No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 May 2014
African Studies, as a body of knowledge, is continental in its geographical focus, multi-disciplinary in structure, and interdisciplinary in its intellectual pursuits. The materials which inform this body of knowledge are so vast in time, space, and scope, and almost unlimited in detail, that Africanists are compelled to specialize either in terms of African regions or in terms of problem areas. Although our interests are divergent within one geographical area, we are all nourished by an interdisciplinary frame of reference which governs our training and our research. Our membership is increasing. Most Africanists are in the social sciences; but the challenge of African development is attracting various technical-science based disciplines into African Studies.
African Studies defies the usual criteria for isolating the traditional disciplines. This particular attribute has often raised the question as to whether this body of new knowledge can be usefully applied. This question is not new. It has been asked of every new body of knowledge. In attempting an answer, we must make our assumptions clear. First, African Studies is not just a body of knowledge; it is a body of useful knowledge which must be shared. Second, Africa is no longer the “laboratory” for the world, but rather a consumer of useful knowledge. She consumes the knowledge required in her development process and demands knowledge that can help her avoid costly mistakes. As an active participant and consumer of useful knowledge, Africa will continue to demand an increased output of. Africanist research in the future. Third, there is no neutral African Studies. African Studies has relevance beyond the continent of Africa which nourishes it. It is the duty of the Africanist to make African Studies the relevant body of knowledge which we claim it to be. Finally, African Studies is nothing if it provides no service to the world. It served the interests of the colonial government; it serves the professional growth and development of its adherents, and it has a responsibility to serve the world, the ultimate consumer and audience of African Studies.
1. See Uchendu, V.C., “Africa and the Africanist: The Challenge of a Terminal Colonial Order,” Issue, VII, 1, 1977, 5–11 Google Scholar.
2. Myrdal, Gunnar, “The Relation between Social Theory and Social Policy,” The British Journal of Sociology, IV, 1953, p. 210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3. Gunnar Myrdal, ibid., p. 211.
4. Ward, Barbara, The Rich Nations and the Poor Nations (New York: W.W. Norton, 1962), p. 15 Google Scholar.
5. Schroyer, T., The Critique of Domination: The Origins and Development of Critical Theory (New York: George Braziller, 1973), p. 23 Google Scholar.
6. Schroyer, ibid., p. 27.
7. Uchendu, V.C., “Priority Issues for Social Anthropological Research in Africa in the Next Two Decades,” in Carter, G.M. and Paden, A., eds., Expanding Horizons in African Studies (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969), p. 17 Google Scholar.
8. Uchendu, V.C., “Rapid Survey Techniques for Interdisciplinary Research: Factors Influencing Agricultural Change in Tropical Africa,” African Directions (Oxon Hills, Maryland, Fall 1977), 38–43 Google Scholar.
9. The investigation team included W.O. Jones and B.F. Johnson (economists), V.C. Uchendu (anthropologist), and K.R.M. Anthony (agronomist).
10. The field study was preceded by a series of seminars sponsored by the Institute in which suggestions of social scientists active in various fields of African research were obtained. There was also a two-day conference, April 1-2, 1966, on the theme of the project, at which the investigators presented their preliminary ideas. Participants at the conference, other than graduate students and team investigators, included: Joan Campbell (SUNY), Frank Cancian (Stanford), Peter McGloughlin (Santa Clara), Robert Netting (Pennsylvania), Philip Porter (Minnesota), Harlan Robinson (Stanford), Thayer Scudder (Cal Tech), and Alan Thodey (Illinois).