Podcast Gold: Transforming Tomorrow

In Transforming Tomorrow  “Professor Jan Bebbington and Paul Turner delve into the work that the Pentland Centre members undertake, and how this impacts on business. These are short, accessible listens, helping you keep up to date with the most current research - from biodiversity to modern slavery, seabeds to factory floors”

 

Fashionably late to the party, I found myself immersed in the world of Transforming Tomorrow. It is a captivating podcast that reignited a spark of thought about ethical research. JB's infectious enthusiasm and solution-focused approach to research was delightful, and I must confess, his accent was welcome on a rainy Wednesday.

 

Using my research practice*, I’d like to share four aspects that particularly caught my attention in the Dr Jouffray episodes:

 

It struck me:

 

1. Power of Language 

JB's thoughts on shared vocabulary, especially his liking for the word ‘stewardship’ struck a chord. While I've previously used the term in the context of leadership activity - I too hadn't associated it with such contention. It sparked thoughts on the nuanced nature of wording and the transient nature of definition in research contexts. I remember swapping deviant for divergent to qualify an alternative tone of narrative, and a voice that could add nuance to, not oppose, conventional assumptions.

 

2. Multidisciplinary Associations

 JB and Jan's conversation on multidisciplinary associations resonated deeply. In my Phd phase, I found myself delving into disciplines way beyond my initial grasp at undergraduate level. It's a common journey, where insights gained in later stages of exploration often go beyond the depth of the initial study. The blend of disciplines is a rich tapestry that fosters a profound - if not a broad - understanding of associated subjects. 

 

3. Ethical Accountants and Breaking Stereotypes:

   Paul's good-natured teasing of accountants brought a smile to my face. It reminded me of my own prejudices before encountering accounting professionals in organisational, academic and management roles. The accountants I've known have been surprisingly activist and politically sensitive, shattering my stereotype of the number-focused and heartless bean-counter.

 

I saw this as I was writing: 

 

 

 4. Star organisations and positive transformation 

Happenstance, it was luck that I already worked with an organisation that was delivering services in a fashion that countered typical ways of doing things within their sector. Doing what could be conceived as impossible by normal standards. By giving clients the greater portion of a budget usually held by the service provider, people had choices that enabled opportunities for happiness, and at a cheaper rate for those typically viewed as most complex. An accounting practice currently ignored in social care.

 

***

 

As a leadership scholar with a focus on social justice, my academic work and research dealt with EDI and language practice. The initial thrust of my MA research was to explore "inclusive practice," but, like stewardship, the notion of inclusion proved to be contested, controversial and contentious. Respect, intertwined with well-being and social justice, emerged as a central theme instead. I drew on interviews with educational leaders in a thematic study. Since I’ve erred towards ideas of privilege and critical theory.

 

Navigating academic environments has presented its own challenges. Due to my visible impairment, assumptions are made about my academic background.  People tend to assume my discipline is Disability Studies, steering me towards the rooms with special educational needs on the door rather than workshops on ethical development. This certainly highlights the prejudice that disabled researchers often face - we only have one interest, one field and one expertise. More likely to be the subject/respondent than the knowledge holder in the study, some go as far as to say we are mere data.

 

When contemplating PhD questions, sustainability was important because it was a growing strategic concern at the time; and ethical development coupled well with accountability and legitimacy theory. From my point of view, there was no reason why disability should matter at all in this context of organisational / community interface.  The realisation dawned later that the identities of researchers do impact their work, I had to recognise the significance of sensitivity, and leveraging one's strengths in terms of skill, knowledge and know-how. (I'd led disability equality training for 2 decades - I had professional wisdom !)

 

Turning to the literature, Hine’s paper uses Socratic dialogue to lay out thoughts on the societal cost of organisational ‘waste’. Her work has left a lasting impression years later. It was easy to see where many organisations failed to be accountable to 10% of the population they need to serve by ignoring those who do not fit in - let alone get in the door. Oswick et al’s exploration of knowledge transmission and the erosion of sharp disciplinary edges resonated with my own observation of interdisciplinary blending - or lack of it.  Much was lost in translation when disability-specific texts were domesticated, sometimes shifting meaning and adding bias and stereotype. As I discovered when wanting to review the overlapping literature - little coproduction was available. There was only one paper on sustainability and disability that I could find, thankfully giving both subjects equal weighting. Instead, I used literature analysis to explain why a review was impossible.  The work revealed that in many EDI texts disabled scholars and authors were at best politely reworded, or replaced by an ableist narrative that ignored any reference to disability equality theory or disabled theorists - no ideas, activist agenda or reference to disabled authors, Disability Studies, or the Disabled people's movement. I’ll add that these are easily accessed which suggests a lack of trust in testimonials.

 

I felt compelled to investigate why organisations were willing to spurn disabled people ‘s skills, knowledge and professional wisdom, by ignoring their authority and experience from academic and working life - and at a great cost to society (GDGs!). 

 

Picture it like a big, buzzing conversation. But guess what? The voices of the disabled population are kind of missing from the chit-chat. It's like they're on the outskirts, and assumptions are sneakily tucked away in the stories we tell. Now, here’s the game plan: We're switching up the usual academic talk to fight against this ableist vibe. We're throwing shade on those assumptions that biased researchers casually toss around in their own language. It's a bit like saying, "Hold up, we need to shake things up a bit.” Can we roll out a fresh take on academic authority - one that’s legit. No more hushing up the voices that are divergent, lets shout out evidence-based knowledge but in a way that highlights Disability Studies - giving a nod to the fact that disabled folks need to be authors and co-authors, not just a footnote. Think of it as a step towards setting those voices free. In a nutshell, we're turning up the volume on the voices that often get brushed aside. It's time for a research revolution!

 

 

Account-ability: human rights in disability conversation 

 

 Starting a conversation on disability equality in the workplace

 

Progress and Leadership 

 

 

 

 

---

 

Thank you, Paul, Jan and JB for providing a captivating auditory experience that also reignited the flames of curiosity. It served as a reminder of the richness found in the intersection of diverse disciplines and the power of breaking stereotypes in academia.

 

 

Bibliography:

- Fenney Salked, D. (2016). Sustainable lifestyles for all? Disability equality, sustainability and the limitations of current UK policy. Disability & Society, 447-464

- Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- Hines, R. (1988). The Sociopolitical Paradigm in Financial Accounting Research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(3), 251-261.

- Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. (2011). From borrowing to blending: rethinking the processes of organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review, 318–337.

 

*Ethnography: the craftsmanship of revealing culture through words.

Ableism: a specific type of oppression, akin to homophobia, racism and sexism, held in the culture and language that inform society’s debates.

Anti-ableist: a defined position against ableism, the oppression that disabled people face – like feminist or anti-racist.