Search results
1 – 4 of 4Kevin James Moore, Pauline Stanton, Shea X. Fan, Mark Rose and Mark Jones
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…
Abstract
Purpose
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.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper has drawn on key literature and secondary data through an Indigenous Lens.
Findings
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.
Originality/value
This is the first Treaty in Victoria and there has been no study of it before.
Details
Keywords
Stéphanie Giamporcaro and George Kuk
This study aims to make a distinction between actualized and claimed affordances of blockchain by examining how a specified user group interprets and translates the actualized…
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to make a distinction between actualized and claimed affordances of blockchain by examining how a specified user group interprets and translates the actualized affordances from a known use context into their existing practices. This allows us to develop and advance the concept of affordances-in-practice as an enactment of action possibilities through practices in a specified use context.
Design/methodology/approach
We focus on the field of sustainable investment (SI) and its relation to emerging blockchain technologies in the pursuit of sustainable development goals (SDGs). We used a field study involving 29 interviews with SI practitioners and blockchain entrepreneurs in South Africa, supplemented with an analysis of 91 practitioner and industry documents.
Findings
Our findings show that when there is a lack of actual use cases in the field of SI, the claimed affordances of blockchain are subject to a sensemaking process, which considers how action possibilities can be enacted and transformed through practices and how institutional constraints and socio-cognitive barriers can determine the available action possibilities.
Research limitations/implications
A notable limitation relates to the relative novelty and emerging status of blockchain. As affordances are based on available information and experience, this leaves room for claimed affordances. We discuss the implications of the interplay of the actualized and claimed affordances in blockchain applications in the field of SI.
Practical implications
We discuss the practical implications of addressing claimed affordances and field opacity in the SI field.
Originality/value
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to examine blockchain affordances for good in the context of achieving SDGs through SI. Our affordances-in-practice framework holds theoretical promise to pinpoint and explain how practices can shape action possibilities despite having difficulties in evaluating the underlying technological potentialities.
Details
Keywords
Gennaro Maione, Giulia Leoni and Michela Magliacani
This study aims to explore what and how digital innovation, as a knowledge-based and multi-dimensional process, can be used to increase the accountability of public and private…
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to explore what and how digital innovation, as a knowledge-based and multi-dimensional process, can be used to increase the accountability of public and private sector organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Design/methodology/approach
Taking an interpretivist approach, qualitative research is designed around Strong Structuration Theory (SST). A content analysis of relevant documents and semi-structured interviews focusing on the relationships between digital innovation and accountability in extraordinary times is conducted.
Findings
The results show the existence of digital innovation barriers and facilitators that can have an impact on accountability during extraordinary times. The research highlights how managers of public organizations focus largely on the social dimension of knowledge (i.e., competencies shaped by collective culture), while managers of private organizations focus mainly on the human dimension of knowledge (i.e., skills gained through learning by doing).
Research limitations/implications
The paper enriches the accountability literature by historicizing SST for extraordinary times and by utilizing a multiple-dimensional approach to digital innovation. Also, the work underlines specific strategies organizations could usefully adopt to improve accountability through digital innovation in the public and private sectors during extraordinary times.
Originality/value
This article emphasizes the crucial integration of technological components with knowledge. In particular, the digital innovation is considered as a strong synergy of human and social dimensions that compels organizations toward enhanced accountability, particularly in the face of extraordinary challenges.
Details
Keywords
This paper examines to what extent blockchain creates legitimacy and trust in different modes of public governance. It posits that while blockchain aims for political legitimacy…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper examines to what extent blockchain creates legitimacy and trust in different modes of public governance. It posits that while blockchain aims for political legitimacy through decentralising, immutable and consensus-based mechanisms, the execution of these mechanisms is limited in legitimating governance, which has knock-on effects on trust. It provides an original contribution by recontextualising and reframing blockchain as a governance mechanism that should, and must, perform a legitimating function in order to engender trust.
Design/methodology/approach
The research adopts a comprehensive framework for understanding the legitimacy of blockchain governance, positioning it in terms of co-governance, self-governance and hierarchical governance modes. It systematically analyses blockchain whitepapers, legislation, government documents and other sources in three paradigmatic case studies where blockchain governance failed. These cases are then used to assess blockchain according to three key characteristics of decentralisation, immutability and consensus.
Findings
The research finds that blockchain’s use in governance settings still relies on legitimacy conferred from other sources – namely state – in order to generate trust. Significant limitations in its de facto political decentralisation, immutability and consensus protocols can create failures in co-governance, self-governance and hierarchical-governance applications, thus limiting the legitimation function of blockchain in facilitating political trust.
Originality/value
These findings are significant in highlighting blockchain’s limitations as a decentralised, immutable and consensus-driven legitimating tool, which has knock-on effects on trust in technology and governance more broadly. It also has broader implications in more clearly highlighting the interconnectedness of political trust and legitimacy in governance processes.
Details