{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02027027027027027, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005405405405405406, 'mean_word_length': 5.611607142857143, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reviewing the South African Political Studies Curriculum: Evaluating Responses to Calls for Decolonisation

ABSTRACT The 2015 and 2016 student protests amplified criticism of university curricula which protesters proclaimed to be ill-suited to our context. This paper engages with such criticism by evaluating the South African political studies curriculam it terms of whether or not it can be considered to be ‘decolonised’. I ask three questions, all of which arise from comments made by student protesters about the need for curriculum change: ‘Who is teaching our students?’, ‘Which scholars’ work is being prescribed?’ and ‘Which geographical areas receive attention?’ These questions are answered based on data gathered from undergraduate political studies course outlines from seven South African universities. In answer to the first question, I show that while white academics are still over-represented, the demographics of those teaching undergraduate politics are shifting towards demographic representivity. In answer to the second question, I show that our political studies departments still mostly prescribe the work of male scholars, white scholars and Western scholars. Responding to the third question, I show that politics departments include courses focused on Africa and particularly on South Africa while other regions of the world receive little attention. The paper concludes by raising some difficult questions with the hope of stimulating further debate.