Search results

Paradigms are shifting in research involving Indigenous peoples: research with Indigenous peoples instead of research on them. To do this, we must acknowledge a shared and sacred space of multiple world views. Negotiating this meeting place – the ethical space – demands that researchers, Research Ethics Boards (REBs), and Indigenous peoples collaborate to find mutually agreeable solutions to research ethics tensions. This chapter addresses the principle-to-policy-to-practice gaps in the application of Canada’s research ethics policy (i.e. TCPS2) by demonstrating how one 2018 study navigated ethical engagement by practising Etuaptmumk: Two-eyed seeing (the Mi’kmaq concept of learning to see from and integrate multiple perspectives to find remedies to issues/challenges/questions that benefit everyone). Movements within both Indigenous and academic communities – in Canada and elsewhere – to develop policy on research ethics for research with Indigenous peoples present an opportunity and impetus for researchers to do differently and with the leadership of Indigenous peoples. This chapter shares reflections from one study that offers an example of doing differently and acknowledging self-in-science or examining self-as-science, which is not a common practice. The acceptance of creative research methods, like autoethnography through poetry and spoken word, demonstrates academic culture can change, too, and provides researchers methods and mediums to explore and examine the self without separation from the research. This chapter discusses these as relational and reflexive, a way to challenge conventional positions of ‘researcher’ and ‘participant’, and reimagines research innovation through relationship.

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.

The purpose of this short paper is to comment on the powerful contribution researchers have made to the emerging field of Indigenous O&M scholarship.

The paper reviews the work in the field of Indigenous O&M.

Indigenous O&M research, first, has been driven by the effects of colonization and the attempts to reclaim traditional ways of researching, organizing and managing, second; has sought asylum in established critical and alternative fields of scholarship to create research legitimacy in the mainstream, and; third, produced novel methodological processes.

Several observations of the field will be made and some considerations are put forward to promote research within the tight – almost impenetrable – boundaries of the academy and its institutions.

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the political dimensions in the relationships between mining companies and their aboriginal stakeholders in Australia. Practical applications of stakeholder approaches to corporate social responsibility (CSR) can overlook indigenous people at the local level of those who are most affected by mining.

Informed by critical discourse analysis, the paper reports on a critical web‐based study that synthesises disparate community and business perspectives to explore the representations of CSR relationships between mining companies and aboriginal stakeholders.

Through their rhetorical manipulation of the CSR discourse, mining companies construct a homogeneous representation of aboriginal peoples, for strategic purposes. Companies maintain a public image as good corporate citizens, while using the rhetoric to divert their CSR activities to less problematic indigenous groups, thus ignoring the claims of stakeholders who are more directly affected by mining.

While web‐based research of CSR relationships can incorporate disparate perspectives to reveal the critical complexities of the relationships, the resultant interpretations cannot be conclusive. Thus more comprehensive on‐site ethnographic fieldwork is required, and the web‐based studies can be used to identify issues and contradictions to be investigated in the field.

This critical evaluation of the CSR relationships between mining companies and their indigenous stakeholders offers an independent appreciation of those relationships and the political nuances in them. The paper provides evidence of the corporate appropriation of the CSR discourse for corporate image‐enhancing purposes and shows how the mining companies adopt this approach in their practice of the CSR rhetoric.

This chapter is in part a review of the educational state of indigenous Filipino peoples (IPs) through the lens of Critical Race Theory (CRT). Reports and observations from various literature on IPs in the Philippines were cited to show that the IPs' general educational, economic, social, and cultural situations similarly illustrate the following tenets of the CRT: (1) race is a social construct; (2) racism (discrimination against IPs in this case) is pervasively common; (3) active pursuit of equality happens only when it benefits all; (4) racism (discrimination against IPs in this case) is usually intertwined with abuses, inequities, or oppressions related to gender, religion, sex, economic status, education, physical state, mental capacity, and other variables; (5) racial groups (indigenous groups in this case) have perspectives that run counter to the mainstream perspective; and (6) laws and policies are not neutral when they do not eradicate social inequality. To develop a socially just or highly inclusive curriculum for indigenous students, it is necessary to involve organic resource persons in crafting or modifying a curriculum that responds well to the needs of the IPs. This is an imperative government and education agenda if the Filipino people are aiming to attain high-level inclusive and organic education for the IPs in the Philippines.

This chapter is concerned with the question that is indigeneity, and its situation within literary and juridical imaginaries. As a persistently unsettling presence, indigeneity appears outside the law, before the law and beyond the law – indeed, in Derrida's terms, as an evocation of the unconditional. Whereas the law determines indigeneity to recognise it, I propose that its expression in Indigenous literature evokes a Derridean unconditional to which the law must perpetually, if momentarily, respond. This chapter elaborates a conception of indigeneity, as expressed in Indigenous literature, as disruptive and deconstructive of non-Indigenous law, opening its narratives to transformation.

Despite ample international literature regarding the school-to-prison pipeline, researchers in the Australian context have remained relatively silent about this phenomenon. While there are several studies investigating the criminological characteristics of juvenile detention in Australia, a substantial gap exists examining the educational exclusion of young First Nations males from the education system and whether this has a direct bearing on their overrepresentation in juvenile incarceration. Highlighted in this chapter are the cultural complexities and inequitable practices associated with high rates of exclusion of First Nations boys from school resulting in the likelihood of potential incarceration for some. Finally, certain pragmatic solutions are offered so that educators may reflect upon their important role in disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline.

This chapter provides an overview of the volume, beginning with anecdotes from the editors. These anecdotes demonstrate the range of issues facing Indigenous scholars and researchers who choose to work with Indigenous participants and/or communities. Reference is made to Indigenous research sovereignty, honouring the immense work undertaken by previous Indigenous scholars, enabling many today to work effectively with their own people as well as other Indigenous groups. This is considered a courageous act, given the vulnerability this opens Indigenous peoples up to in terms of the change that is engendered and the criticism from external non-Indigenous researchers that has often arisen. The organisation of the volume into three parts is discussed, and this chapter ends with synopses of the following 16 chapters.