Search results

This paper aims to explore the development of digital platforms in agtech space as a mechanism to mitigate the disconnects among the various actors in the innovation, business and entrepreneurship and extension ecosystems that impede the journey of technology from labs to farms. It does so by tracing the birth and evolution of KisanMitr, an agriculture digital platform created in India.

The research follows a participatory action research approach.

Digital platforms can be useful for integrating varied actor groups, in particular by facilitating the open flow of information among actors, and thus bringing to light the ways in which they can collaborate.

The paper demonstrates that digital platforms can become the backbone of integrated agricultural innovation systems, just as in the high-tech industries. Greater information flow enabled by such platforms allows the actors to collaborate more effectively. However, it is necessary to maintain farmer-focus, undertake off-platform activities to facilitate mutual engagement among actors and watch for potential governance issues if these platforms were to make a true impact for farmers.

KisanMitr was initiated with the motive of helping the Indian farmers, especially the reverse migrants during the COViD-19 pandemic, specifically for increasing the range of technology options available to them to make agriculture a viable livelihood option.

KisanMitr platform is one the first of its kind in India and in the agricultural sector. Unlike the digital platforms developed by private corporations, it was created by a government agency.

Devotes the entire journal issue to managing human behaviour in US industries, with examples drawn from the airline industry, trading industry, publishing industry, metal products industry, motor vehicle and parts industry, information technology industry, food industry, the airline industry in a turbulent environment, the automotive sales industry, and specialist retailing industry. Outlines the main features of each industry and the environment in which it is operating. Provides examples, insights and quotes from Chief Executive Officers, managers and employees on their organization’s recipe for success. Mentions the effect technology has had in some industries. Talks about skilled and semi‐skilled workers, worker empowerment and the formation of teams. Addresses also the issue of change and the training that is required to deal with it in different industry sectors. Discusses remuneration packages and incentives offered to motivate employees. Notes the importance of customers in the face of increased competition. Extracts from each industry sector the various human resource practices that companies employ to manage their employees effectively ‐ revealing that there is a wide diversity in approach and what is right for one industry sector would not work in another. Offers some advice for managers, but, overall, fails to summarize what constitutes effective means of managing human behaviour.

The purpose of this paper is to bring wider‐reaching feminism to confluence with relational indigenous values for transformative responses to systemic exclusion.

The authors critique the prevailing (corporate) institutional logic in higher education through their stories and experiences, weaving in diverse feminist perspectives. Liberal feminist perspectives, the most visible gender critique, may merely increase numerical equality, diversifying the biographical characteristics of privilege. Exclusion for many is systemically retained. The authors argue that relational logics underpinning indigenous worldviews hold generative potential for institutional change toward deeper inclusiveness and justice.

Liberal feminists' two‐fold transformative aspirations for gender equality and deeper respect for currently marginalized “feminine” values leave room for deeper and wider reflection on how indigenous perspectives might contribute to institutional change.

This exploration may be applied to university recruiting, selection, evaluation, and promotion policies; articulating and assessing career competencies and trajectories; curriculum evaluation; organizational and management research; and pedagogical development and research.

An indigenous critique of liberal feminism and indigenous perspectives on justice, relationality, and inclusivity may enhance social, university, corporate, community, and family life.

Interweaving feminist and indigenous insights into a critique of the prevailing corporate institutional logic informing organizational practice – in higher education and all sectors of society, it highlights the generative potential of indigenous contributions and encourages inclusion of diverse indigenous perspectives in organization theory and practice.

This paper aims to be a critical reflection on the author's position as a Black female academic in the academy, and comes from a motivation to raise Black consciousness about the importance of Black feminist scholarship.

The author identifies the unique position of Black feminism, which has had to define itself apart from second‐wave feminism of the 1970s, which marginalised non‐White women and the Civil Rights movement, which marginalised women. The oppression faced by Black feminists is apparent in the shifting platforms of identity that Black feminists occupy in the academy. Another obstacle is the restricted and incomplete picture of feminism in the academy, which sidelines Black feminist writing. One of the ways to raise awareness is to focus on the corpus of Black writing and to re‐position it within academic core curricula, rather than relegating it to specialised courses.

It is found that Black feminism is marginalised in the academy in scholarship and representation. It is also found that students are more receptive to ideas about feminism when approaching the subject indirectly.

One limitation of the study is an absence of theoretical literature from a UK context.

The paper highlights the marginalisation of Black feminism in the academy.

The subjects of “feminism in academia” and the representation of “Black and minority ethnics in the Academy” have been explored in scholarship. However the combination of these terms, namely the role of the Black feminist in the academy, is a comparatively unexplored subject. Hence, the originality of this paper.

This paper aims to explore the ways in which gender and feminism are practised in professional military education (PME), which is viewed as an atypical higher education institution, by focusing on the practice and discourse of female academics.

The paper uses a case study approach using participant observation and semi‐structured interviews. The authors' qualitative analysis is informed by feminist research methods.

The authors identified a number of key areas around which resistance and accommodation to gender norms are produced: the visual, the vocal and collective action. Analysis of these revealed the everyday practices of academic identities, the gendering of knowledge, and feminist interventions. The authors found that the practices and debates of academic women in PME reflect the wider debates in academia.

PME and its relationship with gender and feminism have rarely been studied. This paper begins that task. The findings of this atypical case also add to the growing body of research on identity, gender, and feminism in academia, as well as to women working in male‐dominated institutions.

Ten years have elapsed since the author was a doctoral student and conducted a study on the life stories of abusive men, about which the author writes in the present autoethnography. The research was submitted and earned the author her PhD; the findings were written in a book published in 2003, and the author also had articles published abroad. And yet, not one word of what the author relates here was reported to her supervisor, nor did it appear in any of the publications dealing with that study. This paper seeks to address these issues.

In this autoethnography the author describes some episodes that occurred while she was conducting this research and raises some questions regarding feminist research and the power relations between a female researcher and male participants – questions such as “Could it have been less abusive?”, “Why did I not write all this as part of my reflection on myself and my research process?”, “Why did it take me so long to be able to talk about it in a professional forum?”, “Does it happen to every researcher who studies men?”, “Can it happen again?” and “Does it lie somewhere in the seductive part of female interviewer‐male participant relationships?”.

In light of the episodes described, the paper will discuss the dilemmas of being a woman and a feminist researcher, vulnerable to some male research participants.

The question of a woman researcher's vulnerability is scarcely described in research methodology articles and books.

The paper aims to examine the potential feminist politics of teaching: is there a clear connection between feminism and teaching, and is there a particular feminist way of teaching? Through notions of engaged political pedagogy (as developed by bell hooks Jacques Rancière), it proposes an intersectional and dissensual approach to teaching, as a primary way of practising feminist politics within academia.

The paper sets out to explore the possibility of a feminist pedagogy of teaching. Drawing on works by social and feminists theorists as well as by radical pedagogues, it negotiates these various standpoints, finding similarities and differences, in order to formulate ways in which we can more fruitfully conceive of teaching as politics.

The paper proposes that the classroom proves one of the most radical spaces for possibility within academia. Through an engaged, dissensual pedagogy, in which both students and teachers work together in mutual recognition of each other's knowledge, the feminist teacher can enthuse political change both within and outside of the classroom.

Teaching is often viewed as a less important part of academic work. This paper, in contrast, proposes the classroom as one of the spaces where we as feminist academics can have the most impact. Providing a theoretical methodology of a potential feminist teaching pedagogy, this paper adds a well‐needed exploration of the relation between teaching and feminism, and a defence of teaching as politics.

This article aims to develop the methodological and intellectual approach taken in the authors' co‐authored book to explore the synergies and disconnections in the experience of being in the academy at different historical moments using the inter‐relationship between different feminisms in the context of the authors' lived experiences as a mother and daughter whose experience of the academy has crossed second‐wave feminism into third wave. There have been significant demographic, cultural and legislative shifts, but the authors' conversations demonstrate the endurance of imbalances of power and the continuing need for a feminist politics of difference which can engage with contemporary life in the academy.

This is primarily a theoretical paper that adopts feminist approaches to reflection and dialogue. The article is designed to bring together lived experience across generations, feminist theories and methodologies and the implications for activism. The paper uses the device of “I‐Kath I‐Sophie” as part of an autoethnographic approach to the cross‐generational conversation.

Far from being redundant, the authors argue that feminist critiques of inequalities that are often manifest in women's invisibility and silence even in the academy in the twenty‐first century – there is still the need to support a politics of difference and to explore ways of giving women a voice. The persistence of inequalities means that feminist battles have not been entirely won. The authors argue for dialogue between the feminisms of mothers and daughters.

Feminist concepts and arguments from what has been called the “second wave” are still useful, especially in relation to maintaining the category woman as a speaking subject who can engage in collective action.

The authors' arguments support the continuation of spaces for women to share experience within the academy, for example in feminist reading groups and through women's networks.

Feminist theories and activism remain important political forces for women in the academy today and post feminism is a questionable conceptualisation and phenomenon. In times when feminist battles may seem to have been won there remain issues to explore in relation to a new problem with no name.

The article is original in its authorship, methodological approach to a conversation that crosses experience and theoretical frameworks across generations and in its support for a twenty‐first century politics of difference.

In this paper the authors aim to examine the forms in which feminist activism is played out at contemporary managerial universities and pose the following question: what notions of feminist activism and feminist theory have to be revisited in order to sustain the target of gender equality and support its move further into the centre and the mainstream of managerial universities?

Based on action research the authors document a workshop which they organised for different constituencies (administrators, researchers and feminist activists) working towards gender equality at an Austrian university and discuss its results in the context of feminist theory.

The five voices collected at the workshop show that feminist theories are still the underlying guiding principles for feminist activism towards gender equality at managerial universities. As this is the first time that different generations of feminist activists have been present at managerial universities and are working in a top‐down environment supported by administrators responsible for gender equality, common practices that have been successful to implement gender equality in the past have to be refined and new spaces for collaboration established.

This is the first paper that explores the multiple voices amongst those engaged in the process of transformation towards gender equality at contemporary managerial universities. It shows that an open discussion of complementary and conflicting ways in which the representatives can construct their selves, their strategies and their actions is required in order to start “managing the management” anew – from a higher level than the feminist grassroots activists in the 1980s and 1990s.