Talk:African American studies

Sub-field?

A lack of understanding of the field. The titles of these departments: Black Studies, Africana Studies, African-American Studies, Pan-African Studies, and Africology, reference departments that are all in the same field. There are no subfields. Some departments of "African American studies" do Caribbean and continental African studies. Some Africana Studies departments do mainly African American studies. It depends on the alignment of the particular department based on the current faculty who run it. Name changes to be more uniformed don't always occur or are sometimes challenged by the college they are housed under. We should merge the two articles "African American Studies" and "Africana Studies" with this in mind. Africologist (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) MOVED

No opposition here, and the discussion at the MOS supports this style (though there are objections to codifying this level of detail on the policy page). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

---

African-American studies → African American studies – WP:COMMONNAME is without hyphen. This is quite apparent on other websites and ngram, as well as major university programs (e.g. Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, Boston University, South Carolina University, etc.) and an academic journal in the field (e.g. Journal of African American Studies). There is also a related MOS discussion. Caorongjin (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support I don't have particularly strong thoughts here, but it seems reasonable for the same usage on the page African Americans to be reflected here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I agree it makes little difference, but go with the more common usage and consistency with other articles. Andrewa (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I note

18:19, 24 July 2013‎ Schierbecker talk contribs block‎  38 bytes +38‎  Marcus Qwertyus moved page African American studies to African-American studies over redirect: compund adjective

and also that there is discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Hyphenating racial identities (as noted above) which is ongoing. Andrewa (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post hoc comments

As an MOS regular, I think this move was correct. "African-American studies" implies "studies undertaken by African Americans", i.e. "African-American scholarship". What we have here is actually a phrase meaning "studies about African Americans", with a two-word object of study. It is not normal to hyphenate those in names of fields of study or of degree programs, even when they come first and can look adjectival in structure. Cf. "an information and data sciences degree", not "an information-and-data-sciences degree"; "the computational mathematics program[me]", not "the computational-mathematics program[me]"; etc. It's typical to hyphenate compound modifiers in formal writing, but there are always exceptions and we mostly intuit them automatically. E.g., how often do you see "the civil-rights movement", "a Parkinson's-disease diagnosis", "the law-enforcement field", and so on? When the leading multi-word phrase is parsed as a unit already by virtually all readers, a hyphen in it becomes unnecessary and even an impediment, though it is not strictly an error.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following is the rationale for the proposed merger of African American studies and Africana studies: Daniel Power of God (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended rationale

In Okafor (2014), pp. 218-219, the following is stated: As is well known, across the United States, our discipline goes by a variety of names: Black Studies, Black American Studies, African American Studies, Africana Studies, Pan African Studies, African World Studies, Global African Studies, African Diaspora Studies, and Africology. Even the 13 universities in the United States that currently offer doctorate degrees in Black Studies do not have a common name for those graduate degrees. What appears to drive these distinctive names is a combination of factors: the composite expertise of their faculty, their faculty’s areas of specialization, and the worldviews of the faculty that make up each unit. By worldview, I am referring to the question of whether the constituent faculty in a given setting manifests any or a combination of the following visions of our project: a domestic vision of black studies that sees it as focusing exclusively on the affairs of only United States African Americans who descended from the generation of enslaved Africans a diasporic vision of black studies that is inclusive of the affairs of all of African descendants in the New World—that is, the Americas: North America, South America and the Caribbean a globalistic vision of the black studies—that is, a viewpoint that thinks in terms of an African world—a world encompassing African-origin communities that are scattered across the globe and the continent of Africa itself. (emphasis added) This excerpt seems to correspond with the points made by Africologist at Talk:African American studies#Sub-field?, including where the following statement made was: "The titles of these departments: Black Studies, Africana Studies, African-American Studies, Pan-African Studies, and Africology, reference departments that are all in the same field." Okafor (2014) indicates that African American studies and Africana studies are a discipline (as opposed to disciplines/fields or sub-disciplines/sub-fields) that go by various names. Africologist also stated at Talk:African American studies#Sub-field?: "We should merge the two articles "African American Studies" and "Africana Studies" with this in mind." Should African American studies and Africana studies be merged into a single article? Additional sources to consider: Zeleza (2011), p. 17: “By the early 1980s, about 600 institutions of higher education had established programs in Black studies, African American studies, Afro-American studies, or Africana studies. The proliferation of the nomenclature was itself an indication of the internal theoretical and methodological divisions in the field.” (emphasis added) Reid-Merritt (2009), pp. 80-81: “As the field continued to expand and more institutions added Black Studies to their curricular offerings, colleges and universities selected the most popular designation of the day. Some programs experienced several name changes—from Black Studies, to Afro-American Studies, to African American Studies, to Africana Studies—with very little change to the core curriculum.” (emphasis added) Reid-Merritt (2009), p. 6: “As we discussed the current state of affairs, we lamented over the ongoing, problematic issue of identifying a single nomenclature that most accurately reflected our chosen field of study. The names varied: Black Studies, Afro-American Studies, African American Studies, Africana Studies, Pan-African Studies, African World Diaspora Studies, and so many others.” (emphasis added) Karenga (2018), p. 579: “The names, Black Studies, Africana Studies, Afro-American Studies, African American Studies, Pan-African Studies, and Africology reflect a discipline with different sites of origin, different definitions, and varied understandings of itself although there are common ground conceptions and practices (Aldridge, 2000; Karenga, 2009; Hall, 1999).” (emphasis added) Reid-Merritt (2018), p. 559: “Initially started by students at San Francisco State University in 1968 as Black Studies, the field has been called Afro-American Studies, African American Studies, African World Studies, Africana Studies, Pan African Studies, and Africology (Karenga, 2012; Reid-Merritt, 2009).” (emphasis added) Karenga (2009), pp. 45-46: It is in this early and ongoing recognition of the need to acknowledge both the foundational role of Africa in our history and culture and other vital links to other African peoples that early scholars in the discipline used various forms of the category “African” in naming the discipline to express this without denying the inclusive range of “Black Studies” as a similarly useful category and conception of the discipline. These categories included Pan-African Studies, Afro-American Studies, African and Afro-American Studies, and Africana Studies and, more recently, other names such as Africology (Van Horne, 2007) or Africaology (Asante, 1990, p. 14). (emphasis added) Christian (2006), p. 698: “This article is concerned with the fact that Black studies (or African American studies, Africana studies, Pan-African studies, African Centered studies, Afrocentric studies, Africalogical studies, African and African Diaspora studies—they all basically mean the same thing) continues to have a contested existence in the U.S. academy. However, regardless of the ever-present need to validate itself, this field defies all attempts to silence its voice.” (emphasis added) Conyers (2004), p. 640: “The scope and purpose of this article is to examine the effectiveness of the discipline of Africology as a holistic academic discipline. Often referred to as Africana studies, African American studies, Afro-American studies, Black studies, and Africology, this exercise of nomenclature can be defined as the study of Africana phenomena from an Afrocentric perspective.” (emphasis added) Mazama (2009), p. 65: In the appendix to their recently published Handbook of Black Studies, Asante and Karenga note that “the naming of the discipline” remains “unsettled” (Asante & Karenga, 2006, p. 421). This remark came as a result of an extensive survey of existing Black Studies programs, which led to the editors identifying a multiplicity of names for the discipline: Africana Studies, African and African Diaspora Studies, African/Black World Studies, Pan-African Studies, Africology, African and New World Studies, African Studies–Major, Black World Studies, Latin American Studies, Latin American and Caribbean Studies, Black and Hispanic Studies, Africana and Latin American Studies, African and African-American Studies, Black and Hispanic Studies, African American Studies, Afro-American Studies, African American Education Program, Afro-Ethnic Studies, American Ethnic Studies, American Studies–African-American Emphasis, Black Studies, Comparative American Cultures, Ethnic Studies Programs, Race and Ethnic Studies. The three most common names are, at the present, African American (73), Africana Studies (41), and Black Studies (34). (emphasis added) Asante (2020), p. 48: "Periodically we have had discussions of the naming of the scholarly and pedagogical enterprise for which we have dedicated our careers. The nomenclature attests to the difficulty with the description of the field. It has been called Black Studies, Afro-American Studies, Black American Studies, Pan African Studies, African American Studies, Black World Studies, Africana Studies, and Africol-ogy." (emphasis added) Dawkins (2021), p. 5: "Despite calls for such identities as Black Studies, Pan-African Studies, Afro-American Studies, African and Afro-American Studies, African American Studies, African Diaspora Studies, and Africology, among others (Hare, 1972; Turner, 1984; Stewart, 1984; Young, 1984; Asante 1998; Van Horne, 2007; Stewart, 1984; Karenga, 2009), some leading Black Studies scholars have begun to embrace “Africana” Studies as the formal identity of the field, even though the common reference to Black Stud-ies continues to be widely acceptability (Alkalimat, 2013; Karenga, 2007, 2009)." (emphasis added) Daniel Power of God (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Early procedural discussion

@Daniel Power of God: what is your brief and neutral statement? At nearly 9,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Redrose64. Daniel Power of God (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that I (and others) can see what this is all about, I should point out that per WP:RFCNOT, this is not a WP:RFC matter but WP:MERGE for which special templates exist - these should be placed at the top of all articles involved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That may be my fault. My fear was that a merge request wouldn't get as wide an input as the RfC might, and so I recommended that the RfC might get more attention than the merge request. There may be some alternative ideas that could come out of the RfC as well. Anyway, we can switch to a merge request if you think people won't be okay with this procedure. jps (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Actual merge discussion

• Merge: Yes, these are essentially two names (among many others) for the same topic, so we cannot have two articles about this, per WP:CFORK and possibly WP:POVFORK. I suspect that "African American studies" is presentsly the most WP:COMMONNAME, though am open to presentation of arguments to the contrary. An argument might be made that "Africana" is broader in scope than "African American", but this is could be illusory. In reality, the actual program, regardless what it is named at a particular US institution, will offer courses about Africa and the broader African disapora, not just African Americans literally. However, if non-US universities also offer [less US-focused] Africana majors, then that might be the better article topic and scope, inclusive of both AA-focused US degree programs and non-AA-focused non-US ones. But I think we should see some evidence of this, not just assume it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: SMcCandlish, the "extensive survey of existing Black Studies programs" highlighted in Mazama (2009), p. 65, indicated that the "three most common names are, at the present, African American [Studies] (73), Africana Studies (41), and Black Studies (34)." Ngram (2019) examples #1, #2, and #3 seem to show that Black Studies is the most common name, followed by African American Studies, and then Africana Studies. Dawkins (2021), p. 5, indicated that "some leading Black Studies scholars have begun to embrace “Africana” Studies as the formal identity of the field, even though the common reference to Black Stud-ies continues to be widely" accepted. More recently, the faculty opinion survey of Kopkin (2019), p. 362, concluded: "Our findings show that, among the available choices, “Africana Studies” is most often chosen by our participants as the ideal name, followed by “Black Studies,” “African Diaspora Studies,” “African American Studies” and “Pan-African Studies,” “Africology,” and “African Studies.”"

African American Studies seems to be the most common name in Mazama (2009), the second most common name in Ngram (2019), and the fourth most ideal name in Kopkin (2019). Black Studies seems to be the most common name in Ngram (2019), the third most common name in Mazama (2009), the second most ideal name in Kopkin (2019), and a widely accepted name in Dawkins (2021). Africana Studies seems to be the second most common name in Mazama (2009), the third most common name in Ngram (2019), the most ideal name in Kopkin (2019), and an embraced name in Dawkins (2021).

In comparison to Black Studies, African American Studies does not seem to be the most common name in sources more recent than Mazama (2009). While Black Studies seems to be the most common name, which is widely accepted, Africana Studies seems to be an embraced common name that is regarded as the most ideal name. Daniel Power of God (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the overview. I think this gives us some (conflicting) indications of what the common US names might be, but it doesn't resolve our "what should the scope actually be?" question. It's important to keep in mind that WP:COMMONNAME is simply an instruction to first take the most common name in RS as the name to initially test against the actual WP:CRITERIA, most important among which are recognizability and precision. What we have here is a precision question: is this article going to be limited to US programs? If it's not, then "Africana studies" seems to be the most appropriate choice; but if it is, then "African-American studies" might be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, Okafor (2014), pp. 218-219, indicates that what drives the "domestic", "diasporic", and "globalistic" visions of the discipline involves a "combination of factors" relating to faculty. Kopkin (2019), p. 362, indicates that, among surveyed faculty opinions, Africana studies is regarded as the most ideal name for the discipline. Africana studies, as the name of the prospective merged article, allows for the scope of the discipline, which apparently includes US and non-US programs, to be reflected within the scope of the article. In addition to the highlighted "domestic", "diasporic", and "globalistic" scope of the discipline, there apparently are sources highlighting details related to, and showing the presence of, Africana/Black Studies programs outside of the US:

• United Kingdom – PhD Program in Black Studies at the University of Nottingham; Undergraduate Black Studies course at Birmingham City University
• Canada – Black Canadian Studies Certificate at York University; Black and African Diaspora Studies Minor at Dalhousie University; Africana Studies Minor at Brock University; Prospective Black Studies Minor at Queen's University; Prospective Black Studies Minor at Concordia University; also, a Black Canadian Studies Association

Daniel Power of God (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Some additional sources apparently highlighting details related to, and showing the presence of, Africana/Black Studies outside of the US:

• Brazil –

• Nascimento (2021), p. 9:

Abdias Nascimento returned home in 1981 with a mission to develop Africana Studies in Brazil and contribute to the field with the intellectual and artistic baggage he had accumulated over a life of activism and critical thought. He created IPEAFRO at the Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC-SP), with the support of the Ford Foundation Brazil Office, then directed by Dr. J. Michael Turner. But the institutional framework at PUC-SP could not sustain the project. In Rio de Janeiro, he presented the proposal to the State University, whose progressive administration did not take the bait. From 1985 to 1995, IPEAFRO offered its extra-curricular course for teachers as an independent initiative in partnership with the university, whose only contribution was classroom space. Professor Eduardo Duarte of the Federal University of Minas Gerais has noted that while other important artists, intellectuals and activists have been considered men of their times, Abdias Nascimento was a man ahead of his time.

• Saunders, Ipólito, Rodrigues, and Souza (2020), p. 3: “Abdias do Nascimento, one of the key figures in the founding of contemporary Brazilian Black Studies, defined Kilombismo as a competing vision of social organization that emerged from the political and economic engagement of Africans in the Americas.”

• Caribbean –

• Teelucksingh (2017), p. 31: “The evolution of Black Studies in the former British West Indies is unique as it has undergone significant cross-fertilization from Britain and the USA…The contributions to the field of Black Studies in the English-speaking Caribbean include academics from the three university campuses in Trinidad, Jamaica, and Barbados. Most have degrees from abroad and include James Millette, Fitzroy Baptiste, Elsa Goveia, Bernard Marshall, Allister Hinds, Alvin Thompson, Richard Goodridge, and Rupert Lewis.”

SMcCandlish, based on the sources that have been provided, do you think the presence of Africana/Black Studies outside of the US has been sufficiently shown to justify the name of the prospective merged article being Africana studies rather than African American studies? Daniel Power of God (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It is enlightening, but indicates that the COMMONNAME is Black studies, which dominates in that non-US data and is already a top contender in the US, too. The lead should begin with something like Black studies or Africana studies (with nationally specific subfields such as African American studies and Black Canadian studies) is an interdisciplinary .... Disused names like "Afro-American studies" don't need to be in the lead, just mentioned in the appropriate section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, your suggestion for the lead seems like a good start, but, in Nascimento (2021), p. 9, and Teelucksingh (2017), p. 31, Africana/Black Studies outside of the US (e.g., Brazil, the Caribbean) apparently were also characterized as "the field" (as opposed to "sub-field(s)"). In any case, details regarding the lead can be discussed and resolved post-merge-discussion, and a section covering the different names for the field/discipline can be as well. Specifically, as it relates to the name of the prospective merged article, and in consideration of the sources provided, do you think the name of the prospective merged article should be Black studies? Daniel Power of God (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And I think a merge should proceed soon if we don't get objections with very good reasons to maintain what appears to be a WP:CFORK and possibly a WP:POVFORK. PS: What I meant by "sub-field" is that "African Americans"/"Afro-Americans" and "African Canadians" are necessarily narrower scopes that "Africans" or "the African diaspora" more generally, but I recognize the point you're making. In my suggested lead rewrite, something like ... (with nationally specific terms such as ... also in use) is ... would work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC); rev'd. 02:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well. I think the two existing articles, African American studies and Africana studies, should soon be merged into a single article and that the name of this prospective merged article should be Black studies. Daniel Power of God (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Africologist also suggested this merge back in March, and might care about this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• I do believe that there is a distinction between African American studies, which focuses specifically on the African American experience, Africana studies, which focuses on the African diaspora globally (despite being an American term), and African studies, which focuses on the continent of Africa. But I'd need to look into the fields a lot more to understand whether they're distinct enough for it to make sense for them to exist as stand-alone articles rather than just as discussion within a single article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb Black Studies, Africana Studies, African Diaspora Studies, African American Studies, Africology, and Pan-African Studies are all within the same field. But you are right that African Studies is an entirely different field (though interdisciplinary links exist). Africologist (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)