Biko,
Thanks for your comments and critiques. I was not aware of Jerry Dibua's work, so thanks for that suggestion. Indeed, everything you wrote about the state in Africa standing in the way is true, but I couldn't get into them because 1) space was limited as this is a think piece/blog; 2) I wanted to take a largely historical perspective. The editors have invited me to submit a longer, formal article for review. If I accept their invitation, I will definitely get into these details.
Point taken about about the potential of the warriors and warring example to be read against the stereotypes and war crimes of the present. I am a historian and I'm sometimes not sensitive to such presentist readings. At any rate, my point of advancing that example was to use a counterintuitive example of the least obvious entrepreneurial formation to make the point that, yes, musicians, dibias (healers), preachers, weavers, carvers, artists, and people in virtually all vocations were/are entrepreneurs even if the neoliberal semantics of entrepreneurship exclude them. In my edited volume that I referenced, Kwesi Konadu's chapter is on healers in Ghana; Gloria Emeagwali's focuses on pottery makers; and Isidore Lobnibe's analyze pito (grain beer)makers in Ghana, etc.
No, I did not lambast students for "seeking appropriate theoretical framework for their dissertations." Absolutely not. I made three interventions on the subject and in none of them did I do what you wrote. Instead, here, itemized, are the points I made in those interventions:
1. I criticized the requirement that every dissertating student in the qualitative social sciences and humanities should have a section in their dissertation on "theoretical framework," a requirement that is often observed mechanically and jarringly.
2. I argued that not all dissertations in those fields require theoretical framework or the invocation of theories, so the decision to employ a theoretical framework should be dictated by the topic, discipline, and the approach the student, working with his/her adviser, wants to take.
3. I argued that the requirement is mechanical and counterproductive, since in MOST cases (at least from what I've seen), the students do not even understand the theories being invoked, let alone being able to put them in critical conversation with their works.
4. If you must employ theories and a theoretical framework as a student, make sure that you not only understand the theory but that, 1) it is relevant to your work, and 2) you are able to demonstrate how your work extends, critiques, disproves, or confirms the theory in question. In MOST dissertations that I've seen from Nigeria, this demonstration is absent. The students simply summarize what the (often Western theorist/scholar) claims as though it is the gospel truth and without even bothering to show how the theory is relevant to what is being discussed.
5. I critiqued the habit of invoking outmoded theories (I see many from the 1950s and '60s and '70s that have since been transcended and rendered obsolete by more recent debates and consensuses)
6. I critiqued the widespread practice of invoking and privileging mostly Western theories and scholars (with perspectives and theories founded on Western empirical data and experiences), neglecting theories and concepts developed by Africana scholars from African experiences.
7. I argued that, instead of encouraging students to blindly copy foreign theories they don't understand to fulfill a rigidly stupid requirement, advisers and policymakers in Nigerian higher ed should encourage them to develop their own theories from their own empirical data, which are rooted in African/Nigerian experiences and phenomena.
In any case, what I'm calling for at the end of the piece is not a theoretical framework per se but rather a new vocabulary, a new approach, and a new conceptual apparatus to understand African entrepreneurship. I understand that, taken together or even separately, these may amount to or produce a set of theoretical statements and postulations. I also recognize that searching for a new language and a new concept can result in or flow from new theoretical reflections. But since I am not against theory (the production of it or critical engagement with it), and since I myself engage in theoretical critique and the generation of theory from my own work, I am comfortable calling for, yes, a new theoretical toolkit for making sense of African entrepreneurship.
Theory is great when used or invoked properly and, more crucially, when used critically rather than adopted uncritically. And it is better when the empirical and analytical work informs the critical theoretical engagement rather than vice versa. These are my overarching points. Theory, as I tell my Nigerian student mentees, is not a gown you put on your work when the work is completed to adorn or beautify or embellish it. In not In this particular case, the empirical African entrepreneurial scene calls for a new set of conceptual and analytical tools because, as I argued, it defies the existing Western perspectives on entrepreneurship. And that is my contention.
Daalu.