Original Research

Neoliberal labyrinth: Epistemic freedom and knowledge production in higher education in the Global South

Sibonokuhle Ndlovu, Emnet T. Woldegiorgis

Received: 04 May 2024; Accepted: 07 Aug. 2024; Published: 07 Nov. 2024

Copyright: © 2024. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

In the 21st century, knowledge has become the driving force behind societal progress, emphasising the need for higher education to produce contextually relevant knowledge that addresses the multifaceted challenges faced by local communities. It is in this respect that knowledge needs to be generated through one’s position of epistemic location in higher education. However, academics positioned at the pinnacle of knowledge production in higher education find themselves entangled in a global crossroads. On the one hand, they are expected to exercise epistemic freedom by producing knowledge from their centralities and unique positionalities. On the other hand, they are constrained by the pervasive influence of neoliberalism, a paradigm that dictates that knowledge production should be subservient to market dynamics. To interrogate the intricacies of the impediments placed on academics seeking to exercise their epistemic freedom, this article utilises a desktop literature review, underscored by the theoretical framework of Decolonial Theory. The examination elucidates how these constraints hinder the production of knowledge from the centrality of the Global South. The article draws examples from South African higher education as a point of reference, providing examples that underscore the global challenges of neoliberal policies in higher education. Central to the thesis advanced in this article is the contention that, within the existing neoliberal framework of higher education driven by market forces and productivity imperatives, the production of knowledge from the position of one’s centrality is limited and the ability to produce locally relevant knowledge is fundamentally restricted. Consequently, the epistemic freedom of academics within higher education across the Global South is imperilled.

Contribution: In response to these challenges, this article engages in an academic discourse on potential strategies for reclaiming epistemic freedom within the prevailing neoliberal milieu of higher education.

Keywords: epistemic freedom; higher education; neoliberalism; academics; Global South; market forces; transformation in higher education.

Introduction

Neoliberalism has increasingly influenced the policies and practices of higher education in the Global South, steering them towards the commodification of knowledge and education, driven by prevailing market forces.

As discussed in various studies (Akala 2021; Brock-Utne 2003; Gyamera & Burke 2018; Woldegiorgis 2024), in a hidden way neoliberalism promotes the commercialisation of knowledge, being the outcome of a discourse entailed ‘best solutions for all’, turning education into a commodity rather than a public good. This trend encourages higher education institutions to prioritise marketable and profitable courses and programmes, often at the expense of the humanities and social sciences but was never voiced before. The latter are seen as less directly tied to immediate economic benefits. Moreover, the adoption of corporate management styles in universities, with a focus on performance metrics and output orientation, pushes these institutions to prioritise quantifiable outcomes such as graduation rates and research output, without adequately considering the impact and relevance of research activities. Consequently, researchers feel pressured to tailor their studies to the interests of funders, which can restrict the scope of inquiry and academic freedom. The emphasis on performance measurement fosters unhealthy competition and discourages collaboration, which is often essential for addressing significant global challenges.

The neoliberal paradigm in higher education creates controversy and tension, compelling academics to navigate a challenging landscape. While they need to exercise their epistemic freedom to produce context-relevant knowledge that addresses modern-day socio-economic and political challenges, they are simultaneously forced to conform to the dictates of neoliberal universities. In these institutions, market forces largely determine the type of knowledge to be produced and the perspective from which it is developed. The issue of the challenges of epistemic freedom within the neoliberal higher education in universities in the Global South is not a new phenomenon in contemporary scholarship.

Research methods and design

A desktop review method was used to solicit data for the concept article. Booth and Carroll (2015) argued that a desktop literature review is a method in which data are sourced from works that have already been published material. In essence, it is a research method in which secondary sources are used for obtaining data to be used in the phenomenon that is being researched. The desktop review method was thus used to source literature from online sources to obtain relevant literature on the discourse on neoliberal ideologies, academic freedom, knowledge production in the Global South largely, and in the South African context of higher education and decolonisation. In that respect, Scopus, ERIC, ProQuest, Google Scholar and EBSCO were search engines that were used to find the relevant literature. Search terms and their combination as neoliberalism in the Global South, neoliberalism in South African higher education, neoliberalism in post-apartheid South Africa, epistemic freedom, knowledge production in higher education, transformation in higher education in higher education and decolonisation were used to search the literature to review the respective phenomena.

The inclusion criteria used were to select literature on neoliberalism, academic freedom and decolonisation that was published from 2015 to date. Literature that was published before that was discarded. Related work that was published before 2015, was only included if it was seminal work. A total of 2605 sources were identified through the search and when duplicates were removed, 568 sources remained. Further screening removed sources that were not suitable because of their context, which was outside the Global South and South African higher education specifically. This saw 100 articles remaining. The authors read the abstracts for relevance to the phenomena and further removed 25, leaving 75 articles that were relevant and eligible for the review. The sources were then retrieved and ordered according to author, type of publication, year of publication, summary of content and context. They were kept as a spreadsheet. The authors used the summary of content as notes they used for each source.

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) as drawn from Fairclough (2013) was used to analyse text from the works of the selected literature found relevant to understanding the phenomena that were being explored. The CDA is an analytical research tool that assists in analysing how the text is exposed, how power is abused and how inequalities are enacted, reproduced and legitimatised. The CDA also assists in analysing texts that reveal the resilience applied, to oppose the powers there being in the social and political context (Van Duk 2015). As argued, CDA is employed with the aim of wanting to understand, expose and ultimately challenge social inequality. The kind of analysis was thus adopted by the authors as they aimed to understand and expose the underlying reasons for neoliberalism to have continued to exist despite the decolonial efforts, and how it was limiting academic freedom in the Global South largely and in the South African context of higher education specifically. The CDA also enabled the authors to provide what they considered a way forward for academics’ epistemic freedom in South African higher education.

As CDA was used to analyse texts that were selected, codes were used to name the patterns that were emerging from the specific sources. The codes were given meaning and developed into minor themes that were abstracted to major themes, which are trends of neoliberalism, neoliberalism in the post-apartheid South, neoliberalism in the South African higher education, transformation in higher education in South, decolonial insights on neoliberalism in South African higher education and the impact on academic freedom. Under related topics in the article, the themes were then discussed from the decolonial perspective, for the authors to arrive at the conclusion they provided.

Scholarship on epistemic freedom and neoliberalism in the Global South

Scholars such as Mbembe (2016) and Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018) among others, have extensively tackled the issue of epistemic freedom and neoliberalist universities in the Global South. They have argued that neoliberal policies in higher education do not provide an environment conducive to epistemic freedoms for academics, which allows them to freely produce knowledge from their own positionality of central location. The ‘positionality of central location’ refers to the perspective or standpoint from which scholars or academics generate knowledge as rooted in their unique cultural, social and intellectual backgrounds. In this context, it means that academics should be able to produce knowledge that is informed by and reflective of their own local realities, experiences and viewpoints, rather than being constrained or influenced by dominant, often Western-centric, neoliberal frameworks. This concept emphasises the importance of acknowledging and valuing diverse epistemologies and the situatedness of knowledge production within specific contexts.

Using a decolonial critique as the analytical framework, numerous scholars have identified challenges within the neoliberal higher education context and its effects on epistemic freedom.

Decolonial critique and neoliberalistic challenges in South African higher education

In this article, we will briefly highlight some of the discussions presented by researchers in this context. Many studies have utilised the decolonial approach and argued that it is the prevailing paradigm for mitigating these challenges because it reclaims epistemic freedom. As suggested by scholars such as Mbembe (2016) and Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018), this involves the decolonisation of the university, knowledge and curriculum.

In the South African context of higher education, the efforts and struggles of decolonisation are ongoing. However, although the efforts are underway and could yield epistemic freedom for academics, challenges and limitations still prevail, these largely stem from the impacts of neoliberalism on higher education and the epistemic freedom of academics. These barriers are unrelenting and unforgiving, and they potentially make the struggle for decolonial knowledge production into a pipe dream. In this respect, efforts for decolonisation of knowledge and the curriculum are being made in the Global South (at large) and in South Africa (in the context of higher education). Yet, the durability and formidability of the neoliberal structures continue to limit the epistemic freedom of academics to the extent that they still find it difficult to produce knowledge that is relevant for solving the challenges in their localities.

Building on the argument by Mudimbe (1988), who posited that every human being is born into a valid and legitimate system of knowledge production, we assert that all localities possess legitimate and valid knowledge systems. We further argue that epistemic freedom entails the right of scholars to theorise from the centrality of their respective localities. This assertion extends beyond just theorising to include methodologies, academic agreements and ontologies. It emphasises that scholars should be able to employ methods and styles rooted in their own contexts, rather than conforming to dominant paradigms imposed by global academic norms. In other words, scholars in Africa should have the liberty to theorise and use the methods and styles that are African. By virtue, that could change the academic debates and also bridge the dominant styles by disrupting the norm. This could be possible by way of locating themselves and arguing from the perspective of the Global South largely and using Africa as a focal point for themselves and subsequently for the rest of the world. This approach seeks to reclaim epistemic freedom for academics within a neoliberal context.

The article starts by identifying gaps and contestations from previous scholars, after which it deliberates on epistemic freedom and the implications of neoliberalism for knowledge production, specifically from the perspective of the Global South. As has been previously argued by other scholars, the article then provides a discussion on reclaiming epistemic freedom. Then, drawing examples from the ongoing struggles of decolonisation in the South African higher education context, the article contributes to scholarship by suggesting strategies in which academics can produce knowledge from the Global South – particularly from Africa.

Epistemic freedom

In a broad sense, epistemic freedom implies that the academic and research ecosystem within higher education institutions in Africa should be one where scholars and communities can freely pursue their academic interests without any fear of retribution, bias or prejudice. Nevertheless, in this article, we explain academic freedom by drawing on the perspective of Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018). According to Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018), the notion of epistemic freedom is explained in terms of the intellectual sovereignty of scholars regarding their right to think, write, theorise, communicate and interpret the world from their own geographical and cultural locations. The concept of intellectual sovereignty is also connected with Mudimbe’s (1988) idea of the diversity and validity of multiple knowledge sources. Mudimbe (1988) argues that each person, regardless of their geographic or cultural origin, possesses an innate capacity to produce knowledge based on their unique experiences and perspectives. This viewpoint not only affirms the value of diverse knowledge systems but also challenges the hierarchical valuation of knowledge that has historically privileged Western epistemologies over others. The argument critiques the Eurocentric notion of the universality of knowledge systems and sources. The concept of a universal and monolithic source of knowledge poses a challenge to epistemic freedom as it fails to recognise knowledge generated within and from a particular locality, especially from the Global South.

Drawing from Mudimbe (1988), it is essential to acknowledge the fact that scholars in the Global South should have the epistemic freedom to theorise and generate knowledge from the perspectives of their localities without seeking legitimacy or approval from the Global North. The notion of intellectual sovereignty and the diversity and validity of multiple knowledge sources also relates to Achille Mbembe’s (2016) discussions on the concept of ‘pluriversality’. Pluriversality implies epistemic diversity that acknowledges the multiplicity of knowledge sources and integrates a spectrum of viewpoints, philosophies and knowledge systems. It fosters epistemic freedom, where all forms of knowledge from different worlds are considered legitimate and where knowers can produce knowledge from their respective central positions (Mudimbe 1988). In that respect, Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018) proposed the issue of provincialising Europe and de-provincialising Africa, meaning that Africa should also be seen as a legitimate site and central location from which knowledge can be constructed in the same way Europe does. In essence, epistemic freedom does not imply fundamentalism in which all knowledge constructed from the central location of Africa should be universalised at the expense of other knowledges. If that were to be accomplished, it would be tantamount to Afrocentrism, which is analogous to Eurocentrism.

This discussion highlights the need to dismantle the notion of universality of knowledge sources that are rooted in Eurocentric and monolithic epistemic frameworks; such dismantling is crucial for achieving epistemic freedom. The ability of a system to allow scholars to theorise and generate knowledge from their unique positions of locality and cultural contexts is the foundation of epistemic freedom. However, the neoliberal paradigm prevalent in contemporary African universities often curtails the richness of local perspectives. This process involves the standardisation and homogenisation of knowledge and educational practices, aligning them with global-market-driven narratives and policies. As a result, the diversity of local knowledge systems, cultural contexts and unique scholarly insights are suppressed in favour of a one-size-fits-all approach dictated by neoliberal principles. This paradigm imposes global-market-driven narratives and policies on higher education institutions, particularly in the Global South.

Neoliberalism in the Global South

The ‘Neoliberalism in the Global South’ section explores how neoliberalism intersects with and impacts the discourse on epistemic freedom. Neoliberalism broadly refers to competitive economic and political practices that advance individual entrepreneurial freedom and marketisation (Harvey 2005). The fundamental principles of neoliberalism emphasise a ‘free’ market competition, individualism, minimal government intervention, deregulation and privatisation. These policies focus on enhancing the assumed efficiency of free market capitalism, often at the expense of reducing government spending, regulations and public ownership. This shift can detrimentally affect public institutions and their capacity to serve broader societal needs (Woldegiorgis 2024). Moreover, neoliberalism creates ‘political and economic frameworks, which privilege strong private property rights, free markets and trade’ (Harvey 2005:2). In addition, neoliberalist approaches influence the public sphere to the extent of ‘bringing all human action into the domain of the market’ (Harvey 2008:3). Although neoliberalism is often lauded for its potential to boost private sector efficiency, it also has several unintended consequences that can undermine the social responsibilities of the public sector, including education (Woldegiorgis 2024).

It could be argued that neoliberalism is not disassociated from capitalism, an economic and political system dominant in the Western world, in which the means of production, the institutions and all their operations are mainly for profit above everything else. Marginson (1997), as well as Slaughter and Leslie (2001), have argued that higher education globally is shaped by neoliberalism, suggesting that the West imposes its dominance on higher education in the Global South to control it for marketisation and profits. Woldegiorgis (2024) also contends that neoliberalism has been shaping international students’ mobility, relegating higher education institutions from the Global South to a marginal role while economically benefitting the Global North. He asserts that ‘the political economy of international students’ mobility extends beyond market dynamics, encompassing discussions of hegemony within the international knowledge systems, where African countries and institutions find themselves marginalised’. This is confirmed by Luke (2010:44), who argues that neoliberalism represents a ‘white/Anglo/European standpoint… the unmarked norm of Western rationality, providing a naturalising device for its regulation of others of all sorts and kinds’. It could be argued that the European standpoint shapes higher education towards the interest of making a profit through the construction and production of knowledge and that epistemic freedom within such a context is at stake and cannot be overstated.

The relationship between intellectual sovereignty, neoliberalism and epistemic freedom is intricate and multifaceted, as explained by the juxtaposition of the aforementioned literature. The concept of epistemic freedom emphasises the need for scholars to maintain autonomy in their pursuit of knowledge despite influences from neoliberalism or other oppressive ideologies. Central to this notion is the concept of intellectual sovereignty, which asserts scholars’ rights to formulate, disseminate and interpret knowledge from their distinct cultural and geographical vantage points. This assertion challenges hegemonic narratives that prioritise Western epistemologies and underscore the validity of diverse knowledge sources, as articulated by Mudimbe (1988) and Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2019, 2020). However, as discussed above, the influence of neoliberalism poses a significant obstacle to academic freedom. Neoliberal ideology, emphasising market imperatives and the commercialisation of knowledge, exerts a hegemonic force that encroaches on the concept of education as a public good. It thus standardises what must be published and produced as knowledge in higher education. By prioritising market-driven agendas and privatisation, neoliberal policies often impede the realisation of epistemic freedom by homogenising knowledge production and marginalising non-Western perspectives. Thus, the commodification of education under neoliberalism not only diminishes the social responsibilities of public institutions but also reinforces the existing power dynamics that privilege Western knowledge systems.

Moreover, neoliberalism’s entrenchment of capitalist principles exacerbates the Global North–Global South divide, and as articulated by Woldegiorgis (2024), perpetuates a system wherein institutions from the Global South are relegated to subordinate roles. This perspective suggests that the entrenched economic and educational policies of neoliberalism contribute to maintaining these imbalances, rather than addressing or ameliorating them. In this context, epistemic freedom becomes increasingly elusive as the Eurocentric hegemony perpetuated by neoliberalism constrains the pluralistic notion of knowledge bases and perpetuates hierarchical structures of knowledge production. Therefore, the intersection of intellectual sovereignty, neoliberalism and epistemic freedom underscores the urgent need to challenge hegemonic narratives, dismantle oppressive systems and cultivate inclusive spaces that recognise the diverse epistemological traditions of all scholars.

Neoliberalism and higher education in South Africa

The South African institutions of higher education also exist within the context of neoliberalism as how they operate is informed by neoliberal policies. Neoliberalism was adopted by the post-apartheid government in the mid-1990s, but it was not able to solve the economic challenges in South Africa. Badat (2010) confirmed that higher education institutions in South Africa exist within an epoch of globalisation in conjunction with the dominance of neoliberalism. The public university in the Global South remains mired in an existential quandary, struggling to define and diagnose its purposes, rationales, goals and agendas. The ascent of the neoliberal university in South Africa exemplifies a global trend within the international higher education system, where the corporate marketplace is increasingly seen as a means to achieve economic growth (Brown 2019; Whyte 2019). Similarly, the public university in South Africa has embraced this corporate logic, adopting a wide range of performance management instruments and emphasising the notions of efficiency and competitiveness as measured in numerical terms. Academic performance is measured in terms of the number of publication outputs, regardless of the quality of the research, and the number of graduate outputs, irrespective of the societal relevance of their training. Many academics find themselves confronted by this system and feel compelled to adhere to its demands without questioning, in order to remain relevant within the system.

Institutions decide where to publish using the so-called ‘internationally accredited’ journals, dictated by the Global North, and reward those research publications that appear on these ‘international’ platforms as compared to local journals. These neoliberal policies in higher education dictate the behaviour of researchers, identifying research agendas that please international publishers and aligning their research and publication activities with these ‘international’ standards, thus undermining local issues. In this respect, Hlatshwayo (2023) viewed the neoliberal universities in South Africa as a colonial project, which alienates and marginalises its ontological and epistemic entities.

The commodification and marketisation of knowledge that characterise neoliberalism have also been reported in the higher education context in South Africa. It has been argued by the Council of higher education (2008) that the marketisation of education is one of the inefficiencies of previously advantaged institutions in South Africa. Furthermore, it has been asserted that higher education in South Africa is to a great extent influenced by the neoliberal context, as shown when Carrim and Wangenge-Ouma (2012) argued that one of the aims is to solidify education for global competition in terms of skilled labour.

Where global competitiveness is mentioned, we cannot divorce the commodification of knowledge (as dictated by market forces) from the context. In essence, it confirms that the institutions of higher education in South Africa are also influenced by core assumptions that place value on productivity and marketisation for global competitiveness. Grech (2015) argues that neoliberalism perpetuates the colonial notions of productive output. With all the boxes being ticked for neoliberal higher education in South Africa, the epistemic freedom of academics is inevitably under threat. Knowledge production is dictated by the neoliberal demands of excelling in global rankings, which are determined by the parameters set by the Global North, without considering local imperatives. It is in that respect that the limitation of epistemic freedom by a neoliberal context in the Global South is discussed here.

Marketisation fundamentalism: Students as clients and academics as service providers

In the neoliberal higher education context, students are considered and viewed as customers or clients and higher education institutions operate as the service providers of the knowledge that is being bought by the clients who are the students (Woldegiorgis 2024). Consequently, curricula are designed to attract students, generate revenue and ensure that graduates are competitive in the global labour market (Giroux 2014). As indicated by Woldegiorgis (2024), ‘By adopting a customer-centric approach, neoliberalism transforms the curriculum into a commodity that is transferred from teachers to students’ (p. 15). Contesting this neoliberal higher education context, Mbembe (2016) argued that knowledge is not pursued for its own sake by either students or academics. Instead, both focus on the beneficial payoff, where programmes that perform well in the market are favoured by students who are viewed as clients. In this respect, it is argued that institutions (including academics) operate on business principles, with the academic’s role being to satisfy the demands of clients (Mbembe 2016).

Although the curriculum is designed to enhance employment opportunities for students and to be globally competitive in the market, the neoliberal context of higher education does not produce relevant knowledge and skills for the socio-economic and cultural needs of the local communities. In essence, as the neoliberalist approach commodifies and marketises knowledge, creating a situation in which students are clients, while academics become service providers; the academics’ epistemic freedom is limited because the latter would subordinate such freedom to being forced to produce knowledge. This knowledge is not from their central location but must meet the demands of the system and the students. Thus, epistemic freedom, in which the academics have the latitude of producing knowledge from their respective locations, is at stake within a context in which knowledge and skills are a marketable commodity.

Neoliberalism significantly impacts epistemic freedom within higher education, as the commodification of knowledge reshapes the core values and objectives of academic institutions.

Under neoliberal principles, students are regarded as customers and educational programmes are treated as products designed to enhance employability and compete in the global market. This customer-centric approach turns the curriculum into a commodity, with little agency left for teachers in shaping educational content. As a result, the profession becomes complicit in perpetuating these market-driven values, as educators are primarily seen as facilitators transferring knowledge to satisfy market demands rather than pursuing knowledge for its intrinsic value (Woldegiorgis 2024).

As Mbembe (2016) asserts, this shift encourages both students and academics to prioritise marketable programmes that promise immediate economic benefits, sidelining the pursuit of knowledge that might be more relevant to the socio-economic and cultural needs of local communities. This business-oriented model restricts academic freedom, compelling academics to align their research and teaching with the preferences of their ‘clients’ – the students – thereby undermining their autonomy to explore and disseminate knowledge from their own epistemic standpoints. Consequently, epistemic freedom is compromised as academia becomes a service provider within a marketplace, constrained by the imperative to produce market-friendly knowledge at the expense of critical, locally relevant scholarship.

Neoliberalism and power dynamics

Neoliberalism positions, constructs and reconstructs persons, groups and institutions into levels of complex inequalities that result in power dynamics which privilege some social groups over others. This is partly because neoliberalism inherently encourages competition over cooperation, quantification of outputs over the context and relevance of outputs, and metrics and rankings over the specific contributions of institutions (Woldegiorgis 2024). Burke, Crozier and Misiaszek (2017) argue that power dynamics and inequalities associated with neoliberalism have negative implications, with high levels of marginalisation and social divisions. In other words, neoliberalism entrenches economic imperatives and promotes complex inequalities and power relations (Bauman 2005; Rose 1999).

In essence, a neoliberal context perpetuates power dynamics and class division, resulting in the privileging of access to education by the elite to the detriment of those from disadvantaged contexts. Neoliberal ideology favours economically well-off nations in the Global North, as they dictate the principles of engagement in the global knowledge ecosystem. The ideology operates on competition among unequal parties, where the winner is already predetermined. This competition, based on principles set by the Global North, perpetuates unequal and hierarchical relationships and unhealthy power dynamics among higher education institutions and scholars. There are always multiple and complex issues rooted in the history of modern-day colonialism that reproduce unequal power relations between nations and in neo-liberalistic higher education (McLeod 2007; Said 2003). Thus, neoliberalism is a tool for sustaining the power of the elite, particularly those in economically dominant countries and beneficiaries of the global economic imbalance perpetuated by neoliberalism, which is still in existence although colonialism has long ended. This fuels inequalities and results in marginalisation (rather than inclusion) in the production of knowledge (Gabbard & Atkinson 2007). In terms of epistemic freedom, it can be argued that it is the central location of those in power and the elite that is privileged in terms of knowledge production in higher education.

Owing to their neoliberal nature, higher education institutions in the Global South continue to favour Eurocentric paradigms of the Global North, while marginalising the local contexts in which most institutions are situated. In essence, there are power dynamics, in which it is the knowledge of the powerful that is legitimatised, while that of the subaltern is silenced. In essence, the central position from which knowledge is constructed in higher education in the Global South is still the Global North. It could be argued that, among others, power dynamics is the reason why most African phenomena are written from the Western perspective resulting in its distortion, because it is not written from its centrality, which is Africa. When neoliberalism influences power dynamics, which in turn influences the centrality of knowledge production in favour of the powerful, there is no doubt that the epistemic freedom of the powerless becomes lost. In terms of epistemic freedom, it could be argued that the central position from which knowledge is produced is that of the powerful.

Neoliberalism and the curriculum

Curriculum is defined in different ways in different contexts; the common feature, however, is that it guides teaching and learning in terms of content knowledge. Neoliberalism influences the curriculum in higher education, shaping it into a tool that primarily serves market-oriented objectives. Under neoliberal policies, the curriculum is not just a guide for teaching and learning but becomes a political instrument that advances the interests of those in power, promoting the commodification and marketisation of knowledge (Apple & Buras 2006; Burke & Jackson 2007). It means that through neoliberalism, socio-economic conditions are structurally and systematically incorporated into higher education, and the economy still benefits the elite, who are in power and own the means of production. Thus, the commercialisation of the curriculum feeds into its politicisation by aligning educational priorities with economic agendas. Market-driven priorities shape curricular content to reflect industry interests, making education serve those with economic power. Corporations influence educational policies through funding and partnerships, turning the curriculum into a political tool. Standardisation and performance metrics focus on employability and productivity, marginalising broader educational goals. This emphasis exacerbates inequalities, as access to education becomes tied to economic status, reinforcing the existing power structures. Moreover, prioritising market-relevant skills limits academic inquiry, ensuring knowledge production aligns with the interests of the corporate world. This shift leads universities to prioritise partnerships with business and industry, aligning educational content with ‘international standards’ that cater to global market competitiveness (De Wit 2010). According to Woldegiorgis (2024), universities adopt revenue-generating strategies such as commercialising research and offering fee-based services to integrate more deeply with corporate interests. This transformation of the educational landscape results in a curriculum that increasingly favours economic gains over educational integrity, reducing academic content to what is marketable and profitable.

Nayar (2008) confirmed that as education is increasingly viewed as a commodity, what is taught and researched, as well as the entire knowledge production process, shifts towards marketisation and productivity. Recognising this phenomenon, Nixon (2013) argued that the overemphasis on education for the market reduces knowledge and ways of knowing to market logic, leading to a shift in knowledge production towards global economic competitiveness and positioning higher education within the framework of competitive world rankings. Knowledge production from the African central perspective may not be advantaged in such a context, owing to a perceived lack of gain, profit and relevance; thus, epistemic freedom in knowledge production is inevitably side-lined.

Consequently, the production of knowledge – especially from non-Western perspectives including those of African scholars – is marginalised if it does not align with these profit-driven goals. Thus, even though Akala (2023:73) argued that ‘the curriculum is a powerful tool through which the marginalised can challenge systems of oppression’, within a neoliberal higher education context, it ironically becomes a means of furthering oppression by stifling epistemic freedom and prioritising knowledge that supports commodification over context-relevant education. Globalisation and internationalisation have made neoliberal agendas key components of the higher education policies of many institutions and governments. To stay competitive in the global knowledge market, African universities often engage in neo-colonialist practices that significantly influence the curriculum. These practices perpetuate hegemonic discourses that prioritise Western values and perspectives over African epistemologies. Despite efforts to decolonise universities in South Africa, the impact of neoliberalism often stifles local perspectives in curriculum development and knowledge production. Neoliberal policies discourage and marginalise local perspectives in knowledge production while favouring the so-called international or global perspectives rooted in Eurocentric paradigms. It is true that some academics adopt and conform to the perceived standards to the extent that they maintain rules that are even stricter than ‘international habits and standards’.

Generally, the influence of neoliberalism on the curriculum within higher education is significant and complexity. The complexity is in the sense that as informed by neoliberalism, the emphasis is on a curriculum that is focussed on meeting international standards that are competitive in the global knowledge, while epistemic freedom emphasises the production of contextual knowledge, which is produced from the central location that is African. The complexity also lies in the political dimensions of this transformation. By aligning curricula with corporate interests, neoliberalism allows economic power to dictate educational content and policy. In essence, neoliberalism is about transforming the curriculum into a tool that primarily serves market-oriented objectives, to the detriment of local priorities and epistemic freedom. Although decolonising the curriculum has the potential to challenge systems of oppression, the dominant neoliberal paradigm in higher education paradoxically reinforces these very oppressions by prioritising profit-oriented objectives and closely aligning with corporate interests. As a result, the drive towards globalisation and adherence to international standards in higher education systematically marginalises diverse knowledge systems, especially those that foreground African perspectives; furthermore, it perpetuates neo-colonial practices that favour Western values and perspectives. This situation highlights the critical need for a reorientation of educational policies towards Africa, with a focus on inclusivity, contextual relevance and the authentic advancement of knowledge rather than mere economic returns.

Influence of neoliberalism on the politics of knowledge

The neoliberal context shapes and influences the politics of knowledge (Higgs 2016; Luckett 2016; Shay & Peseta 2016). Under a neoliberal framework, market values such as competition, efficiency and output measurement can permeate the ways knowledge is produced, valued and disseminated. This can influence academic priorities, the structure of higher education, and even the content that is emphasised within curricula. This is in the light of what is considered legitimate knowledge and the body of knowledge that should be included or excluded in epistemology (Shay & Peseta 2016). When knowledge has been included in epistemology, it should be disseminated through academic publication and conferencing. In a neoliberal context, the criteria for what constitutes ‘legitimate’ knowledge are often shaped by market values and bureaucratic values in the way of ticking boxes, which can profoundly affect the epistemological foundations of education and research.

Under neoliberalism, knowledge that aligns with market demands – such as technical and applied sciences that can directly contribute to economic growth is often prioritised. This can marginalise other forms of knowledge such as in Natural Sciences with a vertical knowledge structure, which is considered scientific and then privileged over knowledge in humanities and social sciences with horizontal knowledge structure, thereby leading to other knowledges from other disciplines placed in the marginal. In terms of neoliberalism, disciplines with the knowledge that is considered powerful will be preferred because they bring more profit to higher education. Again, although research in humanities and social science may offer critical perspectives on society, it also does not directly translate into economic value. It could be argued that in terms of inclusion and exclusion of the body of knowledge, it means that all epistemological, ontological and pedagogical dimensions relating to knowledge construction are influenced and shaped by the dictates of commercialisation within the neoliberal contexts. In other words, neoliberal policies influence what is taught and researched by rewarding conformity to predefined standards that may overlook diverse, innovative or non-conventional knowledge systems.

The politics of knowledge fundamentally influence which forms of knowledge are deemed legitimate and included in epistemological considerations. The centrality of knowledge production, where and how knowledge is created and recognised, plays a critical role in shaping these dynamics. When the politics of knowledge is at play, the centrality from which knowledge is produced is determined and shaped by neoliberal forces. Legitimate and powerful knowledge is that which is produced from the central location of power. It is then this knowledge that is considered and deemed legitimate in higher education. Conversely, when there is epistemic freedom, all knowledges should be produced from everyone’s central position.

Coloniality of different knowledge, coloniality of power and coloniality of being within a capitalist context shaped by neoliberalism make up a central location from which reality and knowledge production are understood and conceived as universal (Mignolo 2003). This framework prioritises certain forms of knowledge over others, reinforcing neo-colonial dimensions. By virtue, they indirectly perpetuate Eurocentric knowledge production and limit the development of local research and the production of knowledge from the epistemic site in which they are located. The dominance of Western-centric paradigms and values marginalises local epistemologies and perpetuates existing power imbalances, ensuring that knowledge production continues to serve the interests of the Global North and economically dominant entities. This process not only maintains the hegemony of neoliberal capitalism but also undermines efforts to decolonise and diversify educational and knowledge systems.

As a result, in a neoliberalist higher education context, the centrality of knowledge production is deeply entrenched in the coloniality of knowledge, in which knowledge is politicised, with privileged knowledge being that which brings profit and gain at the expense of local knowledge. Consequently, epistemic freedom is severely hampered for academics in the Global South.

Reclaiming of epistemic freedom

Reclaiming epistemic freedom in higher education in the Global South is a struggle that has continued to be weighed from a very long time ago to the present day (Heleta 2016). Despite fierce debates about reclaiming epistemic freedom, the struggle remains unresolved in neoliberal contexts (Mbembe 2017; Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2016; Wa Thiong’o 1992). Decolonisation has been proposed as a means to reclaim epistemic freedom, particularly within the context of higher education in the Global South and specifically in South Africa. It is viewed as a response that could counteract the challenges resulting from lack of epistemic freedom and production of knowledge from one world view. While so, the authors however also acknowledge that it is not possible that any knowledge production can be without bias. Hence, despite all efforts of decolonisation that are being done, the issue of lack of epistemic freedom has continued to the present. Thus, academics in the South African context of higher education are effectively forced to produce knowledge that aligns with and favours neoliberalism, despite all decolonisation efforts to reclaim epistemic freedom.

Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018) argues that examining the politics and production of knowledge symbolically represents the African struggle for epistemic freedom. He situates this struggle within the ongoing realities of African knowledge production, which is trapped within Eurocentric power structures. The prevailing paradigm in these Eurocentric frameworks is framed by a neoliberal agenda that undermines epistemic freedom – the right to think, theorise and develop one’s own methodologies to interpret the world and write from one’s own geographical and cultural perspective, free from Eurocentric constraints. This situation also ties directly to what Santos (2016) refers to as cognitive justice, which advocates for the proper recognition of the diverse ways of knowing through which people worldwide understand their experiences.

Thus, it is crucial to clearly articulate the ongoing challenges in higher education in the Global South, reflecting on the quest for epistemic freedom amid the constraining influences of neoliberal and Eurocentric paradigms. Despite intense efforts and academic debates towards decolonisation, significant progress in truly liberating knowledge production remains elusive. The continued dominance of neoliberal ideologies in academic settings severely limits the inclusion and recognition of non-Western perspectives, particularly those from Africa; instead, academics are constrained by the need to conform to Western-centric models of knowledge that do not reflect their respective realities or experiences. As argued by De Sousa Santos (2015), the struggle for epistemic freedom is not just an academic issue but a broader call for cognitive justice – a plea for the acknowledgement and integration of diverse knowledge systems into the global academic discourse. This call to action is crucial for fostering a more inclusive, equitable and reflective global academic community.

Decolonising the university to reclaim epistemic freedom

Decolonising the university in itself as the structure and site for knowledge production in higher education is seen as one way in which epistemic freedom can be reclaimed in the Global South.

However, neoliberalist higher education is still informed and influenced by the hidden structure of coloniality and is at this stage even more Eurocentric. It could be argued that the neoliberal project is also colonial in nature. Colonialism involves direct political control and exploitation of territory, while neocolonialism refers to indirect control through economic, cultural and political pressures that perpetuate dependency and dominance. Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on market-driven principles and global competitiveness, perpetuates these neo-colonial dynamics by prioritising Eurocentric knowledge production and limiting the development of local research and epistemologies. As a result, the neoliberal project can be seen as a continuation of colonialism, reinforcing the existing power imbalances and marginalising local perspectives. Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2016) proposed a way of shifting from a ‘university in Africa’ to an ‘African university’ as a way of decolonising the university. Not only shifting to an African university, scholars, among others (Maringe 2017; Mbembe 2016; and Woldegiorgis, Motala & Nyoni 2023) are advocating for a ‘new African University’ in South African higher education.

‘New’ is used here in the sense that the university these authors are proposing should be radically different from the present in all respects – and it should be radically Africanised. This could be viewed in the light of decoloniality in which, when the university has been radically Africanised, the centrality of location could also shift from the Global North to the Global South, and consequently to Africa and South Africa, respectively. With the academics understanding the position where they are centrally located, they should be able to produce knowledge from that position; and they should also be able to reclaim their epistemic freedom, and then produce knowledge that is relevant and suitable for their contexts in the Global South.

In the South African context of higher education, scholars such as Heleta (2016) and Hlatshwayo (2023) have addressed the issue of decolonising the universities, with the view of shifting the present universities to also favour the African interest and knowledge in terms of curriculum. With Africa as the central location from which academics can produce knowledge, they could likely produce African knowledge that is relevant to solving problems across Africa, and challenges being faced in South Africa and its local communities (Muchie et al. 2017; Ndlovu 2017). However, although the move can result in reclaiming epistemic freedom, the reality is that the decolonisation project is not fully embraced by all stakeholders whose central location is Eurocentric; to maintain the status quo, they are resisting decolonisation, and hence the heightened epistemic violence prevalent in higher education in the Global South and South African higher education specifically. It is evident that there is stiff opposition to the establishment of epistemic freedom within neoliberalistic higher education.

The relationship between neoliberalism, decolonisation and epistemic freedom is complex and fraught with tensions. Neoliberalism in higher education often perpetuates Eurocentric models and practices, which inherently carry the legacies of colonial structures. In terms of research and publication, it has been noted that South African universities give credence to research collaboration with Global North, in neglect of collaborating with other African countries and the Global South at large (Heleta & Jithoo 2023a; 2023b). In essence, despite debates on decolonisation and transformation, knowledge production continues to be Eurocentric and epistemic freedom by academics to produce knowledge from their own epistemic location is limited.

As argued in this article, this ideological and operational framework tends to prioritise market-driven principles that can undermine diverse knowledge systems, particularly those from the Global South. On the other hand, the movement to decolonise universities represents a concerted effort to challenge these entrenched structures and assert epistemic freedom. Scholars advocating for a new type of African university seek to fundamentally transform the institution to better reflect and serve African contexts and realities. However, the persistence of a neoliberal agenda within higher education poses significant barriers to this transformation. Thus, while the decolonisation of universities in the Global South aims to reclaim epistemic freedom, it continuously confronts the dominant neoliberal framework that resists such foundational changes.

Decolonisation of knowledge and neoliberal debates

As already highlighted, universities in Africa are still Eurocentric; as such, the knowledge is Eurocentric – still privileged and universalised across the globe. Although decolonisation of knowledge is a topical issue in the Global South, it has negative implications for academics’ epistemic freedom. The two are juxtaposed between decolonising knowledge, including other local knowledge on the one hand and still having to conform to the dictates of neoliberal policies that shape higher education institutions on the other. Decolonisation debates are raging, with scholars seeking not only to decolonise knowledge but also to decolonise the curriculum; they also want to re-centre knowledge that has been placed at the periphery of higher education in the Global South. While efforts of decolonisation are being performed in the South African context of higher education, student activists and progressive academics do not have the power to make important institutional changes. More importantly, critical and decolonial scholars are still a minority in South African higher education versus the neoliberal and corporate university leaders, managers and administrators, who are bent on maintaining the status quo. Thus, although debates are taking place on decolonisation and transformation, they are more on articles than in practice. It is for this reason that there are no notable changes in practical terms when it comes to the decolonisation of knowledge and propositions for transforming higher education in the Global South.

The authors argue that to create positive change, it should start by untangling the following issues of decolonizing knowledge, neoliberalism in higher education, and academic freedom. The negative influence that neoliberalism has on the decolonisation of knowledge and epistemic freedom could be dismantled. Otherwise, as long as they are intrinsically interlinked and continue to be influenced negatively by neoliberalism, decolonisation of knowledge and epistemic freedom will remain a pipe dream. From the decolonial perspective, what remains hidden are the Cartesian and Enlightenment reasons (Maldonaldo-Torres 2007); ‘I think therefore I am’ means that the centrality of the location of the colonisers is considered to be one from which legitimate knowledge can be produced. With this unveiled, the underlying cause for the dominance of Eurocentric knowledge can be understood and can provide an advantage to other knowledges from other worlds. The latter can be advocated for based on an understanding of the underlying causes for silencing and decentring from epistemology the knowledges from the other worlds. Decolonisation of knowledge could lead to the reclaiming of epistemic freedom and academics would be able to produce pluriversal knowledge from their centrality of location – and all knowledges would be considered valid and legitimate. However, at the present time, academic freedom to produce knowledge from one’s own position of epistemic location is a long dream in the pipeline because knowledge production is still informed and shaped by neoliberalism.

In the South African higher education context, the re-emerging of Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) in epistemology was seen in the workshop conducted at North-West University; the purpose was to privilege IKS in epistemology (National Workshop on IKS 1998). Re-emerging other knowledges as IKS in epistemology could be seen as taking a decolonial turn (Grosfoguel 2007), in which there is the realisation that knowledges from other worlds are as legitimate as Eurocentrism. It could be argued that when knowledges from the other worlds are seen as legitimate, what Mudimbe (1988) argued – that all human beings were and are born into valid knowledge systems – is being validated. They are being operationalised into neoliberalistic higher education, enabling the epistemic freedom of academics as they also produce knowledge from their own centrality of location. Furthermore, the re-emerging of other knowledges in epistemology could be understood in the light of epistemic disobedience, in which epistemic freedom is being sought by defying the odds. This involves re-emerging those knowledge systems that have been considered inferior, illegitimate, devalued, silenced and decentred in epistemology as IKS. In implication, producing knowledge from the centrality of other worlds is discredited.

It could be argued that when IKS has been re-emerged in the epistemology and incorporated into the curriculum (as seen in instances in South Africa), epistemic freedom can be reclaimed because knowers from Africa, can also produce indigenous knowledge from their perspective. However, the validity of IKS and knowledge are contested because critics argue that such knowledge lacks a theoretical foundation. A purely logical approach to how knowledge is constructed is based on an explanation of results and incorporated into the curriculum (Kaya 2013; Mukosi, Mavuso & Olawumi 2023), in the South African context of higher education. Some universities have started teaching IKS in their degree programmes (Kaya 2013). The efforts of incorporating IKS into the curriculum and the actual practice of teaching it in some programmes could be understood as shifting the geography of reason (Mignolo 2009). The shift in the way of epistemic location is that no longer is the Eurocentric location that yields neoliberalism seen as the only location from which knowledge could be produced but other centralities are also being considered valid and legitimate in the South African context of higher education.

Centring epistemologies from the Global South

We contend that achieving epistemic freedom in African higher education necessitates prioritising and centring African epistemologies in the theorisation and production of knowledge. Academics should not be constrained by neoliberal policies that limit their ability to theorise from their own cultural and geographic locations. Prioritising African epistemologies involves valuing the IKS, African philosophies, languages and methodologies that have historically been marginalised in global academic discourse. As argued by Woldegiorgis (2021), ‘the notion of re-centring in the decolonisation debates implies the process of being constantly conscious of the centre from which we construct theory and produce knowledge’ (p. 898). The challenge posed by neoliberal market-driven policies (which often emphasise utilitarian approaches to education) is that they can restrict academic freedom by prioritising market efficiency over cultural relevance and intellectual diversity.

Santos (2007) explains that epistemologies from the Global South are often discredited owing to an ‘invisible abyssal line’ that divides the world into the Global North and the Global South. This division leads to the marginalisation of scholars and theories from the South, as they are deemed less credible across this divide. Santos (2007) describes ‘abyssal thinking’ as a system characterised by visible and invisible distinctions. The invisible distinctions serve as the foundation for the visible ones, drawing radical lines that split social reality into two distinct realms. One realm is recognised as ‘this side of the line’, where reality is acknowledged and validated. The other, ‘the other side of the line’ is treated as non-existent, effectively rendered invisible and irrelevant in any meaningful way. This nonexistence is not merely a passive state but an active production by the dominant systems of thought, which exclude it radically because it lies beyond what is conventionally understood as the scope of inclusion. Nevertheless, the question is: what if scholars from the Global South operated by their own rules, prioritising and validating their own knowledge systems without seeking approval from the dominant Eurocentric paradigms? By establishing their own criteria for academic excellence and relevance, scholars from the Global South could foster a more inclusive and diverse global knowledge ecosystem, one that values and legitimises the rich intellectual traditions and innovations emerging from their regions.

The core aspect of abyssal thinking is the impossibility of the co-presence of these two sides of the line. Where abyssal thinking prevails, ‘this side of the line’ exists by effectively erasing the existence of ‘the other side’. This delineation underscores a profound epistemic division that marginalises and silences the knowledge and reality of those on ‘the other side’. Thus, in terms of reclaiming the epistemic freedom that this article seeks to advance, it should begin with prioritising the epistemologies of the Global South. Furthermore, the abyssal thinking privileges Eurocentric paradigms as the only legitimate ways of knowing, marginalising the Global South as primitive and illegitimate, and thus unworthy of true knowledge. Our argument is that such abyssal thinking perpetuates the neoliberal agenda, imposing its market-driven ethos on the higher education systems of the Global South while sidelining local perspectives in the theorisation and production of knowledge. Therefore, we assert that enabling epistemic freedom for academics in the Global South should begin by dismantling the abyssal line. This involves recognising theorists and all other forms of knowledge from the Global South as valid and legitimate. Furthermore, affirming the epistemologies of the South is proposed as a strategy to reclaim epistemic freedom in higher education, even within the constraints of a neoliberal framework.

Practical strategies for reclaiming epistemic freedom within the prevailing neoliberal milieu

In practical terms, reclaiming epistemic freedom could proceed from theorising from Africa and considering the centrality of Africa to itself and then the rest of the world. The fact that in collecting data from Africa, the theories that are used to illuminate and explain it are Western ones shows that the centrality of Africa as a valid epistemic position of location for knowledge construction has not been accepted as yet. Olukoshi (2007:18) argued that ‘Africa is read through the lenses of Europe and not on terms deriving from its own internal dynamics’.

Scholars who argue with specific reference to African Studies have stated that Africa should be considered as a valid and legitimate centrality for knowledge construction in its own right. Melber (2014) argued that there was no difference between Europe and Africa except for territorial boundaries. Melber’s statement implies that the two worlds are different in terms of geographical location but are the same in terms of the centrality of epistemic location. In essence, both Europe and Africa are legitimate central epistemic locations from which knowledge can be constructed, and neither should be considered better than the other. In this regard, Africa should be recognised as central to itself and as argued by Mudimbe (1988), everyone is born into a valid and legitimate knowledge system. Even those born in Africa are knowers who can construct knowledge from Africa as a legitimate site of knowledge production. If it can be understood that way, epistemic freedom could be reclaimed by academics as they use Africa as a legitimate centrality from which they construct knowledge within the neoliberalistic context of higher education in the Global South broadly, and in Africa specifically.

Once Africa is recognised as central to itself, it can enhance epistemic freedom by providing academics with the opportunity to generate knowledge from their own African epistemic perspective. In the South African context of higher education, academics need to use the centrality of South Africa to itself as a position of epistemic location. Thus, it should start from centralising the epistemic location largely as the Global South – and specifically as Africa and South Africa. In this regard, the authors acknowledge the progress that has already been made, while also proposing a way to reclaim epistemic freedom within the larger context of neoliberal higher education in the Global South.

In terms of theorisation, academics in the Global South could construct knowledge from the central epistemic location of Africa by engaging African theories to understand African research; this could produce knowledge that is meant to address and solve African problems. In essence, there could be a shift from the use of Western theories to explain and interpret data that have been obtained in the Global South, and the South African context of higher education. In this way, rather than (as dictated by neoliberalism) focussing on knowledge for promotion for gain and profit, attention could be redirected to knowledge creation with a focus on solving African problems and promoting African culture. Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018) stated that there is a need to think about rethinking itself, to break out from the epistemic and systemic crisis. It implies that there is a need to change from thinking in a neoliberalistic way to rethinking the African way, in which knowledge construction draws from Africa as the location of epistemic location.

The intricacies of neoliberalism on epistemic freedom in South Africa

The intricacies of neoliberalism significantly impede epistemic freedom, especially in the context of knowledge production from the centrality of the Global South. Neoliberalism, characterised by its focus on market-driven imperatives and economic efficiencies, infiltrates higher education policies and practices, promoting a commodification of knowledge that aligns poorly with the diverse, context-specific needs of the Global South. This paradigm encourages institutions to prioritise fields and courses that promise immediate economic returns, often at the expense of humanities and social sciences, which are crucial for understanding and addressing local socio-economic and political dynamics. This neoliberal approach not only shifts the focus towards profitable knowledge but also imposes a corporate management style that emphasises quantifiable outcomes such as graduation rates and research outputs.

Such metrics may not necessarily reflect the societal impact or relevance of the research conducted, pushing academics to tailor their studies to fit the interests of funders rather than the needs of their communities. Consequently, the scope of academic inquiry is narrowed, and the academic freedom to explore and develop context-relevant knowledge is significantly curtailed. Furthermore, the neoliberal emphasis on performance and competition undermines collaborative efforts crucial for addressing complex local and global challenges. It fosters a research environment where the imperatives of competition outweigh the benefits of cooperative knowledge production, further stifling innovation and critical inquiry that could arise from more collaborative engagements.

In the South African context, these neoliberal policies have reinforced the Eurocentric hegemony in knowledge production, making it challenging for academics to produce and legitimise knowledge that diverges from Western norms and standards. This perpetuates a form of epistemic violence, where knowledge that is contextually relevant to the Global South is marginalised or deemed inferior. The neoliberal framework thus not only limits the scope of what is considered legitimate knowledge but also undermines the very foundations of epistemic freedom – freedom that is necessary for academics to theorise from and about their own unique cultural and geographical positions. Against this backdrop, the struggle for epistemic freedom in the context of South African higher education needs to become a radical act of defiance against the neoliberal commodification of knowledge. It should necessitate a reimagining and restructuring of higher education to prioritise local needs and values over global market demands. This could ensure that the universities not only produce economically valuable knowledge but also foster intellectual environments where diverse epistemologies can flourish. Besides, the dominance of neoliberal ideology in academia has to be challenged and dismantled, by ensuring that all academics regain their epistemic freedom and are in a position to produce knowledge relevant to their localities.

Thus, rather than prioritising fields and courses aimed at immediate economic returns, a total shift (as some of the South African institutions have started doing) to the inclusion of African indigenous knowledges in the curriculum should be an idea that is enforced in all 26 public universities. Above all, the research and publication paradigm also needs to focus on local needs. This is crucial for truly decolonising knowledge production and reclaiming intellectual sovereignty in the Global South and South African higher education.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the epistemic freedom by the academics in the Global South largely and in the context of South African higher education, has been captured by the neoliberal policy imperatives that have shaped (and continue to shape) higher education. Such imperatives have steered Global South academics towards knowledge production for gain and profit and are continuing to influence how academics construct knowledge. Academics in the Global South are compelled to operate within the confines and dictates of market forces, rather than using their epistemic freedom to produce knowledge from their respective epistemic positions of centrality.

We acknowledge the decolonisation efforts aimed at reclaiming epistemic freedom in the university, altering the curriculum and revising knowledge production. However, so that the status quo can be dismantled, there is a need to mount pressure by theorising from the Global South – using Africa as a centrality of location to itself, to yield the academic style, convention and habit that is African. In that regard, there should be a shift from policy imperatives that focus on knowledge production for gain and profit in higher education globally, to place value in knowledge production for its own good and to benefit society. Knowledge production from the African continent should be able to use Africa as the central position of location (the African position of epistemic location) so that African academics have epistemic freedom and can produce knowledge that solves African challenges, including in South African higher education.

Acknowledgements

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

S.N. conceptualised the article and E.T.W. drafted the article.

This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References