Search results

The author extends the work on diversity policy in UK higher education by centring the voices of Black and minority ethnic scholars and de-centring white comfort with the aim of a call to stop the pain that sanitised university diversity policies cause Black and minority ethnic scholars.

Using in-depth qualitative and auto-ethographic research methods, this paper engages with both respondents' narratives as well as the author's experience of carrying out the research within the walls of predominately white universities.

In order for universities to move beyond hollow and sanitised diversity, they must centre the voices of Black and minority ethnic scholars. Respondents spoke of their experiences of pain, and feelings of “taking up” space in predominately white universities. The author also discusses respondents' feelings towards diversity and inclusion policies such as the Race Equality Charter Mark.

The research is built on previous work on diversity by decentring white comfort.

To explore the experience of a key member of the UK equalities policy‐making elite, interrogating her shift from activist to top‐ranking equalities professional. To focus attention on the under‐explored area of lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender equalities work.

The interview is prefaced with a critical commentary on current UK equalities policy, contextualising the interview discussion, which links personal and collective histories and provides a comparison of equalities work over time.

Angela Mason, while top‐ranking civil servant, continues to claim the label activist. Like a variety of other equalities workers she uses multiple tactics to appeal to different constituents at different times and in different contexts.

This is an interview with one of the key protagonists in the development of UK equalities policies over the last 30 years. It is unique in its focus on the current overhaul of UK equalities policy from an “insider” and in its timing at the interim point of this reorganisation (October 2006).

New Space activities offer benefits for human progress and life beyond the Earth. However, there is a risk that the New Space Economy may develop according to an anthropocentric mindset favouring human progress and survival at the expense of all other species and the environment. This mindset raises concerns over the social and environmental impacts of space activities and the accountability of space actors. This research article explores the accountability of space actors by presenting a pluralistic accountability framework to understand, inspire and change accountability in the New Space Economy. This study also identifies future research opportunities.

This paper is a reflective and normative essay. The arguments are developed using contemporary multidisciplinary academic literature, publicly available evidence and examples. Further, the authors use Dillard and Vinnari's accountability framework to examine a pluralistic accountability system for space businesses.

The New Space Economy requires public and private entities to embrace hybrid and pluralistic accountability for their social and environmental impacts. A new way of seeing the relationship between human life, the Earth and celestial space is needed. Accounting language is used to mirror and mobilise broader forms of responsibility in those involved in space.

This paper responds to the AAAJ's special issue call for examining how accountability can be ensured in the New Space Age. The space activities businesses conduct, and the anthropocentric view inspiring their race toward space is concerning. Hence, the authors advocate the need for rethinking accountability between humans and nature. The paper contributes to fostering the debate on social and environmental accounting and the accountability of space actors in the New Space Economy. To this end, the authors use a pluralistic accountability framework to help understand how the New Space Economy can face the risks emanating from its anthropocentric mindset.

Work-life flexibility policies (e.g., flextime, telework, part-time, right-to-disconnect, and leaves) are increasingly important to employers as productivity and well-being strategies. However, policies have not lived up to their potential. In this chapter, the authors argue for increased research attention to implementation and work-life intersectionality considerations influencing effectiveness. Drawing on a typology that conceptualizes flexibility policies as offering employees control across five dimensions of the work role boundary (temporal, spatial, size, permeability, and continuity), the authors develop a model identifying the multilevel moderators and mechanisms of boundary control shaping relationships between using flexibility and work and home performance. Next, the authors review this model with an intersectional lens. The authors direct scholars’ attention to growing workforce diversity and increased variation in flexibility policy experiences, particularly for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality, which is defined as having multiple intersecting identities (e.g., gender, caregiving, and race), that are stigmatized, and link to having less access to and/or benefits from societal resources to support managing the work-life interface in a social context. Such an intersectional focus would address the important need to shift work-life and flexibility research from variable to person-centered approaches. The authors identify six research considerations on work-life intersectionality in order to illuminate how traditionally assumed work-life relationships need to be revisited to address growing variation in: access, needs, and preferences for work-life flexibility; work and nonwork experiences; and benefits from using flexibility policies. The authors hope that this chapter will spur a conversation on how the work-life interface and flexibility policy processes and outcomes may increasingly differ for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality compared to those with lower work-life intersectionality in the context of organizational and social systems that may perpetuate growing work-life and job inequality.