Beyond Either-Or: A Platonic Dialectical Resolution of Recognition Conflicts in Academic Promotion at African Universities

The research uses Platonic dialectical analysis to study the positive views African academic staff members who did not receive promotions have about Ubuntu-based evaluative standards while the promoted faculty members show negative views about these standards. The researchers analyze this paradox through systematic literature review and theoretical synthesis which uses dialectical methods to examine opposing viewpoints until reaching higher understanding. The analysis shows that both parties involved two groups who raised genuine issues but their viewpoints contained mutual contradictions. The rejected academics identified the epistemological violence present in bibliometric systems but they tended to romanticize Ubuntu as a flaw-free solution while the promoted academics established their case for transparency through their defence of transparent standards. The material conditions of knowledge production institutional double consciousness and the political economy of African higher education create two different ways people view academic research. The process of authentic synthesis needs multiple evaluation systems which acknowledge different types of academic excellence and material conditions which allow such excellence to exist and the need to rebuild scholarly communities which audit culture has scattered into separate parts. The study presents educational development scholarship with dialectical methodology proof which shows how educational development conflicts create conflicting institutional conflicts which lead to synthetic institutional innovations.