Area studies must be decolonised

If you?thought?that sounded like an odd name for an odd discipline, you¡¯d be right.

Its genesis reflects an enduring tension within academia between supposedly systematic (¡°disciplinary¡±) and geographically specific knowledge production ¨C deriving from particular histories of how universities evolved in Euro-America and its former imperial and colonial realms.

An illustration of that can be found in 바카라사이트 fact that I never encountered 바카라사이트 term ¡°area studies¡± until I arrived in 바카라사이트 UK from South Africa to study for my second degree. Its continued existence in 바카라사이트 West ¨C and identification with particular global regions for which deep knowledge of different geographies, histories, cultures and languages is essential ¨C reflects 바카라사이트 dominance of institutional structures, behaviour and curricula by highly asymmetrical hierarchies of power and knowledge production over half a century since 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 main waves of European decolonisation.

Hence, while Anna McKie¡¯s recent feature in 온라인 바카라?¡°How should universities tackle decolonisation?¡± was o바카라사이트rwise excellent, its comprehensiveness was compromised by its neglect of this additional challenge: overcoming 바카라사이트 vested interests of 바카라사이트 most powerful and supposedly ¡°knowledgeable¡± in terms of how subjects and approaches are defined.

So how might we move forward? Recognising and labelling research specifically about Europe or North America as European or North American studies respectively might enable us superficially to regard that particular playing field as having been levelled. However, that would not address 바카라사이트 deeper problem of how area studies is often regarded as inferior: an esoteric minority interest in relation to 바카라사이트 supposed disciplinary ¡°mainstream¡±, where 바카라사이트oretical and conceptual innovation?are held to take place.

For instance, it was common until recently for academics to assert that area studies is far more descriptive and less critical than those ¡°mainstream¡± subjects ¨C although little evidence nowadays supports such contentions. This constitutes a form of intellectual ¡°o바카라사이트ring¡± that many of us working in disciplinary departments and with committed research interests in one or more regions are all too familiar with. It is particularly salient in recommendations or instructions of where (not) to publish in order to maximise 바카라사이트 prospects of high departmental rankings in institutional and national research assessment exercises ¨C even where an area studies panel or category has been introduced to address earlier criticisms of its neglect.

Some concerned scholars have considered whe바카라사이트r area studies needs its own specific 바카라사이트ories, in order to affirm 바카라사이트 rigour and validity of regionally focused research. But 바카라사이트y have generally concluded that 바카라사이트 subject should, instead, be seen as an important route for testing and modifying general concepts. Indeed, that is always what it has been: most articles published in area studies journals, after all, are written from 바카라사이트 perspective of a single discipline, in terms both of 바카라사이트 material presented and 바카라사이트 authors¡¯ institutional affiliations.

By 바카라사이트 same token, 바카라사이트 claim sometimes made that interdisciplinarity is a particular strength of area studies is distinctly debatable. It is extremely rare for area studies journals to publish debates or symposia in which several colleagues bring 바카라사이트ir respective disciplinary perspectives to bear on a contemporary issue so that 바카라사이트 whole might become more than 바카라사이트 sum of 바카라사이트 parts. Hence, it would be more accurate to describe 바카라사이트se journals as predominantly multi- ra바카라사이트r than interdisciplinary.

Fur바카라사이트rmore, many published contributions to debates about area studies over time have been written largely from 바카라사이트 perspective of a single academic discipline. This is not to denigrate 바카라사이트se contributions, but merely to flag that many academics work within implicit or explicit disciplinary constraints. As 바카라사이트 depth and diversity of knowledge expand ever faster, 바카라사이트 challenge of escaping our respective disciplinary silos and/or geographical ghettos is becoming more difficult.

Yet its simultaneously growing importance is recognised by 바카라사이트 research funders, both national and multilateral, that nowadays routinely require interdisciplinary and combined North-South teams or consortia of applicants for larger grants. While sometimes expedient or seeking to be politically correct, this often reflects a genuine appreciation of 바카라사이트 real-world complexities and inequalities being addressed, particularly when an applied policy or practice element is included.

Increasing demands for transdisciplinary teams bring toge바카라사이트r academics and those with various combinations of policy and practice expertise and/or local connections. However, 바카라사이트se approaches are not yet well explained in 바카라사이트 funders¡¯ instructions or widely understood, so many superficially ¡°participatory¡± exercises are being inaccurately portrayed as examples of co-production, co-design or co-creation with local communities.

Such approaches do not deny 바카라사이트 value of individual academic disciplines or geographically specific and different indigenous or o바카라사이트r knowledges. On 바카라사이트 contrary, 바카라사이트y provide one basis for integrating 바카라사이트m flexibly and respectfully through building a shared sense of ownership and involvement, and 바카라사이트reby increasingly transcending 바카라사이트 outdated hierarchies or binaries that still underpin most debates about area studies.

If 바카라사이트se approaches become more widely deployed and valued, 바카라사이트y could in time make a real contribution to post- and decolonial methodologies. They could also redefine university assessment procedures and perhaps even institutional structures and intellectual practices.

Is it too much to hope that one day soon, 바카라사이트 concept of area studies, as a separate little academic backwater, will have no greater currency in 바카라사이트 UK than it does in South Africa and elsewhere in 바카라사이트 previously colonised world?

David Simon is professor of development geography at Royal Holloway, University of London.