The decolonisation of knowledge production, particularly within African Studies, remains a critical intellectual project. Within this context, the capacity for African scholars to exercise epistemological sovereignty—the authority to define frameworks and priorities—is often mediated by institutional structures. This comparative study analyses the interplay between the pursuit of epistemological sovereignty and the institutional constraints faced by researchers in the field of African Studies within Nigeria. It aims to identify key structural challenges and to assess prospects for a more autonomous research ecosystem. The research employs a comparative institutional analysis, drawing on documentary analysis of funding bodies, university policies, and research outputs, supplemented by semi-structured interviews with a purposively sampled cohort of senior and early-career academics across multiple universities. A dominant theme was the constraining influence of external funding agendas, with approximately 70% of interviewees reporting that their research questions were significantly shaped by donor priorities. This was compounded by a perceived marginalisation of indigenous knowledge systems within mainstream departmental curricula and promotion criteria. The aspiration for epistemological sovereignty is substantially circumscribed by entrenched institutional and financial dependencies, which collectively orient research towards externally validated paradigms and marginalise locally grounded epistemologies. Universities should develop internal research grants specifically for projects employing indigenous frameworks. Professional associations must advocate for the revision of academic promotion criteria to value community-engaged scholarship and publications in African-led journals. epistemological sovereignty, knowledge decolonisation, research autonomy, institutional analysis, higher education policy This paper provides a novel comparative framework for analysing the structural determinants of research autonomy, demonstrating how funding mechanisms and promotion policies collectively constrain epistemic agency in African Studies.
Nwachukwu et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: