Paper short abstract:

Using in-depth and key informant interviews, the paper examines dimensions of asymmetries relating to discipline, language, gender and funding of research in African Studies. Initials findings show that programmes are often cut down drastically for explicitly political reasons, not financial ones.

Paper long abstract:

In recent times, African higher education has had to contend with reduced levels of public funding for a hugely expanded sector which has resulted in many African university teachers having to grapple with low salaries and large classes, leaving them with little time to do much else. Scholars in the Humanities including African Studies, face unique challenges because of the pressure on university administrators to focus funding on the Sciences hence the efforts by foreign donors from the Global North to fund scholarship in Africa in order to increase the capacity to engage in more productive collaborations (Tripp, 2014). Though laudable, oftentimes many of the grants tie research too closely to interests of funders. Even though research programmes like Africa Cluster Centres (ACC) under the Africa Multiple Cluster of Excellence at the University of Bayreuth (Germany) are less restrictive and benefit African researchers more, there is still a demand that they reflect practical or theoretical implications for the Centre in Bayreuth. The funding body determines the methodology, topic and result framework, meaning that research findings sometimes differ from what similar independent studies might have produced. Using 10 in-depth interviews and 5 key informant interviews, this paper examines the different dimensions of asymmetries relating to discipline, language, gender and funding of researches in African Studies. Preliminary findings show that proposals or programmes are often turned down or cut down drastically for explicitly political reasons, not financial ones. It also suggests ways that North-South collaborations can be more mutually beneficial and equal.

Paper short abstract:

This study re-appraises the global north-south collaborative initiatives for sustainable knowledge production in African studies. It examines the existing system of collaboration, the challenges impeding African knowledge production, and ways of promoting knowledge production in African studies.

Paper long abstract:

Knowledge production in African studies seems, in recent times, to oscillate between an individual and collective memory. While it is apt to opine that emerging scholars, through rigorous scholarship, continue to contribute to the global knowledge pool, it is glaring to astute observers that knowledge production in African studies can be made better. Achieving sustainable knowledge production, and by extension, epistemic plurality in African studies is an uphill task that requires a significant input of both the global north and south. This study seeks to re-appraise the global north-south collaborative initiatives for sustainable knowledge production in African studies. It specifically examines the existing system of collaboration, with particular reference to funding patterns and modalities, mobility programmes towards improved scholarship, and infrastructural grants for the institutionalization of African studies centres. This study investigates the challenges impeding sustainable African knowledge production. It engages new methodologies for the promotion of knowledge production in African studies. It addresses the following issues: what is the nature of existing synergy between the global north and south? Why and how should both regions contribute to the ongoing subject? Which challenges impede knowledge production and epistemic plurality in African studies? And what stratagem can help promote knowledge production in African studies? This study adopts the theories of cultural developmentalism and globalization and argues that both the global north and south are principal actors in knowledge production and epistemic plurality in African studies.

Keywords: African studies, knowledge production, epistemic plurality, global north and south

Paper short abstract:

International Relations and security studies engage in racialized knowledge production in ways that obfuscate security experiences in Africa. This paper draws on insights from hybrid security orders to explore how these disciplines can be decolonized to become more relevant in African locales.

Paper long abstract:

That racism and coloniality remain critical impediments to dispassionate knowledge generation in the social sciences seems incontrovertible. Included among the disciplinary areas in which these tendencies have been particularly prevalent are International Relations (IR) and its Security Studies (SS) subfield. Underpinned by ‘methodological whiteness’ logics, these disciplines sustain a colonial way of thinking that misrepresents white security as global security, thereby ignoring African insecurities as they are experienced by social groups and communities across the continent. Further than that, they stigmatize African states as ‘failing’, ‘failed’, or ‘ungoverned’ for failing to meet the benchmarks of the Weberian state. This provides the pretext for dismissing African Agency in order to justify and sustain European paternalism in both scholarly and policy domains. These unequal relations also underpin and sustain the political economy of knowledge production and the current power imbalances between European scholars and their counterparts in Africa, resulting in academic and policy dependency. As such, mainstream IR and SS do not wholly suffice as objective sites for knowledge production and policy-making on African security. Indeed, they have also become part of the problem, rendering African populations less secure. Drawing on insights from African experiences, as they manifest within the context of hybrid security orders, this paper explores ways through which African academics can help broaden and elaborate the empirical base for theorizing about security since they offer a perspective outside the conventional western assumptions and points of reference.

Paper short abstract:

Religion of the Africans have been defined and assigned character by the West, but with the resurgence of interest in the religions of the Africans, it is important to know whose voice is louder in the debate.

Paper long abstract:

Discourses about the religions of the Africans have often been dominated by the perspective of the West; there was first the denial of religions for the Africans, then an acceptance of religions that are of less character compared to religions of the West. This tone of discourse has defined whose voice is heard and impactful in defining the nature and character of the religions of the Africans. Western scholars hold the view that some key concepts used in general religious discourses such as, baptism, redemption, heaven, etc. do not have religious relevance in the religions of the Africans; just as there are some concepts used in the religions of the Africans such as, ancestors, initiation, sacrifice, reincarnation, etc. that lack universalizable character. This paper will discuss selected religious concepts and compare the understanding and meaning in Àdìmúlà (Yoruba religion) with views of Western scholars as these concepts pertain to Christianity to show who determines what is believed and accepted about the beliefs and practices in African religions. These selected specific concepts will be hermeneutically reviewed as contained in Christian literature and will also be discussed in interviews with selected practitioners of Àdìmúlà in Southwest Nigeria. The views will be compared to highlight meaning and positions in Àdìmúlà. The study will help to show that religions are equal, and concepts can be applied across religious divides even though the methods of achieving religious ends may be different.