In this edition of our meet the editor’s series, hear from Central Asian Survey Book Review Editor Zhanibek Arynov. Zhanibek is an Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Public Policy (GSPP) at Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan. He specialises in Central Asian geopolitics, Kazakhstan’s foreign policy, EU-Central Asia relations, and international identity, image and perception studies. Zhanibek talks to us about the debates taking place in Central Asia as well as his advice for PhD students.
Tell me about yourself, for example where did you grow up, and what is your academic and professional background?
I am from Kazakhstan and was born and raised in the southern city of Shymkent. Later, I went to Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, where I obtained my BA and MA degrees in International Relations. Currently, I am based in Astana, the capital city.
I work at Nazarbayev University in the Graduate School of Public Policy. My academic background is in International Relations, and I earned my PhD from the University of St Andrews in the UK. Since then, I have focused on Central Asian geopolitics and foreign policy issues, with a particular emphasis on EU-Central Asia relations. Recently, I have expanded my research interests to include regional developments, especially in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
And can you tell me a bit about your role at Central Asian Survey?
My colleague Philipp Lottholz and I serve as Book Review Editors. When a book related to Central Asia is published, we try to recruit other scholars to write a critical review of that book. Book reviews are crucial for scholarship and academia because they keep researchers informed about recent developments in the field. Given the vast number of books and articles published each year, it is physically impossible to track all new developments. Book reviews provide summarised versions of these books and engage in critical discussions, helping to ensure that important topics are not overlooked.
What is specifically important about your role as a Book Review Editor for Central Asian Survey?
For us, the most important development related to book reviews in Central Asian Survey was that we started accepting and promoting reviews of books not only written in English but also in other regional languages of Central Asia. This approach is relatively rare among journals and helps bridge the gap between academics studying Central Asia in English and those using other languages spoken in the region. Language barriers can be significant in Central Asian Studies because some non-regional scholars may not speak the regional languages such as Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tajik, Turkmen, Uzbek, or even Russian, whereas local scholars may not always be fluent in English. As a result, sometimes there are two or more separate academic ‘worlds’ studying the same topics, but in isolation from one another. By including reviews of non-English books, we hope that Central Asian Survey’s book reviews will help to bridge this gap.
What are you currently working on?
Since the onset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there have been significant developments in the foreign policy and geopolitics of Central Asia. Firstly, we are witnessing an increased interest of China, the EU, the US, and Turkyie in the region. Secondly, Russia, which has traditionally been the dominant player, seems to be slowly losing its once undisputed leverage. Central Asian countries are seeking greater autonomy from external actors while also striving to enhance regional cooperation. Despite historical and cultural similarities, Central Asia has long been described as one of the least connected regions, economically and politically.
I am currently studying some of the issues related to these developments. One of my projects examines Russian-led institutions in Central Asia, such as the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and explores the changing roles of these organisations. Additionally, I am working on a project focused on Central Asian regional cooperation and am also analysing recent developments in Kazakhstan’s foreign policy.
What inspires your research?
The most important thing for me is producing research that is useful. Transitioning from International Relations to the School of Public Policy, I’ve reassessed my approach to research with the goal of making a meaningful impact. As academics, I believe we should strive to influence broader society. It can be easy to remain within the comfortable confines of academia, but I don’t think that should be our focus. While I recognise that making a significant impact can be challenging, it is my primary inspiration and motivation.
What books or other media published in the last 10 years have made an impact on you and/or your discipline?
There are lots of interesting research pertaining to Central Asia, and, luckily, its quality as well as quantity have been improving recently. If I am to name certain titles, I probably would mention Dictators Without Borders: Power and Money in Central Asia by Alexander Cooley and John Heathershaw. This book tackles a compelling and significant topic. It examines Central Asia’s supposedly ‘isolated’ dictators and reveals how they are linked to the West through various financial schemes and institutions, illustrating their integration into the global market. The book also discusses how some Western actors assist these regimes in laundering money.
As someone from Central Asia, I’ve often encountered arguments that portray all the region’s regimes as merely autocratic, corrupt, and engaged in theft. However, this book demonstrates that these regimes are not operating in isolation; rather, they are part of a broader global market that, paradoxically, facilitates their illicit activities. This perspective represents a significant advancement in the field.
In the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine, Kazakhstan is experiencing extensive discussions about decolonization and political identity. Many people are actively engaging in this debate. To provide some context, Kazakhstan was part of the Soviet Union, and much of Kazakh history and identity was shaped during that period. These Soviet-era narratives have remained dominant ever since. However, there is now a growing movement to reassess what it means to be Kazakh beyond the narratives imposed by the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. People are questioning what our history reveals about ourselves without the influence of these external narratives. Similar processes are happening in other Central Asian countries as well, though to a lesser extent. As a result, there have been series of scholarly publications on this topic. For instance, in Kazakhstan, among other publications, I would name Decolonization of Kazakhstan authored by Ainash Mustoyapova; Qazaqstan. Kazakhstan. ناتسقزاق : labirinty sovremennogo postkolonialnogo diskursa [Qazaqstan, Kazakhstan, ناتسقزاق : labyrinths of a modern post-colonial discourse] edited by Alima Bissenova; and Post-Colonial Approaches in Kazakhstan and Beyond: Politics, Culture, and Literature edited by Dina Sharipova, Alima Bissenova, and Aziz Burkhanov. These discussions represent a significant development.
If you’re asking me about the most interesting book I’ve read in recent years, I would mention Togzhan Kassenova’s Atomic Steppe: How Kazakhstan Gave Up the Bomb published in 2022. This book explores the period when Kazakhstan was a significant nuclear power and recounts the story of the negotiations and the history leading up to its denuclearization. As someone from Kazakhstan, this book was especially important and fascinating to me.
Where do you see the most exciting debates or research happening in your field?
Currently, I believe the decolonization debates are the most dynamic, interesting, and passionate areas of discussion. What makes these debates particularly fascinating is that they extend beyond academic circles. Activists, politicians, everyday people, as well as the media and journalists, are all actively engaging in this discourse.
As I already mentioned above, at the heart of these discussions is the exploration of national identities independent of Russian and Soviet influence. The Russian Empire and the Soviet Union played a significant role in shaping the identities of Central Asian states. For the first 30 years of independence, Central Asians continued operating within the Soviet knowledge production framework. However, this framework is now beginning to crack. Now, the Central Asian societies are trying to re-evaluate everything we’ve been taught through the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. People are questioning the past, seeking out archives, and reconsidering the narratives we’ve inherited from the Soviet era.
I believe these debates will significantly impact the future of Central Asian studies.
What changes do you hope to see in the field?
I believe the field is already dynamically changing. Ten or fifteen years ago, it was still very much Western-centric. While this is still partially the case, scholars are now increasingly looking at the region from diverse perspectives. In the last decade, we’ve seen significant growth in scholars from the region, especially young scholars, many of whom have earned degrees from leading Western universities. There is, of course, the question of whether graduates from Western universities represent Western academia more than regional academia. However, I think the changes over the last decade have been both positive and significant.
The issue with Western knowledge frames persists, however. Sometimes you see scholars explaining regional processes through these frames. For instance, one common frame is that whatever happens in the region or whatever regional countries do internally and internationally is argued to be driven by authoritarian legitimation. In this sense, authoritarianism has become an umbrella explanation for everything, which is an oversimplification and is misleading as it overlooks the nuances. It is not to deny the authoritarian nature of Central Asian states, but when such a frame becomes the dominant explanation for the majority of processes in the region, it is an issue for me. The reality of Central Asian states is much more complex, and I believe moving away from these universal umbrella explanations would only be beneficial.
A related issue is that leading journals in this field are also based in the West. If a scholar needs to publish a paper, he or she needs to have a good command of English, engage mostly Western-produced concepts and theories, as well as reflect on the previous literature which is also Western-dominated. I don’t want to sound alarmist and deny the great significance of the knowledge and expertise accumulated by these journals and their contributors, but what I want to highlight is that this leaves out a great number of other researchers and scholars from Central Asia, who don’t necessarily have access to this knowledge due to some objective and subjective reasons. That is why we have the gap that I mentioned earlier between English-speaking and non-English-speaking scholarly communities in Central Asia.
I will give you one example. Recently, a local Central Asian journal went through a rebranding and invited a new editorial board. The main aim, as I learned, was to increase the journal’s reach and enter the Scopus database. However, a significant portion of the new editorial board consists of Western scholars. Why? Because they have higher H-indexes, are more visible in Western circles, and it is likely easier to enter the Scopus database with Western scholars on your board. Again, this is not to deny the significance of the work done by Western academia, but it highlights how the system consciously reproduces the imbalance between Western and non-Western perspectives.
Narrowing the imbalance and the gap between English-speaking and non-English-speaking scholarly communities in Central Asia should be one of our main aims. This is precisely what we are trying to achieve at Central Asian Survey. It is a long, laborious process and easier said than done, but it is necessary.
What top tips would you give someone starting a PhD?
If I could go back to my PhD years, I would do some things differently. I would attend as many additional courses as possible and acquire as many extra skills as I could. What I suggest to PhD students is to take full advantage of each step of the PhD process. Attend extra activities, conferences, and networking opportunities, and participate in various events that your university supports. During your PhD, you will likely have opportunities to meet experts with experience in government roles, think tanks, and NGOs. These are opportunities you may not have later, so explore, connect, and make the most of them.
What advice would you give early career researchers who are trying to get published?
Honestly, I still consider myself an early career researcher, but I’d say getting published is about receiving rejections and knowing how to deal with rejection. Be resilient, try again and again, be persistent, but also be realistic. If a top journal rejects your work, be flexible and open to different pathways.
What has been your biggest challenge in your academic career?
Getting out of the academic bubble and reaching a wider audience has been challenging for me as an introverted person. Time constraints also pose a challenge, as working at a university doesn’t always allow for extracurricular activities. However, I believe that being active beyond the scholarly bubble and engaging with non-academics is a very important part of being an academic. For instance, we publish papers in English, but 95% of local people do not speak English. Therefore, re-writing pieces in Kazakh and distributing them locally is important for me.
And what has been your biggest achievement?
I hope my biggest achievement is still to come. I only received my PhD in 2019, but what pleases me is getting asked to participate in different projects and events, and for me that recognition by other peers shows that my work is noticed.
