In solitary confinement: The constrained identities, spaces and voices of Black women criminologists in post-apartheid South Africa

abstract

Change and transformation at South African universities has occurred at a slow pace, with racism and sexism persisting. Despite new frameworks being created and policies being restructured to better address concerns of equality and transformation, women remain marginalised and underrepresented in academia, including in the discipline of Criminology. There continues to be a lack of visibility of Black women in the discipline despite an increase in their enrolment for doctoral programmes. Limited research exists that examines how bias inherent in the discipline affects marginalised scholars, particularly Black women. To address this issue, this study makes use of feminist decoloniality and intersectionality frameworks to explore the experiences of 11 female criminologists. Feminist decoloniality emphasises the importance of examining the intersectionality of race and gender within the context of academia. In utilising feminist decoloniality and intersectionality, the research seeks not only to challenge the persisting biases and inequalities, but also to amplify the voices and experiences of Black women criminologists and bring attention to the obstacles they face, including feelings of otherness and exclusion. Black criminologists’ experiences include, among others, discrimination, ageism, exclusion, and insufficient academic and research mentoring. The study aims to contribute to broader efforts to create more inclusive and equitable academic environments and address historical and continuing legacies of colonialism and patriarchal systems.

keywords:

• gender
• criminology
• female criminologists
• Black
• higher education

Introduction

The higher education landscape in South Africa has gone through various changes over the past few decades. Women and Black citizens were systematically oppressed and excluded from academia under apartheid (Badat 2010). Previously shaped by policies of segregation, exploitation and discrimination, transformation of higher education was a priority of the new democratic dispensation, to promote racial and gender equity in higher education institutions (HEIs) (Barnard et al. 2016; Rabe & Rugunanan 2012). As set out in the Education White Paper 3: A Programme for Higher Education Transformation, the democratic government aimed “to redress past inequalities and to transform the higher education system to serve a new social order, to meet pressing national needs, and to respond to new realities and opportunities” (Department of Education 1997, p. 3). Despite policy changes, significant barriers remain, and the remnants of apartheid continue to influence HEIs by perpetuating racial and gender inequalities (Badat 2010; Rabe & Rugunanan 2012).

Although women have begun to enter academia in large numbers, their increase in numbers is not evidence of an absence of bias and discrimination (Fisher & Kinsey 2014). Gender bias within academia impedes women’s full participation in the academic environment, and the discipline of Criminology is no exception (Greene, Gabbidon & Wilson 2018). Within the discipline and its sub-disciplines, Black, Coloured and Indian women are overlooked and excluded.

In recent years, there has been an increased interest in the lived experiences of academics; however, the interest has been in the lived experiences of White women academics, resulting in limited attention being paid to the experiences of Black women (Wright, Thompson & Channer 2007). Under apartheid, Black women suffered more than Black men (Naicker 2013), being subjected to gender and racial discrimination as well as reproductive violence (Kaufman 2000; Maseti 2018). Yet, too often Black women’s experiences have been excluded because of a tendency to view gender and race as separate and distinct categories, that has resulted in an image of society where all the women are White, and all Black people are men. As noted by Naicker (2013, p. 326), “the universalising of their experiences as black or female does little to affirm their uniqueness and their particular struggles”. Black women are more likely to be discriminated against than any other racial group in the workplace (Mirza 2017). Research has neglected the role of race, gender and social class in influencing the ability to perform and succeed in academia. At the same time, there is a lack of research on women criminologists’ experiences in academia and the exploration of feminist decoloniality and intersectionality of gender and race that influences their academic trajectories at South African institutions.

This study aims to understand the positioning of women in the field of Criminology by exploring how their race and gender intersect to create intricate experiences for female criminologists in the context of higher education in South Africa. By examining these dynamics, we can better promote inclusivity and diversity in academia and work towards a more equitable and empowering environment for all scholars.

Historical overview of profiles and experiences of academics in South Africa

HEIs in South Africa have been transforming from establishments catering exclusively for White scholars to institutions that are more democratic and demographically representative (Rabe & Rugunanan 2012). A noticeable change in post-apartheid South Africa was a shift in the demographic profile of historically ‘Whites only’ universities. Most universities have had to develop and implement affirmative action policies in the admission of students and hiring of staff to address gender and race inequalities. Affirmative action is intended for previously disadvantaged groups, especially Black, Indian, and Coloured individuals (Kerr, Piraino & Ranchhod 2017). HEIs reflect the racial divide instituted by apartheid policies of segregation. In 1993 the National Commission of Higher Education revealed that women accounted for only 32% of academic scholars. Furthermore, women were more concentrated in junior lecturer and lecturer positions. By the end of apartheid in 1994, staff members at HEIs were still predominantly White (83%) and male (68%) (Badat 2010; Department of Higher Education and Training 2014).

An analysis of the profile of academic staff in South Africa by Breetzke and Hedding (2018) showed changes in terms of the age, gender, race, and academic rank of scholars. Although the majority of academic staff were still White (49%), there was an upward trajectory in Black academics, from 26% in 2005 to 35% in 2015. The authors noted a changing demographic and rank of the academic body, characterised by a sharp increase in young Black academics below the age of 25 years. Although Black academics were underrepresented, Indian, and Coloured academics presented even lower percentages. Of the academics who were men, 46% were White (Breetzke & Hedding 2018). In terms of post levels, Black academics were predominantly junior lecturers, yet there was a 10% increase in them moving rank. Professorship displayed major differences, with 75% of the professors being White compared to 15% Black, 6% Indian and 4% Coloured. In 2017, 46% of the academic staff were White, 8% were Coloured, 9% were Indian and 36% were Black. In terms of gender, 52% of the academic staff members were women (Department of Higher Education and Training 2019).

Even with an increase in women scholars, Black women accounted for 16.1% of the academic cohort – yet they represented 40.4% of the general population nationally. White academics made up 25.3% of the academic staff, yet only 4.5% in the general population. The findings presented by Breetzke and Hedding (2018) highlight significant changes in the demographic make-up of scholars over the years. While there has been a notable increase in the representation of Black academics, the overall academic landscape still reflects substantial disparities in terms of race and gender.

Barriers for women in academia

Academia is not immune to the inequalities that plague society at large. Women often have to work twice as hard to be noticed, heard and acknowledged (Angervall & Beach 2020). The academic environment is constructed as a domain that is more favourable to men than to women (Guarino & Borden 2017). Discourses of hierarchy, patriarchy and power are negotiated and reproduced in academic arenas. Women face many barriers in academia and are constantly negotiating and balancing their identities and responsibilities. Everyday human relations produce and reproduce racialised practices (Kobayashi 2009).

Women’s experiences in academia are predominantly shaped by feelings of being an outsider, which is greatly influenced by a lack of career advancement and being excluded from established support groups (Angervall & Beach 2020; Morley 2014). In academia there are social networks that reproduce gender and racial inequalities, such as ‘old boys’ clubs’ which refer to a social elite network that only White men have access to (Dalu et al. 2018). Women and Black academics are often excluded from these networks, thus limiting their opportunities for growth and promotion (Fisher & Kinsey 2014; Mcdonald 2011). A characteristic of the old boys’ network is the hoarding of leadership positions by men, thus keeping women out (Kobayashi 2009). The old boys’ network within universities not only keeps women out, but also influences decision-making and the appointment of men whenever vacancies arise (Fisher & Kinsey 2014).

Another obstacle facing women academics which impedes their full participation in academia is publishing and knowledge production. Publishing forms an integral responsibility for academics and is central to achieving tenure, promotion, and job opportunities (Motha & Varghese 2018; Sadiki & Steyn 2021). The door to publishing is narrow for women and individuals of a marginalised status. Men outnumber women in scholarly production, and even more evident is the gender homophily exhibited by men when it comes to publications. Although women are more likely to co-author with both men and women, men prefer to publish with other men (Sadiki & Steyn 2021). Sadiki and Steyn (2021) analysed the race and gender profile of authors who published in the Acta Criminologica: African Journal of Criminology and Victimology, from 1993 to 2018. Their findings revealed that White men dominated publications and significantly co-authored with other men rather than women (Sadiki & Steyn 2021). Publications are increasingly moving towards collaborations and teams, which women often might not have access to. The inability to publish prevents women and Black academics from advancing in academia (Barnard et al. 2016).

Theoretical framework

To ground the experiences of women academics, the study draws on feminist decoloniality and intersectionality theory. In the discipline of Criminology, feminist frameworks have been instrumental in understanding the status of women, gender and criminality. Feminist Criminology has challenged the misrepresentation and exclusion of women in theory, practice and research while also examining the complexities of sexism and racism in Criminology (Cook 2016). However, feminist Criminology failed to account for the paucity of Black scholars and experiences of Black female criminologists (Russell 1992). With transformation and decolonisation gaining momentum at South African universities, it is imperative to move gender inequality from the margins of decolonisation and recentre it as a tool of transformation. To achieve this, a feminist decolonial framework is employed to acknowledge and reflect on the gendered and racial power dynamics that shape the everyday experiences of Black female criminologists.

Feminist decoloniality as a theoretical framework combines feminist perspectives with a decolonial lens to analyse and challenge the intersecting systems of oppression, including gender and colonial legacies that shape the experiences of marginalised individuals, particularly women. Feminist decoloniality emphasises the importance of incorporating gender analysis within decolonial discourse and seeks to dismantle and decolonise structures and ideologies that perpetuate inequality and marginalisation, promoting social justice, equity and inclusivity.

By using decolonial and intersectional frameworks for this study, I prioritise African female voices and experiences. The lens of decoloniality offered by feminist decoloniality is essential in recognising and challenging the ongoing impact of colonialism, including decimation, destruction, and dispossession, and how these legacies continue to manifest in knowledge production and dissemination, representation and everyday life (Lugones 2010). By integrating feminist decoloniality, the author aims to allow for a deeper understanding of the persisting colonial structures and power imbalances within academia that perpetuate the marginalisation of Black women criminologists.

The intersectionality theory was conceptualised by Crenshaw in 1989 to explore and understand women’s social position in society – particularly the social position of minority women (Mitchell & Sawyer 2014; Tao 2018). Intersectionality refers to how a critical understanding of race, class, gender, age, sexuality, ethnicity, and nationality does not exist in isolation, but these factors interact with and influence one another to shape social inequalities (Collins 2015).

Intersectionality explores how the lived experiences of individuals are shaped by their identities, gender, race and class. HEIs in South Africa are increasingly becoming more diverse and inclusive, yet women experience marginalisation because of the intersections of their oppressed identities and their gender (Eddy et al. 2017). The study used intersectionality theory to highlight the experiences of women criminologists, because gender and race influence academic scholars’ access to or disenfranchisement from power. The combined use of feminist decoloniality and intersectionality enriches the analysis and interpretation of the findings, leading to more comprehensive and nuanced insights into the experiences of Black female criminologists in South African universities.

Methods and analysis

The study aimed to explore and understand the experiences of Black female criminologists at South African universities, specifically focusing on the intersections of race and gender. Based on the study aim, a qualitative research design was employed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 participants from universities across South Africa where Criminology is offered (as a subject and/or degree). The research questions centred on how race and gender interacted to shape the participants’ experiences and what challenges and barriers they faced as a result of either their gender, race or both.

A purposive and snowball sampling method was used to select participants. First, participants were purposefully identified from university websites and were invited to participate in the study. Secondly, some participants (female criminologists whose details were not available on the websites) were recruited via chain referral using their colleagues’ recommendations. According to the Employment Equity Act No. 55 of 1998, Black people can also include Coloured and Indian people because they are considered minorities in terms of power, status, wealth and access; therefore, the sample included seven Black scholars, two Indian scholars and two Coloured scholars.

Semi-structured interviews lasting between 60 and 90 minutes were conducted with the participants via online platforms such as Zoom, Google Meet, MS Teams and WhatsApp. Voluntary participation was sought from participants with each signing a consent form prior to commencement of the interview. All of the interviews were voice recorded via the online platforms with consent from the participants, and the data was transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted and the data was continuously explored to obtain a general sense of it (Nieuwenhuis 2017). The data analysis was informed by a feminist decoloniality and intersectionality lens, which allowed for a critical examination of the experiences of the participants.

The researcher delved deep into the power structures and historical legacies that shape the lives of marginalised individuals, especially Black female criminologists. The analysis began by centring the voices and perspectives of the participants, acknowledging their agency in navigating academia while also recognising the oppressive structures that constrain their opportunities for advancement and recognition. Moreover, feminist decoloniality prompted a critical examination of the research process itself, including the researcher’s own positionality as an emerging Black female criminologist and how this might influence the data collection, interpretation, and representation of the participants’ experiences. The findings were contextualised within the broader historical and socio-political context of South Africa.

The study was not without limitations. Firstly, findings cannot be generalised because participants were not randomly selected. Secondly, by purposefully selecting the participants, selection bias is a possibility.

Findings and discussion

Criminology – White and masculine

Participants reflected on the ways in which the discipline of Criminology in South Africa was dominated by a White man enclave, and how this has led to the silencing of women voices. Participants were fairly unanimous in highlighting how their voices were disregarded, particularly in meetings, when it came to decision-making and in the wider faculty. Furthermore, participants felt silenced not only as a result of their gender, but their race too, as expressed by participant 1:

P1: I feel that as an academic, in a male-dominated career or environment, it's that it's always the man that has the last say because his voice is louder … it's not what we say, it's not what women say, it's like what they say. And they actually have their own debate and whatnot. And, you know, I couldn't say anything because I'm a woman, an Indian woman.

Additionally, participants’ silence and feelings of exclusion were exacerbated by the presence of an ‘old boys’ club’ in South African Criminology, particularly within the discipline’s society.¹ These old boys’ networks were characterised by hoarding of leadership positions, which ensured that power remained in the hands of White male academics. Participant 7 recalled her experience of how being the head of her department had greatly traumatised her, because of the expectation placed on women leaders to perform their leadership positions in ways that favour the dominant masculine culture in academia:

P7: When the head of department position opened [again], a lot of people came, they approached me, they're like we really enjoyed being led by you. I was like, even if I wanted the position, I wouldn't want to apply under the current boys’ club administration, because it makes it very difficult for you to lead. And they expect you as a woman to actually come into a position and lead like a man.

Through feminist decoloniality, it becomes evident that power dynamics and silencing of women’s voices are deeply rooted in colonial legacies that have perpetuated gender and racial inequalities in academia.

Gender, ageism and interactions with students

Gender and race intersect to create unequal power dynamics and perpetuate oppression within the academic context. Moreover, age also intersects with gender and race, creating unequal power dynamics that hinder the advancement of younger female academics. For some participants, being young was a continual discussion point, particularly where their qualifications were concerned. Furthermore, tension between the older colleagues and younger academics was common. Younger participants were treated differently and often overlooked for promotion because of their junior status. Participant 7 believed she was not promoted based on her race as well as age: “‘I feel it's because I'm a woman. And I think also that the other factor that actually intersects this whole thing, the issue of age. I saw it like playing a role also in my situation. I'm very, very young, you know.”

Participants had varied experiences when it came to their interactions with students. Also, women are negatively stereotyped by students and fellow colleagues, and are not seen as intellectually competent (Fan et al. 2019; Mengel, Sauermann & Zölitz 2019; Mitchell & Martin 2018). Participant 8 reveals how students treat female academic staff differently from male staff members:

P8: The way students treat men colleagues and the way they treat female colleagues is not the same. It's not. Because with the younger, especially younger colleagues, it's like you're the same age as them. So, they don't have that much respect for younger colleagues as they would for males. With us where they will comment on unnecessary things like the way you dress, and how you look. They will compare female colleagues with each other, something which we will never hear being done to males. When it comes to males, I feel like they have greater respect for them – more than us.

Participants were subject to negative stereotyping by students and colleagues, who did not see them as intellectually competent. For other participants, higher education was a space where identities are contested and negotiated and power dynamics were more salient. Participants from the study expressed that race had a strong effect on the interactions between them and students. Some students continuously undermined participants’ authority:

P4: So, I found in this one particular incident, where I was having a student that was being very problematic, and missed a test. According to our kind of handbook, they had to get zero for it. So, when I was like, but this is the policy, you know, you have to follow the policy. It became a whole issue. But then when they went at the time, the department head was a White woman, but when they went to her and she said exactly what I said, it was okay.

Using an intersectional lens, it is evident how the experiences of the participants are shaped by the intersection of race, gender and age. Intersectionality recognises that social identities are not separate and distinct, but rather interlocking and mutually constitutive (Carastathis 2014). Acknowledging these intersections is crucial for developing more inclusive and equitable policies and practices within academic institutions and fostering a supportive environment for historically marginalised groups, especially Black women.

Positionality and the burden of being Black

Feminist decoloniality allows us to understand Black women’s experiences within the broader context of South Africa as a racialised space that fosters a culture of Whiteness and privilege. For the participants, race and gender intersected in a manner that placed White women at the top and Black women at the bottom of the hierarchy:

P10: I identify myself as Coloured, but I feel like Coloured is a culture. So, I see myself as a Black woman. I think also you get put on a hierarchy. And obviously, it's not in your face, everything is subtle. So, you still get Whites on top, and then I suppose, Black people at the bottom.

The participants were starkly aware of their minority status and experiences of exclusion as a result of their gender and race. The participants’ narratives reveal the burden of being Black and female, experiencing discrimination and exclusion based on their race and gender:

P1: There were times where I questioned, why am I Indian? And why am I a woman, because I always felt that as much as I did my best and prove to everyone that these are my capabilities, I wasn't given the chance because of my race and my gender. When I was at [name of institution], there was a permanent post advertised. They interviewed about 12 people, including myself, and when the results came in terms of who was selected, I felt that I was pushed down the ladder because of my race and because of my gender.

Some participants discussed how discrimination was central to their experience as women in academia. Additionally, participants were not only discriminated against by institutional systems, but also by their male counterparts. Participant 8 shared how she and her female colleagues were bullied by their Black male colleagues merely because they were women:

P8: At the beginning of my career, I absolutely hated it. Like, we were bullied by Black males. Simply because we're female. Like they felt intimidated in a way. It was one of the worst experiences that I've ever had. I think when it comes to the working environment, you would think maybe you would be bullied maybe by a White person, but if it’s someone from your own race, it has a greater impact than if it was being done by someone of a different race.

P9: And also, what I noticed with other colleagues or other races, they tend to be [more] supportive than the people that we think should support us, like Black doctors, like Black professors.

Victimisation and bullying by fellow Black academics create additional hurdles and barriers for the already marginalised Black female academics. Existing power structures enable racism and sexism to thrive in HEIs. Furthermore, the power structures are not evenly distributed across social classes – resulting in different realities for historically underrepresented groups (Niemann 2012), and particularly for Black women. In addition, participants felt that even with various policies and initiatives in place to bring about institutional transformation and gender equity, academia remained an ivory tower where patriarchy thrived and White women and Black male academics were favoured over Black female scholars:

P7: What I've found, in my experience, also is that even in our cohort of Black people, we don’t truly understand what transformation is. And I feel like there's still a lot of like misogyny and a lot of like, patriarchy. Biases being pushed forward and stuff because at [name of institution], we are fighting for transformation. And the very people who are fighting for transformation, do not want Black women. So, there is Black men now and they occupy the spaces. It seems like transformation, now, it looks like we are promoting Black men.

In addition to being bullied, participant 2 narrated how they were excluded from academic activities by their male counterparts: “I remember the other time they even organise a conference, me and the other lady who left at some point, we were not invited. We were not included.” Race, gender and class interact with various forms of oppression and discrimination, hampering women’s participation in society. These multiple forms of oppression and discrimination also greatly affect how women and minority women are perceived and received (Naicker 2013). Most of the participants revealed their race and gender as barriers to hiring and promotion (Martinez, Chang & Welton 2017):

P1: So, I started to question myself: apart from the race and gender, am I not good enough? Am I not doing the right thing? You know, as much as I was, I was doing the lectures according to how I was supposed to, I was doing my degree, I was doing everything correctly, I think. And then I was rejected. So, a lot of things have stayed in my mind, including race and gender.

P5: Besides being discriminated against because of my age, opportunities, doors were shut just because of being a female and Black.

P8: But I don't see much influence that I have as a Black female. If it’s not my race, it’s my gender. Either way we are powerless.

Participants questioning their own abilities despite doing everything ‘correctly’ raises concerns about the standards and criteria for academic success, and whether these criteria are intended to exclude women and minorities. While White women face sexism and Black males are subjected to racism, Black women frequently suffer from both forms of oppression, creating a particularly heavy double burden for them (Zulu 2020). What is evident from the participants’ narratives is the experience of intersectional disempowerment because of multiple forms of systematic discrimination due to their race and gender – thus influencing their access to opportunities and career advancement. The intersectional disempowerment experienced by the participants highlights the need for a deeper understanding of the interconnected systems of oppression and discrimination that impact Black women in academia. Traditional approaches that address gender discrimination alone many not fully capture the unique challenges faced by Black women due to the intersecting nature of their identities (Mahabeer, Nzimande & Shoba 2018).

Mentorship and publications

Publication is an integral responsibility for academics, and is central to achieving tenure, promotion and job opportunities (Motha & Varghese 2018; Sadiki & Steyn 2021). Historically, women have been underrepresented in publications as men continue to outnumber women in scholarly production. In recent years, the discipline of Criminology has seen an increase in publications by female authors (Chesney-Lind & Chagnon 2016; Eigenberg & Whalley 2015). However, publications and citations in Criminology and criminal justice journals still favour male scholars (Kim & Hawkins 2013; Sadiki & Steyn 2021), and racial and ethnic minorities are nearly absent (Crichlow 2017). Furthermore, gender discrepancies are evident in multi-authored research publications, in that males appear more prominently as co-authors, with authors publishing with scholars of the same gender (Holman & Morandin 2019).

P5: … coming to publication as well, the miscommunication and lack of knowledge. Do you know, at some point I was told to believe that [Criminology journal] is for Whites; it's not for everyone?

P8: I feel like you will find perhaps, when it comes to most collaborations, it's mostly men that collaborate with each other. And then once in a while, they might have one female in their research study, but it's unlikely for a man might approach you. You might approach a male colleague, they won't have any problem, but it's unlikely being the male who will approach you.

Participants emphasised the hegemony of men in the publication industry and that female staff are required to publish, yet are not provided with the necessary support and tools to do so:

P9: But I have noticed that professors in academia, they tend to use young academics. In terms of publishing, you write a paper then the next thing you see a professor's name as a first author, yet the processor did not even contribute in that paper and that causes frustration.

P2: The only part is, you know the only problematic part is when it comes to you needing assistance with publication. They team themselves up. They don't bring us up so that we can get mentorship. That's where the part is where you find that they group themselves as men, and then you as women are left on your own to figure things out for yourself. While you also need that mentorship.

The appropriation of participants’ work by senior academics further perpetuates gender and racial inequalities, hindering the growth and development of emerging female criminologists. The experience of participant 2 highlights the value of mentoring for younger researchers, especially of women.

The research findings underscore the urgent need to address deep-rooted structures of power, privilege, and discrimination within the discipline of Criminology in South Africa. By integrating feminist decoloniality and intersectionality in the interpretation of these findings, we gain a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities faced by female criminology lecturers, with race and gender playing pivotal roles in shaping their experiences. These insights can inform transformative efforts within academia, leading to more inclusive and equitable environments that challenge the dominance of a White and exclusive culture and empower Black women in their academic pursuits.

Conclusion

The study applied feminist decoloniality and intersectionality frameworks by examining the dominant narratives that historically marginalised the experiences and perspectives of Black women criminologists. The study examined how gender and race have historically been constructed and how they intersect with other forms of oppression. The experiences of exclusion and discrimination narrated by the participants are indicative of the ongoing impact of both colonialism and patriarchy in HEIs. Although study fields such as Criminology have become more feminised over the years, women’s voices are still silenced. Patriarchy has historically placed men at an advantage and racial privileges have placed White women academics above Black women. For Black women, it is a constant ‘-ism’ fight, albeit racism, sexism and/or classism.

The study demonstrated that women’s voices are still silenced and power appears to be concentrated in the hands of men. While there are more women at present in academia, male voices, knowledge, and theories still dominate. Feminist decoloniality highlights how White male dominance and an ‘old boys’ club’ contribute to the silencing of women’s voices and the hoarding of resources and leadership positions. The experiences of Black and marginalised women in this study demonstrate that gender and race are inextricable and further confirm the existence of a racial hierarchy in South African academia. Being a woman and of a racial minority created nuanced experiences for the participants. Even within their own Black cohort, the participants faced discrimination. Black men were given preference over the participants, further perpetuating the systematic oppression of Black women.

Feminist decoloniality critiques the lack of mentorship and support provided to Black women academics in the publishing process. The findings demonstrate that Black women lecturers face challenges in accessing mentorship and collaborative opportunities due to the dominance of male academics in the publishing industry. The participants’ experiences further reveal the need for decolonial and feminist approaches that seek to address the systematic power imbalances and hierarchies that exist within academia. Combined with gender, Black women were at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Although the study focused on gender and race, there was an interlocking nature to race, gender, and age oppression.

Using feminist decoloniality and intersectionality, the study promotes greater understanding of how converging identities contribute to inequalities in academia for women scholars. It is apparent that race itself is not a unifying force and that discrimination is perpetuated within academic institutions. To create a more inclusive and equitable academic environment, it is crucial to recognise the various and intersectional identities that shape how Black women experience academia and strive to create more safe and supportive spaces for women and marginalised scholars.

Applying a feminist decoloniality perspective to the experiences of female criminologists highlighted the need to challenge the prevailing power imbalances and hierarchies that are still being upheld by colonialism, patriarchy and White dominance. There is a need for a more comprehensive understanding of what transformation and decoloniality entail, that supports the creation of inclusive academic institutions that centre the experiences and voices of all historically marginalised groups, including Black women.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Lufuno Sadiki

LUFUNO SADIKI is a senior lecturer in the Department of Social Work & Criminology at the University of Pretoria, where she lectures in Criminology Theory, Political Offences and Violent Crimes. She serves on the Faculty of Humanities Transformation Committee and is a member of the Department of Correctional Service Research Ethics Committee. She is part of the editorial team of the academic journal Acta Criminologica: African Journal of Criminology and Victimology and the soon to be launched (De)constructing Criminology. Furthermore, she is a member of the Diversity and Transformation portfolio of the Criminological Society of Africa. Email: [email protected]

Notes

1 The discipline’s society is an organisation that promotes the academic, practical, social and universal relevance of Criminology in order to understand, control, prevent and reduce crime and its consequences to better serve the Southern African community at large.