Integrating Social Justice in Life Skills Measurement in East Africa

By Martin Ariapa (Co-PI, ALiVE, Luigi Giussani Foundation, Uganda)

This blog features Martin Ariapa’s reflections on the Social Inequality and Social Justice course offered to PhD students in Strategic Innovation for Sustainable and Smart Ecosystems (SIS2E) at the University of Milan-Bicocca. Martin had the privilege of sharing the Action for Life skills and Values in East Africa (ALiVE) way on integrating social justice into research processes with the class.

Why Social Justice Matters in Life Skills Measurement

In applying the frameworks and reflections from Social Inequality and Social Justice, research on life skills measurement in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania can be approached as a site of political and ethical responsibility. This responsibility is rooted in the recognition that scientific knowledge shapes policy priorities, funding flows, and public narratives, while social inequality enters research through gatekeeping of topics, language, methods, and publication rules. Social justice work in research begins by naming science as a site of power. Research teams decide whose experiences become “evidence,” whose voices remain background noise, and whose lives get framed as problems.

In East Africa, life skills measurement in primary and secondary schools sits within contested education systems, shaped by curriculum reforms, examination pressure, language hierarchies, rural underinvestment, and poverty. The topics on Social Inequality and Social Justice highlight the entanglement of science, power, and value systems, and push toward practice through intersectionality and grassroots strategy, promoting the stance that research should be an intervention, not merely observation.

Integrating Social Justice at the Problem Identification Phase

A socially just life skills initiative begins with system needs identified with stakeholders, keeping youth dignity at the centre. In practice, problem identification involves three steps:

1. Convene education actors across the ecosystem – learners, caregivers/parents, teachers, head teachers, district officials, curriculum bodies, assessment bodies, youth organisations, disability advocates, local researchers, and language specialists.
2. Ask a values question before a measurement question – what outcomes matter to communities, and what harms must research avoid?
3. Translate system priorities into research questions that support accountability and improvement, not blame.

The Action for Life Skills and Values in East Africa (ALiVE)[1] case demonstrates this approach through consultative prioritisation to select the target competences, ethnographic work in the target communities, literature reviews on prioritized skills, and workshops with local experts to clarify the meaning of competences.

Integrating Social Justice at the Research Design Phase

Research design decisions allocate benefits and burdens. Sampling, language, testing time, incentives, and participant selection all carry equity consequences. The decolonising research article by Thambinathan and Kinsella (2021)[2] identifies four guiding practices:

1. Critical reflexivity – interrogating assumptions embedded in constructs such as “problem solving,” “collaboration,” or “self-awareness.” Researchers must consider whose norms define “good collaboration,” which cultural expectations shape gendered behaviour, and which languages receive status in testing. Reflexivity also requires reviewing funder incentives, which often reward standardisation, while communities prioritise relevance and respectful representation. The design must make trade-offs visible and choose equity over convenience.
2. Reciprocity and self-determination – co-creation of tools and protocols with local experts and young people ensures that respondents influence items, instructions, language, and context. ALiVE implemented this through “local expert” workshops, followed by cognitive and pilot testing with adolescents, treating them as knowledge holders. Ethical issues became ongoing negotiations throughout planning, fieldwork, analysis, and dissemination.
3. Embracing Other(ed) ways of knowing – respecting local meanings of competence is essential. In some communities, identity and decision-making are linked to collective responsibility, faith communities, clan systems, or extended family networks. Measurement tasks must reflect these realities rather than impose individualist assumptions. Cultural insiders, including teachers, youth leaders, social workers, gender specialists, and linguists, should review scenarios for hidden bias, idioms, or stereotypes. ALiVE incorporated this through item panelling focused on stereotypes, harmful behaviours, literacy load, and accessibility.
4. Transformative praxis – ensuring research evidence leads to meaningful change in schools, communities, and institutions.

Integrating Social Justice at the Data Collection Phase

Fieldwork often reproduces inequality through rushed consent, authority pressure, and language barriers. A social justice approach treats data collection as a relationship rather than a transaction. The decolonising methodologies article emphasises iterative consent, listening as active practice, and accountability to participants. In practice:

• Consent must include adolescents and caregivers, explained in familiar language, with voluntary participation protected even in hierarchical school environments.
• Test administrators are trained in respectful engagement, safeguarding, confidentiality, and non-coercive practice.
• Assessments are conducted in a language the adolescent is comfortable with and in a relaxed, supportive environment to reduce anxiety and enable best performance.

Attention to inclusion ensures that logistical barriers do not exclude participants. Out-of-school adolescents, pastoralist communities, refugee learners, and learners with disabilities are incorporated whenever possible. By sampling for geographic, gender, and age diversity, ALiVE reached 45,442 adolescents (49% boys, 51% girls) aged 13–17, from 35,720 households, 1,991 enumeration areas, and 85 districts/counties across Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, ensuring both equality of voice and equity for those facing higher barriers.

Integrating Social Justice at the Data Analysis and Reporting Phase

Analysis choices determine whose realities are recognized as patterns. A decolonising lens warns against the researcher’s power to label and alienate oppressed groups. Practices to support justice in analysis include:

• Disaggregation through an intersectional lens such as reporting by age, gender, location, disability, schooling status, and language group when safe.
• Participatory interpretation – engaging educators, youth representatives, and community members, with careful facilitation to prevent elite capture.
• Transparent reporting of limitations and uncertainty – noting where measures risk cultural misfit or translation loss.

Reporting also requires a “dignity test.” Avoid deficit labelling such as describing respondents as having “low ability.” Focus instead on what young people are able to demonstrate within the assessed skills, using system-focused language: opportunities, learning conditions, support needs, and curriculum alignment. Link findings to actionable levers: teacher development, assessment reform, learning materials, language policy, and school climate.

Integrating Social Justice at Dissemination and Use of Findings

Dissemination should go beyond donors and ministries to return findings to participants and their ecosystems. Practices include:

• Feedback notes and community dialogues
• Teacher learning circle sessions and local language summaries
• Youth-friendly formats such as school assemblies, radio segments, and short videos

ALiVE implemented these strategies to ensure evidence informs curricular planning, public accountability, and policy action, supporting grassroots change rather than top-down directives.

Conclusion

This blog highlights how life skills measurement in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania can be fairer and more relevant, starting with research questions framed around system needs. Equity is embedded throughout—from inclusive samples and tools shaped by local experts and adolescents, to participation that treats young people as knowledge holders. Ethical safeguards guide data collection, and analysis disaggregates results to reveal intersectional differences. Globally, this work challenges Eurocentric standards of “good research,” offering a model where justice shapes every stage of the research cycle, from problem definition to dissemination.

---

[1] Access ALiVE resources at: https://inee.org/resources/assessment-life-skills-and-values-east-africa-alive

[2]Thambinathan, V., & Kinsella, E. A. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies in qualitative research: Creating spaces for transformative praxis. International journal of qualitative methods, 20, 16094069211014766.