Gaps in sociolinguistic research in sub-Saharan Africa

1 Introduction

Many in the education sector and in society in general are of the view that academics should not just be theorists, but practitioners, whose action research nurtures theory and whose theories are backed up by actionable research findings. Indeed, a number of research institutes around the world do set national research priorities, suggesting that research is not carried out for the sake of doing research, but with the ultimate goal of resolving issues to improve the lot of society at large. Applications of sociolinguistic research to language-in-education policies and theoretical linguistics to second language acquisition are cases in point.

Along the same lines, the aim of this paper is to offer an analytical perspective on sociolinguistic research output and focus in sub-Saharan Africa, and suggest directions for sociolinguistic research priorities in the areas of language and the economy, language and health, and language and governance.

2 Sociolinguistic research output in sub-Saharan Africa

A cursory look at the sociolinguistic research output (submissions and/or publications) in Sub-Saharan Africa, from 2010 to 2020, in three leading international journals of sociolinguistics,^[1] namely the International Journal of the Sociology of Language (IJSL), Language Problems and Language Planning (LPLP) and Current Issues in Language Planning (CILP) yielded the results in Table 1.^[2]

These results show that IJSL published most of the papers (46), 43.47% of which were from or about Southern Africa (20),^[3] with annual average of one article in 2013, two in 2012, three in 2010, 2011, 2017 and 2018 respectively, five in 2019, eight in 2016 and 10 in 2014 and 2015, respectively. The number of publications picked up from 2014 before declining by 2019. IJSL and LPLP provided data over a 10-year period, with an average of 4.9 articles per year, while CILP provided data over a four-year period, with an average of two articles per year. While IJSL did not provide data on the total number of papers submitted and rejected, the data provided by both CILP and LPLP suggest that out of 21 submissions, only eight or 38.09% were rejected.

This is by no means a complete picture of the sociolinguistic research output in sub-Saharan Africa. Although the three journals selected here are international journals of repute, they are certainly not the only ones. It should also be noted that whilst both IJSL and LPLP give voice to authors of other languages (e.g. French and Spanish), most of their publications are in English. CILP on the other hand goes so far as to insist that reference entries in other languages be translated into English. Nevertheless, these results point to a low sociolinguistic research output in Sub-Saharan Africa. What is this due to?

3 Research constraints

Why is the sociolinguistic research output in Sub-Saharan Africa so low? In an effort to answer this question, I engaged in discussions with other sociolinguists here in Côte d’Ivoire, only to realise that they were not that many (only six) to extract information from. So, I put the following open-ended question online to 56 sociolinguists from 21 countries across Sub-Saharan Africa: “What do you think are the challenges to doing research in your country?” They offered the answers in Table 2.

A brief analysis of these responses shows that the majority of researchers in this survey (82%) speaks of “no motivation to carry out research”, because the conditions for such motivation are not met: the teacher/student ratios are not manageable (77%), which translates into a heavy workload (75%), leaving little time to engage in research, especially with no libraries or when the existing ones are poorly equipped (74%)^[4] and when teaching staff have no offices on campus (71.42%). The overlapping of academic years (30%) would add to this constraint. The lack of research funding (65%) is compounded by an absence of collaboration between academics (62%), who would rather work in silos. The lack of research funding may also be explained by the absence of an organisation dedicated to research, such as a research council (25%). All this is topped by political interference in the allocation of research funds (38%) and the preference of development partners to fund only research that aligns with their own priorities (28.78%). Although these constraints may not hold all the explanatory power for individual researchers and/or contexts, they show a common thread to the underlying causes of the low research activity and publications output in sub-Saharan Africa.

The challenges are many and complex. Some of them, such as the “lack of research collaboration and/or supervision” or the preference for working in silos, will require more than research funding per se.^[5] However, there are other constraints that can be lifted with some degree of innovation in the areas of research priorities and focus. What could these be?

4 Gaps in sociolinguistics research in sub-Saharan Africa

For decades, since the early 1980s, sociolinguistic research in sub-Saharan Africa focused on contrastive analyses of local languages versus colonial languages, with a view to improving the teaching and learning of the latter, and on the description of local adoptions and appropriations of colonial languages (see Floquet 2018; Lafage 2002 and 2003; and others). There were also a number of studies on “partner languages” (Diki Kidiri 2013), endangered languages and language death (Batibo 2005; Voisin 2017), rather than on language vitality (Calvet and Moussirou Mouyama 2000; Djité 2008, 2009; Vigouroux and Mufwene 2008). Thirty years later, much of the research effort continues to rehearse the same comparative analyses (Ncho and Jean 2018; Kouadio and Nzi 2017), illustrating what was referred to in Section 2 above as “the preference of development partners in funding only research that aligns with their own priorities”.

It has always been my view that sociolinguists in sub-Saharan Africa should not reproduce the western neo-liberal and exclusionary knowledge “bias” and power hierarchies that ignore the dynamism and vitality of local languages, robbing their own people of the opportunity of achieving endogenous and sustainable development (Djité 1985, 1993, 2008, 2009, 2011). It is high time for a paradigm shift that focuses on the priorities of this part of the world, because farmers in sub-Saharan Africa ought to know how to read the instructions written on a bag of fertilizer (and whether they need fertilizers in the first place); patients ought to be able to receive health care without the added stress of dealing with medical doctors speaking in foreign tongues; the population at large ought to be able to make statements at police stations and defend themselves in the courts of law in a language they understand. Actionable sociolinguistic research in sub-Saharan Africa must now turn to asking the questions that matter: What is/are the dominant language(s) at national and regional level that bring people under the same tent (Calvet 1992)? What is/are the language(s) most likely to “integrate communities and improve the quality of life of the African people”,^[6] not only in the areas of education, but also in the areas of health (Djité forthcoming), the economy (Djité 2020) and governance (Djité 2012)?

The issues here are complex and cannot be reduced to language alone, that is true; but it is also true that no country in the world has been able to lift its people out of poverty through illiteracy (i.e.; inability to read and write). And the fact is that, 60 years later, most of the African people are functionally illiterate ^[7] in the borrowed national/official language imposed upon them. Improving the choices and quality of life of the African people will depend very much on the quality of their education, their access to land ownership, health services, and their ability to take an active part in the management of their own public affairs. Languages are a praxis with real consequences on the daily lives of those who speak them, as well as on the lives of those who do not speak them or do not master them enough to break through the glass ceiling of linguistic and hence socioeconomic and political exclusion. One has to stop and ask: What are the language policies and practices of Asian countries, such as Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, or even Vietnam, all of them former colonies, whose economic performances African countries marvel at? In what language has China established itself as an economic giant on a global scale?

5 Conclusion

In levelling the “Chindōgu researcher” criticism at academics, society at large is expressing a yearning for a pragmatic approach to human endeavour. However, research output is low in sub-Saharan Africa, because the constraints to doing research – as shown in Section 2 – are varied and overwhelming. Some of these (i.e.; the “rampant political interference in the allocation of research funds”) may seem almost intractable. However, sociolinguistic research output in sub-Saharan Africa could gain much traction, if it could “piggyback” on the development priorities of some of the leading regional and/or continental institutions, such as the African Development Bank or the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. These institutions could turn out to be sources of research funding, provided the research projects submitted show their relevance to nation building and regional integration through African languages.

This approach will require a paradigm shift focusing on the inner workings of the lived language experiences of the current multilingual African society; a paradigm shift that will help break out of the mould of contrastive analyses and descriptivism and usher in a look at emerging issues closer to home: for instance, “why” and “how” the existing sociolinguistic order can be changed, how to build linguistic openness and societal cohesion without falling back into the “peace” of vertical authority that imposes a single identity through language. Substantiating this claim through actionable research showing the fundamental and critical relevance of using the most appropriate and effective language, not only in education, but also in the economy, in health, in policing and the courts of law and in governance.

Indeed, when it comes to the economy, for instance, it is now well-established that, at a weighted average of 34% in the global economy (Adegoke 2019, citing the IMF), the informal sector in sub-Saharan Africa is one of the largest in the world (Medina, Jonelis and Cangul 2017), spanning a wide range of micro, small and medium enterprises, with nearly 86% of all employment (Elliott 2019, citing the ILO) and a demographic dividend bound to increase its capacity to absorb many more young employment-seekers. Sparks and Barnett (2010) agree and add:

…Employment in the informal sector is no longer a journey, but has become the destination of many […] If the aim is to create jobs and reduce poverty, the informal sector must be included in the debate […] The debate about the advantages of formal sector vs. the informal sector needs to end. Governments need to unequivocally recognize and admit the importance of the informal sector and finds ways to encourage its growth.

A significant characteristic of this hugely dynamic informal sector, which is often overlooked, is language. What are the languages in which deals are made and transactions carried out in this important part of the economy in sub-Saharan Africa? Needless to say, the economy is not the only sector that needs to be looked at. Sociolinguists in sub-Saharan Africa have a major role to play in taking on the challenge of a significant paradigm shift and helping decision-makers recognize the languages that matter at both national and official levels, in order to develop and implement language policies that break from the colonial and neo-colonial past.