Search results

In Virginia, former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder accused the state’s library agency of racism for “its slow pace in processing and publicly presenting records from his tenure as the nation’s first elected Black governor” (Associated Press, 2020). The State Librarian responded that this was just a lapse in protocols and framed it as a budget issue and staff turnover. However, “Library of Virginia has been processing papers from his gubernatorial successors before finishing work on his” (Associated Press, 2020). Recently, the Alabama State Department of Archives and History acknowledged their participation in systemic racism, epistemicide, and their history of privileging White voices over those of Alabama African-Americans.

Epistemicide is the killing, silencing, annihilation, or devaluing of a way of knowing (Patin, Sebastian, Yeon, & Bertolini, 2020). Conceptualization and analytic application of epistemicide has an established tradition in a number of social science fields, but information scientists have only recently acknowledged epistemicide (Oliphant, 2021; Patin et al., 2020; Patin, Sebastian, Yeon, Bertolini, & Grimm, 2021). Building from our recent identification of the existence of epistemicide within the IS field (Patin et al., 2020), this work challenges the information field to become an epistemologically just space working to correct the systemic silencing of certain ways of knowing.

This chapter examines the four types of epistemic injustices—testimonial, hermeneutical, participatory, and curricular—occurring within libraries and archives and argues for a path forward to address these injustices within our programs, services, and curricula. It looks to digital humanities and to reevaluations of professional standards and LIS education to stop epistemicide and its harms. This chapter demonstrates how to affirm the power and experience of Black lives and highlight their experiences through the careful acquisition, collection, documentation, and publishing of relevant historical materials. Addressing epistemicide is critical for information professionals because we task ourselves with handling knowledge from every field. There has to be a reckoning before the paradigm can truly shift; if there is no acknowledgment of injustice, there is no room for justice.

The purpose of this study is to fill a gap in the literature by examining the import and impact of the generative leadership philosophy and praxis of Ambassador Aurelia Erskine Brazeal, an African American Female Foreign Service Officer.

This single subject case study, augmented by portraiture, employs an interdisciplinary methodological design also using polyvocal narrative, oral history and arts-based research.

The research revealed that a prosocial disposition, compassion, strategic vision, clarity of purpose, commitment to fair play, focus on balance, hearing everyone out and the practice of leadership as a potentiating art are the hallmarks of a generative leadership praxis.

The research posits that to be effective in the 21st century, leaders would do well to incorporate generative leadership qualities and characteristics into their praxis.

This study found that listening, co-creating connections and safe spaces, promoting dialog, critical reflection and collective action are as important to diplomatic tradecraft as they are to generative leadership practice.

The challenge of epistemic exclusion suggests that a well-conceived case study examining the life, leadership philosophy and praxis of Aurelia Erskine Brazeal – an individual of merit and distinction – can serve as an exemplar in efforts to reimagine public leadership in the 21st century.

The value of this research is found in its phenomenological approach which shares insights drawn from personal biography as well as key perspectives on public history.

The study aims to investigate cultural aspects in supply chains, analysing the effect that local customs may have in the quality of buyer–supplier relationships. Building on the premisses of social exchange theory (SET), it concentrates on the impacts that suppliers’ use of local practices and informal networks may have in buyers’ attitudes and perceptions. The issues addressed and the empirical evidence provided represent initial, yet important steps in the fulfilment of the ‘cultural void’ within supply chain social sustainability (SCCS) literature.

Through a role-playing experiment applied to a total sample of 468 participants, the effects of Chinese guanxi, Russian blat, South Korean yongo and Brazilian jeitinho on buyers’ satisfaction, buyers’ commitment, trust and solution severity are measured by their use to access informal networks as solutions to both common (i.e. documentation irregularities) and extraordinary (i.e. modern slavery) supply chain problems.

Results show that, while the activation of informal networks may impact buyers’ perceptions, the use of some local practices by suppliers (i.e. Chinese guanxi and Brazilian jeitinho) cause greater variations in buyers’ attitudes and perceptions than others (i.e. South Korean yongo and Russian blat), with ethical offences (i.e. modern slavery) and higher levels of buyers’ dependency acting as catalysts of these processes.

The investigation of cultural practices typical of economically peripheral countries contributes to the understanding of new facets of buyer–supplier relationships, with the investigation of non-Northwestern practices being particularly important in this regard.