Chair & Convener: Dr. Swarna Rajagopalan, Krea University
Speaker: Prof. Amanda Gouws, Stellenbosch University (South Africa)
Speaker: Prof. Cleo Anne Calimbahin, De La Salle University (Manila, Philippines)
Speaker: Prof. Dianne Pinderhughes (University of Notre Dame, USA)
Volunteer Rapporteur: Dr. Debangana Chatterjee
Synoptic Overview
RC07.08 roundtable explored the persistent structural inequalities in academia, particularly for scholars from the Global South. Speakers highlighted disparities in access to resources, recognition, and authorship, as well as the gendered and racial dimensions of exclusion. Discussions called attention to the dominance of Global North frameworks, the marginalisation of critical and local knowledge, and the barriers posed by language, publishing costs, and institutional hierarchies. The session ended with a strong consensus on the need for sustained, collective efforts to make academia more inclusive, equitable, and globally representative.
Chair: Dr. Swarna Rajagopalan, Krea University—Opening remarks
This roundtable addresses the barriers in academia and the prevailing inequalities within it, especially how scholars from the Global South experience it. While this is not a new phenomenon, this issue requires intermittent rediscovery and reflection. With changing times, new and different challenges emerge. Therefore, this roundtable aims to reiterate some of those challenges and identify the pressing concerns regarding structural inequality that academia is currently grappling with. These challenges include, but are not limited to, accessing academic resources (e. g. journals are behind paywalls and institutions in the Global South often have limited subscriptions), infrastructural barriers (e. g. funding for conferences), lack of a level playing field (e.g. language barriers) and other intersectional dimensions pertinent to gender which includes the uneven burden of care responsibilities
among women.
Speaker: Prof. Amanda Gouws, Stellenbosch University – South Africa
Prof. Amanda Gouws opened the discussion by highlighting the invisibility of Global South voices and the unequal burden placed on these scholars to engage with Global North literature—an expectation not reciprocated in most Global North scholarship. This asymmetry reinforces epistemic hierarchies and limits intellectual exchange. She further critiqued the tendency to categorise Global South research under the broad and often reductive label of “development,” regardless of the actual content. Such framing restricts the theoretical potential of Global South scholarship and confines it to a peripheral
academic role. The conversation also emphasised material and institutional barriers, such as weak currencies, high travel costs, and limited access to journals, which disproportionately affect scholars from the Global South. Graduate students, in particular, face challenges participating in global academic spaces. Prof. Gouws spoke of the extractive nature of academic publishing, where the Global South often serves as a source of data without equitable
recognition or authorship. These dynamics reinforce structural inequality and hinder meaningful collaboration. Publishing barriers were another key concern—many Global South institutions cannot afford journal subscriptions, limiting scholars' ability to engage with current research. The panel stressed the need for constructive feedback in peer review to support, rather than discourage, emerging scholars. She noted that these discussions must move beyond the already-convinced and challenge the entrenched core-periphery divide to create a more equitable global academic environment.
Speaker: Prof. Cleo Anne Calimbahin, De La Salle University, Manila – Philippines
Prof. Cleo Anne Calimbahin shared a compelling and reflective account of her academic journey as a scholar from the Global South navigating Global North institutions. Speaking from personal experience as a PhD student abroad and a visiting scholar at the Australian National University, she underscored the often-invisible structural burdens placed on Global South academics. She critically unpacked the notion of the “model” international student—one who appears successful and hardworking, sustaining herself on a modest scholarship and juggling extra work to survive. Prof. Calimbahin emphasised that behind this veneer of achievement lies an exhausting and isolating struggle, marked by structural inequality. Events such as the Asian Financial Crisis and racial othering in the post-9/11 context further compounded the emotional and material hardships, exposing the racial and geopolitical vulnerabilities
embedded in global academic systems. Separately, she discussed the invisibility of women in academic spaces, particularly in the Philippines. Female scholars face persistent challenges, including being undermined in intellectual settings, navigating gendered assumptions, and facing implicit threats in
politically volatile environments, especially for those in political science. The portrayal of women as lacking authority or legitimacy in public and academic discourse reinforces this marginalisation. Prof. Calimbahin also addressed academic hierarchies and labour disparities, noting that while one may hold a professorial role in the Philippines, that status is often not seen as equivalent or credible in Global North contexts. She reflected on classroom demographics
shaped by economic and political elites, and the self-censorship academics must exercise under populist and repressive regimes. Finally, she highlighted how within the discipline, the Global South is often treated as a source of cheap labour, where intellectual contributions are welcomed but rarely afforded the
same recognition, authority, or institutional support as those from the Global North.
Speaker: Prof. Dianne Pinderhughes (University of Notre Dame, USA)
Prof. Dianne Pinderhughes offered a historically grounded reflection on the structural inequalities within American academia, particularly through the lens of race and political exclusion. Growing up and entering academia in the post–World War II era, she highlighted the limited access to education for African Americans during much of the 20th century—a privilege she acknowledged was not widely available to many in her community. She traced the systemic absence of race-related scholarship in U.S. political science, despite the country’s deep history of segregation and racial injustice. At a time when African- Americans were largely disenfranchised and the broader society was openly segregated, mainstream political science failed to engage with questions of race, civil rights, or inequality in any meaningful way. Even landmark events—such as the Civil Rights Act and the creation of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1957—found little parallel development within the discipline. Prof. Pinderhughes juxtaposed the physical labor historically imposed on African-Americans with the ongoing marginalization they face in intellectual labor. Referencing W.E.B. Du Bois and the push for African-American access to higher education, she noted that as late as the 1970s, only about 5% of African-Americans were attending college. Even with advanced degrees, job opportunities remained limited, reflecting both structural exclusion and the failure of academia to recognise these barriers as central problems worthy of disciplinary
attention. She emphasised that civic engagement as a field must contend with the fact that African- Americans were historically excluded from democratic participation, and that democracy in the U.S. has never been experienced equally. In this context, she noted, the inequalities faced by Black Americans in a country which boasts of its democracy present a uniquely painful contradiction. Prof. Pinderhughes concluded by raising concerns about how these issues continue to evolve under contemporary political conditions, especially under the shadow of Trump-era politics, which has intensified racial and democratic anxieties. She stressed that this is a particularly painful and pressing moment, one that demands further dialogue and critical engagement from the discipline of political science.
Discussion and Q&A
Dr. Swarna Rajagopalan opened the discussion by inviting the audience to reflect on the structural barriers outlined by the speakers. She emphasised the need to ask: “Where are we building the bridges?” While structural inequality may seem entrenched, she argued, “it is not unmitigable.” Drawing on the Indian context, Dr. Rajagopalan pointed out the persistent lack of support structures, debt incurred to attend academic events, and the benefits of remote
access (e.g., Zoom) in reducing exclusion. She noted the commonality of structural challenges across geographies, from the absence of institutional support to routine marginalisation.
Q1: How can we better identify these systemic issues on a larger scale?
Prof. Calimbahin suggested conducting an extensive survey. Prof. Rajagopalan mentioned that perhaps it is possible through IPSA. The strategy could be targeting those who do not attend its events, and examining reasons such as geographic location, economic constraints, or institutional barriers.
Prof. Amanda Gouws responded that while surveys are helpful, they cannot capture the full picture. She highlighted the power of academic journals in dictating scholarly values and stressed the need to “put politics back on the agenda” in political science. Comparative research projects—especially those focused on gender, South-South cooperation, and Women in Political Science—could offer critical insights, though she acknowledged funding constraints.
Q2: In Japan, many scholars are staying back. What is the role of indigeneity in academia versus global academic engagement?
Dr. Rajagopalan reflected on the challenge of teaching global politics in India to students who are simultaneously hyperconnected (via social media) and yet disconnected from local languages and contexts. She highlighted the tension between validating local knowledge and conforming to global academic expectations, remarking: “We are not valid until we know the white people.”
Q3: Is there any advocacy to bring more women into academia in the Philippines?
Prof. Cleo Calimbahin shared that there is no strong or organised effort to encourage women’s academic careers in the Philippines. She mentioned informal connections with female political scientists across universities, but pointed to systemic issues like sexual harassment and fear of reputational damage, which deter women from attaining a level playing field.
Q4: How can we build better infrastructure and awareness, particularly among those less exposed to these structural inequalities?
Prof. Dianne Pinderhughes observed that in the U.S., language education is poor, and current political leadership has only worsened this situation. She noted that IPSA has become increasingly English-centric, despite earlier efforts at inclusivity.
Prof. Calimbahin stressed the importance of introspection within academia: “Who is part of the problem, and who is part of the solution?”—a necessary question for institutional reform in the Philippines and beyond.
Q5–6: On the marginalisation of certain questions in political science, the politics of publishing, and structural barriers to access
Several audience members raised concerns about:
The technocratization of political science and its drift away from critical theories (e.g., Marxism, psychoanalysis).
The continued marginalization of questions on inequality.
The dominance of academic publishing in English and high article processing charges (APCs). Often, for one article, the APC could be as high as a person’s two months of salary.
Key responses:
Prof. Amanda Gouws advocated for restoring historical consciousness in teaching, especially regarding colonial legacies.
An audience member proposed the idea of multilingual abstract submissions and recommended that reviewers be instructed not to penalise non-native English writing. She also proposed that IPSA’s Research Committee 07 (Women and Politics in the Global South) draft journal guidelines and recommendations, including questions about why Global South journals remain unread or undervalued.
Prof. Cleo Calimbahin reiterated that resource inequality is a major barrier, especially for early-career researchers, who often lack the means and platforms to be heard and published.
Prof. Dianne Pinderhughes raised the issue of open access fees, noting that funding limitations block many scholars from publishing in high-visibility outlets. She questioned how IPSA plans to engage with such challenges, especially as major events (like the World Congress in Seoul) are held in expensive cities. She also pointed to invasive U.S. visa processes, including the requirement to disclose social media activity, as further deterrents to Global South participation.
Closing Reflections:
The session ended with a strong consensus: this is only the beginning of a much-needed conversation. Structural inequalities in academia require sustained, collective, and intersectional strategies—not only to highlight exclusion but also to reimagine inclusion on more equitable terms.
For RC07 and RC19, the Seoul World Congress opened with a Pre-Congress Workshop held at Seoul National University on Saturday, July 12, 2025, from 1300-1700 hours, Korea time. 
