The (Other) Anglophone Problem: Charting the Development of a Journalism Subfield

ABSTRACT

To mark the 40th Anniversary of African Journalism Studies, it is important to reflect on its contribution to a subfield the journal has built. This essay gives a broad overview of the African journalism subfield’s developments and addresses the journal’s most notable achievements and shortcomings.

KEYWORDS:

• Anglophone problem
• dewesternisation
• journalism studies field
• subfield

Introduction

African journalism studies—either as area studies or subfield—aims to provide an alternative, non-western perspectives to global debates of journalism studies while developing theoretical approaches and methodologies for studying the practice, the media, culture and society in Africa.¹ The subfield began taking shape in the post-independence period in the 1960s in the English-speaking parts of Africa, where focus was placed on media studies that was attuned to debates of decolonisation and the role of the media in nation-building and democratisation processes. Over time, African journalism studies has come to be defined by the debate about the marginalisation of African thought and the dominant epistemological traditions of the wired and WEIRD² (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic) nations. Its mother field, Journalism Studies, has grown over the years, with established theory and literature that has antecedent traditions in disciplines such as sociology and political science (Wahl-Jorgensen and Hanitzsch 2009; Steensen and Ahva 2015). However, it has faced criticism over the dominance of Anglo-American perspectives, which are naturally a result of the history of development of knowledge globally, the large number of scholars engaged in research in North America and Europe, resources and sometimes the skewed perspectives to research that lean towards blind universalism (see Demeter 2020).

This paper tracks the developments in area studies over the last 40 years as shaped by the premier journal, African Journalism Studies. It discusses the core debates in the emerging subfield and then highlights the major challenges that concern how researchers position themselves to not only employ Northern theoretical approaches and methodologies but provide alternatives from an “African vantage point”. The paper addresses the contribution of African Journalism Studies since its founding in the 1980s, and highlights the main issues addressed by the journal and other areas of the study of journalism in Africa where it has fallen short.

I argue that the subfield’s focus on the dewesternisation debate lends it the burden of being part of a global problem, yet doing little to address its greatest challenge—the limited global visibility of journalism research by African scholars. Finding a “voice” in the field of journalism studies should be part of a deliberate effort by “Africa scholars” to increase both quality and quantity of research as well as improving dissemination of works from within (and outside) the continent rather than placing much focus on the “political mission” of decolonisation of knowledge.

The core debates in African journalism studies

Since its birth in the 1960s, African journalism studies has grappled with the North–South representation question prevalent in the media and communication discipline and subsequently, the core debate has centred on Africanisation/indigenisation of the subfield. When it emerged in the 1960s, non-African scholars outnumbered Africans at least until the 1970s and 1980s when it “became truly international” as perspectives from scholars from within the continent became more visible (Fair 2015: 25). There is, however, no clear pathway to the origins of the area study. While the internationalisation agenda in the social and human sciences has largely been linked to the growth of “alternative” media-related subfields and area/regional studies, the roots of African media and communication studies, in general, could easily be placed in the old tradition of adopting “non-western” perspectives in Northern empirical studies as a way of legitimising universalisation of research evidence or achieving some form of “global” representation. It is perhaps the reason most research about journalism in Africa have appeared to take uncritical case-study approaches while merely qualifying or disputing Northern theoretical and methodological approaches (see Wasike 2017).

There is still contention whether African journalism studies has matured to be a subfield or is already a field today. Some scholars like Fair (2015: 27) argue that it is a “field” that is now in “comfort with itself” because of a growing number of authoritative scholars in African universities, as well as their theoretical and/or methodological contributions. Foremost scholars in the continent include the late Francis Kasoma from Zambia, South Africa's Arnold S. de Beer (the founder of African Journalism Studies), Keyan G. Tomaselli and Herman Wasserman (currently the editor-in-chief of AJS). At the same time, there are times when African journalism studies is viewed as an area or regional study providing an “intellectual home” for scholars with interest in Africa (Waisbord 2015) rather than a subfield of journalism studies. It should be noted here that there are ongoing debates on whether journalism studies (globally) has matured into a discipline (Steensen and Ahva 2015; Carlson et al. 2018), while its most recent offshoot “digital journalism” has been declared a field (Steensen and Westlund 2020). However, it is not an objective of this essay to address these debates about the field, but I note here that a subfield is the best way to describe African Journalism Studies as it has chosen to align itself with the core debates in journalism studies (in as much as they are western-oriented) but at the same time distinguished in its aspiration to develop its own theoretical/conceptual traditions.

Addressing how the subfield of African journalism studies has taken shape perhaps requires ample space, but in summary, some of the developments and areas that have had an influence on how the field looks like today include: the growth of the fields of African studies and its related areas such as cultural studies and post-colonial studies; research projects of global journalism³; the rise of scholarship in Africa since at least 2000, the productive and well-funded Northern scholars researching Africa as well as globalisation and dewesternisation debates in media and communication discipline.

The core debate in African journalism studies is both political and qualitative—mainly addressing the question whether the subfield can develop its own unique epistemological traditions but at the same time challenge the centrality of western theoretical and methodological perspectives. Although cultural relativists have insisted resources and research focus should be placed on developing “home-grown” solutions, there are hardly any substantial and influential theories that African journalism scholars could write home about. There are, however, theoretical concepts such as ‘Afri-ethics’ (Kasoma 1996) and ‘ubuntuism’ (Kamwangamalu 1999) that have for years formed part of discussions around journalistic ethics in African media practice. These concepts have been criticised for “imagining” African cultures as “static” and there have since been fewer attempts to provide alternatives or new approaches (Tomaselli 2009).

There is in fact an antagonism between scholars who see the dominant liberal approach to journalism mostly inspired by Northern theories defining the study of journalism, and those criticising Afrocentric scholars over romantic essentialism in claiming there can be uniquely “African” theoretical and methodological approaches in journalism studies. Further, there are “midway” scholars who see African studies as having an “oscillating border” (Wasserman 2009b). The midway scholars rather prefer to see theory-building as a natural development as scholars researching Africa constantly engage in dialogue with existing theoretical paradigms. Further, they perceive the mission of African journalism studies as ultimately challenging universalism and western-centric perspectives in the field of journalism studies. The political nature of the North–South discourse is apparent even in the mission of Africa’s more internationally visible journal, African Journalism Studies. Chief-editor Wasserman (2012) argues that, “African scholars have important things to say, but in order for the North to hear them, the channels of conversation have to be opened up more” (28). This political mission is supported by the Afro-optimistic scholars in the Global North whose approach has been rather practical in addressing power relations, structural challenges and the dearth of research from Africa, for example by lobbying for space for Africa research in international journals and promoting collaborations and education in African media studies.

In this paper, I do not dwell much on the aforementioned antagonisms in the field, but I instead dedicate more space to the dewesternisation⁴ debate because it is at the core of understanding the development of the subfield. The debate is further the platform through which I give a few reflections on how African journalism studies has developed so far.

Africanisation of journalism studies

In general, media and communication studies in Africa is subservient to “knowledge colonialism” (de Beer 2010) as a result of the slow flow of South-to-North sharing of research (Hamelink 1995) as well as the marginalisation in publishing owing to dominance of English journals in North America and Europe (Demeter 2020). The problem stems from the fact that journalism practice, technologies and the profession are influenced by dominant western hegemonic systems and paradigms (Høyer and Pöttker 2005; Nerone 2012)—they are part of the colonial heritage and have further been acquired and expanded by the African elite (Ndlela 2009). Within the continent, indigenisation/Africanisation of the media system has dragged for years while the research community has been engaged for long periods in efforts to build and promote “home-grown” theories of research into media and communication in Africa.

The problem is compounded by training and education in institutions that is heavily influenced by American and European models (Nyamnjoh 2005; Josephi 2007). In particular, the African journalism subfield has specialised in the debate about its role and position in the global media communication arena. As a result, the debate about the dearth of research, the peripheral position of African media studies and slow attempts in internationalisation of media and communication studies, has preoccupied scholars of journalism studies in Africa (cf. Cheruiyot and Ferrer-Conill 2020). The centrality of the dewesternisation debate has slowed more developments in theory building and attempts to widen research across Africa. Citation choices by scholars and students in the African continent further favour more established scholars in the North (Onyancha and Maluleka 2011; Demeter 2020). Even books written about journalism in Africa often have to seek a western stamp of approval. As if to validate results and perspectives of the African scholars, leading lights of journalism in Europe and US will most often write the forewords or epilogues (not in itself wrong and, in fact, it goes to show the global nature of the debates in journalism studies, but this tradition reinforces the western perspectives while marginalising African voices).⁵ Here it is important to underline the fact that these kinds of post-colonial critique⁶ are not confined to media studies, but feature in most disciplines in the social and human sciences.

Research in the African journalism subfield since the 1990s has revolved around the political economy, liberalisation of the media, the struggles for press freedom and censorship, democracy and elections, the impact of new media technologies to media consumption and production, media and conflicts, journalism practice, media ethics and tabloidisation as well as convergence and the growth of digital journalism (Ndlela 2009; Kupe 2013; Fair 2015).

Political developments in post-independent nations partly influenced the agenda for research in the 1960s and 1970s, along with donor aid at African universities. The focus on development news/government say-so journalism (Ogan 1980) or sunshine journalism stemmed from the fact that media was tightly controlled by the state while there was an urge from abroad and home for the support of the nation building project. After the 1990s when a wave of democracy swept through most African nations, and the liberalisation agenda was promoted by world powers and Bretton Woods institutions, journalism studies focused on the effects of privatisation of the media and the burgeoning FM radio stations. Since the early 2000s, interest has shifted to new media technologies such as mobile phones and social media.

The fact that African media research is still subservient to the western research agenda, colonial historical influence and even globalisation—once seen as offering hope for the subfield—is further reinforcing its peripheral position (Ndlela 2009). Ironically, the subfield and African studies fields in general, have had to grapple with the question of representation as well. The use of “African” in reference to location, for instance, has been unrepresentative. The spotlight has instead been on English-speaking Africa within sub-Saharan Africa with lesser visibility of French-speaking, Portuguese-speaking and Arabic-speaking Africa, what we could call here, an ‘Anglophone problem’. Related challenges in African journalism studies include the heavy focus on research on a few English countries—mostly South Africa, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Ghana (which mostly stems from the fact that some of these countries have geopolitical influence, long history of collaborations with the West and are centres of publishing in their regions).

In terms of publishing, the field has had only a few dedicated outlets. Instead, scholars from the continent have mostly targeted “prestigious” mainstream publications in the North. South Africa for a long time faced an “academic boycott” (Tomaselli and Teer-Tomaselli 2007), mostly during the apartheid era. By 1994 when South Africa joined the rest of Africa, there was an existing disparity, with the rest of Africa having made few strides in developing publishing outlets. The current journal dedicated to research in the subfield is the African Journalism Studies.

African Journalism Studies published by Taylor & Francis and formerly known as Equid Novi: African Journalism Studies was founded by South African scholar Arnold S. de Beer in 1980. Over the years, the journal has been more outward-looking, seeking fresher perspectives from across the continent, more comparative perspectives within the Global South and interaction with researchers from Latin America and India as well as addressing contemporary African issues and changing landscapes, such as the recent Chinese influence in African media landscape (I will later return to address the contribution of this journal to the subfield).

Of course, we should be aware that there are structural challenges that still hamper the efforts for more visibility of Africa journalism research and scholars. Language is a good example. Even though most African scholars could write and communicate articulately in colonial languages such as English, Portuguese and French, they may not effectively compare to their counterparts who are native speakers in North America and Europe, hence their works do not compete favourably in mainstream journals. Further, communicating research in foreign languages may not be as effective in highlighting local, cultural and complex societal issues (cf. Suzina 2020). There is also often the assumption in the West that there is a dearth of African research in English, which is not necessarily the case as most African institutions still face challenges in disseminating works by their scholars.

The bigger challenge for African journalism studies as a subfield lies with research dissemination and perhaps research should be deliberate in focusing on ways to improve dissemination globally. The fact that there is less research output from Africa that is accessible in the West implies that research globally is rarely enriched by studies from the continent. In the same vein, dissemination of works among scholars and institutions in Africa is limited despite the attempt to support Pan-African publishing and collaborations such as that of Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA⁷). Further, due to lack of resources in African universities, most scholars on the continent have limited access to mainstream journals or books (or cannot fund trips to major international conferences) that would update them on current debates in global journalism studies.

“African reality” in the subfield

Often it has been argued that media and communication studies in Africa should address the immediate needs of the African nations—poverty, socio-economic inequalities, weak health systems, ethnic and clan conflicts, poor governance, runaway corruption or electoral justice. This needs-based agenda has been side-lined in favour of western research interests (and research funding dictates), African elite interests or fascination over new technologies along with a culture of presentism⁸ and ahistorical approaches. Part of the problem of the subfield has been its dedication to media systems and approaches to media development that are products of colonial systems, whose goal was to serve white settlers and is beholden to the western model of journalism and technology.⁹

In fact, what is perhaps ironic in African scholarship is the fact that it seeks to address marginalisation of voices in the periphery yet their focus on prestige or elite media (TV, print and digital media) shows the contrary. Well, this is not to imply that the elite media do not make any contribution. In fact, apart from their centrality in socio-political discourse, the media in sub-Saharan African has been instrumental in expanding democratic space and literacy. It is, however, important to note that there are substantial studies that have focused on radio—a medium whose use is entrenched in African countries because of large audiences in rural areas—but their visibility cannot match that of the print media, at least in English-speaking Africa. Further, numerous studies on radio in Africa have focused on political participation, development communication and community media, mostly western donor-driven projects.

Perhaps the colonial legacy of the media in Africa (as well as globalisation) explains why media systems in African countries may take varying degrees of “polarised pluralist”, “democratic corporatist” and liberal kinds of media systems as existing studies have shown (Hadland 2012)—although South Africa’s case is unique owing to the history of apartheid. The question of media systems is one that has particularly drawn extensive studies in non-western journalistic discourses since the publication of the Four Theories of the Press by Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm (1963) as well as subsequent work by Hallin and Mancini (2004). The discourse in journalism studies is the question of whether western frames are simplistic and overlook complexity and diversity. Africa, for example, is argued to have 40 media systems along with three main lingua-franca, more than 2000 non-western languages and different colonial legacies of the British, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian (Kivikuru 2009).

The question of whether the western frame of reference should define the African media scene is one that is yet to be resolved, but has informed the media discourse on the continent for a long time. While noting the dominance of western philosophical traditions and theories, Obonyo (2011) argues that: “There should be a broad agreement that there are unique peculiarities that demand that Africa isolates what is relevant and place it in Africa’s unique situations, and weave out of that mosaic a framework that reflects Africa’s reality” (11). Although Obonyo argues for the midway approach to research in Africa through engaging with traditional northern theories, there is the risk to bending to western interests. Ferguson (2006) explains the common western obsession with ‘particularities’ or ‘cultural distinctiveness’ of the African situations, where for example in studying a phenomenon that originates from the West like “fake news”, a case study in Africa is sought to provide a unique non-western perspective. Mbembe (2001) puts it aptly: “Africa as an idea, a concept, has historically served, and continues to serve, as a polemical argument for the West’s desperate desire to assert its difference from the rest of the world” (2). In fact, the zeal to find “African particularities” ignores the impact of globalisation to media systems around the world.

Indeed, the “African reality” has drawn the interests of journalism scholars globally and the Worlds of Journalisms Study¹⁰ is an example of the attempt to throw light into uniqueness of different journalistic cultures across the globe. While comparative studies are essential, the subfield of African journalism studies should rather be a platform through which multiple single studies would expand and popularise national studies, so in future the continent may be able to as well have, for example, “Zambia journalism studies” or “Togolese journalism studies” as subfields. Recently, there has been a rise of works done by African scholars in the diaspora but unfortunately fewer collaborations with researchers on the continent (de Beer 2010). There are also fewer “South-to-South” collaborations and more African–western interactions (Skjerdal 2015). There are, however, growing efforts to bridge the growing gap of research through collaborations and translation projects¹¹ to increase access to research within the continent.

Journal’s contribution to the African journalism subfield

I now return to focus on Africa’s premier journal for journalism research, and comment on its contribution towards the subfield in the last 40 years. The discussion here is based on a cursory survey of the journal’s issues since 1980 (and not a systematic literature or scoping review), as the purpose is to provide a commentary of the journal’s contribution rather than detailed and comprehensive findings. The attention of this commentary is on the editorials foregrounding every volume, which consists of the aim of the issue, the description of the areas of focus for the articles in an issue, and the description of journal’s developments and future plans.

The journal was founded as Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies (ENAJS) in 1980. The name later changed to Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies during a relaunch in 2007. In 2008 it was indexed on the Thomson Reuters ISI Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). In 2011 Routledge/Taylor & Francis, in association with Unisa Press in South Africa, started publishing the journal (up until this time it was published by the Wisconsin Press). The journal has kept strong links with international partners, institutions and associations such as the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) and International Communication Association (ICA).

From 1980 to at least 2003, the journal’s major issues were based on contemporary challenges of the press in South Africa and in the West. Subjects covered included the questions about press freedom, media regulation, journalism and democracy or media ethics. There were very similar challenges that the media in countries across Africa faced. Since the 2000s, the journal has focused on broadening insights into Africa-wide journalism with periodical issues taking cross-national approaches and articles tackling regional and continental challenges. The journal has since received numerous contributions consisting studies done in Southern, Western and Eastern Africa, ranging from single-nation to comparative regional studies. On a broad level, there has been limited focus on North Africa, despite the journal’s attempt to show broad coverage of the continent as in the second issue of its 33rd volume titled, “Journalism from all four corners of the African continent”.

At the country level, most contributions have been from former British colonies such as Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania and South Africa (there have, however, been notable contributions from other parts of Africa such as Ethiopia). On the one hand, it could be argued that the journal has a bias towards English-speaking Africa, but this imbalance in output has to be seen in the context of power inequalities that emerge globally as a result of English being the lingua-franca (see Suzina 2020), the close Anglo-American connections that English-speaking Africa has established globally, and the cultural disconnect between Anglophone Africa and the rest of the continent that have Arabic, French and Portuguese as national languages. On the other hand, studies about global knowledge production consistently show English-speaking regions enjoy favourable terms in the development of scholarship, and that includes African journalism studies. The trend shows African journalism scholarship growing mostly from within the Anglophone countries, at least going by the journal’s publications in the last 40 years, and there is the danger of fomenting a “core within the periphery” in knowledge production, as Demeter (2020: 41) has expressed it.

Perhaps one of the most remarkable attempts towards bridging the academic rift between the French-speaking and English-speaking Africa was in the 33rd volume, third issue, where six essays translated from French were published by African Journalism Studies. Guest editor Marie-Soleil Frère (2012: 2) wrote that the purpose of the issue was to “promote decompartmentalisation, inviting comparisons and exchanges between media environments, linguistic areas and research fields that certainly show differences, but also many similarities, and which too often ignore one another”. According to Frère (2012: 5), there were substantial differences in media systems or academic formats and styles between the two Africas, but also little interest among scholars in establishing connections and engagement.

While the agenda of the journal has remained strongly driven by trends in journalism studies in the Global North, it has to be acknowledged that African Journalism Studies has successfully “internationalised” the African journalism discourse. It has done this by not only engaging with debates and issues in the wider field of journalism studies, but has also invited scholars from around the world to contribute to the journal, for example, journalism and media scholars from the Global North such as Clifford G. Christians, Mark Deuze, Karin Wahl-Jorgensen among others. From the beginning the journal was keen to build an international profile, mostly through first cultivating a debate about journalism in South Africa. In marking the journal’s 30th anniversary, editor-in-chief Wasserman (2009a) wrote:

The journal’s role in achieving this aim was seen as first to develop local South African scholarship by serving as a platform for debate and research output, and second to establish links with journalism researchers abroad by building affiliations with international organisations and providing a publication space for international research about topics related to South African journalism. (vii)

The journal has therefore been explicit about the Africa-in-the-global rather that Africa-of-the-global approach to understanding journalism in Africa. In the editorial for the journal’s 28th issue, Wasserman (2007) argued that Africa “cannot be seen in isolation from larger global processes” (5). This approach emphasises global interdependence in the growth of the field of journalism studies in general. It further shows that African journalism studies aims to contribute to global journalism studies scholarship. However, studies from Africa are still marginalised in the field of journalism, which is not only strong in “Western bias” (Hanitzsch 2018), and often scholars in the Global North rarely utilise knowledge from Africa. Secondly, the danger in such an approach is falling prey to Global Northern research agenda that always do define how Africa should be studied. But the journal has consistently implored on scholars researching Africa to focus on “Africa’s needs”.

Concluding remarks

The core debate in the subfield is the question whether western theories should be abandoned for “African” alternatives or whether there should be a natural progression towards broadening insights into phenomenon in African continent while deploying traditional (western) theories or even old ones. Focus, in my view, should not be how we can shift the subfield to the “dominant” centre—because the mission becomes a mere political one, rather it should be how a culture of vibrant research can be cultivated and how Africa studies can be shared widely with the global journalism community.

I have highlighted major challenges that have to do with how researchers position themselves to just not only employ northern theoretical and methodologies approaches but provide “African” alternatives. However, in no way am I suggesting that these challenges are unique to the African situation. In fact, the debate on representation is present in both western and non-western media discourses, even in most developed nations (see for example the case of Japan in Takahashi 2007). What is perhaps important here is to note that identifying African journalism studies as a subfield goes to show its aspirations to become a distinct area of study drawing scholars internationally to contribute to the understanding of the continent.

Finally, while the subfield has largely engaged in debates surrounding dewesternisation, the African Journalism Studies journal has been instrumental in highlighting the growing research in mostly English-speaking Africa.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 This may imply that I take Africa as a monolith, but perhaps I should note here I am cognizant of the different ontologies of “Africa”, which include the thinking of Africa geographically, an empirically or a “socially constructed category” (Ferguson 2006: 4–6; Mudimbe 1988; Scott 2015). Researchers in the subfield are both “Africa” and “African” scholars, meaning there are those from within the continent and those from other parts of the world (mostly in the Global North). There are, of course, those of African origin but based in other parts of the world as well.

2 An acronym coined by Henrich, Heine, and Norenzayan (2010).

3 There are a few notable examples here. See The Global Journalist: News People around the World by Weaver and Wu (1998) and an updated edition, The Global Journalists in the 21st Century by Weaver and Willnat (2012). Other recent works include the comparative studies project steered by Thomas Hanitzsch of Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich. See worldsofjournalism.org.

4 I use this term here because it mostly features in the debates about knowledge production and how the West has emerged as the “dominant centre” and the rest of the world remaining in the “periphery”, but I acknowledge here that it is reductionist. See Glück (2015) and Wasserman and de Beer (2009).

5 And in fact, few graduate students of journalism in Africa may be aware of the works of most prolific writers in the field such as Francis Nyamnjoh or Francis Kasoma, who unlike their North American counterparts do not have the luxury of being featured on Wikipedia.

6 Literature studies has particularly popularised the debate and novelists Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s book Decolonising the Mind as well Nigerian writer, Chimamanda Ngozi’s famous TED Talk in 2009, titled, “The Danger of a Single Story”, are currently some of the most provocative works in this area.

7 CODESRIA has existed since 1973 and has faced numerous challenges, among them lack of resources in its effort to promote research within the continent. http://www.codesria.org/.

8 In media and communication studies, presentism is criticised in favour of historically grounded approaches. See Buckingham, Bragg, and Kehily (2014) and Pickering (2008).

9 Kupe (2005) argues “media in Africa” is an apt description rather than “African media” because of the colonial heritage, neo-colonial ideological influence, foreign ownership and widespread use of European languages such as English and French.

10 Researchers in more than 70 countries have so far been involved in the project. See http://www.worldsofjournalism.org/.

11 See, for example, a dual project in 2010 to translate and publish research in English and French Africa journals, Afrique contemporaine and African Journalism Studies. See (Frère 2012).