Search results

L'objectif visé est de nourrir les réflexions sur la colonisation du futur dans le présent en mettant particulièrement l’accent sur le continent africain. Nous visons à explorer comment la recherche participative, et plus particulièrement la recherche-action anticipatoire, peut contribuer au processus de décolonisation effective.

Considérant le futur comme un bien public, nous mobilisons une réflexion sur les processus coloniaux qui l’ont transformé, à bien des égards, en bien de club ou en bien privé. Nous faisons ensuite appel aux notions de production participative de connaissances et de recherche-action locale comme moyens de décoloniser le futur et de libérer l'imagination. Nous revisitons ensuite les principes de la recherche-action participative pour atteindre cet objectif et nous examinons les principales caractéristiques d'une recherche-action anticipatoire non coloniale dans le contexte des futurs de l'Afrique.

Nous mettons en évidence les défis issus de la relation entre les efforts d'anticipation axés sur la recherche-action, la création d'une intelligence collective et la co-conception (codesign), dans le but d'encourager le processus de décolonisation. Cette démarche inclut des principes de conception, établit les bases pour un processus anticipatoire, potentiellement décolonial et envisage une possible réaction du système dominant à l’encontre de ce processus de décolonisation.

Il s’agit d’un travail conceptuel, qui ne fournit pas d’éléments testés sur le terrain. Toutefois, nous espérons que cela constituera un apport permettant de concevoir des méthodologies qui préviendront la colonisation du futur lors de la participation à des activités de recherche tournées vers les futurs en Afrique et ailleurs.

Nous proposons une approche intégrale de la colonisation du futur, comme renouvellement d’une question ancienne. Nous articulons également cette démarche autour d’une réflexion sur la nature de ce que pourrait être une recherche-action anticipatoire décoloniale.

The purpose of this paper is to nurture reflections on the colonization of the future in the present with a particular focus on Africa. This paper aims at exploring how participatory research and particularly anticipatory action research can contribute to a decolonising process.

Considering the future as a public good, this paper develops a reflection on the colonization processes that can turn it into a club or a private good. This paper mobilizes the notions of participatory knowledge production and local action research as a way to decolonize the future and empower imagination. This paper revisits the tenets of participatory action research as a means to achieve this objective and discusses the main features of a non-colonial anticipatory action research in the context of African futures.

This paper highlights the challenges associated with connecting anticipatory endeavours focusing on action research, the creation of collective intelligence and co-design, with the intention of encouraging the decolonisation process. It includes design principles and anticipates a possible process of counter-decolonization.

This is a conceptual paper, which does not provide field-tested evidence. Yet, the authors hope it serves as an input enabling to design methodologies that will prevent the colonisation of the future when engaging in future-oriented research activities in Africa and elsewhere.

This paper provides an integral approach to the colonisation of the future, as a renewed old question. This paper also connects this process with a reflection on the nature of what could be non-colonizing anticipatory action research.

There does not exist any precise definition of ‘development’. In view of the indispensability of an interpretation of this concept a degree of speculation seems to exist in a development process. This is the reason this chapter has been included in this work. No scholar has precisely defined ‘development’ and ‘developing’ countries. It is believed that indigenous people know best what would be most suitable for them for development of their country. However, any discussion of these topics becomes incomplete, controversial, etc. in the absence of any precise definition. This chapter is no exception to this although an attempt has been made to outline development.

Disaster management practices depend on societies' knowledge. As climate change rapidly reshapes knowledge, questions arise about how knowledge for disaster management is produced and (re)shaped in modern world and how effective it is to withstand the ever-growing frequency and magnitude of disasters. This paper discusses the dynamics of knowledge creation and its use for disaster management in Chokwe district, southern Mozambique.

The study reviews historical archives to identify how disaster management knowledge has changed from pre-colonization to the present.

Before colonization, local knowledge associated with traditions of asking gods and ancestors for rain and blessings in life prevailed. With colonization, around the 1500s, Portuguese rulers attempted to eliminate these local practices through an inflow of European settlers who disseminated scientific knowledge, built dams and irrigation schemes, which changed the region’s knowledge base and regimes of flooding and drought. After independence in 1975, the new government nationalized all the private property, expelled the settlers and imposed a socialist order. All knowledge on disaster management was dictated by the new government; those against this new order were sent to re-education centers implanted nationwide. Centralization of knowledge and power was, therefore, implanted. Socialism collapsed by the 1990s, and over time, there has been an amalgam of different knowledge bases and attempts to recognize local disaster management practices.

The Chokwe case shows that knowledge for disaster management evolves with local socioeconomic, political and environmental changes.

This paper centers a decolonial and Indigenous methodological approaches to educational history research. This research offers how Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples by Linda Tuhiwai Smith impacts one education historian’s scholarship alongside conversations of historiography concerning the Lumbee people and how their education history becomes contextual and reclaimed through decolonial and Indigenous methodological approaches.

Leaning on epistemological questioning and historical research with decolonial and Indigenous methodologies to provide a needed approach to historical education analysis.

This research demonstrates how history and epistemology work together to decolonize educational histories by understanding the impacts of settler colonization and recenters histories with Indigenous (Lumbee) voices.

This approach to qualitative historical research provides space for Indigenous epistemology and decolonial and Indigenous methodological approaches to education history that critically examines history told from a European/Western epistemological lens as a way forward to center Indigenous communities.

The purpose of this paper is to share two Indigenous perspectives on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). It is grounded in aspirations for de-othering and de-colonisation. De-othering is the unpicking of the status of “other” bestowed upon us by the dominant culture, and de-colonisation involves the deconstruction of the ways the settler states in which we live have defined and oppressed us.

The methodology is a critical self-reflection, drawing on the lived experience of two Indigenous scholars in business fields outside of the international business discipline.

The findings explore policies, like affirmative action emerging in the 1960s, to the pantheon of DEI theory and strategies developed, as tools of the dominant culture, albeit well-meaning, that perpetuate the dependency of the “other” on the largesse of the “dominant”, which ultimately maintain relations of oppression.

The limitations of the paper include, that we cannot speak for all Indigenous peoples. This paper is a personal viewpoint and is not a meta-analysis of theory and literature. The authors draw on the personal, which for Indigenous peoples is also the political, perspectives, that are steeped in their cultural histories and identities, and underpinned by their aspirations for social change and social justice for their peoples.

The authors offer practical implications for those Indigenous Peoples and allies looking to develop empowering strategies for de-othering individuals and communities defined by dominant cultures as “others”, which in turn has social implications for engagement in truly empowering work in social justice at the borderlands of power, particularly in terms of international business guided by ethics and social responsibility.

In this paper, the authors use the following terms: Maori, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, First Peoples and Indigenous Peoples. They use the term Peoples to denote that they are not one homogenous People but a collective society that consists of many distinct communities, peoples and nations.

The authors offer practical implications for those Indigenous Peoples and allies looking to develop empowering strategies for de-othering those defined by dominant cultures as “others”, which in turn has social implications for those engaged in truly empowering work for social justice at the borderlands of power, particularly in terms of international business guided by ethics and social responsibility. They make no apologies for this paper, as it is entirely based on personal viewpoints.

This paper aims to investigate how embedding accounting techniques of cost and budgeting within the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) potentially perpetuates colonial practices for Australian First Nations people living in remote areas. Further, the paper aims to explore how accounting might help to integrate the unique modes of accountability First Nations people have over disability care into the NDIS funding system. Ultimately, the aim is to discern whether accounting practices can be mobilised as a means to decolonising the NDIS framework.

This study uses a qualitative methodology to analyse public hearings from the Australian Disability Royal Commission. Drawing on Bhabha's (1994) concept of the “third space”, this study investigates how accounting techniques can be used to potentially decolonise the NDIS. This study also borrows Bhabha's (1994) concept of the third space to explore the potential for decolonising the NDIS through accounting techniques.

Findings show that the accounting techniques pertaining to funding and costs embedded within the NDIS contribute to displacing and disconnecting First Nations people from their cultural practices and ways of life. Further, the analysis reveals that the NDIS funding system could help to decolonise the NDIS space if it were modified to incorporate First Nations' perspectives on accountability for disability care.

The case of the NDIS exposes glimpses of colonisation in contemporary Australia, where Western institutional and economic systems dominate over the structure and authority of the practice. In this paper, this study demonstrates that the accounting system used by the NDIS plays a role in marginalising First Nations people. However, accounting, as a technology of negotiation, could also be mobilised to enhance accountability for disability care outcomes and pave the way for decolonising public policies.

The purpose of this paper is to explore this process through reviewing key reports and literature through an Indigenous standpoint lens. We identify three key challenges facing the Yoorrook Commission in its journey. First, the continued resistance of influential sections of the Australian community to look backwards and accept responsibility for the violence of the colonial project. Second, the trauma facing those who speak out and remember and the real danger of expectations dashed. Third, the continuance of the colonial pandemic and underlying and invisible racism that infects and poisons all Australians.

This paper has drawn on key literature and secondary data through an Indigenous Lens.

We identify three challenges facing Yoorrook. First, the resistance of influential sections of the Australian community to accept responsibility for the violence of the colonial project. Second, the trauma facing those who speak out and remember and the danger of expectations dashed. Third, the continuance of underlying and invisible racism that infects and poisons the hearts and minds of non-Indigenous Australia. Despite these challenges we argue that the ability of Yoorrook to capture the lived experience of First Peoples in Victoria and the ability to hold key government officials to account presents a unique opportunity to advance the self determination of all First Peoples in Australia.

This is the first Treaty in Victoria and there has been no study of it before.

This paper illuminates our journey as accounting educators by exploring accounting as a technical, social and moral practice towards decolonising ourselves. It lays the foundations for decolonising the higher education curriculum and the consequences for addressing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

This paper focuses on the potential to foster a space for praxis by adopting dialogism-in-action to understand our transformative learning through Jindaola [pronounced Jinda-o-la], a university-based Aboriginal knowledge program. A dialogic pedagogy provided the opportunity to create a meaningful space between us as academics, the Aboriginal Knowledge holder and mentor, the other groups in Jindaola and, ultimately, our accounting students. Since Jindaola privileged ‘our way’ as the pedagogical learning process, we adopt autoethnography to share and reflect on our experiences. Making creative artefacts formed the basis for building relationships, reciprocity and respect and represents our shared journey and collective account.

We reveal our journey of “holding to account” by analysing five aspects of our lives as critical accounting academics – the overarching conceptual framework, teaching, research, governance and our physical landscape. In doing so, we found that Aboriginal perspectives provide a radical positioning to the colonial legacies of accounting practice.

Our journey through Jindaola contemplates how connecting with Country and engaging with Aboriginal ways of knowing can assist educators in meaningfully addressing the SDGs. While not providing a panacea or prescription for what to do, we use ‘our way’ as a story of our commitment to transformative change.

This chapter explores the proposition that Australia’s abusive treatment of refugees and asylum seekers can be traced back to a denial of the foundational violence of colonisation.

By adopting a psychoanalytic frame, the research explores three questions: is Australia engaging in cruel, degrading and humiliating treatment of asylum seekers, a treatment that devolves into torture? If so, how is this operationalised? And finally what does the abuse satisfy within the state?

The work uses Freud’s paper, ‘Mourning and Melancholia’, and Melanie Klein’s work on the paranoid/schizoid position to describe the psycho-affective terrain from which this abuse emanates.

The chapter takes this psycho-affective terrain as the foundation and then investigates the impact the privatised detention regime has had in enabling the known/unknowability of the abuse and mechanisms at work within media practice to create ‘torturable subjects’ (Mendiola, 2014, p. 13).