Kibiswa thesis requires much attention in terms essentialism approach (Figgou 2013, Mahalingam 2007, Sin 2014,) and the stereotyping it encompasses. It narrows a violent conflict within a static move that links a heterogeneous ethnic groups to an ancient exotic ancestors as it intends to find a culprit. The thesis diverts attention to other factors by conceiving violent conflict as mono-causal event in which a heterogeneous group portrayed as ‘Bany2’ behave in similar way from the least young to last old. Moreover and specifically, the thesis links such heterogeneous group to what is thought to be their origins while disregarding that it shares the same origin with different ethnic groups in the Eastern Congo. The thesis has failed also to grasp the dynamic reality of violent conflict disregarded in a manner that can be interpreted as linked to the researcher’s bias. The bias sounds as falling within the researcher’s soft ability of being reflexive but also it raises questions of the research integrity. It is worthwhile to note that research is not about settling account but also it does not necessarily require an ‘insider’ to come up with relevant findings. Additionally, research has less to do with languages, either English or French but it mostly focuses on meeting guidelines of research principles for producing knowledge. The limitations may exist, but the selection of materials has to do with objective motivations. Moreover, it is important to see that distorted researches would negatively contribute to solving the inner causes of conflict in the region contrary to what it intends for.
|Title of host publication||-|
|Publication status||Published - 2017|