African Perspectives on Well-Being: A Conversation With Angelina Wilson Fadiji, PhD

Photo used with permission from Angelina Wilson Fadiji, pHD

One of the first things I (Abi) noticed when I began to investigate positive psychology and, particularly, after I discovered the Master of Applied Positive Psychology (MAPP) program at the University of Pennsylvania, was the faces of its professors, practitioners, and the program’s alumni. Most of theirs were much lighter than my own. As a prospective student, I attended a virtual information session, eager to learn more about the pioneering program and the field. One of my distinct memories from that information session was a map depicting the 34 countries represented by MAPP alumni at the time. Like we tend to do sometimes, I didn’t so much notice what was. Rather, I noticed what wasn’t. I noticed that in the 16 classes that preceded the one I eventually graduated from, not one MAPP alum had come from Africa.

Over the last month, we’ve had the pleasure of working on this issue of MAPP Magazine with alumni from around the globe—across time zones, cultures, and contexts. Together, we’ve explored international perspectives, practices, and paradoxes of well-being. But again, noticeably absent was Africa. Gratefully, however, as we began curating this issue, we discovered and had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Angelina Wilson Fadiji, a Ghanaian senior lecturer from DeMontfort University in the UK whose research explores predictors of well-being and positive mental health in an African context. Here are excerpts from our conversation. 

MAPP Magazine (MM): Please share a bit about yourself, your work, and its intersection with positive psychology. 

Angelina Wilson Fadiji (AWF): I would say that my career, in terms of dabbling into positive psychology and well-being, started with my master's at the University of Bergen in Norway. I was looking at some of the factors or resources that engendered thriving among female porters in Ghana. These young women moved from the northern part of Ghana to the southern part just to make a living. They lived under very difficult [conditions]. I asked what we call the salutogenic question—What are the resources for thriving in such a difficult space?

I always knew I wanted to do a PhD. I [wondered] what would be the next logical question? By just reading around, I stumbled across the theme of positive psychology. I was like, how come I never saw this whilst doing my master’s, which was in health promotion?

I got pretty excited about [positive psychology] and decided, okay, let me phrase my projects around [a similar] idea. But then, really sitting within the positive psychology literature, I was asking questions about how indicators, such as life satisfaction, social support, and hope predict the mental health of adolescents in the northern region of Ghana. 

I did a postdoc at the North-West University Potchefstroom in South Africa. My PhD was at Stellenbosch University. I was in Potchefstroom with one of the renowned authors and positive psychology [researchers] on the continent and got the honor of working with her as a postdoctoral fellow, building on what I'd done. I also [joined one of her] existing projects, EHHI, eudaimonic and hedonic happiness inventory across different cultural contexts. I gathered data from my home country, Ghana, and [examined] whether the things we learned would be similar to the general trends. We already had a couple of European and Asian countries on the team, [but] South Africa was the only African country. 

So yeah, that's where I am. And that's how I [became] so passionate about positive psychology. Throughout my research career, I try to find the link with that interest. Across student supervision, research projects, there's always the theme of well-being and positive psychology running through it. It’s never the intersection; it’s usually the core that drives what I do.

MM: Where did that interest in well-being originate from? Has it always been something you were curious about? 

AWF: I think it was coincidental. I knew I wanted to be an academic, and my interest in positive psychology was just kind of a natural flow from the things I decided to study in my master’s.  I stuck with it from there.

MM: Gotcha. So it was in there, you noticed the thread, and then, you kept pulling on the thread?

AWF: Yeah, pretty much.

MM: Thanks for sharing. What roles do or should culture and context play in positive psychology research and applications and in the subjective experiences and measures of well-being?

AWF: A big role. A very big role. One of the ongoing discussions in subjective well-being research and applied positive psychology, and one ongoing criticism, is the consideration of culture, of context, in how we measure and conceptualize well-being. I constantly refer to a paper that was published in the Journal of Positive Psychology just last year by van Zyl and colleagues. One of the criticisms was that positive psychology is decontextualized and so it doesn't take into account how people live. People’s experiences influence how they think about life and how they experience well-being. So yes, to answer your question, [culture and context are] key. 

One of the things that we have tried to drive—me and most of my colleagues working with data from Africa—is that as much as we appreciate and we use tools that are developed elsewhere, we are very critical about [their] applicability to the social and cultural notions of well-being among Africans. 

We believe that doing research and taking culture into account allows us to elevate people's experiences that are unique to where they live. The problems we have here are unique to where we live, our background influences, and how we experience well-being. For instance, in Ghana, the word for happiness is described using body parts. You wouldn't get that in typical Western research. We must consider [context] in how we do research because people's individual experiences are unique. People's cultural experiences are unique, and they influence how they will experience well-being.

MM: Yes, I get this. One of the reasons I was eager to speak with you goes back to when I applied to MAPP. I noticed as a prospective student that no MAPP alumni had come from the continent of Africa. I had and still have curiosity about that. Since then, I’ve wondered if and how positive psychology concepts are relevant in an African context—or how they change.

AWF: I think I'll answer that in two ways. First, yes, [the concepts are] applicable. But secondly, there’s also the awareness of the need to be critical of such applications. 

One of the first papers I wrote for my PhD was [about what] I called the progressive map of mental health. [In the paper, I argued] that when you think about well-being or mental health—and who is researching them [from that positive] perspective—Africa is nowhere on that map. I made a call that there was a need to elevate positive mental health research because we are still using the definition of mental health that looks at the absence of disorders or the absence of psychopathology, not the presence of positive experiences. 

Since I finished my PhD in 2015, I wouldn't say this is still the case. But maybe not as representative as it should be because of the lack of appreciation of the fact that if we know what makes people well, we can build on it rather than focusing on deficits, which is what most of our mental health systems are designed to do. They fix deficits, but are not designed to promote resources for thriving. . .  There’s not enough evidence in those contexts to show that the more people experience well-being, the less the likelihood of them doing what we call falling over the edge. You know Keyes’ research has shown that in cases where we have flourishers and moderate levels of mental health—the likelihood of depression and anxiety are slimmer [than] for those with languishing mental health. But again, not enough evidence has been captured. If you look at the U.S., now you have population-based data that Keyes and other colleagues have used to prove this theory. But not enough evidence has been captured [in an African context] to show this so that policymakers can prioritize it. In education institutions in Africa, we need funding to get people to analyze data on a national level, to tell us more about the benefits of increasing the number of flourishers in the Ghanaian or in the African contexts. 

In a recent paper, we did a bibliometric analysis on positive psychology and well-being research in Africa, and what you will find is that South Africa ticks all the boxes. They are the main country with the greatest number of authors, the greatest number of researchers, and [the greatest] impact factor. Other countries in Africa are way down the line; the disparity is just too much. Again, we emphasize the psychopathology we need to fix but don’t have enough appreciation for the benefits of mental health promotion. I guess we need to generate evidence [of these benefits] because, without it, funding will not be directed there. If we can introduce this early on, we can raise the appetite for it. Then we can have people who want to explore it. 

MM: Yes, that makes sense. As you see it, is there a downside of cross-cultural approaches and the globalization of positive psychology?

AWF: I'm not sure what I would pinpoint as the downside of cross-cultural research. I think it's what we need. If you look at the third wave of positive psychology, one of the things that van Zyl and also authors like Tim Lomas are arguing for is context—doing contextually relevant research, right? And that means that you will have to do cross-cultural research. 

The only downside I can think of is parsimony in scientific research. We want a single theory that explains everything. That's what we might lose when we keep getting a multiplicity of ways of looking at things. But is that wrong? Is that a downside? That's another question to be answered, right? In terms of globalization, I think we're trying to find the middle line between what is global and what is contextual.

MM: Yes, thank you. So specifically, about African perspectives on well-being—I’m hesitant to ask this considering the multitude of contexts within the continent of Africa. Perhaps you can comment globally then more specifically on regions you’re more familiar with. How do sub-Saharan applications of positive psychology and African perspectives, definitions, and measures of well-being differ from Western ones? And to your earlier point, what aspects are universal?

AWF: Like you said, there are differences across the continent. If you look at somewhere like South Africa, which is a multiracial nation, you will find that a more Western sample within South Africa will slightly differ from what you find among the black African population and that may be slightly different from the Indian population. . . You're right when it comes to contexts within a context.

The theme of collectivism—and I'm very careful in throwing that out there because a lot of research has shown that it's not a dichotomy—in the sense that these guys are more collectivist, and these guys are more individualistic. It's something we look at on a continuum where even in more independent contexts, you do find a bit of interdependency. And vice versa. But that is one line of research where we keep getting a lot of researchers pointing to how different what we find within the African context is compared to the West.

Within that comes the theme of relationality and how relational bonds are embedded into how we experience well-being. Now, for instance, when you ask about what makes [African] people well, there is a strong relational focus. This is not to say you won't find that in Western research, it's just the fact that [African] people do not take themselves out of the context when describing something that is so personalized. Rather, there's a strong interpersonal component. That is what the work of Sarah White, someone I like to quote a lot, emphasizes. She actually proposes a relational well-being theory that relationships are the heart of subjective, psychological, and objective well-being and that we need to look at the interaction between these three centered in relationships in a relational ontology. That's something that I would say differs to a large extent from Western research: the kind of prominence we give to relationships. When you ask questions about harmony within the sub-Saharan African literature, again, you see a strong reference to harmony between people and the environment . . . You might find some of these themes recurring [in a Western context], but the level of prominence [differs]. When you look at findings from sub-Saharan Africa, most of the time, experiences of meaning in life are couched in relationships. It's almost as if you can't separate the two. 

Some colleagues and I wrote a paper on goals, and one would think that goals are very individualistic, you know, what I want to achieve. And this was among a rural group of older adults in South Africa. We found that people's goals had to do with people around them. Let me give an example. I want to be able to make a living, or I want to be able to—most of them were farmers—have a good harvest, or make enough money from my farm in order to be able to take care of my family. Even when they spoke [of] personalized goals, they had to do with how that connected to those around them—how [their goals] would benefit those around them. That strong relational component, we can't take it out. 

There's also the theme of morality that is intertwined with well-being. So, I'm actually working on a project right now where we're looking at philosophical conceptualizations of a life well lived. And one of the things that is coming out very strongly is morality. We are arguing that what makes a person a person is because they have the capacity for doing right or making moral decisions as defined by the communal context where they find themselves. The fact that those rules of the game are defined by their social community is not something you would find as central in more Western literature. 

Talking about well-being—you look at our typical tools of measuring happiness: How have you felt over the past few months? Have you felt happy? Have you felt this? Have you felt that? Most of the time, if you ask the qualitative question about happiness or well-being in the African context, it's not so much going to be how I feel at the moment; it's gonna be, I'm happy because my family is well. I'm happy because I’m in harmony with those around me. I'm happy because I'm able to provide for my family—again, it's that strong relational theme.

So those are the salient differences that I would want to bring to the fore. In terms of similarities, I would say that no matter how embedded or interdependent we say African context or cultures are, there are still expressions of individualism. And so that would always be something that will be global. There's research by Agbo and Ome, where they looked at happiness among Igbos in Nigeria. [Agbo] and his colleagues put out that quite surprisingly, there was a strong individualistic definition of happiness among Igbos. He tried to explain that away with the notions of Westernization, the fact that they were a young population, also the fact that the Igbos were a very industrious group, so they were quite driven to achieve certain goals. That focus on what I can do, brought to the fore a sense of individualism, which you wouldn't expect so much when doing research in a sub-Saharan context.

I think another thing that is worth putting out is that when we look at the tools measuring well-being and psychological well-being, it's very intrapsychic, right? Versus when we ask qualitative questions. So, if we use the same tools, we won't pick up on that difference. But [when] we ask qualitative questions on well-being in Africa, there's always the reference to material well-being. It makes us lose that distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic. Well, I'll say it blurs the lines between trying to think about well-being solely in terms of hedonic and eudaimonic. That's why you see now that there are lots of researchers that are saying no, we can't just limit our thinking of well-being to these measures. We need to think beyond them. 

VanderWeele and his colleagues at Harvard developed the flourishing scale, and in that scale, they tap into mental, physical, social, and even material well-being, because one of the things he was trying to do is to critique this dichotomy. I think the flourishing scale will capture more dimensions of well-being within the African context than scales that just tap into intrapsychic experiences because those intrapsychic experiences can't be separated from people's material objective conditions. [These conditions] must come into play when we measure well-being within the African context.

MM: Fabulous. Thank you so much for that. It’s great to hear you talk about relationships. We’re always interested in talking more about relationships. In one of your papers, you wrote that African scholars are not included as major role players or co-authors in scholarly research. As you see it, how can we change this?

AWF: We need to write more! It's just the politics of where we are. [African scholars] are not well represented, maybe because they're just not doing that kind of research, or there’s not enough funding in those contexts to do that kind of research. Or when they have to compete on the international ground to get the research grants, it doesn't turn out so well. 

I think it's for a variety of reasons. We need more people interested in the field. We need much more funding directed to people who are interested in [positive psychology], and we need to make it easier to get papers that are published within such contexts. I'm not saying we publish poor papers, but rather give greater visibility. 

I think an obvious issue would be that some institutions on our continent can't fund article processes and fees, right? And so, if I wanted to publish open access, which would make my paper highly visible, but my institution can't pay for it, then what do I do? I still publish, but it's in a journal with limited access because you need to pay for it. So you don't see it. That's why I started with the politics of the academic game. 

MM: This perspective is helpful. Is there anything more you’d like to share? What are you learning, researching, and/or teaching that you’re excited about? 

AWF: I think you've captured most of it. I wouldn't say I'm sitting with one theme. If you look up my trail of publications, you’ll see the times where a couple of things came from meaning in life. Then you’ll see things on well-being generally. You’ll see things looking at different groups of people, exploring different themes of well-being. 

In 2020 or 2021, I think, a book chapter was released on African-centered positive psychology. In it, a couple of colleagues and I were trying to argue that we need to bring together current evidence that showcases work on the continent because when you look at the reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analytic reviews, not enough has been done in our context. And you need that kind of evidence to draw out theory, to revise theory, and to produce contextually relevant instruments. A couple of studies have come up since then. I'm not saying nothing has changed. But again, not enough.

Building on that the bibliometric review I mentioned was published, we're analyzing research that has been done. Who's doing what, where? And again trying to bring that to the fore. What can we say are the thematic hotspots on the continent?

Then, a third level is something still in the pipeline where we want to do a scoping review on qualitative research. The reason is that we want to be able to draw out what we believe qualitative research can contribute to [an understanding of] what well-being is globally.

So basically, we say: What does qualitative research on well-being in Africa have to contribute to positive psychology globally? A review will give us that substance where we can say, here’s what we're missing in this global picture. These are all works in the pipeline, and we hope they come to fruition. 

Instead of always critiquing and saying we don't have enough. We don't have this. We don't have that. A couple of colleagues and I are trying to say, “Let's fill in the gaps.” Because, if you look at any paper from the continent, it's oh, we need more, we need more contextual evidence.

That's what we want to do. We need theory developed within the context. It's a journey of a couple of years that we're building up to being able to answer some of these questions. And as I told my colleagues, we might end up finding that there's nothing new under the sun. But at least it was done, right?

That's what I'm passionate about. I'm hoping to get a big grant that will support us once we have the baseline evidence to present—a seed work of what we feel is evidence that needs to be tested further.

MM: Wow! This is wonderful. So how then, can our readers learn more about your work? 

AWF: They can check out my papers online on Google scholar.

MM: It's been a pleasure to speak with you. Thank you.

AWF: You're welcome.

About the expert | Angelina Wilson Fadiji,
Ph.D. is a senior lecturer with the Department of Psychology, at De Montfort University, Leicester, United Kingdom. She completed her Ph.D. in 2015 at Stellenbosch University and began her research career as a Post-doctoral fellow with Prof Marie Wissing (North West University, South Africa). Dr Wilson Fadiji’s research interests involve the understanding of the predictors of psychological well-being and positive mental health within the African context. She has focused on determining how young people in deprived contexts thrive and what positive psychological experiences engender their well-being. Dr. Wilson Fadiji is particularly interested in researching conceptualizations of well-being in Africa to develop a contextually relevant theoretical framework for understanding well-being. Previous research topics include: meaning in life, relational well-being, hope, life satisfaction, and conceptualizations of happiness.