Search results

First-generation college students in the United States are a unique demographic that is often characterized by the institutions that serve them with a risk-laden and deficit-based model. However, our analysis of the transcripts of open-ended, semi-structured interviews with 22 “first-gen” respondents suggests they are actively deft, agentic, self-determining parties to processes of identity construction that are both externally imposed and potentially stigmatizing, as well as exemplars of survivance and determination. We deploy a grounded theory approach to an open-coding process, modeled after the extended case method, while viewing our data through a novel synthesis of the dual theoretical lenses of structural and radical/structural symbolic interactionism and intersectional/standpoint feminist traditions, in order to reveal the complex, unfolding, active strategies students used to make sense of their obstacles, successes, co-created identities, and distinctive institutional encounters. We find that contrary to the dictates of prevailing paradigms, identity-building among first-gens is an incremental and bidirectional process through which students actively perceive and engage existing power structures to persist and even thrive amid incredibly trying, challenging, distressing, and even traumatic circumstances. Our findings suggest that successful institutional interventional strategies designed to serve this functionally unique student population (and particularly those tailored to the COVID-moment) would do well to listen deeply to their voices, consider the secondary consequences of “protectionary” policies as potentially more harmful than helpful, and fundamentally, to reexamine the presumption that such students present just institutional risk and vulnerability, but also present a valuable addition to university environments, due to the unique perspective and broader scale of vision their experiences afford them.

How can large international financial firms go green in authentic ways? What enhances ‘Net Zero action’? Changes in global banks, fund managers, and insurance firms are at the heart of green finance. External change pressures – combined with problematic firm predispositions – exacerbate barriers to change and promote scepticism about authentic Net Zero change. Field research reveals main elements, connections, and interactions of this question by considering financial firms as complex socio-technical systems (Mitleton-Kelly, 2003). An interdisciplinary/holistic narrative approach (De Bakker et al., 2019) is adopted to design a conceptual framework that can support a green ‘behavioural theory of the financial firm’ (green BTFF). The BTFF presents an international version (Peng, 2001) of the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm (Barney, 1991; Hart, 1995; Teece et al., 1997).

The approach of this chapter is aimed at closing knowledge gaps and realign values in financial markets and society. By raising awareness about organised hypocrisy and facades (Brunsson, 1993; Cho et al., 2015; Schoeneborn et al., 2020) in financial firms the chapter aims at overcoming the gap between ‘talking’ and ‘walking’ in the financial sector. The chapter defines testable firm-level hypotheses for ‘Green Finance’ (Poterba, 2021) as well as – by implication – tests for ‘greenwashing’.

International business research is showing an increasing interest in the link between international business and human rights. Despite extensive coverage of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability, the analysis and discussion of why multinational corporations include human rights in corporate reporting is still in its early stages. This chapter develops an analytical framework on corporate human rights reporting, with special emphasis on international business. The conceptual part of the framework draws on legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory and signalling theory. The analytical part distinguishes between factors inside the corporation and the external environment of business organisations operating internationally.

This chapter explores the principles of community empowerment and active participation in community development, highlighting the importance of inclusive practices for sustainable and equitable outcomes. It draws from diverse strategies and practical examples, showcasing the transformative potential of empowering community members. Through real-world case studies from places like Namibia, Bangladesh, and Brazil, readers gain insights into effective strategies for amplifying marginalized voices and enabling them to shape their destinies. The chapter addresses the challenges and benefits of participatory approaches, helping practitioners tailor strategies to complex community dynamics. It emphasizes the pivotal role of partnerships in strengthening community bonds and fostering collaborations among stakeholders. By embracing empowerment and participation, practitioners, policymakers, and researchers can contribute to a more equitable and sustainable future where communities thrive, and individuals actively shape their paths.

Individuals who are exploited and manipulated by criminal gangs are often wrongly labelled, stereotyped, and blamed (to varying levels) for the vulnerable positions that they find themselves in. Individuals who perpetrate violence towards others have often also been victims of violence and crime themselves. Teaching about these groups and trying to represent their position and experiences is a difficult and sensitive area. Building on current research, experiences of teaching professionals and students about the exploitation of marginalised groups, serious violence, and crime during COVID-19, are reflected upon. In doing so, what is important for students to understand about marganilised groups is set out, and recommendations for improvements to teaching practice are discussed. Firstly, it is argued that where educators seek to help students learn about marginalised groups, there needs to be preparation to put the work in at the front end and reflect on their own assumptions, beliefs and learning needs. Secondly, they also need to think about the ‘active’ and ‘passive’ (Seddon, 2005) aspects of individual agency and to be as authentic as they can to the lived experiences of marginalised communities as community members engage in types of behaviours and access services. Finally, it is then important for them to open up opportunities for students to reflect on the more detailed aspects and wider social, economic, and structural factors that marginalised communities face as they endeavour to articulate their own needs in society.