Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of claims of cultural appropriation in negotiating who has the right to utilise specific racial, cultural or communities' ways of knowing in research co-production. Cultural appropriation is a claim made against those making illegitimate use of traditions, knowledge and practises that originate from specific racial and/or cultural group. Appropriation helps us interrogate the ways in which rewards and benefits in academia are distributed and shared, denied or hoarded, and by whom.

The paper is a dialogue between two researchers in the in-betweens of research co-production, specifically in the negotiation of claiming the right to lead or engage in Afrofuturist work with communities.

The claim of cultural appropriation is useful in naming, drawing boundaries and creating spaces for negotiation around access and ownership of academic work but must also develop as part of a broader transformative agenda towards racial equality in academia.

In addition to ethical considerations about power imbalances and extractive practises, research co-production should also be concerned with acknowledging and crediting knowledge production practises that originate from specific racial and/or cultural groups.

This is the first paper to explore issues of cultural appropriation in research co-production, and co-production in relation to Afrofuturism. This extends ethical concerns on research co-production beyond academic power imbalances with, and extracting value from, communities to negotiating the relationships between academics and traditions, knowledge and practises developed by specific racial and/or cultural groups.

This monograph reports on the strategic and operational roles of learning and development (L&D) professionals in Irish, UK European and US organisations including multinational corporations, small to medium enterprises, the public sector and not for profit organisations. This paper aims to investigate the contextual factors influencing L&D roles in organisations, the strategic and operational roles that L&D professionals play in organisations, the competencies and career trajectories of L&D professionals, the perceptions of multiple internal stakeholders of the effectiveness of L&D roles and the relationships between context, L&D roles, competencies/expertise and perceived organisational effectiveness.

The study findings are based on the use of multiple methods. The authors gathered data from executives, senior managers, line managers, employee and L&D professionals using multiple methods: a survey (n = 440), Delphi study (n = 125) and semi-structured interviews (n = 30).

The analysis revealed that L&D professionals increasingly respond to a multiplicity of external and internal contextual influences and internal stakeholders perceived the effectiveness of L&D professionals differently with significant gaps in perceptions of what L&D contributes to organisational effectiveness. L&D professionals perform both strategic and operational roles in organisations and they progress through four career levels. Each L&D role and career level requires a distinct and unique set of foundational competencies and L&D expertise. The authors found that different contextual predictors were important in explaining the perceived effectiveness of L&D roles and the importance attached to different foundational competencies and areas of L&D expertise.

This is one of the few studies to have investigated the L&D professional role in organisations from the perspective of multiple stakeholders using multiple research methods.

This chapter utilises the analogy of ‘parasitical resistance’ (Fisher, 2020) to explore how young people act and interact in ‘adult’ contexts, where they are welcome as young people but still subordinated because of their age, and sometimes their gender. The analysis of young people’s participation in the Greater Manchester Youth Combined Authority suggests that young people who participate in formal, adult spaces need to be able to find the ‘play in the system’ to be heard and to be involved in decision-making. In this sense, the young people embraced a form of ‘parasitism’ and developed tactics to ‘effect subversion from within hegemonic structures’ (Fisher, 2020). This new paradigm argues that resistance is less likely to be found in a radical activism now and is more likely to be found instead in the mutually exploitative relations between dominant hosts (in this case, ‘adults’) giving of their power just enough, and ‘parasitical’ actors (in this case, young people) taking only as much as they need for their own ends. The chapter does not argue that young people are ‘parasites’ at the adult table but, rather, it acknowledges young people must find ways to ‘play the game’ in spaces where longstanding tools of radical resistance have limited effect. The ‘play’ is not unproblematic, however, and the chapter concludes that young people need more than just ‘being heard’ and contributing to something that is achievable, but not especially disruptive or redistributive. Instead, involvement of young people should be focused on achieving genuine parity that can benefit as many marginalised and precarious young people as possible.