Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine Indigenous perspectives of work-life enrichment and conflict and provides insights to better support Indigenous employees.

Interviews were conducted with 56 Indigenous people from six Canadian provinces. In total, 33 of the respondents were female and 23 were male. The interview responses were transcribed and entered in NVivo10. Thematic analysis was used.

The authors’ respondents struggled with feeling marginalized and felt frustrated that they could not engage in their cultural and family practices. The respondents spoke of putting family needs ahead of work and that many respondents paid a price for doing so.

The results are not generalizable to all Indigenous peoples, however these results do fill a void in the literature.

Employers must consider revising policies including providing more supervisor support in the form of educating supervisors on various Indigenous cultural practices and examine ways of providing more flexibility with respect to cultural and family practices.

Indigenous peoples have been marginalized since the advent of colonialism. This research addresses a gap in the literature by presenting how a group of Indigenous respondents frames work-life enrichment and conflict.

Very few studies have examined Indigenous perspectives on work-life enrichment and conflict using a qualitative research design. It also aligns with one of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s calls to action.

For many Indigenous nations globally, ethics is a conversation. The purpose of this paper is to share and mobilize knowledge to build relationships and capacities regarding the ethics review and approval of research with Indigenous peoples throughout Atlantic Canada. The authors share key principles that emerged for shifting practices that recognize Indigenous rights holders through ethical research review practice.

The NunatuKavut Inuit hosted and led a two-day gathering on March 2019 in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, to promote a regional dialogue on Indigenous Research Governance. It brought together Indigenous Nations within the Atlantic Region and invited guests from institutional ethics review boards and researchers in the region to address the principles-to-policy-to-practice gap as it relates to the research ethics review process. Called “Naalak”, an Inuktitut word that means “to listen and to pay close attention”, the gathering created a dynamic moment of respect and understanding of how to work better together and support one another in research with Indigenous peoples on Indigenous lands.

Through this process of dialogue and reflection, emergent principles and practices for “good” research ethics were collectively identified. Open dialogue between institutional ethics boards and Indigenous research review committees acknowledged past and current research practices from Indigenous peoples’ perspectives; supported and encouraged community-led research; articulated and exemplified Indigenous ownership and control of data; promoted and practiced ethical and responsible research with Indigenous peoples; and supported and emphasized rights based approaches within the current research regulatory system. Key principles emerged for shifting paradigms to honour Indigenous rights holders through ethical research practice, including: recognizing Indigenous peoples as rights holders with sovereignty over research; accepting collective responsibility for research in a “good” way; enlarging the sphere of ethical consideration to include the land; acknowledging that “The stories are ours” through Indigenous-led (or co-led) research; articulating relationships between Indigenous and Research Ethics Board (REB) approvals; addressing justice and proportionate review of Indigenous research; and, means of identifying the Indigenous governing authority for approving research.

Future steps (including further research) include pursuing collective responsibilities towards empowering Indigenous communities to build their own consensus around research with/in their people and their lands. This entails pursuing further understanding of how to move forward in recognition and respect for Indigenous peoples as rights holders, and disrupting mainstream dialogue around Indigenous peoples as “stakeholders” in research.

The first step in moving forward in a way that embraces Indigenous principles is to deeply embed the respect of Indigenous peoples as rights holders across and within REBs. This shift in perspective changes our collective responsibilities in equitable ways, reflecting and respecting differing impetus and resources between the two parties: “equity” does imply “equality”. Several examples of practical changes to REB procedures and considerations are detailed.

What the authors have discovered is that it is not just about academic or institutional REB decolonization: there are broad systematic issues at play. However, pursuing the collective responsibilities outlined in our paper should work towards empowering communities to build their own consensus around research with/in their people and their lands. Indigenous peoples are rights holders, and have governance over research, including the autonomy to make decisions about themselves, their future, and their past.

The value is in its guidance around how authentic partnerships can develop that promote equity with regard to community and researcher and community/researcher voice and power throughout the research lifecycle, including through research ethics reviews that respect Indigenous rights, world views and ways of knowing. It helps to show how both Indigenous and non-Indigenous institutions can collectively honour Indigenous rights holders through ethical research practice.

This chapter provides an overview of the volume, beginning with anecdotes from the editors. These anecdotes demonstrate the range of issues facing Indigenous scholars and researchers who choose to work with Indigenous participants and/or communities. Reference is made to Indigenous research sovereignty, honouring the immense work undertaken by previous Indigenous scholars, enabling many today to work effectively with their own people as well as other Indigenous groups. This is considered a courageous act, given the vulnerability this opens Indigenous peoples up to in terms of the change that is engendered and the criticism from external non-Indigenous researchers that has often arisen. The organisation of the volume into three parts is discussed, and this chapter ends with synopses of the following 16 chapters.

To explain two new Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) rule provisions, effective February 5, 2018, that were designed to provide firms with more effective tools to address suspected financial exploitation of seniors and other vulnerable adults, a new Rule 2165, Financial Exploitation of Specified Adults, and an amended Rule 4512, the “Trusted Contact Person” amendment.

Mentions FINRA’s and US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) longstanding concern about schemes targeting the financial assets of seniors. Provides an overview of the rule changes, including the safe harbor under Rule 2165, which specifies the conditions under which it is permissible for a firm to place a temporary hold on a disbursement, the obligations generated by the decision to place such a temporary hold, and the requirement under amended Rule 4512 for a firm to make reasonable efforts to obtain the name and contact information of a Trusted Contact Person (TCP) for each non-institutional customer’s account.

The new FINRA rule provisions create obligations for firms and also provide firms with optional additional tools to address potential financial exploitation of certain customers.

Firms should be mindful that they must develop appropriate procedures, controls, and training around the authority to place a temporary hold on a customer disbursement.

This article contains valuable information about recent FINRA rule changes and practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

This study investigates the moderating role of employee office location in the relationship between support-related job resources (i.e. organizational support for development, supervisor support) and work engagement among public sector employees.

An online questionnaire was completed by 2,206 digital services branch of public service employees in Canada. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test office location as a moderator of job resources and work engagement.

The results indicate that office location moderates the relationship between organizational support for development and work engagement, such that this relationship is stronger for head office employees. Conversely, results show office location moderates the relationship between supervisor support and work engagement, such that this relationship is stronger for regional office employees.

The questionnaire was self-report in nature and from a single department. Future research should consider multiple sources of reporting and additional departments.

The current study suggests that to increase work engagement, public sector organizations need to offer head office employees more organizational support for development and regional employees more supervisor support.

The literature on public sector work engagement tends to study job resources as having universal effects on work engagement regardless of employees' place of work. This study suggests that certain resources matter more depending on office location.

The growing demands of work and life have shifted the concept of work-life balance to work-life integration (WLI). The success of integration depends upon the flexibility to perform the duties. This paper aims to explore the factors that affect WLI and the role of flexible work arrangements (FWAs) in the process of WLI.

Systematic literature review was used to explore the concept of WLI and FWAs. A bibliometric analysis was carried out with Bibexcel and VoSviewer.

This paper explained the organizational and personal factors that create the demand for WLI. The FWAs, perceived flexibility, technology and self-efficacy have important roles in WLI. The result of WLI can be enrichment or strain, depends upon how effectively the work-life domains are integrated.

This paper explores the work-life from both personal and organizational views. The findings of this paper will be useful to design the organizational policies and work arrangements that match the requirements of employees and organizations. This paper helps to develop the future research agenda of investigating the relations of WLI to performance, organizational policies and personal factors.