LW 616 – GRADUATE RESEARCH SEMINAR ASSIGNMENT

Majamba, Hamudi I. (2011). “Ideological Inclinations in Postgraduate Dissertations: Trends

1. MAIN ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE AUTHOR

In this chapter, Majamba argues that postgraduate dissertations at the University of Dar es
Salaam’s Faculty of Law have always been shaped by the dominant ideological climate of
their time. He maintains that dissertations written over the past five decades do not exist in
isolation but instead mirror the political, social, and economic realities of Tanzania at
different historical moments. According to him, during the 1970s and early 1980s,
Tanzania’s adoption of socialism through the Arusha Declaration greatly influenced
postgraduate research, resulting in dissertations that were grounded in Marxist and
socialist theoretical frameworks. Many of these dissertations examined legal issues through
the lens of class struggle, exploitation, and historical materialism. Majamba highlights
dissertations on rent control, land tenure, and the philosophy of evidence as examples that
used Marxist tools of analysis (Majamba, 2011: pp. 6–7).

He further argues that expatriate staff played a major role in shaping ideological trends
within the Faculty. Some expatriates resisted socialist influences, while others embraced
radical thought, creating intellectual tensions in the supervision of dissertations (Majamba,
2011: p. 10). According to him, ideological influence weakened in the 1990s as Tanzania
shifted toward economic liberalization, market reforms, and professional specialization.
Consequently, dissertations became less ideological and more technical, focusing on areas
such as ICT law, intellectual property, environmental law, and regulatory studies. Majamba
concludes that ideological influences have changed form but remain present in subtle ways.

2. CRITIQUE OF THE METHODOLOGY USED BY THE AUTHOR AND SUGGESTIONS FOR

While Majamba’s chapter provides important insights, the methodology he employs has
several limitations that affect the robustness of his conclusions. First, he uses purposive
sampling to select dissertations for review (Majamba, 2011: p. 3). Although purposive
sampling is useful for in-depth analysis, it is prone to bias because the researcher selects
samples based on personal judgment. Majamba does not indicate how many dissertations
he reviewed, what years were included, or how he determined which dissertations were
“representative.” This lack of transparency affects the reliability of the findings.

Secondly, the chapter does not employ systematic content analysis. Majamba provides
detailed descriptions of several dissertations but does not use any coding framework or
matrix to analyze ideological markers or theoretical patterns in a structured manner
(Majamba, 2011: p. 5). A more rigorous approach would categorize dissertations by theme,
time period, supervisor, and ideological orientation.

Thirdly, the study relies heavily on institutional memories and informal interviews with
long-serving academics (Majamba, 2011: p. 12). These recollections may be subjective and
influenced by personal experiences, loyalties, or selective memory. Without triangulation
through documentary evidence or student perspectives, conclusions may be skewed.

Moreover, Majamba focuses almost exclusively on ideology as the driving force behind
dissertation topics, without adequately considering other influences such as the availability
of data, donor priorities, emerging legal issues, supervisory expertise, or global academic
trends. For example, the rise of dissertations in intellectual property or ICT law may reflect
global technological changes rather than a decline in ideological commitment.

To improve the methodology, Majamba could use a larger, more representative sample,
employ mixed methods—including quantitative content analysis—and triangulate
memories with archival material such as Faculty meeting minutes and supervision policies.
Including perspectives from former students would also enrich the analysis and balance the
narrative.

3. EXTENT TO WHICH I AGREE WITH THE AUTHOR

I agree with Majamba’s core argument that postgraduate dissertations have been shaped by
ideological orientations across different historical periods. His examples from the 1970s
and 1980s demonstrate a clear correlation between Tanzania’s socialist policies and the
Marxist-inclined dissertations produced at the time. Dissertations supervised by radical
scholars often used historical materialism, class analysis, and critiques of capitalism,
particularly in areas such as rent law, land tenure, and the socio-economic foundations of
evidence law (Majamba, 2011: pp. 6–8). It is reasonable to conclude that the intellectual
environment at the Faculty influenced students’ theoretical approaches.

I also agree with his observation that supervisors played an important role in shaping
dissertation ideology. The chapter provides compelling examples of supervisory influence,
showing that students supervised by certain lecturers tended to adopt critical or Marxist
perspectives. This demonstrates that supervision is not value-neutral and that supervisors
significantly shape the intellectual direction of postgraduate research (Majamba, 2011: pp.
9–10).

Furthermore, I agree with his argument that ideological influence declined during the 1990s
as Tanzania underwent economic liberalization. Dissertations became more technical and
specialized, focusing on new areas such as ICT law, environmental governance, and
international commercial law (Majamba, 2011: pp. 17–19). This shift reflects broader
national and global transformations.

Majamba also correctly notes that ideology has not disappeared but become more subtle.
Themes such as governance, human rights, environmental justice, and regulatory reform
still involve value-based judgments. Although these themes are less overtly ideological than
Marxist political economy, they still reflect underlying assumptions about justice and social
organization.

4. EXTENT TO WHICH I DISAGREE WITH THE AUTHOR

Despite agreeing with many points, I have several reservations about Majamba’s analysis.
First, he overemphasizes ideology as the primary factor shaping dissertations. While
ideology played an important role during certain periods, dissertation topics are also
influenced by practical considerations such as data availability, supervisor specialization,
donor funding, and emerging legal issues (Majamba, 2011: p. 15). By not considering these
factors sufficiently, the chapter risks oversimplification.

Second, Majamba appears to idealize the Marxist era by portraying it as more intellectually
rich than later periods. However, modern dissertations may appear less ideological simply
because they address technical legal fields that require doctrinal clarity and specialized
knowledge (Majamba, 2011: p. 18). The shift in dissertation topics may therefore reflect
academic evolution rather than intellectual decline.

Third, Majamba suggests that supervisors “indoctrinated” students with ideological

Fourth, the chapter assumes a neat alignment between national ideology and academic
trends. However, academic traditions sometimes persist even when national policies
change. For instance, Marxist dissertations continued after the onset of economic
liberalization (Majamba, 2011: p. 14). Conversely, global trends such as ICT advancements
influenced dissertation topics more than domestic ideology.

Finally, Majamba downplays the intellectual diversity within the Faculty. Different
supervisors held different views, and dissertations written in the same period often show
considerable variety, suggesting that ideology was only one of many influences shaping
postgraduate research (Majamba, 2011: p. 13).

5. HOW THE CHAPTER HELPS ME AS A POSTGRADUATE STUDENT AT UDSM

Majamba’s chapter helps me understand that legal research is shaped by historical,

It also helps me situate my work within the broader evolution of the Faculty. Knowing how
previous generations of students engaged with law—whether through Marxist analysis,
socio-legal research, or technical specialization—allows me to understand my position in
this intellectual history.
The chapter also reminds me of the importance of grounding my work in Tanzania’s socio-
economic realities. Regardless of the topic I choose, my research must reflect the needs,
challenges, and lived experiences of Tanzanian society.

Finally, Majamba’s analysis reassures me that I have the freedom to draw from diverse
theoretical traditions. Unlike earlier periods that were dominated by a single ideological
framework, today’s academic environment allows me to explore interdisciplinary, critical,
doctrinal, or socio-legal perspectives depending on the nature of my research question.

END OF ASSIGNMENT