Search results

This paper applies Bhabha’s concept of the third space to frame an understanding of Prem Sikka’s use of digital media to bridge the academic–activist binary. In doing this, the paper makes two contributions. First, it conceptualises Sikka’s engagement, and second, through the lens of the third space, it analyses it to establish whether, in the era of the neoliberal corporatised university, public intervention has the potential to generate new perspectives and new knowledge.

Sikka’s articles and blogs for the period 20 February 2002 to 15 April 2020 were analysed using Leximancer, a textual analysis software programme that displays the output visually. A discriminant analysis was used to identify where each year of the study is situated in the overall semantic analysis. Netnography, the examination of archived published texts, was then used to analyse the responses by members of the public, academics, accountants and auditors, tax experts, policy makers and regulators to Sikka’s digital media engagement.

As a third space practitioner, Sikka has overcome some of the shortcomings associated with academic research to challenge the activities of professional accounting firms, regulatory bodies and multinational corporations. Through extending the boundaries of accounting and accountability, he has facilitated new radical alliances aiming to create a just and equitable society. The paper also finds that by opening up a third space of engagement, academic activists’ work can play an essential part in social transformation and emancipatory change framed in terms of social justice and equity.

This is one of the few papers to provide an in-depth examination of the activities of an accounting activist over twenty years.

The cross-pressures and tensions for engaged academics are like those of other activist professionals and advantaged allies. Academic knowledge is more useful when it is put into dialog with the knowledge and experiences of others and academics use their skills to bring new information into community discussions, to provoke discussions, and to carry knowledge between groups. Academics should listen as well as talk, recognize and respect the differences among community members, and actively attend to and seek to amplify the voices of those who are most oppressed and marginalized.

From the 1960s onwards, students and members of the academic community on growing numbers of college and university campuses in the United States chose to confront the issue of apartheid by advocating divestment from corporations or financial institutions with any sort of presence in or relationship with South Africa. Student divestment advocates faced serious opposition from university administrators as well as opponents of institutional divestiture both at home and abroad. Despite these challenges, the academic community in the United States was one of the first arenas where anti-apartheid activism coalesced. This chapter examines the campaigns of students and educators who participated in the debate over divestment – to engage with the South African government and apartheid through dialogue and communication or to disengage completely from the country through withdrawal of financial investments. The anti-apartheid efforts of the academic community at Michigan State University, one of the first large research universities in the United States to confront the issue of apartheid and divestment at the university level and beyond, serves as a window to view academic activism against apartheid. The Southern Africa Liberation Committee (SALC), a consortium of students, faculty, and community members dedicated to aiding the liberation struggle of Southern Africa, led the efforts at Michigan State and collaborated with allies across Michigan and the United States. SALC focused most of its efforts on South Africa, though the organization also confronted the issue of South Africa's controversial occupation of South West Africa and the ongoing civil war in Angola.

In the United States, rights-based laws have opened major social institutions to previously marginalized groups, altering the terrain on which social movements act, creating opportunities for disruption, and expanding the forms protest takes. This research is an attempt to add to our understanding of contemporary protest. I use data from 50 open-ended, loosely structured interviews with women feminist PhD sociologists working at U.S. (and 1 Canadian) colleges and universities as a lens through which to examine contemporary protest. These in-depth interviews reveal that the demand-making and discursive protest of feminists in academia is rooted in the empowering intersections of their collective feminist identities and disrupts hegemonic practices in the academy and beyond. My findings indicate that social movement theory must move beyond restrictive notions of potential movement targets, activist locations, and strategies; and past narrow conceptualizations of collective action and movement goals.

This chapter focuses on academic freedom in the experiences of Black/African American doctoral students and presents an examination of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students (https://www.aaup.org/report/joint-statement-rights-and-freedoms-students) based on research and practice on the marginalized doctoral student experience. Discussion addresses AAUP policy Statements: Section I (freedom of access to higher education), Section II (freedom of expression in the classroom), and Section III (freedom of inquiry and expression). The purpose of this work is to increase awareness of issues serving as barriers to student rights and freedoms related to self-expression, cultural bias, and student activism at the doctoral level. Strategies that disrupt, minimize, and/or eradicate barriers to actively maintain and pursue student rights and freedoms will be addressed to emphasize their importance to supporting and/or hindering academic success, doctoral degree completion, and creating/sustaining pathways of transition into the career pathways.

Service-learning (SL) is an educational movement with roots in academic activism fuelled by commitments to accessibility, social mobility, social justice, community engagement, sustainable development and learning. Reviewing the voices of the original US ‘pioneers’ and contemporary practitioners over the last 30 years, this chapter argues that (1) contemporary SL has been ‘mainstreamed’ in various ways and (2) such a re-conceptualisation seems to have re-formatted educational commitments in line with contemporary economic framings and circumstances of higher education (HE). However, it also argues that beyond overt compliance and resistance, it is possible for practitioners and HE more broadly to create responses and spaces where educational adaptation and transformation can emerge. To facilitate such responses, it is important to embrace the strong driving force of passion and emotion, which can drive and sustain change agents in practice. This chapter aspires to revitalise and rejuvenate academic activism as a legitimate catalyst of educational transformation on a global platform.

This article reflects on our joint experiences co-creating impact through a project in knowledge mobilisation – a website that disseminated resources and facilitated developmental activities for scholar-activists. We examine this project from the perspectives of the first author who created and ran the website and the second author who participated as a community member from the project’s launch.

The website attracted a scholarly activist community primarily comprising former and current women academics, who collaboratively informed the first author’s creation of articles, newsletters and workshops, that sought to develop individual and institutional capacities for feminist leadership.

This project in co-creating impact revealed the yearning and potential academics had for support and belonging. They were drawn to the website because many struggled with overwork, burnout and violence within a system that they did not feel was built for them. They strove to build a community around the website and its associated activities and resources so that they could fill the perceived gaps and heal the felt harms of their institutions.

Our reflections consider the different ways impact may be collaboratively generated through knowledge mobilisation in community, including how feminist redefinitions of impact may be designed and demonstrated in future projects. At the same time, we also critically examine the limitations of attempting to redress institutional issues as individuals without formal authority in those institutions.

In this chapter, I reflect on the place of hope in activist criminology. Offering reflections from my own activist scholarship, this chapter draws out the ways in which hope structures and sustains our work across temporal frames and distinct modes of academic practice. This chapter develops a hopeful analysis of lineage, memory and resistance, reflecting on my participatory research with the Tamil community in London, and reflects on the revival of utopian thought in criminological scholarship. Hopeful imaginaries of an abolitionist future inform my scholar-activism with Reclaim Holloway – an abolitionist collective formed to influence the redevelopment of the Holloway prison site. I describe this future-oriented work before considering hope as a practice in the present, focusing on ‘pedagogies of hope’ as activist criminology in the classroom.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on how the social‐theoretical work of Pierre Bourdieu (1931‐2001) could contribute to knowledge production on accountability.

The paper draws on Bourdieu's conceptualisation of social practice in terms of a field/habitus relation, and uses this relation as a framing mechanism to explore the possibilities of accountability in corporate‐stakeholder relations.

The authors argue that Bourdieu's work holds significant implications for academics operating in the political space relating to accountability because it informs a basis for academic intervention.

Included in the paper are a critique of the dominant “liberal” position on accountability and a defence of the development of a “post‐liberal” alternative.

It is argued that this alternative requires moving away from the dominant procedural approach to practice and recognising the value of informal communication and non‐institutional action as equally valid routes towards accountability.

Reflecting on Bourdieu's position reminds us of the explicit link between political and methodological change, and highlights the necessity for these to be inextricably linked.