and no target that equates to spiritual empowerment in the international development agenda, in the context of AICs, pastors suggest that their approach is “to give spiritual nourishment” (Member, AIC—Greater Accra Region, April 2024). While target 3.4 of the UN Agenda 2020 addresses the issue of mental wellbeing, which could be interpreted as a very reductionist secular version of spiritual development or empowerment, it primarily categorises it as a health concern, akin to physical pain (UN 2015, p. 16). In contrast, for the religious actors in the AIC religious landscape the development of a person, household, or community is not possible without the due incorporation of spirituality. Chitando (2004) reinforces this by describing AICs’ focus on “holistic liberation” (ibid., p. 130) and the necessity of spirituality in driving development (ibid., p. 131).

6.1.2. Healing

The realm of healing is another component that distinguishes AIC approaches from mainstream development practices. For AIC members and pastors, it is closely connected to the spiritual sphere, and most of the religious actors consulted during this study employ holistic healing practices. This involves drawing on transcendental [spiritual] forces as an important component for mental and bodily wellbeing (Chepkwony 2019).

One AIC pastor stated that their approach to healing is anchored in the Christian belief about the power of God and Jesus Christ: “When we talk about healing mostly, I believe in Christ Jesus. And by his stripes we were healed”. (…) “God has made me strengthen up to be strong and withstand all the pressures of life” (Pastor, AIC—Greater Accra Region; February 2024). As can be inferred from the pastor’s comment, part of the AIC notion of healing involves gaining mental resilience; however, it is not limited to the mental state but also involves bodily protection and wellbeing derived from religious belief or practices. The same pastor claimed, “I’ve never been to a clinic before. I believe in the healing of God” (ibid.).

Two interview partners from Gaborone and Cape Town reported receiving treatment with holy water as a means to heal, and one pastor in Cape Town gave the example of a woman who was suddenly healed from cancer as the community prayed for her. Similarly, a member of an AIC in Greater Accra Region stated that she herself had miraculously been healed from fibroids shortly before a scheduled surgery. The informants in these cases stressed that healing has been confirmed by medical doctors. Thus, what these ‘testimonies’ suggest or imply is that spiritual healing is an integral part of the development paradigm for members of AICs.

The AIC holistic approach to health and healing differs from approaches to health in international development cooperation insofar as the latter primarily view health as based on the immanent treatment of biological, chemical, and physical aspects in a person (UN 2015, p. 16).

At the same time, AICs do not exclusively draw on transcendental practices or religious ways of knowing but complement them with Western medicine. A pastor clarified this complementary relationship:

“If, for example, you may find that that person [is] coming to the clinic every time but the diseases he or she is suffering is not being identified. But the church, [with] prophecy can identify the disease and tell the individual, go to the hospital. Tell these doctors you are suffering from this. (…) So, you find that this works hand in hand. Some can fail to be healed in the hospital. But when you get to church, and we find that [source]. (…) We believe in spiritual initiative. We believe in working together cooperatively.”

(Pastor, AIC—Gaborone; March 2023)

The pastor’s statement shows that while Western medicine is utilised and valued, it is complemented by spiritual ways of knowing, with an awareness of Western medicine’s vulnerabilities.

He points to the possible limits of diagnostic practices within the mainstream medical system and presents spiritual healing as an asset in development.

6.1.3. Ubuntu [Personhood] Relations

The interviews revealed that next to spiritual empowerment and healing, Ubuntu relations are seen as an important basis for social transformation. All consulted experts of the AIC stated that in a broader sense, they embrace Ubuntu reciprocity and communal ways of being as a distinct approach8. The former president of the Organization of African Initiated Churches (OAIC) of Botswana, who gives AICs a united voice, stated the following:

“We are an African organisation that is founded on values of the African philosophy and values system of Ubuntu that privilege, care, reciprocity, acceptance, openness and equality” (April 2023).

Ubuntu—is often defined as Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu, “a person is a person through other persons”, frequently translated as “I am because you are” (Gade 2011, pp. 302, 313). It emphasises the importance of connectedness and good relations, which can involve God, humans, animals, and things (Shutte 2001). Good relations serve as a major cornerstone for societal wellbeing.

Sartorius (2021) argues that through the lens of Ubuntu philosophy, many of the UN Agenda 2030 SDGs fall short of important aspects of human relations. In contrast to international development, “Ubuntu would also consider poverty to be a crisis of human relations, of dignity rather than describing it purely in economic terms” (Sartorius 2021, p. 6).

Reliance on communal relations has been testified and considered important in various statements of the consulted AICs:

“Because remember when God created us, he then created us to establish (…) a relationship (…). So, if I have 100 grand and I can give you 30 grand of the grand, it’s my relationship that’s going to allow.”

(Pastor, AIC—Cape Town; February 2023)

The statement about relationship embodies the essence of Ubuntu. At the same time, the argument is grounded in the theological concept of God’s creation and remembrance of what is written in the Bible. It illustrates how AICs merge African traditions with Christian beliefs. In the context of development, this fusion of worldviews discourages purely individual capital accumulation and instead promotes a vision of shared wellbeing and communal flourishing.

“Last month I just sent money for somebody to start a business. (…) So, whatever I earn is not just me” (Member, AIC—Greater Accra Region; April 2024). The statement provides a good illustration what Ubuntu relations mean when they are operationalised. Commons are shared on the basis of the Ubuntu—I am because we are—ethics. The means are not exclusively foreseen for an individual. This is also expressed in the following statement, where individual benefits are waived:

“There’s a lot of sharing and most people really don’t do it for money. Yesterday some of our village members brought a whole bunch of meals and all of these things that they are growing because it’s harvesting season. And even if you want to give them money just to say thank you, they’re saying no, just saying, God just bless me.”

(Member, AIC—Durban; February 2023)

While the argument has a theological basis, traditional values of Ubuntu are frequently emphasised as an important ideological component. In their statements, many consulted experts do not differentiate between the relational concept of Ubuntu and Christian beliefs in the interviews. “I think Ubuntu is Christian” (Member, AIC—Greater Accra Region; April 2024). This exemplifies the hybridisation processes in AICs that blend Christian with indigenous traditions.

The following statement highlights the prominent role that relationships take in transcending other categories: “So, for me, when it comes to church, two things are very important. God and people, which equates to relationship” (Pastor, AIC—Cape Town; February 2023).

Relation to and with God seems to be crucial to this person’s concept of Ubuntu; the concepts, therefore, work together. Relationships are at the centre of theological practice.

While the established Christian Ubuntu practice emerges as an important basis and approach of AICs to societal wellbeing, it was also noted that there is a trend that more and more AIC leaders are not putting those values into practice: “We literally moved away from that social understanding of Ubuntu to a place of where we say, no, I’ll give to you, but I must have more” (Former pastor, AIC—Cape Town, February 2023). Some churches have been criticised for prioritising growth, wealth, and influence for personal gain, thereby corrupting the principles of Ubuntu. This has sometimes been attributed to the growing influence of values and strategies grounded in Western liberal instrumental rationality that emphasise individualism and profit maximisation. “Because Africa has lost it’s identity based on how Europeans and the West has formulated us to be” (ibid.).

Indeed, neoliberal understandings of wellbeing have entered AICs’ development approaches in many cases. Pentecostal Churches, in particular, are often accused of promoting notions of development that follow principles of individualistic capital accumulation (e.g., Anim 2021), standing opposite to Ubuntu traditions in the way they teach the prosperity gospel. However, in the interviews, all participants stated that to their understanding, the communal plays an important role in their churches. At least in their ideology, it seems that notions of Ubuntu are seen as important concepts.

While pointing to issues in the current development of AICs, the quotes often describe them, in their ideal form, as models for a larger movement toward African spirituality based on Ubuntu, as also suggested by Kobe (2021). By the last quoted pastor and by (Kobe 2021) in their essence, AIC Ubuntu practices are seen as a counter-hegemonic practice for Black liberation (ibid.).

6.2. AIC Evidencing Methods as Basis for Evaluation Practices

Having outlined those additional values and orientations that give AIC development strategies their distinctive approach, I will now explore AIC approaches to validating their development strategies. Thus, I sought to ascertain how AIC evidencing methods diverge from international development evaluation.

What emerged from my research was that similar to international development evaluation methods, their AICs also partly base their assessment on empirical data collected through systematic surveys and interviews. According to the study participants, these conventional data sources provided valuable insights for decision-making processes of AICs and for the evaluation of the implemented interventions. Needs assessments through statistical quantitative surveys, for example, of unemployment rates are used to steer contributions.

However, these methods are not as central as in traditional evaluation practices in the sector, but they are complemented by other methods, including personal witnessing and spiritual and communal ways of evidencing.

6.2.1. Human-Centred Ways of Evidencing

The consulted key experts stated that witnessing and personal testimonies by community members play a vital role in the decision-making processes of their AICs. These aspects were more frequently highlighted than, for example, systematic interviews. Congregants recounted personal first-hand experiences as valuable data. Witnessing was given great significance in affirming development ventures. The values and personal lived experiences at the grassroots play an important role, which is also emphasised in the following quote:

“It is important to keep ears to the ground. And you know what, you’re waiting to hear what people say” (Pastor, AIC—Cape Town; February 2023). It shows that evaluation should come from the people themselves. The human experience stands in the centre. The following quote emphasises that expert knowledge is not seen as important as personal and spiritual experience:

“The thing is, for me, at the end of the day, we can get all scientific about many issues, but at the end of it all, it is God and mankind. You know, experts can say this. Experts can say that. But an experience, a natural and personal experience in something supernatural cannot be denied.”

(Pastor, AIC—Cape Town; April 2024)

The quote suggests that strict methodological empiricism is not viewed as the most reliable form of evidence in this context. Instead, personal experience and connections to the supernatural9 or transcendental are regarded as real and should not be dismissed or invalidated.

The value of personal experience is also underscored through the approach of testimonies. Church members shared accounts of personal transformation, healing, and positive life changes. They do not only guarantee evidence but also showcase that the interventions were of relevance and meaning for the beneficiaries.

“In church settings there’s always testimonies (…). If a women’s conference was well received, then some Sundays or during the week with the services, then women will come forward and speak of what it is that they’ve learned.”

(Pastor, AIC—Cape Town; February 2023)

In the context of Western scientific evaluation practices, this can be interpreted as a very participatory non-hierarchical evaluation tool. The beneficiaries will set the agenda on what is evaluated. They can come back with any discussion topic and speak about it in their testimony. In current evaluation practices, the evaluation questions are most of the times set by the donor or in the framework of the donor logic (Kelly and Htwe 2024).

Compared with typical evaluation reports in international development—which are usually formal, written documents focused on conveying neutral facts—testimonies offer a more personal and emotional form of communication. This emotional resonance makes them a powerful tool for sense making, even if they may lack the systematic rigour of conventional methods. While Western science often treats emotions as subjective and a barrier to objectivity, in AICs, emotions appear to play a central role. They are not only accepted but considered an important part of what constitutes valid evidence.

To summarise, in human-centred AIC evaluation approaches, personal and community experiences and emotions play a greater role than in Western practices. While witnessing and testimonies also appear in mainstream evaluations (e.g., interviews, focus groups, and observations), researchers aim to control personal biases to maintain objectivity, keeping interpretation under evaluator scrutiny.

In contrast, AIC approaches prioritise lived experiences, with personal narratives being central and detached data being less emphasised. This aligns with contemporary decolonising evaluation discussions, which advocate for community-driven processes centred on local needs, experiences, and perspectives (e.g., Kawakami et al. 2007; Hopson et al. 2012).

6.2.2. Spiritual Forms of Evidencing

Evidence based on the everyday experiences of individuals not only encompasses their tangible immanent experiences but also includes their spiritual encounters. While there are some similarities with Western methods, such as using observations as data, the spiritual approach to evidence in AICs is distinct.

The consulted experts noted that spiritual inspirations, visions, and prophetic revelations form an important part in evidencing, representing a clear contrast with Western epistemologies.

The consulted congregants described instances where they and/or other people got inspired by God and the Holy Spirit receiving guidance. These occurrences play a fundamental role, count as valuable and meaningful to contributing to an informed decision-making process, and can work complementarily with empirical statistics:

“And if someone needs help from their household, they will also tell us and then we register. This person needs help of this sort. And if it’s a prophecy, which have come, we also have to keep in mind of that.”

(Pastor, AIC—Gaborone; March 2023)

While, in some cases, these forms of knowing are described as a form of intuition and inspiration for action (“God speaks to us through vision, things around speaking to you” (Pastor, AIC—Greater Accra Region; April 2022)), in some instances, those visions get very specific and detailed. The former president of the OAIC in Botswana described how such processes can look like:

“You will be sitting like this in your place or just resting. Then a vision will come to you. Showing that people are fighting at the University of Botswana. (…)And when you look at this thing, it will appear as if you are looking at a TV (…) but it will be appearing in your mind. (…) Next, there is a situation where the prophecy will come to you like you are sitting like I am here with you. Then God will reveal to me what this means. (…) Prophecy is not imagined. I should not imagine where you come from. It must come by its own. (…) When I look at you, that should reflect in my mind. ”

(Former president, OAIC—Gaborone; March 2023)

The description indicates that there may be aspects of human consciousness that can perceive information in ways that transcend ordinary sensory experience and rational inference. Such perspectives may appear threatening to those primarily socialised in modern epistemologies, who may perceive those as regressing from acclaimed advancements of the Enlightenment. These findings may appear trivial to other readers, given that in some societies, these methods form part of everyday local knowledge systems.

Personal experiences in this study challenged my situated epistemic standpoint as a scientist and international development evaluation practitioner, and I was forced to question realities I took for granted. Engaging with a prophet during a participatory observation in a church service in Gaborone, a colleague and I were confronted with insights that defied scientific explanation. In a personal consultation, the bishop of an AIC revealed detailed, accurate personal information including the specific names of people that play significant roles in my German colleague’s personal life. It was not possible to have gathered this information empirically in this context without knowing our full names and background. When discussing the incident with the former president of the OAIC Botswana, he pointed out that reliance on prophecy has a long tradition of humanity. He further pointed out the limits of empirical science, indicating that it is unreasonable to regard it as the only form of rationality:

“I know a scientist. Most of them are a little bit not believing. But when you ask them how were you created? You are unable to tell how the universe became like this. They are not able to tell who created the earth. They cannot tell you, but they don’t believe.”

(Former president, OAIC—Gaborone, March 2023)

The speaker describes what he sees as a paradox in the mindset of many scientists: they often reject religious or spiritual explanations yet cannot provide definitive answers to fundamental questions. In the conversation, he further points out that scientific knowledge is not static—new theories frequently replace old ones—suggesting that science itself is a process of ongoing revision rather than absolute truth. He, therefore, challenges the exclusive authority of science.

As an evolving academic discourse on indigenous research methods testifies, numerous communities accord legitimacy to spiritual inspiration (Wilson 2008; Smith 2012; Chilisa and Mertens 2021). Billman’s (2023) concept of ‘revealed knowledge’ provides a valuable framework for coining the essence of these forms of evidencing. The striking equivalencies of indigenous forms of evidencing should prompt a new attempt of questioning mainstreamed knowledge systems, engage in further dialogue regarding these techniques, and foster a process of reassessment within dominant scientific theory discourses.

The AIC experts’ experiences of revealed knowledge are seen as reliable sources for knowledge production.

In addition, there are established mechanisms and instruments that provide proof of validity of the revealed knowledge. The authenticity and validation of prophecies, for example, are provided from a communal standpoint:

“The bishop helped many people with his spiritual gifts, and he would tell people what they really are, where you come from, what you do, and even the shoe size. (…) he will even ask, you have proof? We will ask you. Are you sure? If it is lying, you tell us it’s not lying. And again, he can’t talk to you alone. When he’s prophesying to you, there should be someone listening so that he doesn’t tell you the wrong information. (…) Yes, there should be another person. If it needs interpretation, there should be someone there to interpret for that individual and someone who will be listening to see if this prophecy is a real prophecy.”

(Pastor, AIC—Gaborone; March 2023)

Components of a holistic assessment process within the context of AICs can be observed from the key informants’ quotes. This process can be backed up by communal sense making, as shown in the following.

6.2.3. Evidencing Grounded in Ubuntu [Collective Personhood]

Personal experiences and spiritual forms of knowing are accompanied by and can be brought into a broader understanding through communal interpretation and community discussions. The consulted experts revealed that congregants engage in collective dialogues to interpret their individual experiences and visions. As one expert from an AIC in Ghana stated, a vision always has to be interpreted by others and not stand alone (Pastor, AIC—Greater Accra Region; February 2024). Empirical experiences and possible solutions for problems are discussed together:

“Because then the church is a community, people do get to talk about things in their little corners and find out then more or less correct way or the right ways10 of doing things. So, it’s also like a big collective thing.”

(Member, AIC—Durban; February 2023)

In the quote, the reliance on the collective is emphasised again. The discussions facilitate the communal construction of meaning within the church’s community. The approach resonates with Ubuntu principles, where the relational component is paramount. It differs from focus group discussions in Western evaluation methods, for example, where information is gathered from the communities. but the final interpretation of data is performed by individuals. In the evaluation discourse, there have been attempts to define evaluation approaches distinct to Africa. The “Made in Africa Evaluation” (MAE) approach sees Ubuntu as a cornerstone of African evaluation methods, which equates with practices that have been described by the consulted stakeholders of the AICs:

In the context of MAE, core values are based on an I/we relationship. The emphasis is on belongingness, togetherness, interdependence, relationships, collectiveness, love, and harmony. Communities are recognised as knowers who can pass judgement on the relevance of SDG intervention and can prioritise their needs. (Chilisa and Mertens 2021, p. 247)

Asante and Archibald (2023) identify parallels to Ubuntu-based evaluation values in Ghana pointing to the Ghanaian concept of Nnoboa. “In terms of ontology, both Ubuntu and Nnoboa recognize the mutual reliance of each person on the other, which marks a rich sense of community and cooperation” (ibid., p. 161). There is no dichotomy between data collector and provider, they are not separated categories. “A type of radical constructivism” (ibid., p. 163). Community involvement and perspectives are central (ibid.). The approaches strongly resonate with methods described by the congregants of the AICs.

7. Conclusions: Development Evaluation in the Context of Epistemic Plurality

In light of the ongoing global polycrisis, this article underscores the urgency for the international development sector to move away from epistemological monism toward genuine engagement with diverse knowledge systems. The consultation process with AICs reveals a development and evaluation paradigm that centres on spirituality, relationality, and communal experience—elements largely overlooked in dominant Western frameworks. These approaches represent epistemologically distinct pathways that challenge the supremacy of technocratic, individualistic, and growth-centric models of development.

AICs’ integration of Ubuntu principles, holistic healing, and spiritual empowerment provides a relational understanding of wellbeing and success. Their evidencing practices—rooted in testimonies, spiritual insights, and collective discernment—resonate with indigenous research methodologies such as Wilson’s “Research is Ceremony” (Wilson 2008), which emphasizes relational accountability and spiritual inspiration as valid forms of knowledge. Similarly, Chilisa and Mertens (2021) frame indigenous knowledge as simultaneously subjective, objective, spiritual, and relational, highlighting the multidimensional nature of knowing.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) underscores the importance of promoting global competences involving “the capacity to understand and appreciate different perspectives and world views” (OECD 2018, p. 8). Notably, the OECD even suggests that religious literacy should be embraced as a component of such development competencies (OECD 2018, p. 8f; Simojoki 2023, p. 61). As discussed (van der Puije and Satzinger 2025), the OECD, unfortunately, does not practice the global competencies it promotes when involved in international development cooperation, instead pushing a Eurocentric viewpoint on global development actors.

Decolonial evaluation practices would involve strengthening dialogue with diverse, often indigenous or religiously-inflected knowledge systems in the global discourse, where human-centred, spiritual, and collective [Ubuntu] ways of evidencing complement traditional social scientific forms of evidencing and measuring success in development. This shift would pave the way for “Expanding Imaginations for a Post-2030 Development Agenda” (Bridger 2023) based on equity-based dialogue and mutual learning. Decolonising development evaluation and including indigenous knowledge in evidence-based decision-making can help to operationalise the inclusion of plural pathways towards social transformation.