Search results

This paper contributes to the broad aim of this special issue, reflecting on the relevance of the writing of Alan Fox to the contemporary industrial relations field. It offers an original reflection from a feminist perspective on Fox’s classic insights around frames of reference.

We concentrate on Beyond Contract, Work, Power and Trust Relations (1974a) and Man Mismanagement (1974b, 1985) as the texts setting out Fox’s influential frames of reference theory, before moving on to subsequent literature in the field making use of Fox’s frames. In undertaking this review from a feminist perspective, we specifically look at the extent to which work considers standpoint, gender relations and political engagement. We draw further on wider feminist scholarship within industrial relations, critical race theory and intersectionality perspectives.

Despite the concept of inequality forming the core of Fox’s analyses, there is a lack of attention to gender or to other diversity strands in his work and, notwithstanding the weight of feminist scholarship within the industrial relations field since, this neglect has been carried forward into subsequent use of Fox’s work. We argue there is space for the frames to be interpreted and used in ways that leave space for attention to feminist concerns and call on academics to approach their use of Fox from a more critically-informed perspective.

The paper’s argument has implications for the field of industrial relations in terms of conceptual understanding and methodological approaches. With space, it would have been useful to apply our revised understanding of Fox’s key concepts to empirical cases.

Greater clarity in what constitutes “unitary” and “pluralist” perspectives and categories will help employment relations actors.

We present a novel feminist re-framing of Fox’s work, providing new understandings of the strengths, weaknesses and applicability of the frames of reference within contemporary industrial relations research and practice. We advocate for methodological and scholarly approaches which advance theoretical and empirical justice in the field, moving beyond gender to draw on critical race theory and intersectionality frameworks.

The United Nation’s treaty from the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) speaks to the assurance of rights and access to justice. To assure the rights addressed in the treaty, disability scholars have argued for a collaborative approach between police officers, mental health, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, professionals, and disability rights organisations. Internationally, we have witnessed that rights are being trampled at the intersection of race/ethnicity, gender identity, disability, and sexual orientation. Interactions with the police and the various systems are sometimes experienced as sources of trauma, racism, disrespect, pain, and abuse by individuals living with disabilities. Allyship and organising with the community, particularly with BIPOC and other ‘minoritised’ communities, is essential for policy and other systemic change. Community conversations were done to learn how Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) and allies experience and address policing and disability and act at these intersections. The advocacy and activism of Surviving Race: The Intersection of Injustice, Disability, and Human Rights served as the impetus for this study. Surviving Race was created to unite psychiatric survivors, BIPOC impacted by the mental health and disability systems, White allies, and members of the LGBQTIA+ community to stand in solidarity with activists who were demanding systemic change after the deaths of far too many. This chapter explores intersectional and cross-disability allyship, allyship to BIPOC disability, and psychiatric survivor communities. It examines how people with disabilities and allies can more effectively work at the intersection of race, rights, equity, and justice.

This paper offers a reflection of a research process aimed at listening to young children's voices in their everyday school life through a play-based context in a Scottish school. Throughout the research process, the complexity of conducting this research was kept in mind as listening to children's voices presents methodological and conceptual difficulties and tensions. Reflecting on the research process after the data was collected, the process was critiqued using Deleuze-Guattarian ideas. The critique aims at opening and challenging each researcher, allowing them to think-again about the next research project aimed at listening to children's voices.

The research involved an observation study that took place over one week in a primary school in Central Scotland. As part of the educators' approach to play-based pedagogy, children had the opportunity to engage in free play throughout the day. Observations were chosen as the main approach to “capture” children's voices in their natural settings.

The empirical research brought forth two main ideas, that of children as agents, and how children amplify their voices through play. The reflective part offers the possibility of understanding the intensities and forces when conducting such research and the possibilities of engaging with these.

This paper offers a critique of research aimed at listening to children's voices. The aim is not to limit engagement in researching children's voices but to open, or make complex, such processes.

The ambition of human rights-based research is to generate an evidence base aligned to specific rights and rights holders. This chapter addresses the question ‘How does the ethical communication of research evidence support the achievement of this ambition?’ It outlines a Communication of Evidence For Impact (CEFI) approach that is focused on the realisation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). CEFI proposes that human rights-based communication is: a public good; a legal imperative in States that have ratified CRPD, and a moral imperative in States yet to sign or ratify; a core research competency and ethical requirement; participatory; and grounded in a culture of inclusion, intersectionality, and allyship. This chapter explores how five actors – States, research ethics committees, researchers, funders, and publishers – can each contribute to ethical communication. Recommendations are made for including and futureproofing CEFI in a disability research ethics framework.

This investigation highlights the discrepancies in sustainability reporting practices, and their implications for sustainable service.

A comparative analysis methodology was employed, examining sustainability reports from similarly situated companies, specifically PepsiCo and Coca-Cola and The Home Depot, Lowe’s and HomePro. This approach was chosen to uncover variances in sustainability reporting and practices within these sectors using the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) guidelines which all four firms followed in their sustainability reports.

The study reveals significant disparities in how companies within the same industry apply SASB guidelines. These inconsistencies highlight a broader issue of non-standardization in sustainability reporting, leading to challenges in effectively evaluating the relative performance of companies in the same sector.

The findings suggest managers must prioritize standardized and transparent sustainability reporting to build stakeholder acceptance and trust.

This paper contributes to the existing literature by providing a detailed comparison of sustainability practices in two distinct industry sectors. It offers new insights into the challenges and importance of standardizing sustainability reporting and the potential impact on stakeholders.

The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a scoping review on the implementation of Article12 in health care. The scoping review will provide a summary and overview of the key concepts and published literature on this topic internationally. Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) states that children have a right to express their views, to have them heard and for their views to be given due weight in all matters that affect them. Despite increased calls for Article 12 to be given attention in health care, there is little evidence to suggest this has been well implemented and embedded in Australian health-care delivery. The scoping review was undertaken to provide a summary and overview of the key concepts and published literature on this topic internationally.

A five-step methodological framework described by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) was used to undertake the scoping review. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis was used as a guideline for undertaking the study selection.

Children are still not routinely involved in health-care decision-making, are frequently left out of service planning and evaluation and the perception that they lack the capability to make rational decisions persists.

While there has been a focus on research that investigates children’s participation in health-care decision-making in recent years, there is little that directs attention specifically to the implementation of Article 12, particularly in Australian health care. Recommendations are made for further research in these areas.