Search results

This study explores the concept of intergenerational accountability to address the grand challenge of a just transition. Intergenerational accountability extends the notion of accountability for the other to include future generations in ways that avoid the trap of long-termism and delayed action.

We follow a critical qualitative case study approach with an Indigenous community in a settler colony. Sources of empirical materials include semi-structured interviews and documentary reviews, analysed abductively through thematic analysis.

Intergenerational accountability extends the notion of accountability for the other temporally by including future generations. Indigenous temporalities offer a way to address concerns that accountability to distant future generations could delay the urgency to act now. Findings suggest that the “eternal present”, where aspirations of ancestors and obligations to descendants coalesce into a contemporary obligation, has the potential to help confront the climate crisis. However, the ability to actively practice these understandings is constrained by commercial “best practice” and the colonial state. These constraints necessitate struggles for Indigenous self-determination that also exist in the eternal present.

We extend the concept of accountability for the other to include future generations, but avoid the trap of long-termism delaying action through the eternal present of Indigenous temporalities. However, these temporalities are constrained, so struggles for Indigenous self-determination become closely intertwined with struggles for a just transition.

This chapter analyzes the semiotic construction of US claims to sovereignty in Hawai‘i. Building on semiotic theories in sociology and theories within critical Indigenous and settler colonial studies, it presents an interpretive analysis of state, military, and academic discursive strategies. The US empire-state attempts to construct colonial narratives of race and sovereignty that rehistoricize the history of Hawaiians and other Indigenous peoples. In order to make claims to sovereignty, settler-colonists construct narratives that build upon false claims to superiority, advancement, and discovery. Colonial resignification is a process by which signs and symbols of Indigenous communities are conscripted into the myths of empire that maintain such sovereign claims. Yet, for this reason, colonial resignification can be undone through reclaiming such signs and symbols from their use within colonial metanarratives. In this case, efforts toward decolonial resignification enacted alternative metanarratives of peoples' relationships to place. This “flip side” of the synecdoche is a process that unravels the ties that bind layered myths by providing new answers to questions that underpin settler colonial sovereignty.

This paper aims at contributing to our understanding of how self-settled Syrian refugees (registered and non-registered) use informal practices to forge their non-political agency and how this agency could be considered as political acts.

This paper was conducted per the qualitative data analysis (in-depth interviews and participant observation), attributed to the critical ethnographic approach, through which refugees’ everyday struggle is explored, additionally, that was incorporated with the analysis of Syrians’ Facebook groups and formal sources.

The research paper concluded that everyday struggle strategies are considered as political acts by acquiring rights that many self-settled Syrian refugees are stripped of by international humanitarian agencies and host government. Hence, registered and unregistered refugees equally forge what is called “informal citizenship” through their presence via a blend of agency forms ranging from hidden agency to explicit one and via their incorporating into the informal contexts, leading them to carve a position of semi-legality that help them to circumvent the formal structural hardship.

This paper endeavors to study how urban refugees as change agents can convert their illegal presence to “probably refugeeness” to unsettle the prominent recognition of them as illegal non-citizens in southern cities.

This chapter explores what it means for adults to claim child rights. Focussing on activism against institutional child abuse, it considers the question of what happens to the mobilisation of child rights discourse when the person claiming those rights is no longer a child. In other words, how is the concept of child rights used retrospectively and what does this reveal, both about childhood and about child rights? The chapter begins with the contention that childhood needs to be understood as not only a concept that speaks to the lives of children, their experiences, and their place within the social structure. Rather, we suggest that a more expansive view enables recognition of the enduring significance of childhood in adults’ lives. We illustrate this argument with examples of the formation of collective identities based on childhood experiences, before turning to the ways that child rights are marshalled by adults in activism, in commissions of inquiry, and in the legal sphere. Throughout the chapter, we consider issues of temporality. We explore the ways in which adult survivors of childhood abuse retrospectively claim rights denied to them in the past and we examine how activism, official inquiries, and legal mechanisms position adults in relation to their childhood selves. We then consider some of the dilemmas that arise with retrospective rights claims; particularly questions of retroactivity in relation to responsibility and redress for past abuse. Finally, we explore the temporal repositioning of childhood and how past and present is bridged. This occurs through survivor activism and, in more formal mechanisms such as inquiries, by focussing on how people are represented as child victims in the past and survivors in the present.

The paper introduces disaster time as both an analytical concept and theoretical framework, reconceptualizing temporal dynamics in disaster contexts and challenging traditional, linear models of disaster response. It seeks to offer NGOs ideas to develop more equitable and adaptive practices by considering nonlinear, entangled temporalities that better address systemic vulnerabilities.

This conceptual work introduces “disaster time,” employing process philosophy, governmentality studies and new materialist thought. Using a theoretical framework, the paper explores how nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) navigate complex temporalities in disaster governance systems.

The paper reveals how NGOs are constrained by neoliberal disaster governance models that prioritize short-term recovery over systemic change. By adopting “disaster time,” NGOs can recognize overlapping temporalities, such as the prolonged effects of disasters on marginalized communities and advocate for temporal justice.

Understanding and utilizing disaster time enables NGOs to meaningfully address recurring traumas and the lingering effects of disasters, encouraging the deployment of more adaptable disaster governance systems. This shift encourages NGOs to align their strategies with the realities of prolonged and complex crises, advocating for flexible, long-term funding and policies.

This paper provides a novel perspective on temporal dynamics in disasters, emphasizing the intersection of human and non-human agencies and the inadequacies of traditional phase-based disaster management. “Disaster time” offers NGOs new pathways to challenge dominant disaster narratives.

This paper aims to present the findings of a government-initiated project that sought to explore the possibility of incorporating cultural connections to land within the federal national accounting system using the United Nations Systems of Environmental-Economic Accounting (UN-SEEA) framework as a basis.

Adopting a critical dialogic approach and responding to the calls for critical accountants to engage with stakeholders, the authors worked with two Indigenous groups of Australia to develop a system of accounts that incorporates their cultural connections to “Country”. The two groups were clans from the Mungguy Country in the Kakadu region of Northern Territory and the Ewamian Aboriginal Corporation of Northern Queensland. Conducting two-day workshops on separate occasions with both groups, the authors attempted to meld the Indigenous worldviews with the worldviews embodied within national accounting systems and the UN-SEEA framework.

The models developed highlight significant differences between the ontological foundations of Indigenous and Western-worldviews and the authors reflect on the tensions created between these competing worldviews. The authors also offer pragmatic solutions that could be implemented by the Indigenous Traditional Owners and the government in terms of developing such an accounting system that incorporates connections to Country.

The paper contributes to providing a contemporary case study of engagement with Indigenous peoples in the co-development of a system of accounting for and by Indigenous peoples; it also contributes to the ongoing debate on bridging the divide between critique and praxis; and finally, the paper delves into an area that is largely unexplored within accounting research which is national accounting.

Intergenerational confinement is an under-recognized, policy-driven issue which greatly impacts Indigenous and racialized peoples in countries with ongoing colonial legacies. Numerous policy solutions enacted over colonial history have exacerbated instead of mitigated this situation. This chapter advances an improved understanding of the impacts of carceral legacies, moving beyond the dominant focus of parental incarceration in the literature. Focusing on Indigenous peoples, multiple generations in families and communities have been subjected to changing methods of confinement and removal. Using critical policy analysis and interview research, this chapter interrogates these intergenerational impacts of carceral policy-making in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Drawing on qualitative interviews with 124 people in the three case countries, this chapter centers perspectives of people who have been intergenerationally confined in carceral institutions. With a goal of transformation, it then explores an alternative orientation to policy-making that seeks to acknowledge, account for, and address the harmful direct and indirect ripple-effects of carceral strategies over generations.