Global South scholars are missing from European and US journals. What can be done about it

Studies have shown that scholars in the global South are under represented in top international peer-reviewed social and medical sciences journals. The global South refers to African, Asian, Latin American, and Middle Eastern countries who are also members of the Group of 77. The intergovernmental organisation of mainly developing countries is used to identify countries in the South. The global North includes the Group of 8 and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Our own analysis of gender and politics journals shows scholars in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East are missing from leading journals published in the US and Europe. We found that between 2008 and 2017 less than 3% of 947 full length articles in four gender and politics journals published in the global North were written by scholars based in the global South. Researchers based in the global North have a wider global reach and are generally judged to be at the forefront of knowledge production and dissemination. Meanwhile, South-based scholars are often not part of major debates and conversations in their field. This points to a severe imbalance in the production of new knowledge. But all countries in the South are not alike. We found that scholars at three universities in South Africa (Rhodes University, University of Cape Town, and the University of the Witwatersrand) published the most articles followed by researchers at four universities in India. Surprisingly, scholars from large countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Nigeria have not published articles in these journals

POLICE BEHAVIOR IN POST-CONFLICT STATES: EXPLAINING VARIATION IN RESPONSES TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INTERNAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING, AND RAPE

Security sector reform programs restructure police forces to improve how they respond to gender-based violence (GBV). However, significant weaknesses persist in how police officers enforce anti-GBV laws. One area of weakness is the attrition of cases; officers fail to refer the majority of cases to the courts but rather withdraw them at the police station. Studies of police behavior in post-conflict African states have attributed the withdrawal of cases to corruption, poor professionalism, patriarchal gender norms, and underequipped police forces. Though salient, these conditions do not adequately explain police responses to GBV crimes. Even in police stations with the most poorly trained, corrupt, underequipped, and biased officers, a small number of cases advance to court. This dissertation investigates this puzzle by studying officers’ responses to domestic violence, internal human trafficking, and rape in two Liberian counties. While officers withdraw over 50 percent of domestic violence and internal human trafficking cases, they withdraw less than five percent of rape cases every year. This study employs 150 interviews with officers of the Women and Children Protection Section (WACPS) as well as survivors of violence, bureaucrats, and staff of international organizations (IOs) and local women’s nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to explain this disparity. It finds that officers are more likely to refer rape cases to court because they perceive rape as an offense that is above the jurisdiction of the police and because the WACPS enforces a non-withdrawal policy for rape cases. This perception is a product of training provided by state and non-state actors; the stature of the crime in the penal law; and the WACPS’ policies. This study also finds that when these two conditions do not exist, officers sometimes forward cases to court based on their judgments of the victim and of the effects of the crime on the victim. It argues that the state, IOs, and NGOs have prioritized sexual violence and emphasized the prosecution of sexual offenders through legal and policy changes, institution building, and awareness-raising, to the relative neglect of other forms of GBV. This disparity has contributed to the variation in how officers respond to GBV

Women and postconflict security: A study of police response to domestic violence in Liberia

Domestic violence or Intimate partner violence (IPV) is the form of violence against women (VAW) that is most reported to the police in Liberia. This violence cuts across class, ethnic, religious, and age lines (Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Services, et al. 2008) and results in psychological trauma, physical injuries, and, in some cases, death. Societal beliefs that frame domestic violence as a regular part of life serve to legitimize and foster the problem in Liberia (Allen and Devitt 2012; LISGIS et al. 2008) and pose a challenge to the state and to international organizations (IOs) and women's nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that have introduced measures to combat domestic violence since the end of the country's 14-year civil war in 2003. One such effort is the Women and Children Protection Section (WACPS) of the Liberian National Police (LNP), established by the government in collaboration with the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and other international partners in 2005. Although the section was established primarily to address rape, its officers are mandated to investigate all forms of VAW, including domestic violence.</jats:p

Global South scholars are missing from European and US journals. What can be done about it

Studies have shown that scholars in the global South are under represented in top international peer-reviewed social and medical sciences journals. The global South refers to African, Asian, Latin American, and Middle Eastern countries who are also members of the Group of 77. The intergovernmental organisation of mainly developing countries is used to identify countries in the South. The global North includes the Group of 8 and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Our own analysis of gender and politics journals shows scholars in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East are missing from leading journals published in the US and Europe. We found that between 2008 and 2017 less than 3% of 947 full length articles in four gender and politics journals published in the global North were written by scholars based in the global South. Researchers based in the global North have a wider global reach and are generally judged to be at the forefront of knowledge production and dissemination. Meanwhile, South-based scholars are often not part of major debates and conversations in their field. This points to a severe imbalance in the production of new knowledge. But all countries in the South are not alike. We found that scholars at three universities in South Africa (Rhodes University, University of Cape Town, and the University of the Witwatersrand) published the most articles followed by researchers at four universities in India. Surprisingly, scholars from large countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Nigeria have not published articles in these journals