Dear German Academia: What is Your Role in African Knowledge Production?

Abstract

German

Although African critical scholars since the 19th century have challenged the culture of studying and writing about Africa, research practices on Africa are still entangled in epistemic injustices resulting from colonial structures of power. In this reflective contribution, we illustrate how such knowledge production perpetuates coloniality and outline the ways in which academic coloniality affects the quality of research and is detrimental to both research subjects and knowledge consumers. To that end, we draw on our own experiences as researchers and teachers in German institutes and universities to analyse current trends and patterns in African Political Science. We provide concrete examples to demonstrate that this coloniality in academia is detrimental to research, fieldwork and publishing practices, teaching, and academic hiring policies. To challenge and change how knowledge is produced, Africanists from the Global North need to be aware of, and sensitised towards, their role in knowledge production. This article continues the debate on decolonising research on Africa.

Keywords

Germany African studies coloniality research practices hiring policies fieldwork

Introduction: Coloniality of Knowledge Production

Since the 19th century, scholars such as Christian Carl Reindorf and Apolo Kagwa and decolonial writers such as Kenneth Dike and Cheikh Anta Diop, along with other African intellectuals, have been challenging Eurocentric knowledge produced about the continent. We would like to think that current scholarship has overcome this colonial mentality. However, our exposure to European and mostly German academic spaces in Political Science has given us a startling introduction to the ‘BIPoC subject’ (Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour).

In this piece, we focus on how knowledge and power can be defined and denied through the academic practices of African Political Science.¹ Based on our experience as political scientists, our natural starting point to the discussion is research on conflict, development and cooperation, and governance. However, we are aware that the coloniality of knowledge production can be observed across all disciplines. Building on the literature on critical methodology, which focuses on whom research benefits, what (or whom) it centres, and how topics and people are studied (Ackerly et al., 2006; Chilisa, 2012; Smith, 1999), we narrow down the discourse to focus on the actual manifestations of coloniality within our academic spaces. We must emphasise that we take a subjective and reflective approach in this paper, drawing mainly from personal experiences and from studies that speak to forms of knowledge coloniality. As BIPoC political scientists, these experiences are based on our interactions and exposure to research institutes and universities in Germany and the United Kingdom. We focus on knowledge production in Germany because we benefit from an insider perspective on ‘German’ African Studies. However, Germany should not be seen as a unique case, as colonial patterns observed in Germany can also be found in other White-hegemonic contexts.

This paper has two primary purposes: First, we highlight areas where we see coloniality in German academia. Second, the paper intends to raise awareness of the role of academics as change-makers or change-blockers vis-à-vis inclusion and diversity of scholars and scholarship. The paper is divided into three sections. The first section describes instances of academic coloniality that we observe in research; fieldwork and publishing practices; and teaching and hiring. The second section highlights the strategic positionality of Africanists and African institutes in curtailing knowledge coloniality.

Where do we see Coloniality?

Degrading attitudes towards African subjectivities in research found their way into academia through colonial knowledge systems. Modernised forms of decentring Africans from studies on Africa persist ‘through incomplete reading and listening, failed theoretical engagement, and flawed citation practices’ (Kessi et al., 2020: 274).

Research Practices on Africa

Although research on Africa has drastically increased over time, it remains peripheral – in the sense that Western research concerns dominate. The most cited publications are written by non-Africans, driven by what critical scholars have labelled ‘outsider research’ or ‘white research’ (Kovach, 2005; Smith, 1999). The pervasive nature of the coloniality of knowledge results from a socially constructed attitude of the West as producers of ‘scientific knowledge.’ This is what Maldonado (2014) labels the ‘protected geographical indication’ and Xavier (2016) the ‘Well of Production rule.’ They argue that the West embodies a colonial mentality that presupposes that all knowledge produced in the West is worthy of respect and recognition, given the context from which it emerges. Comaroff and Comaroff (2015: 1) argue that the West has placed itself on a pedestal of knowledge superiority, to such an extent that regions such as Africa are categorised as places ‘of parochial wisdom, of antiquarian traditions, of exotic ways and means and above all, of unprocessed data.’ Hence, a primary indicator of epistemic injustice in African Studies by outsider research is that it speaks of and for Africa but not with Africa.

Research in German institutes still focuses on Western-derived concepts and categories, neglecting Africa’s multi-faceted history and unique ontology. The problem of concepts and categories in Political Science research is that they ‘are not innocent’ and are drawn from presuppositions about societies (Oyěwùmí, 1997: 76) – of which lack of engagement is a primary driver. Moreover, scholars have continuously raised concerns about how research practices remain Western-centric (Blaney and Tickner, 2017; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2020). As such, existing data suggest that White scholars are cited more than three times as often as African scholars in African Politics scholarship (Briggs and Weathers, 2016). We also continue to observe that in Political Science in general, most research focuses on Western European and North American countries even if we see more regional diversity in, for example, Comparative Politics (Wilson and Knutsen, 2020). Based on our interactions, we perceive African scholars to be more aware of Western scholars and scholarship than are German scholars of their African counterparts.

Another challenge is that African Studies in Germany is heavily skewed towards specific topics, such as conflict, corruption, and democracy (for a discussion on this, see Basedau, 2020). This is not to say that these issues should not be studied, but Africa as a ‘den of horror’ and its representation in the context of the ‘white man’s burden’ are the canvases on which the continent is commonly portrayed in research agendas. Between 1993 and 2013, Briggs and Weathers (2016) found that non-African authors who published in African Affairs and the Journal of Modern African Studies were most likely to write on economics or conflict. Likewise, Tieku’s (2019: 4) breakdown of 100 journal articles shows that 63% of articles on the African Union dealt with peace and security. In our encounters with scholars and students, we have asked why they chose to study a specific issue, and the most prominent sentiment expressed was something akin to ‘wanting to make things better.’ As selfless as that may appear, the assumption is that Africa and Africans will ‘progress’ if they learn from Germany – these scholars place Western academia on the pedestal of superiority, a constellation in which they are necessarily portrayed as saviours.

Fieldwork and Publishing Practices

The main issue that pervades knowledge production today is that Africa is mainly spoken for and about by non-Africans. The struggle of African scholars in African universities and institutes to speak about, and produce knowledge based on, African realities and experiences are exacerbated by research collaborations with Global North scholars and by the structural, discriminatory gatekeeping practices of international journals.

One of the many challenges highlighted in the Bukavu Series is that African researchers largely remain invisible in research outputs and publications (Bukavu Series, n.d.). Cirhuza (2020) argues that there are ‘numerous examples where these researchers, often hired as research assistants, were not included as authors even when the research outputs were based partially or entirely on data gathered by those same researchers.’ Unfortunately, this appears to be a common phenomenon of North–South research collaborations (Kaplan et al., 2020).

According to a 2018 study carried out by Elsevier, although research activities are on the rise on the continent, Africa generates less than 1% of the world’s research (Duermeijer et al., 2018). Notwithstanding the growing research activities on the continent (e.g. Tieku, 2021), Africa-based authors have low and even declining acceptance rates in African Studies journals (Briggs and Weathers, 2016; Pailey, 2016). In the top International Relations journals, for example, only 1% of the authors published between 1995 and 2004 were non-OECD scholars (Breuning et al., 2005); in 18 top communications journals, Africa-based authors made up just over 2% of articles published between 2004 and 2010 (Miller et al., 2013). Moreover, even if we consider publications by African scholars, it becomes clear that these authors were often educated in highly ranked universities in the Global North (Lohaus and Wemheuer-Vogelaar, 2021).

Fieldwork is often conducted by White scholars from the Global North who do not recognise race as a dominant factor of structural inequalities. Even in papers around fieldwork challenges, whiteness is often ignored (Henderson, 2009), although the importance of positionality is increasingly discussed (Krause, 2017; Njeri, 2021). Compounding that is the lamentable fact that many official fieldwork templates of universities and research institutes still do not urge scholars to reflect on their power positions and identity while preparing for fieldwork. Also, the academic context we find ourselves in is not intentional about engaging pertinently with the communities under research – fieldwork lacks engagement ‘with’ Africa.

Teaching of Africa

An examination of contemporary German textbooks on African history (from various publishers such as Cornelsen, Klett, Schroedel, Buchner, Schöningh, and Westermann) used in teaching found similar trends in material across all books: Factual historical errors accompany the portrayal of Africa as a continent without history or agency. Africa is depicted using racist language, derogatory images, and careless narrations (Bernhard and Wimmler, 2019; Marmer and Sow, 2013). Any recorded form of innovation and development is attributed to external forces.

In our teaching experiences, we were introduced to the ‘BIPoC scholar’ in German academia. For instance, at seminars, it wasn’t uncommon for students to mention things along the lines of, ‘You are my first Black instructor; I have never been taught by one before.’ The low engagement with scholarship on Africa by Africans remains a critical issue in teaching. We have come across scholars who are not familiar with the works of renowned African scholars such as Cheikh Anta Diop, Kenneth Dike, Ali Mazrui, Achille Mbembe, and Kwame Nkrumah but hold positions as teachers of African history and politics. As a result, students are trained to view the ‘Other’ through a Western lens, thereby reproducing scholars with Eurocentric perspectives.

Hiring Policies in German Academia

We know that African and women scholars rarely climb up the ladder of power and status in academia. More so, we are aware of the fact that BIPoC scholars are seldom hired (Kessi et al., 2020).

In comparison to the United Kingdom, German universities and research institutes do not collect data on ethnicity and race when hiring academic staff. In 2019, it was estimated that out of 49,000 full professors in Germany, only 15–20 are BIPoC (Baden, 2019).

Taking a closer look at the hiring pattern in African Studies in Germany (based within departments of Linguistics, Cultural Studies, or Social Sciences), the only way we have to determine scholars’ backgrounds is to check whether they studied at African universities, mention their nationality, or appear to be BIPoC. The categorisations of White, German, and African scholars can be questioned; however, it is clear that numbers are needed to expose and address structural inequalities. Six universities in Germany offer a degree in African Studies or African Languages (HU Berlin, Bayreuth, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Cologne, and Leipzig). We identified seven BIPoC men and five BIPoC women working as academic staff members, lecturers, and research fellows in these institutions (mostly linguists). Additionally, we counted two Black associate professors at the University of Frankfurt (male and female) and two Black male professors working as research fellows (HU Berlin and the University of Hamburg). All of them appear to be from African countries and not from Germany. This means that at first glance, only 16 scholars working in departments of African Studies (out of more than 100 scholars) were identified as non-White – and not even one of them holds a full professorship.

Then we explored hiring policies at two prominent German research institutes focusing on Africa. At the GIGA Institute for African Affairs, out of 26 team members, only one is a Black Ghanaian man, and one is a male German BIPoC. At the German Development Institute (Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, DIE), we were able to identify six BIPoC out of the 39 academic members working on cooperation with Africa. Additionally, the GIGA has three and DIE has two associated members that can be identified as African or BIPoC. Some smaller research institutes are linked to universities, such as the Bavarian Research Institute of African Studies (BRIAS), where not even a White woman is found within the coordination team, much less African (female) scholars. At the Africa Institute Neu-Ulm, not a single person is African (eight White male professors and three White female staff members). In the directory of the Africa Centre for Transregional Research (ACT), a similar pattern can be observed. On a positive note, large-scale initiatives such as the Africa Multiple Cluster of Excellence at the University of Bayreuth have pushed for research cooperation with African scholars and around 20 African fellows (out of 34) were working in the context of the cluster as of 2020/2021.

The minuscule presence of BIPoC in African research at German institutes and universities reveals a lot about the historical systemic discrimination in these spaces. Although the conversation about racism and discrimination has remained on the sidelines (once again in decline after experiencing a surge coinciding with high levels of media coverage of the Black Lives Matter movement), these facts show that Germany still needs to confront its racial past and present in knowledge production. Moreover, interviews have revealed that other forms of racist experiences exist that numbers cannot show. Thus, we have to reflect upon the exclusion of African and German BIPoC scholars in research about Africa.

Purposeful Decolonial Research

Dear German Academia, suppose we can agree that background and experiences shape every researcher’s investigation of Africa. In that case, we can also conclude that a White research team, the absence of local engagement, and disregard for African scholarship will keep reproducing epistemic injustices detrimental to both Africa and knowledge consumers. Aside from that, we must not ignore early and ongoing efforts to decentre colonial knowledge production in other disciplines relevant to Political Science: History, Cultural Studies, Sociology, and Anthropology (see, e.g. Bhabha (1994) and Oyěwùmí (1997)). In addition to these efforts, we suggest that researchers mull over the following self-reflection questions before taking up their research.

1. Who am I? We have to understand that ignoring identity factors reduces the quality of our research. Certainly, whiteness affects Africans’ behaviour towards White scholars, and White researchers working in Africa often ignore that their experiences and backgrounds shape the kind of questions they ask qualitatively and how they define concepts quantitatively (Bukavu Series n.d.). We observe that these epistemological differences and identity factors are not acknowledged and considered in research projects because scholars claim to separate knowledge production from their epistemology and identity. Our first suggestion here is to increase diversity by involving African researchers – not as data collectors but as key teammates, indispensable to aspects of history, culture, and language that might otherwise be overlooked. Diversity cushions the bias and stereotypes that might creep into research outputs. Moreover, an intersectional reflection on power imbalances should include factors around race, class, age, physical strength, wealth, and gender (Davenport, 2013). These power asymmetries should inform how researchers engage with research subjects.

2. Whom does my research serve? White researchers benefit disproportionately from conducting research abroad. First, they are respected for spending time in the ‘difficult’ Global South and can build their careers based on stories of the ‘Other’ (Mitchell, 2013). In Political Science, the quality of their fieldwork is often measured neither by the inclusion of regional literature and expertise nor by linguistic and intercultural competencies as a sign of adequate preparation and commitment to genuine research. Conveniently, critical voices from local experts and research assistants can be ignored in final publications without repercussions (Bukavu Series n.d.). The main contribution of this fieldwork serves the White scholars’ academic careers. Although some scholars have started to critically discuss the purpose of their field research (Curtis, 2019), the continuous practice of designing research without considering local knowledge must be avoided at all costs. Moreover, non-African Africanists tend to oversimplify and generalise local dynamics privileging breadth over depth. Oyěwùmí (1997) explicitly shows how understanding indigenous cultures is distorted when gender roles in Yoruba societies are analysed from a Westernised lens. Our second suggestion is that research on Africa must begin with an in-depth review of literature and awareness of local discourse on the topic. In acknowledging local discourse, the knowledge serves both subjects and consumers.

3. What and whom does this research centre? We observe that some White scholars benefit from making ‘careers out of the pain of others by consuming knowledge obtained in marginalised communities’ (Rodríguez, 2017). They focus on poverty, conflict, and oppression without paying much attention to potentially exploitative dynamics. More so, only a few findings on positive developments in Africa are published (Basedau, 2020; Rodríguez, 2018). While these issues are relevant, they can be beneficial to the subject only when researched purposefully. Such studies could lead to conflict prevention and poverty reduction. We want to emphasise that we do not discourage studying challenges on the continent. Nevertheless, our final suggestion is that all research on Africa must be conducted reflecting upon these questions. The invisibility of subjects in outsider research has been echoed by several decolonial scholars (Chilisa, 2012; Smith, 1999). Chilisa’s (2012) and Smith’s (1999) works provide good tools for decolonising methodologies. Hence, they should serve as manuals to avert Western-centric tendencies.

Conclusion

This article provided an account of our reflective thinking about the coloniality of knowledge production in research practices in Germany. We discussed how coloniality is perpetuated in African Studies through research, fieldwork and publishing practices, teaching, and hiring academic staff. We must decentre the current Western-centric perspectives on African Studies and deconstruct these functional and structural inequalities while recognising our complicity as academics in reproducing colonial knowledge and structures.

African Studies can produce genuine knowledge only if local knowledge and experiences are not excluded, silenced, objectified, distorted, misrepresented, and undervalued. Africa remains one of the most underresearched regions globally, and we advocate a broad research agenda on the region. However, as much as we push for further research on Africa, it must be conducted while considering epistemic injustices. This is also a debate around recognising the colonial history of White scholars studying Africa to serve the interests of colonial governments and how such practices and structures persist through our research.

We acknowledge that some German universities and institutes have begun to reflect and reform in the right direction. For instance, the GIGA Institute for African Affairs organised a workshop on diversity and knowledge production for their staff; the University of Bayreuth pushes African inclusion (e.g. Point Sud); and the Georg Eckert Institute has made efforts to re-evaluate history textbooks for teaching (Bernhard and Wimmler, 2019: 141), to name a few. Moreover, there have been more and more critical collaborative research initiatives between Africans and Africanists globally. The Merian Institute for Advanced Studies in Africa (MIASA), the Legon School of International Relations (LSIR), the Network for Science and Technology Studies in Africa (STS-Africa), and the universities of Ibadan and Johannesburg are examples of where these collaborative efforts are happening.

We are concerned that decoloniality is nothing more than a buzzword in Germany; meaningful change requires that such talk go hand in hand with actions. Reforms need to address the root causes of coloniality outlined above: we must re-evaluate and diversify teaching materials, interrogate the African Studies canon, decentre knowledge and knowledge production, mandate diverse citations, and magnify African voices in research and structures. Considering these, we are certain that the reflection and reform could transform the field of African Studies in Europe from a discipline that merely speaks of and for Africa to one that speaks with Africa.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Juliana Tappe Ortiz

Notes

Author Biographies

Lynda Chinenye Iroulo is an Assistant Professor of International Relations at Georgetown University Qatar. Her research interests are Decolonial International Relations, the design of International and Regional Organisations, African Regional Integration, and Africa in Global Politics. Email: lynda.iroulo@giga-hamburg.de

Juliana Tappe Ortiz is a research fellow at the GIGA Institute of African Affairs and teaches at the University of Hamburg. She works on leadership, political psychology and peace processes. She is currently investigating political leaders' impact on peace agreements. Email: juliana.tappeortiz@giga-hamburg.de

References

Ackerly

Stern

True

(2006) Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baden

(2019) “Ich bin in den 90ern aufgewachsen und habe nie eine Lehrerin of Color zu Gesicht bekommen”. Vice, April 30. Available at: https://www.vice.com/de/article/neannb/karim-fereidooni-diskriminierung-an-deutschen-universitaten (accessed 6 September 2021).

Basedau

(2020) Rethinking African studies: four challenges and the case for comparative African studies. Africa Spectrum 55(2): 194–206.

Bernhard

Grindel

Hinz

Kühlberger

(2019) Invisible Africans? The triangular trade myth in German and Austrian history textbooks. In: Bernhard

Grindel

Hinz

(eds) Myths in German-Speaking History Textbooks: Their Influence on Historical Accounts from the Battle of Marathon to the Elysée Treaty. Göttingen: Eckert Dossiers, pp.139–164.

Bhabha

(1994) The Location Of Culture. New York: Routledge.

Blaney

Tickner

(2017) International relations in the prison of colonial modernity. International Relations 31(1): 71–75.

Breuning

Bredehoft

Walton

(2005) Promise and performance: An evaluation of journals in international relations. International Studies Perspectives 6(4): 447–461.

Briggs

Weathers

(2016) Gender and location in African politics scholarship: The other white man’s burden? African Affairs 115(460): 466–489.

Bukavu Series (n.d.) The Bukavu Series Expo - Start the Tour. Available at: https://bukavuseries.com/ (accessed 6 September 2021).

10.

Chilisa

(2012) Indigenous Research Methodologies. London: Sage.

11.

Cirhuza

(2020) Taken out of the picture? The researcher from the Global South and the fight against ‘academic neo-colonialism’. In: Bukavu Series. Available at: https://www.gicnetwork.be/taken-out-of-the-picture-the-researcher-from-the-global-south-and-the-fight-against-academic-neo-colonialism/ (accessed 6 September 2021).

12.

Comaroff

(2015) Theory from the South: Or, How Euro-America Is Evolving Toward Africa. London: Routledge.

13.

Curtis

DEA

(2019) What Is Our research For? Responsibility, humility and the production of knowledge about Burundi. Africa Spectrum 54(1): 4–21.

14.

Davenport

(2013) Researching While Black: Why Conflict Research Needs More African Americans (Maybe). In: Political Violence @ a Glance. Available at: https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2013/04/10/researching-while-black-why-conflict-research-needs-more-africanamericans-maybe (accessed 6 September 2021).

15.

Duermeijer

Amir

Schoombee

(2018) “Africa generates less than 1% of the world’s research; data analytics can change that”. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/africa-generates-less-than-1-of-the-worlds-research-data-analytics-can-change-that (accessed 6 September 2021).

16.

Henderson

(2009) “We thought You would Be white”: race and gender in fieldwork. PS: Political Science & Politics 42(02): 291–294.

17.

Kaplan

Kuhnt

Steinert

(2020) Do no harm? Field research in the global south: ethical challenges faced by research staff. World Development 127: 104810.

18.

Kessi

Marks

Ramugondo

(2020) Decolonizing African studies. Critical African Studies 12(3): 271–282.

19.

Kovach

(2005) Emerging from the margins: indigenous methodologies. In: Brown

Strega

(eds) Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous and Anti-Oppressive Approaches. Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars’ Press, pp.19–36.

20.

Krause

(2017) Researching (with) refugees? Ethical considerations on participatory approaches. In: Ammodi. Available at: https://ammodi.com/2017/12/11/researching-with-refugees-ethical-considerations-on-participatory-approaches/ (accessed 6 September 2021).

21.

Lohaus

Wemheuer-Vogelaar

(2021) Who publishes where? Exploring the geographic diversity of global IR journals. International Studies Review 23(3): 645–669.

22.

Maldonado

(2014) Constitutionalism of the Global South: The Activist Tribunals of India, South Africa, and Colombia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Marmer

Sow

(2013) African History teaching in contemporary German textbooks: From biased knowledge to duty of remembrance. Yesterday&Today 10: 28.

24.

Miller

Deeter

Trelstad

, et al. (2013) Still the dark continent: A content analysis of research about Africa and by African scholars in 18 Major communication-related journals. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 6: 317–333.

25.

Mitchell

(2013) Escaping the ‘field trap’: Exploitation and the global politics of educational fieldwork in ‘conflict zones’. Third World Quarterly 34(7): 1247–1264.

26.

Ndlovu-Gatsheni

(2020) The cognitive empire, politics of knowledge and African intellectual productions: Reflections on struggles for epistemic freedom and resurgence of decolonisation in the twenty-first century. Third World Quarterly 0(0): 1–20.

27.

Njeri

(2021) Race, positionality and the researcher. In: Mac Ginty

Brett

Vogel

(eds) The Companion to Peace and Conflict Fieldwork. New York: Springer International Publishing, pp.381–394.

28.

Oyěwùmí

(1997) The Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western Gender Discourses. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

29.

Pailey

(2016) Where is the ‘African’ in African Studies? African Arguments, 7 June. Available at: http://africanarguments.org/2016/06/07/where-is-the-african-in-african-studies/ (accessed 6 September 2021).

30.

Rodríguez

(2017) How Academia Uses Poverty, Oppression, and Pain for Intellectual Masturbation. RaceBaitR, April 6. Available at: http://racebaitr.com/2017/04/06/how-academia-uses-poverty-oppression (accessed 6 September 2021).

31.

Rodríguez

(2018) Decolonizing Academia: Poverty, Oppression and Pain. Halifax & Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing.

32.

Smith

(1999) Decolonising Methodologies. New York: Zed Books.

33.

Tieku

(2019) The African union: successes and failures. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

34.

Tieku

(2021) The legon school of international relations. Review of International Studies 47(5): 1–16.

35.

Wilson

Knutsen

(2020) Geographical coverage in political science research. Perspectives on Politics: 1–16.

36.

Xavier

(2016) Learning from below: theorising global governance through ethnographies and critical reflections from the global south. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 33(3): 229–255.