Analyses and Reports

Africa Spectrum
2022, Vol. 57(1) 72–82
Dear German Academia: © The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
What is Your Role in sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00020397221085982
African Knowledge journals.sagepub.com/home/afr

Production?

Lynda Chinenye Iroulo

and Juliana Tappe Ortiz

Abstract
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 epi-
stemic injustices resulting from colonial structures of power. In this reflective contribu-
tion, 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 sen-
sitised towards, their role in knowledge production. This article continues the debate on
decolonising research on Africa.

Manuscript received 31 May 2021; accepted 10 January 2022

German Institute for Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, Germany

Email: lynda.iroulo@giga-hamburg.de

Corresponding Author:
Lynda Chinenye Iroulo, German Institute for Global and Area Studies, Neuer Jungfernstieg 21,
Hamburg 20354, Germany.
Email: lynda.iroulo@giga-hamburg.de

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use,
reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is
attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Iroulo and Tappe Ortiz 73

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 contin-
ent. 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 coloni-
ality of knowledge production can be observed across all disciplines. Building on the lit-
erature 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 univer-
sities 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 coloni-
ality in German academia. Second, the paper intends to raise awareness of the role of aca-
demics 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 position-
ality 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 aca-
demia through colonial knowledge systems. Modernised forms of decentring Africans
from studies on Africa persist ‘through incomplete reading and listening, failed theoret-
ical engagement, and flawed citation practices’ (Kessi et al., 2020: 274).
74 Africa Spectrum 57(1)

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 knowl-
edge 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 super-
iority, 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 categor-
ies, neglecting Africa’s multi-faceted history and unique ontology. The problem of con-
cepts and categories in Political Science research is that they ‘are not innocent’ and are
drawn from presuppositions about societies (Oyě wùmí, 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 spe-
cific 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 –
Iroulo and Tappe Ortiz 75

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 research-
ers 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 col-
laborations (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 contin-
ent (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 com-
munications 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 import-
ance 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
76 Africa Spectrum 57(1)

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 esti-
mated 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 focus-
ing 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
Iroulo and Tappe Ortiz 77

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 univer-
sities, 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 univer-
sities 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 con-
front 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 schol-
arship will keep reproducing epistemic injustices detrimental to both Africa and knowl-
edge 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 Oyě wùmí (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 team-
mates, indispensable to aspects of history, culture, and language that might otherwise be over-
looked. Diversity cushions the bias and stereotypes that might creep into research outputs.
Moreover, an intersectional reflection on power imbalances should include factors around
78 Africa Spectrum 57(1)

race, class, age, physical strength, wealth, and gender (Davenport, 2013). These power asym-
metries 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 inclu-
sion 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 publica-
tions without repercussions (Bukavu Series n.d.). The main contribution of this fieldwork
serves the White scholars’ academic careers. Although some scholars have started to crit-
ically 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. Oyě wùmí (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 chal-
lenges 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 decolo-
nising 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.
Iroulo and Tappe Ortiz 79

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 govern-
ments 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 glo-
bally. 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.

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 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1981-7945

Note
1. We roughly define African Political Science as knowledge and knowledge production concern-
ing African governance and power, political thought, and political behaviour. Since African
Studies is a vast discipline, we limit our scope to our research focus: Political Science.
80 Africa Spectrum 57(1)

References
Ackerly BA, Stern M and True J (2006) Feminist Methodologies for International Relations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baden R (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 M (2020) Rethinking African studies: four challenges and the case for comparative
African studies. Africa Spectrum 55(2): 194–206.
Bernhard R, Grindel S, Hinz F and Kühlberger C (2019) Invisible Africans? The triangular trade myth
in German and Austrian history textbooks. In: Bernhard R, Grindel S and Hinz F (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 HK (1994) The Location Of Culture. New York: Routledge.
Blaney D and Tickner A (2017) International relations in the prison of colonial modernity.
International Relations 31(1): 71–75.
Breuning M, Bredehoft J and Walton E (2005) Promise and performance: An evaluation of journals
in international relations. International Studies Perspectives 6(4): 447–461.
Briggs RC and Weathers S (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).
Chilisa B (2012) Indigenous Research Methodologies. London: Sage.
Cirhuza E (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).
Comaroff J and Comaroff JL (2015) Theory from the South: Or, How Euro-America Is Evolving
Toward Africa. London: Routledge.
Curtis DEA (2019) What Is Our research For? Responsibility, humility and the production of
knowledge about Burundi. Africa Spectrum 54(1): 4–21.
Davenport C (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).
Duermeijer C, Amir M and Schoombee L (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).
Henderson FB (2009) “We thought You would Be white”: race and gender in fieldwork. PS:
Political Science & Politics 42(02): 291–294.
Kaplan L, Kuhnt J and Steinert JI (2020) Do no harm? Field research in the global south: ethical
challenges faced by research staff. World Development 127: 104810.
Kessi S, Marks Z and Ramugondo E (2020) Decolonizing African studies. Critical African Studies
12(3): 271–282.
Kovach M (2005) Emerging from the margins: indigenous methodologies. In: Brown L and Strega
S (eds) Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous and Anti-Oppressive Approaches.
Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars’ Press, pp.19–36.
Iroulo and Tappe Ortiz 81

Krause U (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).
Lohaus M and Wemheuer-Vogelaar W (2021) Who publishes where? Exploring the geographic
diversity of global IR journals. International Studies Review 23(3): 645–669.
Maldonado DB (2014) Constitutionalism of the Global South: The Activist Tribunals of India,
South Africa, and Colombia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marmer E and Sow P (2013) African History teaching in contemporary German textbooks: From
biased knowledge to duty of remembrance. Yesterday&Today 10: 28.
Miller A, Deeter C, Trelstad A, 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.
Mitchell A (2013) Escaping the ‘field trap’: Exploitation and the global politics of educational field-
work in ‘conflict zones’. Third World Quarterly 34(7): 1247–1264.
Ndlovu-Gatsheni SJ (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.
Njeri S (2021) Race, positionality and the researcher. In: Mac Ginty R, Brett R and Vogel B (eds)
The Companion to Peace and Conflict Fieldwork. New York: Springer International
Publishing, pp.381–394.
Oyě wùmí O (1997) The Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western Gender
Discourses. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Pailey RN (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).
Rodríguez CO (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).
Rodríguez CO (2018) Decolonizing Academia: Poverty, Oppression and Pain. Halifax &
Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing.
Smith LT (1999) Decolonising Methodologies. New York: Zed Books.
Tieku TK (2019) The African union: successes and failures. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of
Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tieku TK (2021) The legon school of international relations. Review of International Studies 47(5):
1–16.
Wilson MC and Knutsen CH (2020) Geographical coverage in political science research.
Perspectives on Politics: 1–16.
Xavier S (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.

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
82 Africa Spectrum 57(1)

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

Liebe deutsche Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler: Was

ist Ihre Rolle in der Wissensproduktion über Afrika?

Zusammenfassung
Obwohl kritische afrikanische Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler seit dem 19.
Jahrhundert die Praxis des Studierens und Schreibens über Afrika infrage gestellt haben,
ist die Forschung über Afrika immer noch in epistemische Ungerechtigkeiten verstrickt,
die aus kolonialen Machtstrukturen resultieren. Wir zeigen auf, wie die
Wissensproduktion koloniale Muster reproduziert, die die Qualität der Forschung
beeinträchtigen und sowohl Forschungssubjekte als auch Wissenskonsumentinnen und
-konsumenten negativ beeinflusst. Hierbei stützen wir uns auf eigene Erfahrungen als
Forschende und Lehrende an deutschen Instituten und Universitäten, um aktuelle
Trends und Muster in der politikwissenschaftlichen Forschung zu Afrika zu analysieren.
Wir zeigen an konkreten Beispielen, dass Kolonialität in der Forschung, in der
Feldforschung, in der Publikationspraxis, in der Lehre und in der akademischen
Einstellungspolitik sichtbar ist und sich nachteilig auswirkt. Um die Art und Weise, wie
Wissen produziert wird, infrage zu stellen und zu verändern, müssen sich
Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler aus dem Globalen Norden ihrer Rolle in der
Wissensproduktion bewusst und auch dafür sensibilisiert werden. Dieser Artikel setzt
die Debatte über die Dekolonisierung der Afrikaforschung fort.

Schlagwörter
Deutschland, Afrikastudien, Kolonialität, Forschungspraktiken, Einstellungspolitik,
Feldforschung