Inclusion Without Representation: Academics’ Perspectives on the Impact of Ethnic-Tribal Identity on Their Professional Development

Abstract

Within postcolonial African higher education institutions (HEIs), structural inequalities often persist beneath official discourses of diversity and inclusion. This study examines how academics’ ethnic-tribal identities shape the professional development, institutional inclusion, and career advancement at a Cameroonian university. Drawing on critical race theory (CRT) and intersectionality as complementary analytical frameworks, and situated within a postcolonial perspective on higher education, a qualitative interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) was conducted with 11 purposively selected academics. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and were analysed thematically. Findings indicate three interconnected dynamics: ethnic-tribal marginalisation as a basis for structural exclusion from leadership and mentorship channels; patronage networks that systematically erode meritocratic principles in promotion and appointment processes; and conditional inclusion that compels identity suppression as the price of institutional belonging. These findings suggest that diversity within the study context appears to be largely performative, present in composition but absent in equity. The study contributes to postcolonial higher education scholarship by providing empirical evidence of how descent-based identity operates as a structural barrier to academic career advancement and offers implications for higher education leadership, institutional reform, and the decolonisation of university cultures in Africa.:

1. Introduction

While higher education institutions (HEIs) have long been criticised globally as spaces that reproduce systematic inequalities along racial, ethnic, and gender lines, their institutional discourses continue to project an ideal of genuine professional meritocracy [1,2,3]. This framing acknowledges that, while meritocracy is claimed, inequalities remain deeply embedded in institutional structures [4]. Yet in postcolonial African contexts, this ideal frequently collides with entrenched social hierarchies rooted in ethical and tribal identity, hierarchies that colonial powers institutionalised and that post-independence governance has often reinforced rather than dismantled. In Cameroonian universities, where over 286 linguistic and ethnic communities coexist within a single national system, the question of who belongs, who advances, and who leads cannot be separated from the descent-based identities that academics bring into institutional life. Ethnic identity is not easily changed or self-defined; it is enforced through collective perceptions of belonging, cultural tradition, and shared history [1,2,3], and within HEIs, it shapes how academics are perceived, categorised, and either included or excluded from the pathways to professional development.

Research within higher education has increasingly reported how race, ethnicity, and social identity shape the professional experiences of academics, particularly those from minority or marginalised groups. Studies in the United Kingdom (UK) show that minority ethnic academics encounter racialised barriers to promotion, leadership access, and institutional belonging, experiences often rendered invisible by institutional diversity [5,6,7,8]. In the African higher education context, ethnic and political affiliations have been shown to influence hiring decisions, research funding allocation, and access to leadership roles, with academics from marginalised groups frequently withdrawing from institutional processes as a result [9,10]. Among students, research in Malawi demonstrates a correlation between ethnic factors and academic factors [11], while studies in the UK show that minority ethnic students face conditional belonging and barriers to inclusion [6], patterns that echo and often originate in the institutional cultures that academics themselves reproduce or resist. These findings demonstrate that ethnic identity operates not only as a marker of social difference but also as a factor that shapes access to institutional participation. Within the Cameroonian higher education context, such dynamics suggest that inherited identity continues to influence how academics negotiate their professional development in these spaces.

The persistence of ethnic-tribal division in African nation-states further illustrates the fragile nature of unity, as tribal biases complicate coexistence within national borders. Colonial powers deliberately fostered ethnic division through “divide and rule” strategies, weakening collective liberation movements into embedded unrest and conflict in postcolonial institutions [10,12]. In Cameroon, these historical legacies extend into higher education, where ethnic-tribal identity is embedded in political structures and leadership practices. Historical favouritism, whereby ethnic groups collaborated with colonial leaders and were privileged, while others were suppressed ref. [13] continue to shape competition for professional advancement in academic contexts. Studies highlight how policies under Presidents Ahidjo and Biya reinforced exclusionary practices through ideologies of ‘autochthones’ and ‘allogenes’, embedding contested categories of autochthons (natives), settlers (non-natives), and ‘came no go’ (foreigners) into political and institutional discourse [14,15]. These categories were not simply conceptually fluid but functioned as strategically manipulated political boundaries that lacked clear criteria for defining who counts as a ‘native’ or how far back in history one must go to prove it, producing shifting boundaries with direct institutional consequences [13,14,15]. Such contested identities, characterised by a lack of a clear definition of belonging, continue to shape access to professional opportunities in higher education, where academics perceived as allogènes (non-natives) and étrangers (foreigners) often encounter systemic barriers to advancement.

While previous studies [9,15,16] have explored the politics of belonging and exclusion in Cameroon, they have not specifically addressed the implications for academics’ professional development within higher education. More specifically, existing research remains limited in its examination of how academics’ ethnic and tribal identities influence their everyday institutional experiences, access to mentorship, progression through promotion systems, and participation in institutional leadership. This represents a significant gap, given the central role of academics in knowledge production, institutional functioning, and building equitable African universities.

This study addresses this gap by exploring how academics’ ethnic-tribal identities shape their experiences of inclusion and exclusion, as well as the construction of professional identity within Cameroonian HEIs. By focusing on academics’ experiences, the study makes three contributions to higher education scholarship: first, it provides empirical evidence of how descent-based ethnic identity operates as a structural barrier to academic career advancement in an African HEI; second, it advances postcolonial critiques of inclusion in higher education by documenting how symbolic diversity discourses mask persistent patronage structures; third, it contributes to the growing literature on academic identity in under-researched African university contexts.

1.1. Background and Research Context

Cameroon is widely recognised for its extensive cultural and linguistic diversity, shaped by a mosaic of independent communities created by colonial powers in the 1880s. The country comprises approximately 286 indigenous languages, alongside two official languages (English and French) and a widely used lingua franca (Cameroon Pidgin English), as well as several other minor lingua francas [17]. Cameroon also shares borders with six African countries, further reinforcing its multicultural character [18,19]. While such diversity has the potential to serve as a social and cultural asset, it has instead produced a complex sociopolitical landscape in which ethnic and tribal affiliations significantly influence social relations and access to opportunities [17]. Understanding how these dynamics operate within academic institutions is therefore crucial for fostering inclusivity and social cohesion [20,21].

Across African contexts, traditional ethnic authorities continue to shape social and economic structures, often producing disparities between dominant and marginalised groups [22]. In Cameroon, these disparities may extend into higher education, where ethnic biases affect hiring, promotion, and access to research funding. As a result, academics from marginalised groups may withdraw from institutional processes, limiting both individual career progression and broader academic innovation. In this context, inclusion, often framed as le vivre-ensemble, requires more than symbolic representation and must involve meaningful participation in decision-making and in institutional culture.

Ref. [23] cautions that diversity initiatives within HEIs consistently operate as performance rather than structural transformation: institutions can appear inclusive in composition while remaining exclusionary in practice. Ref. [24] demonstrates how formal diversity frameworks can actively preserve structural exclusion and institutional racism by reducing systemic inequalities into individualised cognitive adjustments. This distinction between representational diversity and substantive equity is central to understanding the Cameroonian context in this study. These dynamics are deeply ingrained in Cameroon’s colonial and post-colonial history. Colonial authorities institutionalised ethnic divisions to maintain control, creating entrenched boundaries that persisted into the post-independence era [2,25,26]. Post-colonial governance has further reinforced these divisions by politicising ethnic identity and privileging autochthony over national citizenship [13,14]. Cultural practices, such as burial in ancestral villages, continue to symbolise the prioritisation of ethnic belonging over shared national identity. This creates tensions between constitutional commitments to equality and lived experiences of exclusion, tensions that extend into higher education, where perceptions of legitimacy and belonging are often shaped by ethnic-tribal identity.

Although education is widely recognised as a pathway to development [10], intra-ethnic and sub-ethnic dynamic conflicts remain underexplored [27] within higher education research. Within universities, academics from marginalised ethnic groups encounter systemic barriers that hinder their career advancement, while those from dominant ethnic groups benefit from increased visibility and preferential treatment [10]. These patterns reproduce societal inequalities within academic institutions, positioning ethnicity as a central determinant of professional trajectories rather than a peripheral factor.

The national discourse of “one-and-indivisible Cameroon,” often articulated through ‘le vivre ensemble,’ promotes ideals of unity and coexistence, particularly within the context of the Anglophone crisis [13,20]. However, institutional realities reveal the persistence of ethnic-tribal power dynamics, elitism, and patronage networks within universities, where access to opportunities is frequently mediated through informal systems of affiliation [21]. These dynamics reinforce exclusion and limit equitable participation in academic life, particularly for those outside dominant networks. As ref. [28] argues, the myth of meritocracy in institutions is sustained precisely because structural advantages for dominant groups are rendered invisible, normalised as competence rather than recognised as privilege.

Ref. [14] further highlights how the privileging of autochthony over national citizenship in post-1990s Africa increasingly shapes contemporary debates on belonging, exclusion, and territorial identity in Cameroon. While constitutional provisions guarantee equal rights and protection, the coexistence of these legal frameworks with exclusionary social practices produces ongoing tensions that undermine the ideals of inclusion. This contradiction directly affects higher education, where academics’ perceptions of belonging and legitimacy are often filtered through the lens of ethnic-tribal identity.

Although efforts to promote multicultural interaction, coexistence, respect for differences, inclusion, gender perspectives, and the management of ethnic diversity with cooperation and mutual understanding have been emphasised in recent scholarship [19]. Crucially, these paradigms of multicultural management are themselves embedded in colonial institutional histories; the modern university in Africa remains an inherited framework in which Eurocentric discourses of diversity often obscure indigenous modes of relationality. The realities of Cameroonian higher education remain shaped by entrenched sociopolitical dynamics. Academics’ ethnic and tribal affiliations continue to influence their professional identity development, their access to opportunities, and their experiences of inclusion and representation.

Against this background, this study argues that Cameroon’s diversity, while rhetorically celebrated, is often experienced by academics in ways that reproduce exclusion within the institutional context under study. The study, therefore, examines how academics’ ethnic-tribal identity influences their experiences of inclusion and exclusion, the challenges they encounter in professional development, and the implications for fostering more equitable and inclusive academic environments. In doing so, it establishes a clear context for the research questions that follow:

• How do academics perceive the role of their own ethnic and tribal identities in shaping their sense of inclusion or exclusion within Cameroonian higher education institutions?
• In what ways do academics’ ethnic and tribal identities influence their access to mentorship, promotions, or leadership opportunities?

1.2. Theoretical Framework

The persistence of ethnic-tribal exclusion cannot be fully understood through a single theoretical underpinning. This study is therefore underpinned by three complementary analytical frameworks: critical race theory (CRT), intersectionality, and postcolonial perspectives on higher education. These frameworks provide conceptual orientation without determining coding and categorisation, ensuring that analysis remains foregrounded in participants’ lived experiences. While we acknowledge that the concept of ‘lived experiences’ is itself historically tied to Western phenomenological and individualised paradigms, this study strategically deploys it to counter and destabilise formal institutional narratives.

CRT provides a structural lens for understanding how inequality is embedded within educational institutions, through practices, policies, and norms that appear neutral but sustain unequal access to opportunity [29,30]. Within this study, CRT extends beyond a narrow focus on race to examine how ethnic-tribal identity functions as a racialised construct that shapes access to professional opportunities in higher education. The concept of interest convergence is particularly relevant, illuminating how inclusion often extends to marginalised groups only when it serves dominant groups, thereby limiting genuine transformation [29]. CRT also underscores academics’ lived experiences as critical sources of insights into how exclusion operates within institutional environments [30].

Intersectionality complements CRT by highlighting how exclusion is experienced through overlapping identities rather than along a single axis [31]. In this study, intersectionality captures how ethnic-tribal identities intersect with gender, language, regional affiliation, and socio-political position to produce differentiated experiences of inclusion and exclusion. For instance, female academics from Anglophone minority regions navigate barriers embedded in ethnicity and gender [32], forms of compounded disadvantage that a single-axis analysis would obscure.

Postcolonial perspective on higher education situates these dynamics within the specific historical trajectories of African universities, arguing that contemporary HEIs cannot be understood apart from the colonial foundations [33,34]. Central to this framework is the understanding that genuine inclusion requires dismantling institutional cultures shaped by colonial logic, rather than adding diversity initiatives to unreformed structures. Ref. [23] concept of non-performativity of diversity is particularly generative here: diversity statements and policies within HEIs often produce the appearance of inclusion without requiring structural change. This concept speaks directly to participants’ experiences of being physically present in institutional spaces while remaining structurally excluded from meaningful participation and advancement.

Together, these three frameworks form an integrated analytical lens that grounds this study. CRT provides a structural and historical lens for understanding how ethnic-tribal identity operates within dimensions of power; intersectionality captures how the overlapping identities compound with other social positions to shape academics’ professional identities; and postcolonial perspectives anchor how colonial legacies of division and patronage continue to shape the institutional and historical cultures in Cameroonian higher education. While CRT and intersectionality provide valuable insights, they also originate in Western academic traditions [30,31]. Their application here is reflexive, as they are mobilised critically, with attention to how colonial legacies shape both the frameworks themselves, which are inevitably bounded by the Western legal and capitalist structures within which they were formulated and the institutional realities they seek to explain [35]. The combined framework ensures that analysis remains focused on both structural inequality and lived experiences, enabling a more precise understanding of how academics’ ethnic-tribal identity shapes their professional identities and access to opportunities within Cameroonian higher education. Thus, by moving beyond single-axis or single-theory explanations, this integrated framework enables a more context-sensitive account of how ethnic-tribal identity shapes academics’ professional development in African HEIs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design and Approach

This study employed a qualitative research design grounded in the philosophical principles of Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to explore how academics experience and make sense of ethnic-tribal identity within their professional lives. IPA is particularly well-suited to this study because ethnic-tribal exclusion is experienced subjectively and often operates through subtle, taken-for-granted practices that are not easily captured through surveys or policy analysis [36,37]. By focusing on lived experiences, IPA enabled an in-depth exploration of how academics interpret exclusion, belonging, and professional identity within their specific institutional and sociopolitical contexts. While IPA draws from both Husserl’s descriptive phenomenology and Heidegger’s interpretive phenomenology [38]. This study follows Heidegger’s approach, focusing on understanding how participants make meaning rather than describing them in purely phenomenological terms. This is expressed through IPA’s defining methodological feature, the double hermeneutic, in which participants seek to make sense of their own experiences, while the researcher engages in interpretive sense-making of those accounts [37,39]. This layered interpretive process was especially important in this study, where experiences of exclusion are shaped by intersecting identities, such as ethnic-tribal identity, gender, and socioeconomic status. IPA’s idiographic commitment, its orientation towards depth of understanding within a specific context rather than breadth of generalisation, made it the most appropriate design for this study. Rather than seeking statistically representative findings, this study sought analytically rich accounts of how ethnic-tribal identity shapes professional life within a single institution. This focus on contextual depth is a deliberate epistemological choice, consistent with IPA’s foundational principles [40], and suitable for examining research in under-studied contexts such as Cameroonian HEIs.

2.2. Sampling

This study employed a purposive, nonprobability sampling method, consistent with IPA principles, to recruit participants capable of providing rich, detailed accounts of their experiences. A total of 11 participants were recruited through snowball or referral sampling, which was appropriate given the institutional sensitivity of the topic and the need to access participants through trusted networks [41]. The sample size of 11 is consistent with, and at the upper end of, established IPA guidelines. Ref. [40] work provides a methodological foundation for IPA, recommending three or more participants for a single-institution IPA study and noting that larger samples risk sacrificing the ideographic depth that distinguishes IPA from other qualitative approaches. Ref. [42] support this sample size given the specificity of the research aim, the homogeneity of the institutional context, the use of theory-informed analysis, and the quality of narrative data produced through semi-structured interviews; 11 participants provided sufficient information to sustain rigorous ideographic analysis. To ensure confidentiality and participants’ anonymity within a single institutional context, specific individual ethnic, tribal, or linguistic markers are detached from specific accounts. Instead, participants were assigned generic pseudonyms and sequentially numbered (Participant 1 through Participant 11), corresponding strictly to the chronological order in which they were interviewed. Nonetheless, participants were selected to reflect variation in ethnic and tribal backgrounds, academic disciplines, and career stages, ensuring a range of perspectives across Cameroon’s complex ethnic landscape. Gender diversity was also considered, with both male and female participants included to capture gendered dimensions of exclusion and access. In addition, attention was paid to intersecting identities, including gender, socio-economic position, and professional status, to ensure the analysis captured the layered nature of inclusion and marginalisation within the specific academic context. This variation allowed the study to explore how intersecting identities shaped experiences of inclusion and marginalisation.

2.3. Data Collection and Analysis

Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews, allowing participants to share in-depth narratives of their experiences while providing flexibility to probe emergent themes. Consistent with IPA, semi-structured interviews were used to elicit rich, detailed, first-person accounts of their lived experiences [36]. The interview guide addressed key topics and guided conversations toward the study’s focus while leaving space for participants to share their experiences of how ethnic and tribal identities influence their career progression. All semi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted online via Zoom by the lead researcher. Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 min and was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim by the lead researcher, producing narrative data that directly informed the analytic process. The interviews were guided by an open-ended schedule that allowed participants to express their experiences. An example of an entry question utilised to prompt reflection was included, such as: ‘Can you describe experiences in your academic career where you felt included or excluded because of your ethnic or cultural background, and how that shaped how you interacted with your administrators or colleagues?’ and ‘Describe how navigating these interactions actively influences your professional opportunities?’ These prompts allowed participants to narrate their lived experiences while ensuring alignment with the study’s research questions [36,43].

Data analysis followed the systematic iterative procedures of IPA. The process began with multiple close readings of each transcript several times to fully immerse oneself in the data. During this stage, exploratory noting was conducted, focusing on descriptive, linguistic, and conceptual comments that captured participants’ expressions and meaning. Following this initial immersion, these descriptive notes were then systematically transformed into specific codes that reflected the psychological and experiential dynamics of each participant’s account. Emerging themes were then developed for each case through iterative analysis by identifying patterns in the exploratory notes and initial coding. These themes reflected a concise formulation of key aspects of participants’ narratives. The researchers then connected emergent themes within each case, clustering related themes to form superordinate themes while maintaining alignment with the original data throughout. After completing the within-case analysis, the process moved to a cross-case analysis, where patterns across participants were examined. At this stage, recurring themes were identified, compared, and refined, while also attending to divergent and unique cases to preserve both shared and individual dimensions of experiences, consistent with IPA’s idiographic approach to depth rather than breadth [37,39]. While cross-case clustering introduces a necessary level of thematic categorisation, we actively resist reductionist generalisation by preserving the divergent, context-bound idiographic account within each theme. The full coding framework, including themes and categories, is presented in Appendix A to enhance transparency of the analytical process. The analysis was theoretically informed by CRT, intersectionality, and a postcolonial perspective on higher education, ensuring that participants’ narratives were examined in relation to structures of institutional power, intersecting social positions, and the postcolonial context in which they work. Counter-stories and overlapping identity positions were identified to challenge dominant institutional narratives and surface the hidden mechanisms through which exclusion operates.

2.4. Trustworthiness

To ensure the trustworthiness of the findings, strategies such as member checking and peer debriefing were employed. Member checking allowed participants to review and validate the accuracy of their accounts, ensuring that their perspectives were accurately represented. Peer debriefing enhanced analytical rigour by involving colleagues in reviewing emerging interpretations and challenging potential biases. Reflexivity was maintained throughout the research process, framing the researchers’ positionality not through a Western cognitive paradigm of eliminating ‘bias,’ but through a Heideggerian lens of situated perspective and interpretive constitution of meaning. In line with this interpretive framework, this study rejects the post-positivist illusion of an objective, ‘unbiased’ stance, recognising instead that our historical and cultural pre-understandings are structurally embedded in the dialogic co-creation of knowledge [44].

2.5. Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the relevant institutional review boards prior to data collection. The letter of authorisation was obtained from the Humanities and Social Science Research Ethics Committee (protocol number HSSREC/00003429/2021) to include faculty members in the study. Participants were provided with detailed information about the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits. Informed consent was obtained before participation, emphasising the voluntary nature of involvement and the right to withdraw at any time without consequence. Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained by assigning pseudonyms to participants, and all digital data, including recordings and transcripts, were securely stored [45] and accessible only to the research team. Potential risks, such as emotional distress when discussing exclusion or identity, were mitigated by allowing participants to pause, skip questions, or withdraw.

3. Results

3.1. Ethnic-Tribal Marginalisation as Basis for Structural Exclusion

Participants consistently described experiences of exclusion that shaped how they were perceived and treated within the institutions. For several academics, this exclusion was expressed through a sense of being marked as outsiders, regardless of their qualifications or years of service. Participant 1 expressed a persistent sense of ‘otherness’ related to his ethnic and regional identity, and he experienced a lack of recognition and acceptance within the university community, primarily because he did not belong to the dominant ethnic group. The participant explained, “I know that I am not from here, and even after all these years, I still feel like I have to prove myself more than others who belong to the dominant ethnic group.” This was reinforced by Participant 3, who described that “there is this invisible wall—like, no matter what you achieve, you’re still viewed as an outsider,” highlighting symbolic boundaries that mark who belongs. These narratives reflect the CRT tenet of counter-storytelling, in which lived experiences challenge institutional claims to meritocracy. Though counter-storytelling and the focus on individual ‘lived experience’ risk falling into an individualistic, cognitivist trap that mirrors neoliberal academic knowledge, this study deploys them through what ref. [46] term ‘critical bifocality.’ This methodology ensures that participants’ stories are not treated as isolated, autonomous units decontextualised from their systemic realities; rather, their subjective accounts are systematically integrated into the macro-structural arrangements and historical legacy of the postcolonial institutional design. The “wall” describes the invisible yet material resistance that marginalised individuals encounter when navigating institutional spaces, which is powerfully evoked here: presence within the institution does not dissolve the boundary; it simply makes it more visible to those who encounter it.

Participants 5 and 9 affirmed the presence of exclusion within the university setting, explicitly stating, “Yes, there is exclusion.” The participants noted that geographic and linguistic origins (e.g., not being from Yaoundé or from Anglophone vs. Francophone regions) contribute to the formation of exclusive social and professional cliques. By noting that “those from the Northwest or Southwest… tend to come together” and that “those from the Francophone regions form their own groups,” the participants highlighted how ethnolinguistic and regional identities shape social interaction and sense of belonging. This dynamic reinforces division and alienation, especially for those who are not part of dominant or well-represented groups.

From an intersectionality lens, Participant 8 described, “When I started teaching, I felt that people saw me more like a woman and an Anglophone than as an academic.” Her experience of layered exclusion reflects how gender, language, and ethnicity intersect to produce unique vulnerabilities. This reflected on intersectional bias, specifically on how her identity as both a woman and an Anglophone shaped how others (females) perceived her in the academic environment. Rather than being recognised first and foremost as qualified academics, they are seen through the lens of their gender and linguistic/ethnic background. This suggests that prejudices and stereotypes related to being a woman and being from the Anglophone community overshadowed professional identity. This likely affects how seriously female academics from a minority region are taken, how much authority they are perceived to have, and how others interact with them in professional settings.

Three participants pointed to opaque appointment processes, centralised control from the capital (Yaoundé), and institutional gatekeeping that limits access to leadership or decision-making roles. Historical and political influences also play a significant role. Research highlights how ethnic favouritism, rooted in colonial and postcolonial leadership structures, has institutionalised exclusion [13]. For instance, this was evident in Participant 6’s concern about appointments made from the capital, Yaoundé. The participant expressed discontent with the lack of transparency and predictability in the appointment process, which is centrally controlled in Yaoundé (likely referring to the ministry or central government authorities). The use of “spontaneous,” “abrupt,” and “formulas you may not be able to say” suggests a system driven by hidden criteria rather than merit or established procedures. Participant 6 emphasised, “You just have to wait for the appointments to come from Yaoundé… It’s spontaneous. It’s abrupt. Based on certain formulas, you may not be able to say.”

Participant 4 pointed to stagnation and inequity in professional advancement. This suggests that capable academics are unable to progress in their careers, not due to a lack of competence but because they lack access to the informal networks or influence required to move up, a sign of gatekeeping and favouritism in the system:

So, there are many…who are in the system, and they find themselves within the same position…not because they cannot teach, but because they don’t have that means…they cannot move ahead because some particular people are influencing the process.

(Participant 4)

Participant 7 expressed the emotional strain of suppressing her identity, stating that this leads to a lack of authenticity and freedom: “At times I have to sink my identity…but then it’s affecting me because…I’m not speaking the truth…I’m not a free-minded person.” Her experience may be linked to the idea that individuals are only accepted in institutional settings if they conform to dominant norms, a concept highlighted in the CRT. This suggests a condition of inclusion in which the participant felt compelled to downplay or hide aspects of her identity, such as ethnicity, language, or political views, to avoid discrimination or exclusion. The internal conflict the participant faced compromised her integrity and sense of self, suggesting that being true to who she is may have negative repercussions in her professional, social, or political life.

Participants described exclusion within their university context as systemic rather than individual. Their narratives revealed persistent feelings of “otherness,” symbolic boundaries of belonging, and explicit acknowledgement of exclusion. Ethnolinguistic division between Anglophone and Francophone groups reinforces alienation, while intersectional experiences show gender and language compounded vulnerability. The participants’ narratives also highlighted opaque appointment processes controlled from Yaoundé and the emotional strain of suppressing identity to conform. These experiences of structural marginalisation carried direct professional costs: restricted access to leadership pipelines, research opportunities, and mentorship relationships, the foundational pathways of academic career advancement in any HEI. In this way, ethnic-tribal marginalisation does not just affect how academics feel within their institutions; it shapes the material trajectories of their professional development, determining who advances, who stagnates, and who leads.

3.2. Patronage Networks and the Erosion of Meritocracy

Patronage networks are understood in this current study as informal systems of influence through which opportunities are distributed based on ethnic-tribal affiliations, loyalty, or social connections rather than merit. These networks provide a mechanism for structurally excluding people. Participants identified decision-making authority as concentrated among senior university management and central government bodies, particularly ministerial authorities based in Yaoundé, whose influence extended over appointments, promotions, and leadership positions. Participants perceived these decisions as influenced by ethnic-tribal loyalty and patronage rather than by academic merit.

Participant 7 emphasised the unfairness of this dynamic, stating, “People should not be treated from tribal lines…or from their names,” pointing to how even a name can trigger biased treatment. Similarly, Participant 5 revealed the informal yet pervasive nature of ethnic preference in leadership: “Some leaders promote only people from their own ethnic groups. It’s not official, but we all know it happens.” This sentiment underscores a culture where ethnic loyalty quietly overrides fairness in appointments and promotions.

Participant 1 further highlighted the systemic nature of the issue, explaining, “Promotions and recognitions are often not just about merit. If you’re not from the ‘right’ place or tribe, it becomes very difficult.” These findings underscore a culture where ethnic loyalty overrides fairness in appointments and promotions. They reverberate with [13,15], who assert that political and ethnic favouritism is embedded in Cameroonian institutions. Participant 9 added, “Leadership tends to reward loyalty to the ethnic group rather than innovation or academic output.” Participant 10 explained how access to opportunities is moulded by personal relationships rather than performance:

You need to present something so that you have favour in front of them… You must be my friend before you benefit… It’s not based on how good your work is; it’s based on how connected you are to your boss.

Participant 4 also highlighted the inefficiency and unfairness in recruitment, noting, “You have a university recruitment…two spaces needed…three persons recruited.” According to the participant’s account, this inefficiency and unfairness were evident in recruitment processes in which qualified candidates were overlooked in favour of those who were perhaps more closely aligned with ethnic or political affiliations. This account underscores the notion that a lack of transparency undermines trust in recruitment, distorts opportunities for qualified candidates, and reinforces exclusionary practices within the university system [13].

Participant 6 affirmed the centralised nature of the appointment, observing: “Most appointments are made outside the university… the vice chancellor may appoint workers, but heads of departments are appointed from outside.” The participants’ accounts reflect a system in which professional achievement is determined not by capability but by proximity to power. They exposed the fragility of meritocratic principles in environments shaped by elite-driven and ethnicised politics. Intersectionality further clarifies these dynamics: academics from marginalised ethnic groups often face intensified barriers due to the intersecting effects of gender, seniority, and ethnic identity, suggesting that the erosion of meritocracy is not experienced uniformly but falls most heavily on those occupying multiple marginalised positions simultaneously. The consequences for professional development are significant when promotion and appointment are governed by patronage rather than performance; academic career progression becomes structurally inaccessible to those outside dominant networks, regardless of their scholarly contributions or institutional commitments.

3.3. Conditional Inclusion and Identity Suppression

This theme highlights the superficial nature of inclusion in many academic settings. Presence does not necessarily translate into influence or belonging. Participant 2 shared the quiet but persistent marginalisation experienced even in formal settings: “Even in meetings, you can sense the subtle ways some people are sidelined… When decisions are made, sometimes it feels like there’s an inner circle, and if you don’t share their background or language, you’re left out.” This sense of being physically present but structurally excluded was echoed by Participant 8, who explained, “There are informal spaces where, if you’re not from a certain region, you don’t belong. They will say things in French and laugh, and you don’t know what they’re talking about.” Participant 3 revealed the personal cost of ethnic bias, stating, “I’ve had students question my authority simply because I come from a minority ethnic group.”

Participant 7 added a layer of internal conflict: “There are times when you don’t feel free to say where you are from… Sometimes I will remove where I come from… but then it’s affecting me.” These experiences show how some individuals feel forced to alter aspects of their identity just to navigate the system. Participant 9 underscored the performative adaptation expected of marginalised individuals, recalling, “I’ve been told that if I want to be promoted, I should ‘learn to blend in more,’ meaning speak more French and socialise with certain groups.” Finally, Participant 11 drew attention to political pressures: “Everybody now claims to belong to the ruling party. Before the crisis (Anglophone crisis), people used to be open about political affiliation.”

These accounts exemplify what ref. [23] terms the non-performativity of diversity: institutions can appear inclusive in their composition and in the visible presence of academics from different ethnic and regional backgrounds, while remaining structurally exclusionary in practice. Diversity becomes performance that satisfies institutional optics without requiring genuine transformation of norms, networks, and informal cultures that determine who truly belongs. Participants were present in the institution but absent from inner circles; counted in its diversity but excluded from its decisions. This reflects [20] claim that political identity becomes a necessary adaptation for survival in contexts of ethnic tension and instability. The compulsion to suppress or alter identity, to hide regional origin, to modify language use, or to perform political conformity represents a profound professional cost that extends well beyond personal discomfort. Identity suppression constrains authentic participation in institutional life, undermines academic freedom, and limits long-term career sustainability. When academics must manage and conceal who they are as a condition for professional acceptance, the energy devoted to self-concealment is energy withdrawn from scholarship and the collegial relationships through which academic careers are built and sustained.

4. Discussion

The role of ethnic-tribal identity in shaping professional experiences within HEIs is increasingly recognised as a critical area of scholarly inquiry, especially in postcolonial African contexts. Scholars argue that postcolonial states like Cameroon continue to grapple with the legacies of institutionalised ethnic and tribal hierarchies, producing enduring forms of marginalisation and systemic inequality within public institutions, including higher education [13,15,47]. The politicisation of ethnicity and the privileging of “autochthony” have contributed to a structure in which professional opportunities are allocated on the basis of descent rather than merit [14]. This study contributes to this body of scholarship by providing empirical evidence, grounded in academics’ own accounts, of how these structural dynamics operate within the studied context, extending postcolonial critiques of higher education beyond curriculum reform to encompass academics’ lived professional realities.

The first finding indicates that, from the participants’ perspectives, ethnic-tribal marginalisation serves as a basis for structural exclusion within the academic environment under study rather than being incidental. CRT is instrumental here, as it analyses how descent-based ethnic identity functions as a structural, racialised mechanism that controls institutional access and gatekeeping. The experiences described by participants indicate that academics who are not considered “indigenous” to the host region reported feeling like perpetual outsiders, regardless of their qualifications or years of service. Such structural exclusion manifests in restricted access to leadership roles, research funding, and career advancement. These patterns mirror [48] discussion of in-group biases, whereby dominant groups preserve privilege by narrowly defining belonging. From a CRT perspective, ethnic identity operates as a racialised marker through which institutional power and privilege are maintained, not through overt discrimination alone, but through the everyday practices, informal norms, and unspoken expectations that constitute institutional culture [29,30]. Ref. [23] concept of the “wall” is instructive here: the resistance that marginalised academics encounter is not always visible in policy but is felt materially in the daily navigation of institutional life. Intersectionality further deepens this analysis by illustrating how exclusion is compounded for individuals who embody multiple marginalised identities, such as women from Anglophone regions. These dynamics undermine trust, innovation, and authenticity, revealing institutional neutrality as a façade that conceals entrenched hierarchies. This study interprets those accounts as evidence of systemic patronage and conditional inclusion as grounded in participants’ lived experiences.

A second salient finding highlights how participants perceive patronage networks as eroding meritocratic principles within the university. Postcolonial perspectives ground these contemporary dynamics within the long-term historical legacy of colonial institutional design and centralised patronage systems. Participants’ accounts suggest that informal ethnic and political networks frequently override formal procedures, leading to promotions and appointments based on loyalty and connections rather than competence. This finding aligns with [13,15] argument that favouritism is deeply embedded in Cameroonian universities, as well as ref. [9] critique of symbolic inclusion. Through the lens of CRT, such practices exemplify interest convergence: inclusion is selectively extended when it does not threaten the dominance of majority ethnic groups [29], ensuring that the formal architecture of meritocracy coexists with an informal architecture of exclusion. The intersection of tribal affiliation with political loyalty further reinforces these dynamics, as alignment with ruling parties becomes a prerequisite for professional growth [2,20]. These findings also carry significant implications for higher education governance in Cameroon. The centralisation of appointment authority in ministerial bodies in Yaoundé, a pattern consistently described by participants, represents a structural governance problem that extends beyond individual bias. When university leadership appointments are determined by political and ethnic proximity to the central government rather than by institutional processes, academic autonomy is fundamentally compromised. This appears to undermine not only individual career equity but also the broader conditions necessary for research quality, institutional credibility, and the internationalisation of Cameroonian higher education.

The third theme reveals that inclusion in academic spaces is often conditional and requires identity suppression. Participants’ narratives indicate that, while academics may be physically present in institutional spaces, they are often excluded from meaningful participation in decision-making and informal networks. Ref. [23] concept of the non-performativity of diversity initiatives and inclusive rhetoric within institutions often produces the appearance of inclusion without requiring structural change. The studied university context appears diverse in composition but is experienced as exclusionary in practice, a gap between representational diversity and substantive equity that participants experienced acutely. CRT frames this as institutional racism disguised as meritocracy, while intersectionality demonstrates how language, ethnicity, gender, and politics intersect to intensify marginalisation. As refs. [16,17] argue, institutional cultures in Cameroon continue to repackage and redefine African identities in ways that produce colonial hierarchies. The compulsion to suppress identity, to conceal regional origin, to modify language use, or to perform political conformity is not just a personal burden but also a structural feature of institutions that have not been genuinely transformed. This connects to broader calls for the decolonisation of African HEIs: genuine decolonisation demands more than curriculum reform; it requires dismantling the informal institutional cultures, governance structures, and patronage systems that continue to determine who belongs, who advances, and who leads [33,34]. Consequently, conditional inclusion constrains authentic identity expression, limits professional growth, and reinforces systemic biases by privileging conformity over competence. CRT highlights how ethnic-tribal identity sustains exclusion through patronage networks and the façade of meritocracy. Intersectionality reveals how exclusion is compounded for academics embodying multiple marginalisation identities, such as women from minority regions. Postcolonial perspectives situate these dynamics within colonial legacies, showing how institutional cultures reproduce inherited hierarchies. These lenses provide complementary but distinct insights.

Overall, the findings point to a coherent institutional logic in Cameroonian higher education: diversity is tolerated in composition but resisted in practice; meritocracy is proclaimed in policy but undermined by patronage; and inclusion is offered conditionally, on terms set by dominant ethnic and political groups. This logic is not accidental; it is the product of colonial institutional design and postcolonial governance that has preserved rather than transformed the underlying structures of exclusion.

5. Conclusions

This study explored how ethnic-tribal identity shapes the professional development, institutional inclusion, and career advancement of academics in a Cameroonian HEI, a question that sits at the intersection of postcolonial history, institutional governance, and academics’ everyday lives. Drawing on CRT, intersectionality, and postcolonial perspectives in higher education, the study revealed that institutional inclusion in this context often lacks substance, functioning as a symbolic representation rather than meaningful engagement or equity. The evidence from participants’ narratives revealed that ethnic identity operates as a perceived structural barrier within this institutional case, systematically shaping participants’ experiences of who belongs, who gets recognised, and who advances. Despite constitutional promises of equality and national discourses such as ‘le vivre ensemble’ (peaceful coexistence), many academics continue to experience marginalisation based on descent, regional identity, or political affiliation. This supports the notion that postcolonial African states continue to struggle with reconciling national unity with ethnic diversity. Furthermore, these exclusionary practices are not isolated acts but part of a broader institutional culture where ethnic and tribal patronage and informal loyalty networks dictate professional advancement. CRT explains these dynamics as expressions of systemic racism, masked by the institutional rhetoric of objectivity and meritocracy. The study also found that these experiences are intensified when other identity markers, such as gender or language, intersect with ethnicity, affirming intersectionality’s argument that power operates through overlapping and mutually reinforcing systems of oppression. Postcolonial perspectives further situate these findings within the longer durée of colonial institutional design, reminding us that universities built on colonial logic will not become equitable institutions through diversity statements alone; they require structural transformation.

In sum, while the study context may appear diverse, this study suggests that it can often fail to deliver equity in practice, as exclusion is maintained through patronage networks and opaque governance. The gap between representational diversity and substantive inclusion, between who is present and who truly belongs, is not accidental but structural, rooted in patronage networks, opaque governance, and institutional cultures that privilege conformity to dominant ethnic norms. In addressing the study’s primary research questions, the findings explicitly highlight that academics perceive their ethnic and tribal identities not as peripheral social traits but as central determinants of their institutional survival. Specifically, access to mentorship, promotion tracks, and leadership pipeline is systematically mediated through informal ethnic networks and centralised gatekeeping. By directly linking these subjective experiences of exclusion to the concrete mechanisms of patronage and identity suppression, the study provides a clear framework for the actionable institutional reforms detailed in this study. Genuine inclusion, therefore, demands more than tolerance of difference; it requires actively dismantling the structures that sustain ethnic-tribal stratification within higher education.

6. Implications and Recommendations

This study’s findings carry implications for higher education leadership, institutional governance, and future research. Rather than prescribed uniform policy reform, the findings highlight systemic dynamics that call for deliberate institutional reflection, structural accountability, and sustained dialogue.

First, the finding that appointment and promotion processes are perceived as ethnically influenced rather than merit-based points to a governance problem that requires structural attention. Universities and the Ministry of Higher Education in Cameroon could strengthen institutional autonomy by developing transparent, criteria-based appointment and promotion frameworks that reduce the influence of centralised political authority. Open criteria, independent review panels, and documented promotion pathways would signal institutional commitment to meritocracy in practice, not only in policy.

Second, the findings revealed that inclusion is often performative. Leaders could move beyond diversity rhetoric by commissioning an independent institutional audit to examine whether diversity in composition translates into equity in participation, decision-making, and access to leadership.

Third, the study emphasises that exclusion is compounded for individuals embodying multiple marginalised identities, such as women from minority regions. Institutions should develop targeted support structures, such as peer-mentorship circles, cross-regional collaborations, and language-inclusive practices, that address the intersecting barriers faced by academics who hold multiple marginalised positions concurrently.

Participants emphasised the emotional and professional costs of exclusion and identity suppression. Institutions could establish confidential reporting mechanisms, such as dialogue committees, ombuds offices, or independent mediators, that provide safe channels for reporting concerns without fear of reprisal. These mechanisms would signal that institutional belonging is not conditional conformity.

The findings speak to the urgent need for structural decolonisation of Cameroonian higher education, understood not as curriculum reform alone, but as the dismantling of patronage systems and governance-structured informal institutional cultures that reproduce colonial hierarchies of belonging. that inclusion remains conditional. Transforming ‘le vivre ensemble’ from a political slogan into institutional reality requires confronting the structural conditions that render conditional inclusion the norm and building universities in which professional advancement is determined by scholarly contribution rather than by ethnic or tribal affiliation.

Limitations and Future Research

This study is grounded in the IPA approach, which prioritises depth of understanding within a specific context rather than broad generalisation. The sample size of 11 participants, while appropriate for IPA, reflects a context-specific exploration of academics’ lived experiences within a single Cameroonian higher education institution. As such, the findings are not intended to be generalised to universities in Cameroon or other national contexts. Instead, they offer analytical insights that may be transferable to similar institutional settings where ethnic, linguistic, or political dynamics shape experiences.

Additionally, the reliance on self-reported perceptions means the findings reflect participants’ subjective interpretation of their experiences. Critically, the findings reflect direct evidence of participants’ perceptions and lived experiences but do not independently verify objective institutional processes, appointment practices, or causal relationships within the university. While this aligns with the interpretive focus of IPA, future research could strengthen understanding by incorporating additional data sources, such as document analysis (e.g., promotion policies, appointment records) or observations of academic meetings. Including administrators and policymakers alongside academics would also provide a fuller picture of institutional dynamics.

Moreover, this study’s focus on a single institution constrains the scope of the institutional comparison. Experiences of ethnic-tribal dynamics may vary across universities, regions, or governance structures within Cameroon. Future research could extend this work through comparative studies across multiple institutions or explore similar dynamics in other postcolonial contexts to examine how structural and cultural factors influence inclusion and exclusion in higher education. Further research should also examine how ethnic-tribal identity intersects with other identity markers to shape academic outcomes. Additionally, longitudinal and international studies may provide insights into how these dynamics evolve over time, particularly in relation to political shifts, institutional reforms, or changes in academic culture. In particular, while intersectionality was a guiding framework with limited empirical data reporting gender intersectionality, the limited number of gender-specific narratives in this study constrains the extent to which this dimension can be generalised. Future research should therefore explore gendered intersectionality more systematically across diverse academic contexts.