Search results

There has been an explosion of interest in “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion” (EDI) – also referred to as DEI among other acronyms. On the one hand, this management trend has the potential to draw attention to the ways in which organizational practices and climates can be transformed to have a positive impact on the underrepresentation of women and other marginalized and excluded groups in the workplace. On the other hand, there may be real consequences for women as EDI replaces other concepts such as women's rights, gender equality, affirmative action, employment equity, gender discrimination, etc. This chapter applies a gender lens to the EDI concept and management policy and practice. It juxtaposes EDI's emergence with the lack of progress on gender equality that is observed and measured in many regions of the world and highlights several critiques that may explain this lack of progress. It also identifies what EDI policies and practices need to take into consideration to better address gender inequality in the workplace. Legal approaches are discussed along with a list of potential areas of research on EDI and gender equality to determine the best path forward for making concrete progress on true equality for women in the workplace.

This paper aims to introduce, unpack, explore, make sense and share Hiraya Foresight via the Engaged Foresight approach as a futures concept, framework and methodology to reconceptualize foresight and reframe anticipatory processes to enable the self and communities to reimagine visions of the future. This indigenous foresight process offers to strip the husk and break the shell of conscious, colonial anticipation and reveal and liberate unconscious imagination that enables ethical aspirations to emerge.

This paper introduces and examines the context, purpose and process of the four waves of the Hiraya Foresight Framework via the Engaged Foresight approach. These were constructed through the use of the Engaged Foresight approach, through workshops, a literature review and an action–learning approach. The first wave, lawak, looks into the breadth of foresight. The second wave, lalim, looks into the depth of foresight. Tayog, the third wave, looks into the peak of foresight. Finally, the fourth wave of foresight kababaang-loob contemplates the nature, values and wisdom of foresight.

This paper shares the processes, experiences and impacts through five case studies where the Hiraya Foresight Framework via the Engaged Foresight approach was applied. This paper shares the impacts of Hiraya Foresight in democratizing and indigenizing futures literacy.

This paper describes and offers Hiraya Foresight via the Engaged Foresight approach as an indigenous approach to decolonize futures studies and foresight practice.

To share the narratives of six Indigenous Researchers representing the diverse thinking of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders. The narratives describe the impact Decolonizing Methodologies have on our lives within the framework of Tuhiwai Smith’s Indigenous Research Agenda.

Linda Tuhwai Smith’s Indigenous Research Agenda framework is used to explore through narrative, the impact Decolonizing Methodologies had on the authors’ professional awakening as Indigenous Researchers. Each author reflects on their first encounter with Decolonizing Methodologies and describes through their narratives how the book influenced and guided their research and community work.

Positionality as a Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander is imperative to being an Indigenous Scholar. Understanding who one is requires critical reflection and is a part of developing an Indigenous Research Agenda. The challenges each Indigenous scholar’s narrative explores is navigating a Western system while staying true to our values and identity as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. At the core is our ability to work in partnership with the community to bring forth sustainable change.

This paper explores the impact Decolonizing Methodologies had on the authors thinking and research approaches. The narratives the authors share is from the positionality of being Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.

This paper argues for the inclusion of Indigenous research methodologies in diversity scholarship to (1) adequately account for and value the identity, lived experiences and concerns of Indigenous Peoples and (2) to enrich diversity theorising and scholarship by proposing new ways to think about and conduct research on difference, inclusion and belonging. We further highlight the roles non-Indigenous researchers can play in supporting Indigenous methodologies.

We introduce EDI readers to Indigenous research methodologies through explicating two Indigenous (Maori) methodologies from Aotearoa New Zealand and demonstrating points of convergence and divergence from existing methodologies evident in diversity scholarship.

The application of Eurocentric methodologies, including postcolonial approaches, can inaccurately theorise Indigenous experience through a Western lens compounding the ongoing impacts of colonialism. Conversely, drawing primarily from cultural knowledge and traditions, Indigenous methodologies place considerable value on people and place, relationships and relational accountabilities, each underpinned by an explicit intent to produce research with positive transformative potential for participant communities. Using Kaupapa Maori and Mana Wahine research as examples, we highlight how elements of “resistance” aligns with critical theories, but the “difference” inherent in Indigenous methodologies enables a more authentic engagement with people and place that is critical to understanding issues of significance to Indigenous Peoples.

This paper addresses the lack of engagement with Indigenous research methodologies and priorities of Indigenous communities within diversity scholarship. We argue that Indigenous priorities make broader contributions to the diversity agenda by attributing deeper meaning to difference and resistance as enacted through the context specificity of the Indigenous world. We contend Indigenous methodologies illuminate unique perspectives and priorities that can make powerful contributions to broader discussions of equity, inclusion and belonging.

This article argues that truth recovery practices that take place against the backdrop of ongoing settler colonial erasure, as is the case when considering Zionist colonial violence in Palestine, must focus on combating state-sponsored attempts at erasure, rather than solely providing a platform for the expression of settler guilt.

The article analyses existing literature on truth recovery practices that take place in Palestine, including the work of a variety of local NGOs engaged in such praxis, with a view to considering how this form of transitional justice has germinated incrementally in the space. Critical reflection on the work of a variety of grassroots NGOs is situated alongside other forms of transitional justice intervention.

The article argues that in the context of enduring settler colonialism, the truth regarding past Zionist atrocities in historic Palestine must avoid being curated in the present day in such a way as to allow for damage limitation rather than the platforming of conversations around meaningful repair. Truth recovery for recovery's sake serves only to reinforce the settler colonial status quo rather than properly agitate for a full decolonisation, one that demands and facilitates indigenous Palestinian return.

The article challenges prevailing notions of the role of truth recovery practices in spaces of enduring settler colonial value. It makes clear that the role of truth recovery interventions in sites where colonial violence endures must be to actively and meaningfully support activities that reinforce native identity, history and presence on the land. Moreover, by reference to existing grassroots attempts at truth recovery in Palestine, the article provides an original and clear argument that states it is simply not enough to platform the revelation of uncomfortable truths or to provide opportunities for settler violence of the past to be “confessed” in public if it is disassociated from challenging the present-day structures of ongoing oppression.

This study aims to present radical abolition studies, which encourages us to (re)member that the abolition of institutions and systems is incomplete without the abolition of their attendant epistemes of domination. The authors draw on the etymology of the word radical to encourage abolitionist praxis to grab systemic harm at its epistemological roots. Within radical abolition studies, this study presents Black abolition theory, which aims to make explicit a theorization of Blackness and works to abolish the episteme of anti-Blackness.

This paper offers Black abolition theory within radical abolition studies to reground abolition in its Black theoretical roots and to interrogate the concept of anti-Blackness and other epistemes of domination in abolitionist study and practice. Using a close reading of W.E.B. Du Bois’ Black Reconstruction, and subsequent books and articles in abolition studies and educational studies that reference it, the authors highlight Du Bois’ original conceptualization of abolitionism as an ultimate refutation of a racial-social order and anti-Blackness. The authors then put Michael Dumas and kihana ross’ theory of BlackCrit into conversation with abolitionist and educational theory to push forward Black abolition theory.

Radical abolition studies and its attendant strand of Black abolition theory presented in this paper encourages scholars and practitioners to go beyond the dismantling of current instantiations of systemic harm for Black and other minoritized people – such as the school as it currently operates – and encourages the questioning and dismantling of the epistemes of domination sitting at the foundation of these systems of harm.

Black abolition theory contextualizes abolition in education by rooting abolitionist educational praxis in Black lineages. More generally, radical abolition studies encourages further research, study and collaboration in partnership with others who have historically participated in the fight against being labeled as subhuman to upend all epistemes of domination.

Colonial epistemes distort ideologies through power structures and control, perpetuating differences and the development of an inferior status. This study aims to serve dual purposes: Firstly, the authors advocate for Pacific and international business (IB) researchers to consider adopting inclusive research practices, particularly regarding Pacific and indigenous populations. Secondly, the authors argue that decolonization presents conflicting challenges, demonstrating that the authors still have a long way to go regarding the decolonization agenda within academia, the university, IB and broader society.

An essay style is adopted to introduce inclusive Pacific research practices specific to the Pacific context, what that looks like and the advantages of using culturally appropriate methods.

This paper highlights some examples that justify why Pacific methods should be used, such as spirituality and prayers underpinned by the va (i.e. relational spaces) – a concept well-known in Pacific cultures but missing in Western academic frameworks, models and approaches. Additionally, the authors found that the endeavours to be inclusive can paradoxically lead to exclusion and marginalization within academia, the university and popular mainstream media.

This paper enriches IB theory and pedagogy by advocating for the co-creation of inclusive research practices in collaboration with Pacific and indigenous communities. It contributes to the broader movement to restore indigenous knowledge and scholarship research spaces.

The originality and value of the viewpoint lie in its potential to stimulate conversations and reflections among IB researchers regarding inclusive research practices of decoloniality. Thereby strengthening the “trumpet-shell” call to decolonize the field and academia, which IB as a discipline should not be immune to.