Search results

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 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.

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.

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.

Almost 20 years after the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, indigenous peoples living in Canada continue to pursue their legitimate aspirations for greater control over factors affecting their lives. The purpose of this paper is to summarize two major policies (the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)) that aimed to create equity for indigenous peoples’.

Commentary and rapid communication to inform and clarify evolving high-priority policy and governance issues related to indigenous peoples’ of Canada.

A need exists to create a platform for implementing the TRC actions to protect and promote education, language and culture, justice, youth programming, and professional training and development.

Innovative intervention research needs to develop solutions to multi-generational disparities in health and well-being for indigenous peoples of Canada and globally.

Failure to implement longstanding changes to improve indigenous health and well-being will result if a growing burden of premature morbidity and mortality among indigenous population of Peoples’ of Canada, the fastest growing population group with the most challenging health status in Canada.

Indigenous peoples continue to experience profound health vulnerability leading to high health risks, growing health disparities and unequal access to health care services.

Connecting policy over two decades, for implementation to proceed, sharing of knowledge is essential to formulate innovative approaches, to engage research and build capacity to implement policy actions related to closing educational gaps, to developing culturally appropriate curricula acknowledging and protecting Aboriginal languages, as well as skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution and respect for human dignity and human rights equality in settings of anti-racism and free of all forms of prejudice and discrimination.

The purpose of this paper is to examine Indigenous perspectives of work-life enrichment and conflict and provides insights to better support Indigenous employees.

Interviews were conducted with 56 Indigenous people from six Canadian provinces. In total, 33 of the respondents were female and 23 were male. The interview responses were transcribed and entered in NVivo10. Thematic analysis was used.

The authors’ respondents struggled with feeling marginalized and felt frustrated that they could not engage in their cultural and family practices. The respondents spoke of putting family needs ahead of work and that many respondents paid a price for doing so.

The results are not generalizable to all Indigenous peoples, however these results do fill a void in the literature.

Employers must consider revising policies including providing more supervisor support in the form of educating supervisors on various Indigenous cultural practices and examine ways of providing more flexibility with respect to cultural and family practices.

Indigenous peoples have been marginalized since the advent of colonialism. This research addresses a gap in the literature by presenting how a group of Indigenous respondents frames work-life enrichment and conflict.

Very few studies have examined Indigenous perspectives on work-life enrichment and conflict using a qualitative research design. It also aligns with one of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s calls to action.

This paper aims to explore the importance of meaningful participation for Indigenous peoples within the complex and highly political context of mining and mineral extraction. The aim is to consider the multi-dimensional nature of the mining context that takes into account the discursive landscape that frames the often disparate perspectives of corporate, state and Indigenous communities.

The paper is a conceptual offering that examines the complex environment within which “meaningful participation” between mining corporates and Indigenous communities operate.

This paper highlights the multi-dimensional nature of a proposed relationship between the mining corporates, the state and the Indigenous Māori community within New Zealand. The facilitation of “meaningful participation” requires that any negotiated agreement is undertaken within a framework of meaning that makes sense to the Indigenous community, in addition to the appropriate legislative and corporate initiatives to be in place.

The paper highlights the complex considerations that must be included in any form of negotiation between mining corporates and Indigenous peoples to achieve meaningful participation in the form that it was intended under international accords. While recognising the different contextual circumstance of Indigenous peoples around the world, this paper illustrates a pathway towards meaningful participation that takes into account economic, socio-cultural and environmental variables.

This paper aims to present the findings of a government-initiated project that sought to explore the possibility of incorporating cultural connections to land within the federal national accounting system using the United Nations Systems of Environmental-Economic Accounting (UN-SEEA) framework as a basis.

Adopting a critical dialogic approach and responding to the calls for critical accountants to engage with stakeholders, the authors worked with two Indigenous groups of Australia to develop a system of accounts that incorporates their cultural connections to “Country”. The two groups were clans from the Mungguy Country in the Kakadu region of Northern Territory and the Ewamian Aboriginal Corporation of Northern Queensland. Conducting two-day workshops on separate occasions with both groups, the authors attempted to meld the Indigenous worldviews with the worldviews embodied within national accounting systems and the UN-SEEA framework.

The models developed highlight significant differences between the ontological foundations of Indigenous and Western-worldviews and the authors reflect on the tensions created between these competing worldviews. The authors also offer pragmatic solutions that could be implemented by the Indigenous Traditional Owners and the government in terms of developing such an accounting system that incorporates connections to Country.

The paper contributes to providing a contemporary case study of engagement with Indigenous peoples in the co-development of a system of accounting for and by Indigenous peoples; it also contributes to the ongoing debate on bridging the divide between critique and praxis; and finally, the paper delves into an area that is largely unexplored within accounting research which is national accounting.

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.