Search results

Traditionally, mainstream cross‐cultural accounting research has applied a societal norms and values measure to the examination of differences in culture. This approach is limited, however, because it effectively disfranchises the culture of minority groups such as indigenous peoples within nations. Our paper provides evidence of cultural differences between indigenous Australian values and the Western capitalist values implicit in the language of accounting and accountability. Utilising an alternative yin/yang framework developed for accounting by Hines, we argue that the core indigenous yin values of sharing, relatedness and kinship obligations inherent in indigenous conceptions of work and land, are incompatible with the yang values of quantification, objectivity, efficiency, productivity, reason and logic imposed by accounting and accountability systems. This conflict of values then brings into question the impact of accounting and accountability systems on the indigenous peoples of Australia whose beliefs, norms and values are organised differently. The need to address such a conflict is critical for all of the world’s indigenous peoples. Perhaps even more so for the Australian indigenous peoples because of the insistence by governments, at both the state and federal levels, that the extreme social and economic disadvantages experienced by the Australian indigenous peoples can be dissipated by the imposition of strict financial accountability measures for all indigenous organisations and representative bodies. We argue that the demonstrated conflict of values is a significant reason for the inability of accounting and accountability systems to deliver such social and economic outcomes. The research findings of non‐indigenous researchers are largely drawn on in this paper. The two authors of this paper are not indigenous people and therefore we are speaking “of” indigenous culture and not “speaking for” them.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the disempowering and/or empowering role of accounting in the context of Indigenous Australians.

A total of 31 interviewees participated in this study, which included 18 self-identified Indigenous Australians and 13 non-Indigenous Australians. A qualitative research methodology, and in particular an oral history method, was chosen because of its ability to support a deeper and richer form of inquiry. Bourdieu’s concepts provide the framework for mobilizing and analyzing the findings of this study.

The damaging role of accounting in the context of Indigenous peoples has largely stemmed from non-Indigenous peoples providing accounting services for Indigenous peoples. The evidence and analysis provided by this study postulates a constructive way forward of accounting’s role in contributing to the empowerment of Indigenous Australians.

Limitations include being a non-Indigenous researcher conducting research in an Indigenous context, which may have prevented some interviewees from feeling comfortable to openly share their experiences and insights.

As this study’s findings have supported the theory that accounting skills can be used in an empowering way when used “by” Indigenous peoples, Indigenous Australians should be actively supported by the accounting bodies to gain the qualifications needed for membership of the accounting profession.

This study contributes to the expanding accounting literature that locates the role of accounting in the context of Indigenous peoples by proposing accounting as a tool of empowerment.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to debates on the value of indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction. Recent international policy papers advocate the importance of indigenous knowledge and calls for its recognition. The paper aims to explore these issues in the everyday practices of disaster response by indigenous peoples and surrounding actors.

The paper is based on a total of seven months ethnographic research in indigenous communities in Thailand and the Philippines. The Thai communities had experienced minor disasters, whereas the Philippine communities were recently hit by a major killer typhoon.

In both countries the authors found that indigenous knowledge is neither completely local, nor homogenous, nor shared. The findings caution against a view that indigenous knowledge is grounded in a long tradition of coping with disasters. Coping is embedded in social practice and responsive to change. Positive labelling of indigenous practices can help to render communities more resilient.

The research was exploratory in nature and could be replicated and expanded in other indigenous peoples’ communities.

Rather than understanding indigenous peoples as simultaneously vulnerable and resilient, it calls for a more comprehensive approach to indigenous knowledge and practices around disaster.

The limitations are shown of uncritically ascribing indigenous communities a close relation to nature. It may be unfounded and de-politicises indigenous struggles.

This paper approaches indigenous knowledge issues from the point of view of indigenous communities themselves.

The paper draws attention to the potential of some strands of postmodern and related work for stimulating and furthering research into accounting and indigenous cultures and peoples. We overview some key areas of interest, showing their interface with accounting in general and with the papers published in this special issue in particular. We end our elaborations with suggestions for further research.

The purpose of this paper is to increase knowledge about community relations and development (CRD) activities done in conjunction with mining activities of multinational companies affecting indigenous peoples and thus help improve relationships between them, despite continuing bad consequences the people continue to endure. It is through such better relationships that these consequences may be redressed and mitigated, and greater sharing of benefits of mining may occur, bearing in mind what constitutes benefits may differ from the perspectives of the indigenous peoples and the miners.

A qualitative approach is taken, including interviews with company officials responsible for CRD activities, elaborated with observations, company and public documents and previous literature about these mining operations and the peoples.

The CRD activities have gradually increased compared with their absence previously. They are officially labelled social investment in community development programmes, and are funded from profits and couched in terms of human development, human rights, preservation of culture and physical development of infrastructure. Dissatisfied with programme quality and relevance, company officials now relate with indigenous people, their leaders and representatives in ways called engagement and partnerships.

The findings can inform policies and practices of the parties to CRD, which in this West Papua case would be the miners and their company, CRD practitioners, the indigenous peoples and the civil authorities at the local and national level and aid industry participants.

The study acknowledges and addresses social initiatives to develop the indigenous peoples affected by mining.

The study extends older studies in the same territory before CRD had matured, and corroborates and elaborates other studies of CRD in different territories.

Entrepreneurship by Indigenous people in Canada and Australia, while historically connected to the ancestral lands and traditional practices of Indigenous people, has been evolving and expanding in scope and nature. In this article, the authors aim to offer an integrative framework for capturing the contemporary dynamics and outcomes of entrepreneurship by Indigenous people as they pursue venture creation as part of their broader development aspirations.

Drawing on literature from place-based views of entrepreneurship and social identity theory, the authors develop a typology to account for four modes of entrepreneurship by Indigenous people along two contextual dimensions – Indigenous territory and Indigenous marker.

Indigenous practicing entrepreneurship may choose to conduct business within or outside of traditional lands and demonstrate more or less indigeneity in their business activities as they marshal resources and seek opportunities. The authors identify how these diverse Indigenous businesses contribute to the economic development among Indigenous communities as part of their ongoing struggle to rebuild their “nations” using business.

This article contributes by differentiating sociocultural vs economic resources in noneconomic contexts to develop a theoretical typology of Indigenous entrepreneurship. By detailing the relations between Indigenous territories and Indigenous lands and between Indigenous identity and Indigenous markers, the authors contribute to a more nuanced and practical conceptualization of Indigenous entrepreneurship.

This paper examines some of the issues associated with and the possibilities of incorporating Indigenous perspectives into courses on international business. Studies in the area of international education in business have a responsibility towards developing in management students an understanding of the international frameworks that protect the rights of Indigenous peoples. In order to develop effective business partnerships with Indigenous people students training in business schools require an understanding of business ethic, cross‐cultural and leadership skills. This paper provides a framework that can strengthen students’ abilities to develop sustainable partnerships in securing an economic future for all communities on this planet.

The purpose of this paper is to study the socio-economic condition of indigenous households involved in the production of palm oil and natural rubber in Peninsular Malaysia.

Discriminant analysis is used in this study.

This study finds that 49.70 percent of natural rubber plantation owners and 37.3 percent of the palm oil plantation owners live under the national poverty line. Discriminant analysis shows that natural rubber plantation size has a significant difference between income below the poverty line and above the poverty line. But palm oil plantation size is not significantly different between income below and above the poverty line, mainly because small-scale palm oil farms receive help from the government and other agencies. This study also finds that the majority of indigenous people do not have ownership rights to their land.

This study suggests that small-scale plantation holders should be provided with training to upgrade their skills to increase productivity. Furthermore, finding an appropriate land ownership model helps to understand the fundamental issue of poverty among the small-scale plantation holder of indigenous people in Peninsular Malaysia.

Primary data are used in this study. The results show different scenarios than the existing studies.

The purpose of this paper is to define different types of culturally commensurate experiences, events, activities and interventions which Indigenous people find relevant for improving cultural diversity.

Based on interviews and surveys with Indigenous Probations Officers, the authors define a framework of nine experiences and events relevant to the organization, team and cultural development.

The key finding lies in proposing a framework of what Indigenous Probation Officers finding lies view as commensurate experiences, activities or interventions which recognize their cultural context (American Psychological Association, 2003).

The key limitations to this study are the size of the sample and the inability to conclusively argue that the framework of experiences developed can claim to represent those important for improving recruitment and retentions of all Indigenous Probation Officers. Further exploratory research of this type is necessary to add to this research in guiding future research and practice.

The definition of a multicultural experiences offered here might be useful in encouraging Probation Officers and others in developing a deeper appreciation of cultures of Indigenous peoples and other groups.

The purpose is to better understand an Indigenous perspective on enhancing a connection to culture within the Corrections system.

Rather than using a list of competencies to shape behaviors and experiences that people practice, the underlying assumption is to encourage cultural multiculturalism framework competency development by focusing on experiences and events important to objectives related to improving diversity.

For many Indigenous nations globally, ethics is a conversation. The purpose of this paper is to share and mobilize knowledge to build relationships and capacities regarding the ethics review and approval of research with Indigenous peoples throughout Atlantic Canada. The authors share key principles that emerged for shifting practices that recognize Indigenous rights holders through ethical research review practice.

The NunatuKavut Inuit hosted and led a two-day gathering on March 2019 in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, to promote a regional dialogue on Indigenous Research Governance. It brought together Indigenous Nations within the Atlantic Region and invited guests from institutional ethics review boards and researchers in the region to address the principles-to-policy-to-practice gap as it relates to the research ethics review process. Called “Naalak”, an Inuktitut word that means “to listen and to pay close attention”, the gathering created a dynamic moment of respect and understanding of how to work better together and support one another in research with Indigenous peoples on Indigenous lands.

Through this process of dialogue and reflection, emergent principles and practices for “good” research ethics were collectively identified. Open dialogue between institutional ethics boards and Indigenous research review committees acknowledged past and current research practices from Indigenous peoples’ perspectives; supported and encouraged community-led research; articulated and exemplified Indigenous ownership and control of data; promoted and practiced ethical and responsible research with Indigenous peoples; and supported and emphasized rights based approaches within the current research regulatory system. Key principles emerged for shifting paradigms to honour Indigenous rights holders through ethical research practice, including: recognizing Indigenous peoples as rights holders with sovereignty over research; accepting collective responsibility for research in a “good” way; enlarging the sphere of ethical consideration to include the land; acknowledging that “The stories are ours” through Indigenous-led (or co-led) research; articulating relationships between Indigenous and Research Ethics Board (REB) approvals; addressing justice and proportionate review of Indigenous research; and, means of identifying the Indigenous governing authority for approving research.

Future steps (including further research) include pursuing collective responsibilities towards empowering Indigenous communities to build their own consensus around research with/in their people and their lands. This entails pursuing further understanding of how to move forward in recognition and respect for Indigenous peoples as rights holders, and disrupting mainstream dialogue around Indigenous peoples as “stakeholders” in research.

The first step in moving forward in a way that embraces Indigenous principles is to deeply embed the respect of Indigenous peoples as rights holders across and within REBs. This shift in perspective changes our collective responsibilities in equitable ways, reflecting and respecting differing impetus and resources between the two parties: “equity” does imply “equality”. Several examples of practical changes to REB procedures and considerations are detailed.

What the authors have discovered is that it is not just about academic or institutional REB decolonization: there are broad systematic issues at play. However, pursuing the collective responsibilities outlined in our paper should work towards empowering communities to build their own consensus around research with/in their people and their lands. Indigenous peoples are rights holders, and have governance over research, including the autonomy to make decisions about themselves, their future, and their past.

The value is in its guidance around how authentic partnerships can develop that promote equity with regard to community and researcher and community/researcher voice and power throughout the research lifecycle, including through research ethics reviews that respect Indigenous rights, world views and ways of knowing. It helps to show how both Indigenous and non-Indigenous institutions can collectively honour Indigenous rights holders through ethical research practice.