Keywords

Introduction

The fields of Sociology and Anthropology have interesting origins that have implications for their application in a Non-Western society such as Ghana. Sociology’s roots lie in a desire to understand the Industrial Revolution of Western Europe and its impact on society. Implicitly then, Sociology is a study of “modern” society. Anthropology, on the other hand, was developed in the West as a study of other cultures in terms of both societies of the past but primarily non-Western societies. As Hannerz (1980) notes, it is only in the late 1960s that Western Anthropologists began to study their own societies. However, the attraction of the “other” persists and is evident in both the foreign language course requirements in many post graduate Anthropology Departments around the world as well as the ethnographic research in the non-West often required of anthropologists. Anthropology also has had historical links with the colonial enterprise in that European colonial officials with anthropological training were sent out to the colonies to study the peoples and understand them so as to make it possible for the colonies to be ruled more effectively. One such example in the Ghanaian case is Captain R. S. Rattray who joined the Gold Coast Customs Service in 1906 and set up a one-man Anthropological Department in Ashanti in 1921 of which he was head (Robertson 1975, p. 54) , culminating in four publications that are still considered of anthropological significance almost a century after they were first published (Rattray 1923, 1927, 1929, 1931/1932) . Other foundational Africanist anthropologists who worked in Ghana include Margaret Field (1937, 1940) , Meyer Fortes (1940, 1945, 1949) and Jack Goody (1957) who worked on the Ga, the Tallensi and the Dagaba, respectively. In this sense, anthropological studies predate sociological studies in Ghana.

In addition to different sites of focus, the disciplines of Sociology and Anthropology have historically had different analytical interests and therefore theoretical orientations. Anthropologists have typically studied groups of people with a common language and culture which they referred to as tribes. These groups were largely treated as independent units and their relationships with neighbouring groups were scarcely considered. Sociologists, on the other hand, tried to understand society in general and have focused on studying smaller social units and social problems, mainly in urban areas. Theoretically, anthropologists have a much stronger affinity with structural functionalism than sociologists do. While sociologists can also boast of a functionalist bent, the influence of Marx is very strong in this discipline and so there is much more likely to be a discussion of power and change in sociological texts than in traditional anthropological texts.

A third distinction between the disciplines of Sociology and Anthropology lie in their methodological approach. While traditional Sociology lays much more emphasis on the quantitative method, anthropologists give pride of place to the ethnographic method. A true anthropologist understands the language of the people of his/her study, immerses him or herself in their cultures for a number of years, observes cultural practices, participates in these practices as well as interviews cultural practitioners for an extended period of time to gain a deeper understanding of a people and their practices.

While immersion in and documentation of cultural practices is characteristic of Anthropology, it is not the preserve of anthropologists. Many European travellers to the African continent wrote extensive travelogues that provided key insights into the cultural practices of Africans long before the discipline of Anthropology was established as a credible field of study. Ghana is no exception in this regard. As Robertson (1975, p. 51) attests, “Ghana is one of social Anthropology’s principal domains” with what could count as social anthropological writing on the country dating as far back as the 1700s with writers such as Bosman (1705) , Bowdich (1819) , the Rev. J. G. Wood (1868) and Ellis (1887) documenting their understandings and experiences of Ghanaians. Similarly, although Sociology as an academic discipline in Ghana did not officially begin until 1950, with the establishment of the Department of Sociology at the University of Ghana, interest in sociological matters preceded this period. Assimeng (1976, 2005) notes, for example, that matters of sociological interest were discussed in the works of Ghanaian scholars such as C. C. Reindorf (1895) , J. E. Casely Hayford (1903) and J. B. Danquah (1928, 1944) . At the University of Ghana, evidence from the first annual report of the Institute of Adult Education also shows a clear interest in sociological matters in the lectures for the 1948–1949 period by authors such as Mrs. Ione Acquah who spoke in Sekondi on the topic, “Local Aspects of Sociology” and Dr. Kofi Abrefa Busia, who spoke at the Komenda College on the theme, “A Sociologist Looks at the Village” (see also Acquah 1958; Busia 1950, 1951; Assimeng 1978) .

Considering that Ghana is located in the non-West, it is interesting that in setting up the first Department to study society in 1950, it was named the Department of Sociology and not Anthropology, or even Department of Sociology and Anthropology even though the first Head, the Oxford trained Kofi Abrefa Busia, was himself a social Anthropologist, and Ghana’s first at that. This decision was probably because an Institute of African Studies where much of the anthropological studies were done was already in existence at the University of Ghana. In the memorandum he wrote requesting for the establishment of the Department of Sociology, there is no mention of this tension. Social Anthropology comprised 3 of the 10 required areas of instruction in those early years. The tension inherent in the contradictions between an anthropologist heading a Sociology Department and teaching methods with an emphasis on quantitative methods (and not qualitative methods) as well as theory with an emphasis on structural-functionalism (and not Marxism) became evident 20 years later when colleagues at the University of Cape Coast began to take the Department at the University of Ghana on with regard to a number of issues. The Department at the University of Cape Coast had different historical roots. Created a decade after the Department at the University of Ghana by then President Kwame Nkrumah, it was named a Department of Sociology and was headed by a sociologist named Roger Whipple, currently living in Canada who in spite of the fact that he only had a Bachelors Degree at the time, clearly had been schooled primarily in the discipline whose development he had been hired to oversee. In a later section of this chapter, we shall discuss the major issues that produced tensions between these two Departments. Before that though, we present a brief historical background of the four Departments/Programmes of Sociology in Ghanaian public universities.

Departments/Programmes of Sociology at Public Universities in Ghana

The Department of Sociology at the University of Ghana, Legon

The Department of Sociology at the University of Ghana in Legon, the oldest in the country, was established in 1950 with Kofi Abrefa Busia as the Head of Department.Footnote 1 The first two students in the Department of Sociology at the University of Ghana were Kwasi Ampene and Austin Tetteh who eventually became Professors in Adult Education, then the Department of Extramural Studies, at the University of Ghana and Regional Planning at the then University of Science and Technology, respectively. A third student, Kwaw Esiboa de Graft Johnson who was one of two students taken on in the second year of the Programme went on to undertake postgraduate training at the London School of Economics (LSE)Footnote 2 and returned to the Department as a faculty member (having had his certificate vetted by Sir Arku Korsah, then Chairman of the University Council) and taught from 1957 to 1979 with intermittent breaks to teach elsewhere. Cyril Fiscian was the lone honours student in the third batch and he, like K. E. de Graft Johnson, went on to study at the LSE and to teach in the Department. Similarly, Ebo Mends, and Godwin Nukunya who were students between 1958 and 1961 and Max Assimeng who was a student between 1961 and 1964 came back to the Department as faculty members. Ebo Mends retired in the 2010 academic year, but Max Assimeng continues to teach on a part-time basis while Godwin Nukunya, the Department’s first emeritus professor, still teaches and supervises post-graduate students.

When students took classes in the Department in the first decade of the Department’s existence, it was under the tutorship of K. A. Busia, Gustav Jahoda, P. J. Rollings, P. T. W. Baxter and David Tait. There were ten courses at the time. These were Theories and Methods of Sociology, Ethics, Social Philosophy, Social Psychology, Social Institutions, Techniques of Social Research, Theories and Methods in Anthropology, Anthropology of Worldwide Societies , Ethnography of West African Societies, and a choice between Criminology or Demography. Students also had to choose a subsidiary paper in English, Economics or Philosophy, each of which consisted of two papers. Being an honours degree student in those days was a real privilege. Only a few students were selected each year. It was made clear to honours degree students that they were “reading for a degree,” in other words, the onus was on them to ensure that they acquired the knowledge expected of honours students. An honours degree required a 3-year study of the ten courses after which students took what de Graft Johnson has described as a “traumatic” examination.

In addition to the difference in course structure in those days, the teaching style and nature of interaction between students and lecturers was very different from that which exists today. First, students were expected in class and if they failed to show up, the faculty member could literally go looking for them. Class attendance was important because classroom time was spent discussing material which each student was expected to have read. The rather small class sizes of that time period also made it possible for a congenial relationship to develop between students and faculty. Students had weekly personal interaction with faculty. De Graft Johnson recalls that students went to dinner on alternate Tuesdays at Dr. Jahoda’s house where they met numerous dignitaries. Dr. Tait’s weekly interaction was on Thursdays from 3:30 pm to 6:30 pm where they were introduced to Earl Grey tea and Scotch as well as intellectual critique. These students were also exposed to the ideas of key scholars of the time such as Melville Herskovits, Meyer Fortes and Evans Pritchard all of whom came in person to share their ideas with the students. These intimate relationships inspired them to work hard to undertake post-graduate studies and become a part of that intellectual environment. Until 1958, the largest number of students per class was four. In 1958, the number of students in the class increased to 11 (including one lone female student) and has continued to increase steadily ever since.

The intellectual environment in the Department changed markedly in the late 1970s with the growing economic difficulties in Ghana that led to an exodus of professionals including university lecturers. The few remaining faculty members found themselves overstretched having to take on classes that should otherwise have been taught by the departed faculty members. Teaching and learning difficulties were compounded with the country’s adoption of the Structural Adjustment Programme in 1983 which led to state neglect of public tertiary institutions. Subscriptions to journals were not renewed, book acquisitions became a thing of the past and funding opportunities for research and conference attendance all but dried up.

Today, while the development of the internet and online databases have improved access to teaching material dramatically, the number of teaching faculty available falls below the requirements for the student population that we have. Class sizes are therefore large and the personal student interaction with faculty of the type described by de Graft Johnson in the early years is currently reserved mainly for post-graduate students. The course requirements for a degree in Sociology are also substantially different from the early years although some elements remain the same. First year students are required to take two courses that serve as introductory courses in Anthropology and Sociology. Second year students are required to take four courses: Basic Concepts in Sociology, Traditional Ghanaian Social Institutions, Comparative Social Institutions and the Social Structure of Modern Ghana. In the third year, students are introduced to material similar to what others would have studied 50 years ago. The four required courses are Research Methods, Foundations of Social Thought, Perspectives in Social Theory and Quantitative Methods in Social Research. The required courses in the final year of study are Social Anthropology and Social Psychology both of which are year-long courses, Theories of Social Development, and the Context of Development and Underdevelopment. Elective courses are offered in the third and fourth years. Third year students choose two out of the following: Rural Sociology, Urban Sociology, Sociology of Tourism and Tourism Development in Ghana, Sociology of Religion, Political Sociology, Sociology of the Family, Poverty and Rural Development, Culture and Development, Population Studies, Sociology of Deviant Behaviour and Medical Sociology. Fourth year students choose four out of the following elective courses available to them: Sociology of Law, Globalization and Developing Societies, Industrial Sociology, Gender Studies, Advanced Quantitative Techniques, Demographic Analysis, Contemporary Social Theory, Penology and finally, Culture and Reproductive Health. Students who major in Sociology also have the option to write a long essay on a topic of their choice that involves primary data collection and analysis.

The masters programme (MA and MPhil) was introduced in the 1970s. In the 1980s, a PhD programme was introduced with the first graduands including Chris Abotchie, E. Q. Blavo and Nana Araba Apt, all of whom later became lecturers in the Department. Students who are admitted into the post-graduate Programme at the Department must have a first degree in Sociology. Intermittently, a post-graduate Programme has been introduced to allow individuals without a first degree in the discipline to undertake a 1 year course that provides them with the basics of Sociology after which they could apply to undertake postgraduate studies in the Department. The Department currently has funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York that provides grants of $ 3,000 and $ 30,000 for the Masters and PhD candidates respectively to enable them conduct their fieldwork.

The Department of Sociology at Cape Coast

At the University of Cape Coast, Sociology was first introduced in the Department of Education in 1963 as part of a course in education. Two years later, the Department was established. As with the University of Ghana, the Department started out with a handful of students. The course structure at the time was modelled largely on the structure existing at the University of Lancaster where Roger Whipple, the first Head of Department had been trained. The personal interactions between faculty and students that existed at the University of Ghana also existed at the University of Cape Coast, and perhaps one can argue that these relationships were far more solid at the University of Cape Coast than at the University of Ghana. Victor Ametewee, one of the first students enrolled at the University of Cape Coast who went on to become a faculty member in the Department maintains a relationship with the first head of the Department half a century after they first met.

The following courses were offered as part of the programme for the award of the 4-year BA degree in Sociology during the 1970s and 1980s: In the first year students read introductory courses such as Introduction to Sociology and Social Structure of African Societies; in the second year, Sociological Theory and Techniques of Social Research; in the third year, Social Change in Modern Africa, Social Psychology, Demographic Analysis and Sociology of Development; and in the final year, Comparative Social Institutions, Sociology of Religion, Political Sociology, Population Studies and Organizational Behaviour. Some of the lecturers who taught courses in the Department during this period include D. K. Agyeman, Ansa Asamoa, Kwesi Prah, Tony Aidoo, Tetteh Dugbaza, Jan Pieterse, Addai Sundiata and Victor Ametewee.

The Department has since the 1990s expanded considerably on the courses offered. Currently, it has a staff of more than 20 lecturers who specialize in various aspects of Sociology. Some of the new courses introduced by the Department include Industrial Sociology, Sociology of Law and Criminal Justice, Sociology of Health and Medicine, Gender and Sexuality, Chieftaincy and Society, Social Planning, Political Economy, Sociology of Tourism and Recreation, Sociology of Death and Dying and Environmental Sociology.

Currently, the course structure at the University of Cape Coast is substantially different from that at the University of Ghana. The Department in Cape Coast, rather than offer a degree in Sociology that incorporates courses in Anthropology has two distinct programmes on offer, one in Sociology and the other in Anthropology. Students who pursue a degree in Sociology have four concentrations to choose from: gender studies, development studies, demography or work, organization and labour markets. The Department also offers a diploma course in Conflict Management and Personnel Development. Besides, post-graduate degrees in Sociology are offered at the MA, MPhil and PhD level.

Sociology at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST)

At the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Sociology courses have been taught at the Faculty of Social Science since the 1970s. For a long time Sociology in KNUST was synonymous with Wereko-Brobby, who for several decades not only taught Sociology in the institution but was also Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, social science students in KNUST combined courses in Sociology, Economics and Political science for the award of the BA degree. It was not until the 2005/2006 academic year that the Department of Sociology and Social Work was established, one of three Departments in the Faculty of Social Sciences, in response to the rising demand for social science courses and the decision of the university authorities to expand the mandate of the university. Currently, with a faculty of ten, they offer a 4-year Bachelor of Arts Degree in Sociology and Social Work and a 2-year Master of Arts Degree in Sociology. The core courses offered to students in the Department of Sociology and Social Work at KNUST are similar to those in other public universities. These include: Introduction to Sociology, Social Structure of Ghana, Sociological Theory and Research Methods. At KNUST, because the Department offers a combined degree in Sociology and Social Work, students in this programme are also expected to take some core courses in social work: Theoretical Framework for Social Work Methodology and Approaches to Counselling in Social Work. At the post-graduate level, students take core courses titled “Major Perspectives and Trends in Sociology,” “Current Analysis of Sociological Problems,” “Research Methods,” “Advanced Quantitative Techniques” and “Advanced Sociological Thought.” In addition, they select one elective course from a wide range of courses.

Sociology at the University of Development Studies

The University of Development Studies is one of the youngest public universities in the country. Established in 1992, the first course in Sociology was taught in 1994 in the Faculty of Integrated Development Studies (FIDS) . The Faculty established four Departments, one of which was the Department of Social, Political and Historical Studies. It is in this Department with a staff strength of five that courses in Sociology are currently taught. These are Introduction to Sociology, Social Structure of Modern Ghana, Rural Sociology as well as Culture and Development. Over time, other Faculties have been established and as with FIDS, these Faculties call on the Sociologists in the University to mount courses tailored to their Faculty needs. Thus, a Sociology of Education course is taught in the Faculty of Education while Medical Sociology is taught in the School of Medicine and Health Sciences. Plans are underway to create a Department of Sociology running courses leading to the award of a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology.

Intellectual Disagreements

As with intellectuals all over the world, sociologists/anthropologists in Ghana come from a variety of intellectual backgrounds based in part on the training they received which has resulted in some major disagreements. The first disagreement was over theoretical frameworks. The Government anthropologists who worked in Ghana worked largely within a structural functionalist framework which was developed mainly in the United Kingdom and was the dominant theoretical framework utilized by scholars at the University of London, with which the University of Ghana had a special relationship right from the beginning since it approved the course structure and examination questions in the university. It is not surprising then that Assimeng (1976, p. 110) argues that structural functionalism was the dominant theoretical framework adopted by Ghanaian anthropologists/sociologists in the early years. Busia’s “Report on a Social Survey of Sekondi-Takoradi” undertaken in 1950 was thus largely devoid of an appreciation of the conflicts and tensions in the communities he studied.

As at the University of Ghana, structural-functionalism was the theoretical perspective that shaped the early writing of scholars at the Department of Sociology in Cape Coast. For example, C. A. Ackah, one time principal of the University College of Cape Coast wrote a paper on “Social Stratification in Ghana” in 1969 which sought not to point out the conflicts that arise in a stratified society, but the ways in which this stratification allows for a harmonious integration of Ghanaian society to ensure peace and order. In the early 1970s, however, a crop of European trained sociologists who trained during a period when structural functionalism was waning, returned to Ghana and took up teaching appointments at the University of Cape Coast. These included Ansa Asamoa and Kwesi Kwaa Prah, both of whom were trained in Germany, the birth place of Karl Marx. These scholars had been exposed to Marxist ideas and the conflict perspective as a frame of reference for thinking about the social world.

The disagreements over theoretical orientations were taken a step further when the sociologists at the University of Cape Coast began to question the value of Anthropology in a non-Western setting. Faculty members at the University of Cape Coast roundly critiqued Anthropology’s colonial roots and legacies. In the Ghanaian context, many of the practices of colonial anthropologists could justifiably be critiqued. First, is the sheer racism and stereotyping inherent in the representations of various ethnic groups. Rev J. G Wood (1868, p. 617) for example, in his descriptions of the Fante writes:

It is really not astonishing that the Fante should have been so completely conquered, as they have been termed by Mr. Duncan, a traveller, who knew them well, as the dirtiest and laziest of all the Africans he had seen. One hundred of them were employed under the supervision of an Englishman, and, even with this enticement, they did not do as much as a gang of fifteen English labourers. Unless continually goaded to work, they will lie down and bask in the sun… even such work as they do they will only perform in their own stupid manner.

Beyond the stereotypical representations is the sheer distortions of local cultural practices as reported in the works of some anthropologists, primarily due to a lack of complete understanding of the language of the peoples they studied. Perhaps the most famous of these is the case of Eva Meyerowitz. Eva Meyerowitz who lived among the Bono and was enstooled queenmother as far back as 1950 wrote five books on Bono religion that are considered highly suspect (see Meyerowitz 1951, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1974) . In Dennis Mike Warrens “A Re-Appraisal of Mrs. Eva Meyerowitz’s Work on the Brong,” he challenges many of Meyerowitz’s analytical arguments as well as factual information about religious practices of the Bono. Among others, he questions her rendition of the origins of the Bono, her assertions that the Bono believe that a queenmother’s soul comes from the moon while that of the Omanhene comes from the sun, her unclear understanding of the concept of cross-cousins, her confusion of the names of rulers such that the one and same person becomes two people in her accounting of royalty as well as a whole host of errors including distances between towns, locations of places of interest in Bonoland and so on. In analyzing her work, he says, “unless someone can prove to me otherwise, I would conclude that the Bono history taken from the Techiman Traditional State contains as much Meyerowitz as it does Brong Oral Tradition” (Warren 1970, p. 72) .

A poor understanding of language has also led some anthropologists to give not simply a poor rendition of Ghana’s history as in the case of Meyerowitz, but also a poor analysis of local practices. Owusu (1978) lambasts Robertson for the co-authored piece with Dunn in which his linguistic incompetence as well as misconceptualization of “krom” leads him to an erroneous understanding of the people of Ahafo and by extension raises questions about the validity of his communal aggrandisement thesis (see Dunn and Robertson 1974) .

Non-native anthropologists have also not been bound by the same codes of conduct as native ethnographers. Stephen Hlophe (as cited in Assimeng 1976, p. 109) notes the peculiar position of an auto-ethnographer in the following words:

The African researcher no longer enjoys the privilege of his Colonial predecessor of free reign in his description of, and theorizing on the African socio-political and cultural processes. It is not easy, for example, for a Kpelle or Gola Anthropologist, to report freely and in full detail on all the rituals and ceremonies of the Poro Society with which he may be familiar as a member of such institution. His community of origin may not regard such action favourably nor would traditional “Zoes” approve if one of their own sons revealed the secrets of traditional medicine to the public, be it a scholarly or a lay public.

While Assimeng (1976) argues that the long-term, post-independence implications of early scholarly work conducted by government anthropologists has been “seriously disastrous,” it can be argued that non-native anthropologists of the postcolonial era have not been without fault as evident in the criticisms of Meyerowitz as well as Dunn and Robertson in the Ghanaian case. Indeed, the relative value of native versus non-native scholars referred to in the literature as the emic-etic dilemma is a long-standing one that is not unique to the Ghanaian context; and the literature is replete with analysis of the different possible resolutions to this dilemma.

Maxwell Owusu (1978, p. 326), a prominent Ghanaian anthropologist who lectures at the University of Michigan has argued that the inherent distortions in government/non-native anthropology should force native-ethnographers to embark on newer, bolder, better and more reliable ethnographies which we daresay is exactly what the first auto-ethnographers such as Max Assimeng, Godwin Nukunya and Clara Fayorsey who taught in the Department of Sociology at the University of Ghana as well as Brigid Sackey and Takyiwah Manuh, female scholars in the Institute of African Studies, set out to do. Assimeng, for example, challenged notions about religious sectarianism and cultism that limited its practice to people of low social class. He argued instead that in the Ghanaian context, such practices cut across the social spectrum; relatively well-off people were members of sects and cults not because they were economically deprived but because they were in search of emotional fulfillment. Similarly, Nukunya’s doctoral thesis challenged the long-standing assumption known in anthropological circles as the Gluckman hypothesis which argued that divorce was more prevalent in matrilineal societies. Using evidence from the Anlo, he argued that divorce rates were equally high in patrilineal societies. Similarly, in the Institute of African Studies, Brigid Sackey made a name for herself by challenging Western scholarship that suggests that traditional African practices such as puberty rites are static and devoid of dynamism. Takyiwaa Manuh, also located at the Institute of African Studies, made a name for herself by studying what she refers to as the “eleventh region,”Footnote 3 the Ghanaian Diaspora and the changes in cultural practices among Ghanaians in the Diaspora such as gender relations and child rearing practices.

In spite of Owusu’s admonitions and the efforts of many Ghanaian scholars, evidence from surveys with students over the years has shown consistently that they have not been enthused with the content of their Social Anthropology classes. In the early years at the University of Ghana, the curriculum had a heavy social anthropological bent with three of the ten courses being Social Anthropology courses. By the late 1960s, in a study of Legon students’ perspectives on course content, the disapproval of this over-concentration on Anthropology was evident. Rollings (1967) notes that a third of the respondents suggested less Social Anthropology and more attention paid to the study of contemporary African society in the Social Anthropology course, a call that one may dare say has yet to be heeded completely as evident in the fact that the Social Anthropology course taught in the final year at the University of Ghana focuses largely on the usual suspects: Evans-Pritchard’s Witchcraft among the Azande and so on.

It is also clear from student evaluations conducted both at the University of Cape Coast and the University of Ghana undertaken in the 1970s that there was a high level of dissatisfaction with the heavy emphasis on Social Anthropology at the two institutions. While documentation of the factors that shaped the students at the University of Ghana’s dislike for Social Anthropology is largely unavailable, their counterparts at the University of Cape Coast provide erudite views on their reasons for disliking the discipline. The students were especially critical of the colonial legacies evident in the course content and theoretical approaches of the Department at the time. In an article written for the Ghana Journal of Sociology, they critiqued not just the functionalist orientation of the discipline but its colonial/racist origins. They ask:

Can we really say that the motive for their [anthropological] studies in Africa was the objective need for the collection of knowledge? We do not think so. We think their motive must be to satisfy the tastes of the European, especially, and American public, who thinking of themselves as the highest and most advanced societies on earth were craving for information about primitive man… Can’t Social Anthropology too move from the primitive period to the modern or transitional period just as society is moving? Perhaps this happens in Europe, but really in Ghana, we don’t see this sort of thing, and in Cape Coast University—we are still towing the tail of Malinowski. Thus our two protests are that Social Anthropology has been used as an ideological tool and secondly, it has not been made progressive, modern and useful enough. (Dugbaza et al. 1975, p. 25, 26)

Faculty members at the University of Cape Coast offered perspectives in support of the students’ displeasure with the courses and buttressed it with their own critiques of the theoretical frameworks that underpinned much of the analyses to which students were exposed. These faculty members felt that it was imperative that Ghanaian students be provided with the analytical tools that a Marxist orientation provides to appreciate the neocolonial, alien and false consciousness of European and American Anthropology and Sociology . Kwesi Kwaa Prah reacts to data Kwesi Kwaa Prah reacts to data used by Social Anthropologists in the Department in the following manner:

When these “uncritical compendia,” compiled in such a way that they would help the business of colonial administrations, are later used as regular educative material in both the metropolitan areas and the neo-colonies, they are indeed instruments of imperialist ideological control, to permanently intellectually tame the neocolonised masses into accepting the status quo. (Assimeng 1976, p. 117)

This impasse between the social anthropologists at the University of Ghana and the Marxist sociologists at the University of Cape Coast which Assimeng (1976, p. 117) refers to as the “Cape Coast affair” led to students threatening to boycott lectures and a petition to the Vice-Chancellor. Eventually, the impasse was resolved when the Executive Committee of the Ghana Sociological Association heeded a request for intervention and held a “teach-in” at the university on the “The Place of Anthropology in Developing Countries” on 14 December, 1974.

Curiously enough, the disagreements between the sociologists/anthropologists did not centre on methodology. However, issues of methodology continue to be an unstated tension which, although not explicitly discussed, is evident in the different emphases placed on quantitative and qualitative methods in the various departments. At the University of Ghana, although many of the faculty members were trained and conduct their own research using qualitative methods, the subject is not taught as a separate course on its own in the undergraduate programme of the Department at Legon and only receives cursory attention in the methods course. A similar practice prevails at the University of Cape Coast.

Collaborative Efforts Between Sociologists in Ghana

In spite of the ideological differences between some sociologists/anthropologists at the various universities, they were able to accommodate and overcome these differences and in fact collaborated for a number of years on two major institutional efforts: the establishment of an association and a journal devoted to the study of Sociology . Assimeng (1976) notes that on the prompting of students, the Ghana Sociological Association was started in the late 1950s. The aim of the association was to:

further the scientific study of society and social problems within the Republic of Ghana, to bring together all those interested in the dissemination of sociological knowledge and the furtherance of sociological research, to promote the free exchange of sociological knowledge between countries and to contribute to the development of the societies of Ghana and of Africa generally. (Assimeng 1976, p. 113)

From its very beginning, the association did not make a strict distinction between those with a sociological background, as in a first degree in sociology, and those who made a vocation out of Sociology, that is academic sociologists with post-graduate training in the discipline. The fact that the association was not meant strictly for sociologists in academia is evident in the fact that one of its early presidents who headed the association for a decade was Mr. Justice Nii Amaa Ollenu, a legal scholar . His publications such as Principles of Customary Land Law in Ghana (1962) and the Law of Testate and Intestate Succession in Ghana (1966) included a fair amount of ethnographic detail. Under his able leadership and drawing on his affiliations with the Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences, Justice Ollenu secured finance from the academy to host the annual conferences of the association from 1968 to 1986, the year in which he died. Justice Ollenu’s headship of the association was not without controversy. Colleagues from the University of Cape Coast questioned why the association was led by a legal luminary instead of a sociologist. Colleagues from the University of Ghana countered that his commitment to the association was unparalleled, ultimately evident perhaps in the fact that the association died a natural death upon his demise.

During the years when the association was vibrant, it held a conference annually that lasted a day and provided faculty members with opportunities to present their works in progress in an academic environment where they could receive constructive criticism to improve upon the papers for publication in reputable journals . Victor Ametewee, for example, acknowledges the importance of the Association for his academic career when he notes how one paper co-published with James Christensen in the esteemed journal Africa had its beginnings in a paper presented at an annual conference of the association.

In recognition of the importance of academic associations in the lives of scholars, the Department of Sociology at the University of Ghana has made attempts in the last couple of years to revitalize the association. So far, some commitment has been secured from the departments in Cape Coast and the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology as well as the programme of Sociology at the University of Development Studies.

The Ghana Journal of Sociology (GJS)

The Ghana Journal of Sociology began first as Acta Sociologica and the maiden edition was published in 1962 under the able editorship of Cyril E. Fiscian, a social psychologist. That first edition published four articles discussing a range of issues such as “Volta Resettlement and Anthropological Research” by David Brokensha, “The Nature and Function of Social Thought” by K. E. de Graft Johnson, “Social Background of Kumasi Plan” by Austin Tetteh and “Crime and Illness” by the editor, C. E. Fiscian. There was then a 3 year hiatus until October 1965 when the second issue of the volume was introduced as the Ghana Journal of Sociology. The journal proceeded uninterrupted until 1971 when it took yet another 3-year hiatus and was published from 1974 to 1977 when the last edition, volume 11 came out. Over the 15-year period when the journal was published intermittently, articles in the journals were written by both Ghanaian and non-Ghanaian scholars and covered a wide range of topics including residence patterns, family, development, religion, fertility, politics, inter-racial relationships, migration, social stratification, agriculture, productivity and factory work. The last edition of the journal was a special issue devoted to an understanding of traditional leadership. Articles in that special issue included “Modernization of the Institution of Chieftaincy,” “The Chief in the Midst of Social and Economic Pressures,” “Chieftaincy under the Law,” “Chieftaincy as a Socio-Political Institution in Ghana,” “Litigations in Chieftaincy,” “Traditional Authority and Local Government” and “Local Government and Chieftaincy.”

The Legon Journal of Sociology (LJS)

In 2003, efforts were made to resuscitate a journal devoted to Sociology in the country. Not wanting to carry the burdens of the Ghana Journal of Sociology both financially and intellectually, the consensus was to rebrand the journal as the Legon Journal of Sociology (LJS). Unlike the Ghana Journal of Sociology that was produced by the Sociological Association, the LJS was the initiative of Sociologists at the University of Ghana. Now in its tenth year of publication, the journal which is published biannually has contributions from authors across the country as well as internationally, particularly Nigeria and has covered a range of topics including development studies, migration, medical Sociology, industrial Sociology and religion. The latest issue is a special edition on Basic Education in Northern Ghana. There are plans to revive the Ghana Sociological Association. When this is done, it is expected that the association will take over the publication of the LJS.

The Current Situation and Future Trends

In the last decade, with the recruitment of more faculty members and an increase in funding opportunities for scholarly research, sociologists/anthropologists in Ghana have slowly returned to a research driven agenda. As in the 1970s, we are beginning to see some collaborative research projects with faculty in and outside the Departments of Sociology as well as with international colleagues. One such major project at the University of Ghana was a collaboration with the University of Mainz in Germany and three institutions in Benin, Mali and Niger to study States at Work in Africa. Two PhD students from Ghana were supported in this project. The collaborative studies undertaken at the Department are yielding a number of theoretical and conceptual insights about religiousity in Ghana, chieftaincy in Ghana and the nature of the gendered labour market in Ghana among others. Similarly, at the University of Cape Coast, faculty members have partnered with the Guttmacher Institute on a number of adolescent reproductive health studies. In so doing, these scholars are acceding to the wishes of the Indian social scientist, Mukherjee (1970, p. 30) who noted that:

The development of Sociology in each society will have a specificity of its own, which will enrich the currently available theories and practice, and thus, lead to the development of world Sociology. A proper development of Sociology in the “developing societies,” therefore will not only be useful to the respective societies but also to the world at large.

The international linkages of the departments extend beyond research collaborations . At the University of Ghana, it also includes exchange programmes. Since 2000, the Department has had a collaborative arrangement with the University of Tromso, Norway where every year, two students in the masters programme are chosen to spend a year in Tromso, taking classes and refining their research proposals.

The importance of an understanding of society for various professionals has also led to a situation where the Departments of Sociology provide basic training in Sociology for a variety of departments. Beginning first with the Medical School students and the teaching of Medical Sociology, many students intending to go on to a career in law enroll in the Sociology of Law class which has been offered as an elective in the last decade. In addition, the Nursing School and the Faculty of Engineering require their students to take a basic course in Sociology. Servicing other departments is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, faculty members get to interact very intimately with other departments, but it also has its downside since they are stretched thin.

Many of the private tertiary institutions in the country also value the unique insights of Sociologists and strive to provide their students with a rudimentary appreciation of sociological principles. At Valley View University, for example, students can take a course in Introductory Sociology. Development studies which draw on knowledge and concepts from Sociology as well as other social science disciplines is offered in a variety of these universities including Valley View University, Central University College and the Akuapem Campus of the Presbyterian University College. At Ashesi University, some of their liberal arts core courses as well as African Studies courses are either specifically Sociology courses such as the course in traditional medicine or draw on sociological concepts and principles such as the Social Theory class. In many of these private universities these courses are taught largely by faculty from the University of Ghana in their adjunct capacities or by former students of the Universities of Ghana and Cape Coast.

In Legon, just as elsewhere, academic sociologists have been employed by other departments and institutes. Sociological analysis and studies are no longer limited to the Departments of Sociology . Indeed, research studies steeped in sociological theories, concepts and frameworks are now conducted at the Department of Social Work, the Department of Geography and Resource Development, the Institute of African Studies, the Institute for Statistical, Social and Economic Research (ISSER), the Centre for Migration Studies (CMS) and the Centre for Gender Studies and Advocacy (CEGENSA).

While we cannot boast of a Legon School, a Cape Coast School or a Kumasi School in terms of anything analogous to the Chicago School or the Frankfurt School of Critical Sociology, we daresay that Ghanaian sociologists/social anthropologists have contributed key ideas to the wealth of sociological/social anthropological knowledge, even if these ideas are not well-known outside of our context. In many of our writings, we critique, based on existing evidence, some of the key ideas/concepts in the field. There is also a wealth of knowledge that our particular social context allows us to investigate. Kwame Arhin’s work on contemporary funerals shows that it is possible to use an anthropological lens to understand contemporary social practices. Many other contemporary rituals such as traditional wedding ceremonies now known as engagements, naming ceremonies held in churches and so on provide ample research opportunities for the social anthropologists of today.

As the departments and programmes look to the future, a number of key ideas need to be paramount. First, it is important that we use both our sociological and anthropological lenses to understand the world in which we live. Students need to be exposed to a critical understanding of the roots of the two disciplines as well as the ways in which these have changed over time. Second, it is important to highlight qualitative methods as a viable, alternative means of data collection by teaching courses on qualitative methods at both the undergraduate and post-graduate levels that provide students with the opportunity to engage in fieldwork as well as data analysis using a variety of both traditional methods such as data matrices and the more modern software packages such as ATLAS.ti, NVivo and NUD*IST.

Conclusion

After nearly six decades of teaching and practising Sociology in Ghana, the discipline has become very well established in institutions of higher learning in the country. Currently, Sociology is taught in all public universities with a focus on social science in Ghana. Many of these universities have already established or are about to establish fully-fledged departments for the discipline. Sociology is also taught as a subject in many of the newly established private universities that have sprung up throughout the country in the last decade. As a result, the universities with established Sociology departments, in particular those at the University of Ghana and the University of Cape Coast, are training the manpower required by the newly established universities to teach the subject. Ghana is also benefiting from the services of some Sociologists who have earned doctorate degrees in renowned universities around the world. Furthermore, public and private universities in Ghana have produced sociologists who are working in various capacities across the country. Some of the notable areas where sociologists can be found include the civil and public services, industries, medical professions, to mention a few. Sociologists also dominate in leading the numerous non-governmental organizations and civil society groups located across the country. In recent years, trained sociologists have gone on to seek further training and are working in the legal, banking, accounting, information technology and other professions.

Anthropology as a university discipline, on the other hand, has remained rather underdeveloped. Besides the University of Cape Coast that offers a first degree in Anthropology, only a few universities and institutions of higher learning in Ghana teach the subject. In many places, Anthropology as a subject is unknown. Given that Sociology and Anthropology are quite related, there are some lecturers who have trained to the highest level in both disciplines and are teaching Anthropology in Sociology departments. To a certain extent, it can be argued that Anthropology has not completely shed its image as a discipline that focuses on so-called backward and primitive societies. Anthropology courses in Ghana still focus almost exclusively on studying small, farming or pastoral groups located in rural and remote areas which have minimally been impacted by the modern industrialized and technology dominated world. More than half a century after independence, Anthropology still partly remains associated with the colonial enterprise and its ills. This explains why the discipline is not very popular among students and some lecturers in Ghana. If universities and institutions of higher learning are to establish independent Departments of Anthropology, as is the case in many universities abroad, then those who teach the subject have to demonstrate that Anthropology deals not only with the past but also with the present and is relevant for the future. In a sense, they have to demonstrate the relevance of Anthropology as a discipline in contemporary Ghanaian society.