Drug Decriminalization in Maryland Through an African Centered Research Paradigm- Analysis and Recommendations

is both an attempt to account for the researcher's cultural background and potential bias, and also
an account of the cultural characteristics of the groups of people being studied. This goes beyond
a “strength-based” perspective that sees culture as a system that can help us understand how to
interpret behavior and to predict how different interventions and proposals might function.
The research index is particularly important, as it challenges notions of scientific
“objectivity”. Many scholars within the dominant scientific tradition have tried to account for the
bias of individual researchers, but, like Hoberman’s discussion on the limits of sensitivity training
of doctors, the argument is not simply that the individual researcher has some bias, but that the
process and methodology of scientific inquiry imbeds bias into the process. Schiele cites both
Akbar and Ani in his critique of the concept of objectivity, writing:
“The Afrocentric paradigm posits that since research or knowledge inquiry is a "people
made" activity, it, as with additional human creations and activities, is influenced by, and
imbued with, human values (Akbar, 1994; Asante, 1990; Semmes, 1981). These values not
only influence the process of a particular knowledge inquiry and development paradigm
but also shape the very structure and philosophical tenets that undergird the process.
Unlike the positivist/post-positivist paradigm, the Afrocentric paradigm does not posit the
superiority or hierarchy of methods. The Afrocentric paradigm rejects Kerlinger's (1979)
assertion that "procedures of science are objective—not the scientist" (p. 264), because
this exaggerates methodology's power to remove subjectivity from knowledge inquiry and
development. Methods are developed by people, and the Afrocentric paradigm contends
that all knowledge inquiry methods are subjective, reflecting the ideas about knowledge
inquiry and development held by their creators.
The Afrocentric paradigm also repudiates Popper's (1972) notion that objectivity is a
system of organized/mutual critique—that science is objective because of the willingness
of the scientist to have his or her work critiqued by colleagues. Although Popper (1969)
contends that it is rare for the social scientist to be value free, he still implies, similar to
Kerlinger, that objectivity lies in some sort of method (in his case, the critical method),
thus again separating the method from the people who create and subscribe to it. The
notion that the critical thinking method in some way suspends the scientist's values while
the scientist forms a critique is unfounded, Afrocentrically. Although the critical thinking
method appears to be value neutral because of its focus on identifying the pros and cons
of an idea, all critiques are permeated with the philosophical and ideological preferences
of the evaluator. Furthermore, critical analysis is itself a value, in that it demonstrates the
preference for a more subdued form of debate: by identifying the pros and cons of an idea
uneffusively, one is misled into believing that one's assessment of the idea is objective or
at least fair. At the core of the Afrocentric vision that knowledge inquiry and development
4151 Park Heights Avenue, Suite 207, Baltimore, MD 21215 • www.lbsbaltimore.com • (410) 374-7683