Description, analysis, evaluation and prescription have a dilemmic relationship. Overtly relying on any one is often a reason for criticism of an academic work. A purely descriptive work is accused of adding no value to existing knowledge or even being political by pretending to be apolitical. An analytical work based on inadequate, or worse still, an erroneous description would be a sitting duck at best for critics. An evaluation based on a ‘sitting duck’ analysis would run a high probability of being evaluated poorly by peers. The less said the better, about prescriptions based on inadequate evaluations. Avoidance of such tragedy in academic work calls for academic literature which abounds in comprehensive and analytical description, in turn providing a good breeding ground for critical analysis, evaluation and prescription. The extent to which any academic work can do justice to any of these four features would depend inter alia on the nature of the discipline, the quantum of materials, the time of authorship and above all, the purpose the author has in mind…