Search results

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.

Polynesian settlers arrived in Aotearoa (in te reo, or Māori language, “Land of the Long White Cloud”) about the 10th century. Aotearoa was visited briefly by the Dutch navigator Abel Tasman in 1642. However, it was not until 1769 that the British naval captain James Cook and his crew became the first Europeans to explore New Zealand’s coastline thoroughly. The word Māori meant “usual or ordinary” as opposed to the “different” European settlers. Before the arrival of Europeans, Māori, or indigenous Polynesian inhabitants of New Zealand, had no name for themselves as a nation, only a number of tribal names. The original meaning of Pākeha, the settlers, was a person from England. With time, Pākeha became the word to describe fair-skinned people born in New Zealand. We use the word Pākeha here in the sense of the New Zealand census as a European New Zealander.

Argues that the discourse of “managing diversity”, emerging from the US management literature, cannot be simply mapped on to organisations in other cultural contexts. It uses the example of Aotearoa/New Zealand to show that a “diversity” based on the demographics and dominant cultural assumptions of the USA fails to address – and may in fact obscure – key local “diversity” issues. It argues that the dominant discourse of “managing diversity” has embedded in it cultural assumptions that are specific to the US management literature. It calls for a genuinely multi‐voiced “diversity” discourse that would focus attention on the local demographics, cultural and political differences that make the difference for specific organisations.

Since 1998 New Zealand early childhood educators have been required to implement programs consistent with Te Whàriki (Ministry of Education, 1996), a bicultural early childhood curriculum that validates and enacts kaupapa Màori (a Màori theoretical paradigm reflected through the medium of the Màori language). This curriculum document affirms and validates the status of Màori, the indigenous people of this country so that Pàkehà (New Zealanders of European descent) early childhood educators now need to reposition themselves alongside Màori whànau (families) and colleagues who remain the repositories of Màori knowledge. This means a decentering of the “mainstream” curriculum to develop models that parallel Màori language and content inclusively alongside western knowledges in all facets of the early childhood curriculum. This chapter utilizes data from a recent study to illustrate some ways in which the bicultural requirements of Te Whàriki, are being understood and experienced by early childhood teachers, teacher educators, and professional development facilitators. In particular, this chapter considers how Te Whàriki challenges non-Màori teachers’ to confront the power relations that have historically positioned them as curriculum ‘experts’ and marginalized indigenous cultural knowledge.

Leading off the book, and the first paper in this section, is, “The Ethnic Ownership Economy” by Ivan Light. This survey paper hardly needs an introduction, because the author is one of the foremost scholars in the field of ethnic economics and entrepreneurship. Ivan Light can be argued to be one of the founders of fields concerned with ethnicity on the strength of his groundbreaking early study Ethnic Enterprise in America (1972). Over the subsequent years he has remained on the cutting edge of research, and the survey paper included here clearly reflects that fact. In this paper, the author reviews and summarizes a significant body of sociological research concerning ethnic economies. He offers three challenges for future research: the first is to examine how the ethnic or immigrant entrepreneurs differ from non-immigrant entrepreneurs, the second is to investigate how immigrants tend to differ in the bundle of resources when compared to their indigenous counterparts, and the third is to study how in multi-ethnic societies non-immigrant entrepreneurs and immigrant/ethnic minority entrepreneurs operate out of social networks with minimal overlap.

Rich research discussion that occurs at conferences is rarely made accessible after the event. This paper aims to report on two “equality diversity and inclusion” (EDI) conferences held in Auckland, New Zealand, in 2008 and 2011. It summarises, compares and contrasts the processes and content of the conferences as well as identifying research trends and suggesting future research directions.

Text from the abstracts and transcribed audio recordings of conference discussions and presentations were analysed for similarities and differences. Two of the authors completed individual analyses of each of the conferences before reaching consensus on the overall themes.

Enduring EDI concerns over the two conferences were: identity, change practices and context. At the 2008 conference, three linked categories permeated discussion: methodologies, identity and practices for effective change. Over the intervening three years, research volume grew and differentiated into speciality areas. At the 2011 conference, methodological enquiry was less visible, but was intertwined through content areas of differentiated identities (sexuality, ethnicity, and gender), roles (leadership and management) and context (country, sport, and practice).

This paper distils research trends from two conferences and suggests directions for research.

The paper provides a bounded overview of developments and changes in the EDI sub‐discipline. Rich research discussion often occurs informally at conferences but is not made widely available. This paper aims to share conference discussions, research trends and potential directions for research.

This paper aims to provide a systematic review of the academic literature on the determinants, processes and impacts of indigenous entrepreneurship (IE), highlights its contribution to current knowledge and identifies research gaps to guide future research.

Databases used in this study included Scopus, ABI, Business Source Complete, ProQuest and Emerald Insight. In total, 84 articles were included in the review.

The findings revealed that 33 studies were qualitative, 12 used a survey-based approach, 25 were conceptual and 14 used mixed approaches. The focus on theory-building research underlines the fact that more theory-testing research is needed in the future. In total, 38 studies were conducted in developed countries and 43 in developing countries. The findings indicated that IE was driven by many determinants such as family and clan ties, patriarchy and social stratification, government support and conducive entrepreneurial ecosystems. Processes related to policies, IE development programs, partnerships, expenditure mechanisms, equitable distribution of benefits and resource mobilization. The outcomes of IE included economic development, sustainability, increased indigenous economic participation, enhanced quality of life, self-determination and preserving cultural heritage.

The current paper has some limitations. Firstly, it focuses only on academic journals and excludes conferences, books and working papers. Secondly, it includes only English language academic articles. However, while the current systematic literature review (SLR) has these limitations, it presents a thorough view of the determinants, processes and impacts of IE. Future studies may consider other sources beyond academic journals and also include non-English publications, and this approach may identify interesting areas for future research.

Existing reviews of IE take a narrow perspective and fail to present a comprehensive view of the IE phenomenon. The current study aims to fill this gap in the literature and provides a SLR pertaining to IE’s determinants, processes and impacts. The review is both timely and relevant because it identifies gaps and serves as a springboard to guide future research.

Through observing the use of iPhone and iPad by a child between the ages of two and four years and a half, this study presents accounts on the child’s use of and interaction with these devices, as well as her interaction with the physical environment.

Unstructured, naturalistic observation was employed in this study. The study is grounded in theories of user engagement with digital and physical objects.

A child’s interaction with touch-based devices does not deter the child from engaging effectively with the physical environment or from activities centered on creativity and interpersonal engagement. A child is able to move back and forth seamlessly between the physical and digital environments.

Findings from this study could help parents, educators, and system designers understand why and how toddlers and preschoolers use and engage with touch-based devices, as well as the kind of tasks they perform.

Studies of toddlers’ or preschoolers’ information behavior and interaction with touch-based devices are scarce. Children born toward the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century are growing up with a propensity to using touch-based devices. This study provides a framework for effective usage of such devices while ensuring all-round cognitive and physical development of the child.