OECD Conference on New Frontiers in Subjective Well-being Measurement, 4 March 2024, Paris, France

1. Developing QoL Measures: Considerations from an
African Perspective
New Frontiers in Subjective Wellbeing
Measurement, 4-5th March 2024
Prof Erhabor Idemudia (FNPA, FNACP, FWCP, FSTIAS, FAvH)
North-West University, South Africa
Erhabor.Idemudia@nwu.ac.za
www.idemudiaerhabor.com

2. What is Quality of Life (QoL)?
➢The QoL construct is complex and has a complex composition
➢Therefore, it is not surprising that there is no single or standardised definition in psychological literature
➢And as a result, there is no standard form of measurement with over a thousand instruments
➢In psychological literature, the concepts of Happiness, Life Satisfaction and Subjective wellbeing (SWB)
are often used interchangeably (Veenhoven, 2012).
➢For example, happiness and SWB are both defined as the extent of people’s judgement about the overall
quality of their lives (e.g. Veenhoven, 2012; Lucasa, Oishib & Diener, 2016). Whereas Diener (1984)
prefers the SWB than happiness given its less ambiguous and more scientific connotation.
• Meanwhile, life satisfaction (LS) is defined “individual’s cognitive judgment about comparisons based on
the compatibility of their own living conditions with the standards” (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffen,
1985)
• To evaluate one’s living condition is to also appraise one’s quality of life. In similitude, Prasoon &
Chaturvedi (2016) defined LS as “an overall assessment of feelings and attitudes about one’s life at a
particular point in time ranging from negative to positive” (p. 26).

3. Problems underlying measures……
➢Why are the instruments problematic?
➢Many of the instruments may have been developed for certain special groups of
populations (mainly westernised) and, therefore, become unsuitable for others
➢Another problem is that many of the instruments are also not able to distinguish
between objective and subjective aspects of life quality
➢While not denying the similarities among these concepts, this paper contends
that remarkable differences set the meanings of these constructs apart.
➢In addition, many of the instruments are not culture-fair, while others are
culture-biased

4. QoL in Africa
• Some authors (World Happiness Report, 2019) claimed happiness is low in Africa
compared to Europe and North America
• Only 11 countries in Africa were found in the second 52 happy countries and
these they attributed to political and economic problems.
• Notwithstanding the 2019 WHR, the Spring 2017 Global Attitudes Survey (Pew
Research Centre, 2017) showed that the African continent was reported to have
the highest global mean of individuals having “particularly good days” in
comparison to a “typical” or “bad day”
• Happiness is a universal phenomenon, connotes favourable external conditions
and good luck (Oishi et al 2013) and it is dependent on cultural values, ideological
and religious beliefs (Inglehart et al 2008).

5. Considerations from Africa…..
• In Africa, the common good of all (collectivistic) or UBUNTU brings better
happiness than individualistic happiness. Botha et al (2017)
➢Culture is a way of life of a given people (Idemudia, 2004)
➢Emotional expressions are culturally determined, (Idemudia 2009).
➢Socio-cultural dimensions are not mere contexts for emotional expression but
are primary determinants of affect and integral to their very constitution,
(Coulter, 1979) .
➢In Africa, the common good of all is (collectivistic) brings better happiness than
individualistic happiness. Botha et al (2017)

6. What makes QoL in Africa different…..
•One of the African philosophies being propagated for
happiness is “Ubuntu” which is derived from an Nguni Bantu
word meaning ‘humanity’, ‘human nature’, ‘humanness’,
‘humanity’, ‘virtue’, ‘goodness’, ‘kindness’ and in general
terms, it can be translated to mean “I am because we are” and
when used in a philosophical sense implies the “belief in a
universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity”
(Wikipedia, 2018).
•Ubuntu is about interconnectedness of the African family.

7. African belief system
• “The African universe is conceived as a unified spiritual totality. We speak of the universe as cosmos, and we
mean that all being is organically interrelated and interdependent. The Western/European materialised universe
does not yield cosmos. The essence of the African cosmos is spiritual reality; that is its fundamental nature, its
primary essence. But realities are not conceived as being in irreconcilable opposition, as they are in the west, and
spirit is not separate from matter. Both spiritual and material being are necessary in order for there to be a
meaningful reality. While spiritual being gives force and energy to matter, material being gives form to spirit.
Enlightenment and the acquisition of wisdom and knowledge depend to a significant degree on being able to
apprehend spirit in matter” (Richards 1985)
• “The African way of thinking does not draw a line between the living and the
non-living, natural and supernatural, material and immaterial, conscious and
unconscious. These sets of phenomenon which in the west, are conceived of as
opposites, are understood in Africa as unities. The seen and unseen exists in a
dynamic interrelationship. Past, present and future harmoniously weave into one
another. The dream world and the daylight world have equal reality” (Lambo
1978).

8. Theoretical issues from an African perspective…
• Good/Moral behaviour
• Social harmony-disturbances in social relations
• Pre-life accord (Destiny)
• Religious/spiritual idioms (intrusion of objects, evil
eye, evil machinations, spirit possession, affliction by
gods and sorcery, hostile ancestral spirits etc)
• Psychological stress

9. Theoretical Overview (Idemudia, 2009)
Natural/
Unnatural
Wellbeing
disease/good health
External
Internal

10. Factors in attributions (African mind)
Aetiological factors
Social/Environmental
Cultural
Psychological
Spiritual
Biological

11. QoL in general sense…..
➢QoL is both subjective and objective. Each of these dimensions
has domains that can define the construct.
➢According to Cummins (2024), “objective domains of the QoL
are measured through culturally relevant indices of objective
wellbeing, while subjective domains are measured through
questions of satisfaction”

12. QoL measures in general sense…..
➢Cummins (2024) also claimed that “objective QoL should be
guided by the “notion that whatever is employed for this
purpose must be regarded as having value by the cultural
group” while “subjective life quality can only be validly,
empirically measured by asking for individual’s opinion about
their feelings”
• Unfortunately, many of these constructs do not even assess the “culturally
relevant indices” for the objective domain

13. Wellbeing determinants from cultural
perspective

14. SWB from African Perspective
➢When the self is challenged or destroyed, other areas of life are affected:
• Kinship relationship and ties (family system): Ubuntu is dislocated
• The persons’ group norms
• Societal values
• Cultural values
• The community
• Social friends
SWB generally refers to a person’s overall sense of wellbeing, happiness and life
satisfaction and therefore measures of SWB must reflect questions on group
norms, societal/cultural values, etc.

15. Conclusions……..
• SWB measures must be culturally dependent
• One size does not fit all: Western norms and theories cannot explain non-western ways
of interpreting SWB
• Measures of SWB in Africa must be anchored on many factors but mainly hinge on
family and cultural values
• In Africa, we educate our children to be happy, not to be rich– So when they grow up,
they will know the value of things, not the price.
• In Africa, we are human beings, not trying to be human.
• In Africa, because we want to go far, we go together, while elsewhere, those who want
to go fast go alone

16. Concluding Statement..…..
A science which is oblivious of its
cultural environment condemns
itself to irrelevance.
Awaritefe, 2005

17. Thank you