Search results

This paper aims to explore Canadian in/exclusion of Aboriginal groups to/from access to mainstream business resources and opportunities. The focus is one prominent non-governmental program, the Canadian Aboriginal Prosperity and Entrepreneurship (CAPE) Fund, designed to provide equity to Aboriginal businesses. Do programs such as CAPE Fund promote Aboriginal entrepreneurship that liberates “others” on their own terms? or are they “civilizing missions” that attempt to impose Euro-centric practices and values?

The authors critically analyze the “promises” of entrepreneurship through CAPE Fund using TribalCrit, a framework rooted in critical race theory (CRT) and postcolonialism. The authors used a CRT research method highlighting two organizational narratives, describing CAPE Fund financing in two separate ventures. The research allowed to test the theory’s use in practical situations.

This paper develops a postcolonial conception of entrepreneurship to address the realities and needs of Aboriginal communities. Analysis of Canada’s CAPE Fund within two organizational narratives identified aspects of promise (active Aboriginal business ownership) and shortcomings (practices that attempted to erase inequity in ways that led to neocolonial subjugation).

This paper attempts to build theory while engaging in CRT research that relies on organizational narratives. Narrative approaches offer depth of understanding but are not generalizable because of the limited scope of organizations studied.

The research methods used and framework developed offer researchers new approaches to better understand Indigenous and Aboriginal entrepreneurship outcomes. The findings point to specific Aboriginal funding issues that can be addressed by other funding agencies who wish to create more inclusive structures.

Financial programs that might improve the possibility of self-determination of Aboriginal peoples within the postcolonial ideal must “hold both economic and non-economic objectives in tension” (Overall et al., 2010 p. 157) in ways that typically disadvantage Aboriginal entrepreneurs.

This is the first, fully articulated framework for postcolonial entrepreneurship, grounded in CRT and applied to analyze Canada’s CAPE Fund.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate success factors pertinent to the management of Indigenous businesses through the identification of points of intervention at the systemic and structural levels. Through this approach, the economic and social values that First Nations communities attach to intangible Indigenous cultural heritage (ICH) and Indigenous cultural intellectual property (ICIP) may be both recognised and realised as assets.

This paper adopts a multidisciplinary approach to address a global issue of economic and social significance to First Nation peoples, their businesses and the Australian Aboriginal communities. The authors adopt a First Nation epistemological standpoint that incorporates theoretical perspectives drawn from a diverse range of fields and theories (Preston, 2013), as well as advocate the use of Indigenist methodology for research with First Nation peoples as it is underpinned by critical race theory.

The authors argue conceptually that accounting, accountability and auditing consideration are required to fully identify what is impacting the successful management of Indigenous enterprises. Specifically, in relation to accounting, Elders should be included to assist in valuing the intangible ICH and ICIP assets. Furthermore, the authors emphasise the need to improve the financial and commercial literacy levels of Indigenous entrepreneurs.

The authors prescribe the use of tools for the accounting treatment of ICH and ICIP as intangible assets within an Australian regulatory environment and define an auditing process and accountability model incorporating cultural, social and environmental measures. A central tenet of this model relates to improving levels of personal and commercial financial literacy in the First Nation participants. Collectively, these factors promote informed participation and decision-making, and may promulgate more sustainable outcomes.

Integrated thinking requires all these factors to be considered in a holistic manner, such that a First Nation enterprise and the wider Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can understand, and make decisions based on, the overall impact it has on all their stakeholders and generally on the society, the environment and the economy.

This paper contributes to Australia’s strategic research priorities of maximising social and economic participation in society and improving the health and well-being of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The authors address the inability of current Western accounting standards, practices and models to suitably account for communally held and protocol-bound intangible Indigenous cultural heritage and Indigenous cultural intellectual property assets.

In these uncertain and risky times, the work that educators and educational researchers carry out may feel inconsequential. In preparing young people to live well in a world worth living in, educators must consider, firstly, what roles they can play in a global environment riven by volatile economic, social, and environmental contexts, and secondly, the responsibilities they bear as researchers to produce forms of understanding, modes of action, and ways of relating to one another and this world.

In this chapter, we introduce the pedagogy, education, and praxis (PEP) network and how it is that we, as researchers from around the world, came together to discuss our researching practices in coming to know and explore educational research problems concerning equity, diversity and social justice within and across different cultural settings. We share short stories of ourselves to reveal how it is that we have come to know, be, and act as researchers in our projects and how working alongside each other – our mutual relatings – have generated further understanding about our own and each other’s researching practices.

This chapter establishes the purpose of the book, where we share empirical work through the lens of practice architectures. For instance, what is considered to be an educational equity problem across international or cross-cultural sites? What are considered acceptable forms of evidence of coming to understand educational inequity in its diverse forms in different sites? How are taken-for-granted research practices enabling and/or constraining different forms of understandings about educational inequity, including the issues to be researched and/or the direction of the research project? We then provide an overview of the remaining chapters.

This is the concluding chapter of Researching Practices Across and Within Diverse Educational Sites: Onto-epistemological Considerations. In this chapter, we recall the primary purpose of the book as to examine what it is that we believe we do as a diverse group of researchers from Australia, Finland, Norway, and Canada in educational research, reflexively considering our researching practices and how projects ‘turn out’ as a consequence of these practices. Having met and worked together as a part of the pedagogy, education, and praxis (PEP) international network, our collaborations offer us an important intercultural and cross-cultural opportunity to consider our positionality and responsibilities as researchers to our participants and co-inquirers, and their communities. Sharing our projects reveals the affordances and challenges offered by various methodologies unique from and common across our projects but also reinforces the imperatives of relationality, respect, and reciprocity between researchers and the communities they serve. We leave the readers with a concept that builds upon the title of this book, that of axio-onto-epistemology, already in use in postcolonial and decolonial/Indigenous scholarship, but raised here as an open invitation for all educational researchers to consider in their researching praxis.

In this book chapter, I focus on the epistemological, ontological and axiological practice traditions that help to reveal the taken-for-granted assumptions about the management of trust funds in First Nation communities. Informing this chapter is a qualitative research study involving 11 First Nation community members in Canada who were interviewed. Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing and the theory of practice architectures are used to identify the cultural discursive, material-economic and social-political arrangements that enable and/or constrain practice. The findings reveal that Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing collide adversely with trust account decision making due to the duties and obligations guiding trust settlement agreements. The ways in which trust account practices can be transformed to ensure greater alignment with Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing are outlined.

In Australia, there are agencies funded by the government to provide support to Indigenous peoples wishing to start a business and to provide ongoing support for their businesses. In this chapter, we highlight the government-funded agencies mentioned by Indigenous small business owners and provide insights into their experiences. Informing this chapter are 36 interviews with 30 Indigenous small business owners and 6 Indigenous business stakeholders from urban, rural, and remote areas of Australia. We explore the practice of support from an axio-onto-epistemological perspective. We use the theory of practice architectures lens to analyse the data, identifying how the practice of support is enabling and constraining Indigenous small business owners. Next, we share how these government-funded agencies are understood to be used according to Indigenous stakeholders. Last, we recommend improvements that may further support and sustain Indigenous small businesses.

This chapter locates our book in social science debates and critiques challenging ontological and epistemological assumptions underpinning researching approaches emanating from the global north. This is an important contextualising move, given that these debates have surfaced crucial understandings about the dangers of unquestioned assumptions underpinning researching approaches in intercultural and cross-cultural contexts. The chapter outlines how practice architectures, the key theoretical lens employed in this book, have attempted to counter these exclusions. It focusses on the theory’s emergence from the relational (political and material) work of the pedagogy, education, and praxis (PEP) network. This historicising move is part of our shared authorial commitment to rendering visible the taken-for-granted assumptions underpinning researching approaches, including those, such as practice architectures theory, that have a shared commitment to critical educational praxis. The final section of the chapter considers the possibilities and limitations of practice architectures theory as a means of challenging taken-for-granted ontological and epistemological assumptions of research and researching practices.

In this chapter, we present a collaborative autoethnographic study with two main layers: first, we share experiences of two separate educational research projects and explore how different dialogic research practices facilitate both participants and researchers to discover the phenomenon being studied; second, we engage in a dialogic conversation to discover our own research practices. Focussing on projects in two different countries (Norway and Canada), our initial centring question for this chapter is: how do our research practices facilitate insight into participants’ real-life experiences and practices? Then turning the light on our own research practices, we ask: what onto-epistemological assumptions shape our dialogical research practices? The chapter reveals that dialogic research practices allowed collective wisdom to be discovered and ensured that we were able to break through the taken-for-grantedness both of the concept being studied and of our own research practices.