Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract This article responds to a number of recent debates in the field of International Relations (ir) that have contributed to the image of ir as a post-racial and post-colonial discipline. As such, the present intervention asks how the politics of colonial racism continues to structure ir precisely at a time when this issue has been relegated to the discipline's uncomfortable history. The key contention will be that the image of ir as a post-racial and post-colonial discipline is facilitated by an ideology of stupidity. The latter is defined as a regime of naturalising the contingency of ideas as well as the inability to transform them. As such, the stupidity of ir enhances its incapacity to address phenomena that escape the artificial boundaries of its disciplinary identity, in this case the politics of colonial racism. Specifically, this ideology of stupidity is characterised by two modalities. The first modality concerns a process of gentrification through which alternative forms of knowing that defy ir's disciplinary identity have either been assimilated into a conception of ir that strips it of its more transformative potential or simply annihilated into non-existence. The latter constitutes a second modality of the ideology of stupidity as the destruction of alternative epistemological perspectives. However, as stupidity constitutes a transcendental structure of thought that can never be eliminated entirely, the article concludes that overcoming stupidity in ir requires constant vigilance towards its systemic institutionalisation, as it is the later that distributes its image of a post-racial and post-colonial discipline.

Islamic intellectualism is an unfailing source of revealed wisdom for addressing all the issues that may keep arising till the judgment day. History has preserved works of several exceptional individuals who formulated effective answers in the light of this knowledge to the challenges of their times. In this age, modernity and its pernicious impacts on different aspects of human life pose a new challenge which has drawn undivided attention of scholars. Hence, they come up with various proposals to deal with it in an emphatic manner. It is, therefore, necessary for scholars to reevaluate the works of such influential intellectuals in order to enable themselves to address the new challenges. The current study incorporated the matchless contribution made by Jamal al-Din Afghani, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, and Dr. Fazlur Rahman to the struggle against unabated onslaught on the faith and its foundations, civilization, and cultural development by western modernity. Afghani was the first to identify the problem and deliver a forceful and logical response by uncovering the pernicious effects of modernity. Dr. Iqbal improved upon Afghani’s contribution and strove to revive the dynamic spirit of Islamic thought, while Dr Fazlur Rahman completed their mission by moulding their ideas into an all-inclusive synthetic system. The discourse set off by the trilogy of their ideas constitutes an effective response to modernity which may also prove to be a blueprint for formulating viable responses to any future challenges to the true spirit of Islam.

Across universities in the Global North, institutional resources, silence, and complicity have actively supported Israel’s ongoing settler colonial violence and genocide against Palestinian people. Within this troubling landscape, our small collective of students, faculty, and staff has engaged in deliberate, embodied acts of refusal to disrupt institutionalized silence and presumed neutrality that normalize settler colonial violence. Weaving together personal reflections, observations, and artistic modalities, we chronicle our collective’s effort to disrupt institutional violence perpetuated by the mantle of presumed neutrality on our campus – seeking to disrupt the deafening silence around Palestinian struggles and resistance. We also reflect on the effects and affects around our efforts to bring Palestinian struggles into focus at a small academic conference. The juxtaposition of these interventions helps unmask the larger project of epistemicide perpetuated by the Global North academy – the systematic destruction or suppression of knowledge systems, ways of knowing, and modes of learning, particularly those associated with marginalized or colonized groups. While we recognize pivotal moments that disrupt the silent (and often violent) status quo, we also contend with the complex challenges of solidarity praxis. We offer this paper as an invitation shaped by the tensions, contradictions, and imperfections of doing this work from our implicated positionalities. The practices we describe are fragmentary, situated, and incomplete, but they gesture toward otherwise possibilities: toward worlds where solidarity is not performance but practice, where art is not peripheral but central to resistance, and where knowledge emerges from feeling, relation, and refusal.

Purpose This paper aims to contribute to the ongoing methodological discussions surrounding the adoption of ethnographic approaches in accounting by undertaking a comparative analysis of ethnography in anthropology and ethnography in qualitative accounting research. By doing so, it abductively speculates on the factors influencing the distinct characteristics of ethnography in accounting and explores their implications. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses a comparative approach, organizing the comparison using Van Maanen’s (2011a, 2011b) framework of field-, head- and text-work phases in ethnography. Furthermore, it draws on the author’s experience as a qualitative researcher who has conducted ethnographic research for more than a decade across the disciplines of anthropology and accounting, as well as for non-academic organizations, to provide illustrative examples for the comparison. Findings This paper finds that ethnography in accounting, when compared to its counterpart in anthropology, demonstrates a stronger inclination towards scientific aspirations. This is evidenced by its prevalence of realist tales, a high emphasis on “methodological rigour”, a focus on high-level theorization and other similar characteristics. Furthermore, the scientific aspiration and hegemony of the positivist paradigm in accounting research, when leading to a change of the evaluation criteria of non-positivist research, generate an impoverishment of interpretive and ethnographic research in accounting. Originality/value This paper provides critical insights from a comparative perspective, highlighting the marginalized position of ethnography in accounting research. By understanding the mechanisms of marginalization, the paper commits to reflexivity and advocates for meaningful changes within the field.

In this paper, we introduce epistemicide as an emerging theoretical framework for critical library and information studies alongside the well-known ones extensively covered in the literature of our field. Definitions of epistemicide and an aggregate of related concepts drawn from recent research are reviewed and examined through the lens of the ethics of information and knowl­edge organization (KO). A detailed historical background about Nubia and Kushite kingdoms along the river Nile is chosen as a case study. It focuses on the early conditions that led to racism, marginalization, and discrimination of the civilization of the Nile Valley in Sudan and its tangible cultural heritage. Facts are drawn from a vast literature review, documentary films, checked in knowl­edge organization systems (KOS, indexing languages and classifications) and museums. The paper concludes with an appeal to information scholars and professionals to address epistemicide as an ethical and crucial issue for information professionals responsible for the credibility and accuracy of the information they handle in every field of knowl­edge.

Epistemicide happens when globalizing West-centric discourses and practices dominate non-Western societies, suppressing and killing the latter's cultural systems of knowledge production. Though scholars worldwide are starting to recognize this fact, China is still forcefully transplanting Western policies and practices in the name of \"going global,\" and of catching up with, and even surpassing, the West. One example is China's ongoing suyang curriculum reform. This reform is largely modelled upon the OECD's and USA's competencies-skills frameworks, but the Chinese state claims that the suyang curriculum reform is more than a replica of the latter. Using the suyang example, this paper dissects epistemicide in China's curriculum knowledge production. Specifically, it analyses the inclusion of some spectres of the modernity-coloniality episteme in the suyang curriculum, including the signifier-signified meaning-making logic, the treatment of language as a representational system, the instrumentalization of language and culture as objects of knowledge, and a mind-body epistemological division. These epistemic spectres, I argue, have thwarted Chinese academics' and policymakers' efforts to re-invoke the cultural suyang discourses as anything but a linguistic trope. Recognizing this as a trope, however, helps to re-articulate the eclipsed suyang episteme which is related to holistic Chinese \"body-thinking\". This is a first step in countering the so-called darker side of the modernity-coloniality infused in Western knowledge, power, and being (mode of existence). As a decolonial gesture towards \"cognitive justice,\" this case study aligns itself with Paraskeva's Itinerary Curriculum Theory (ICT). In addition, it provides an ontological language lens for China and other countries to (re)produce transnational curriculum knowledge beyond the enslavement of both relativist nationalism and Western modernity-coloniality.

In his 1840 translation of the Gospel of Luke from English into Setswana, Robert Moffat transfers Western numerals, geographic words and biblical names to Setswana. In this article, it is argued that in this translation, we see the beginning of the colonisation of Setswana. Furthermore, it is argued that in this translation, Moffat used epistemic privilege and the performance of power to facilitate the process of epistemicide on the linguistic heritage of Batswana and its indigenous knowledge system through an act of colonisation.ContributionThe article applies an intersection of theoretical lenses, namely decoloniality and the Foucauldian notion of power, as its frames of reference in analysing the 1840 English–Setswana Gospel of Luke.

In this article, I seek to explore the prospects of ending epistemicide in Africa. The literature that challenges epistemicide in Africa largely addresses epistemicide's impact on the indigenous people of Africa's knowledge paradigm and call for its reversal. I argue that not much has been written in regard to the prospects of ending epistemicide in Africa. I regard this task as necessary given that the dominance of one epistemological paradigm in the educational curriculum continues to prevail. The position that I am defending here is that the quest for epistemic liberation ought to shift from the theoretical level to consideration of how this noble idea can be put into practice.

The media and digital mega-machine of capitalist neoliberalism seek to absorb the initially critical concept of \"interculturality\" for the purposes of marketing and globalization of the Western model of knowledge and power. Due to the global constellation of economic, political, and symbolic power relations (media, marketing), the first paradigm is becoming increasingly dominant in the fields of aesthetics, politics, and the sciences of symbolic representation (ethnology, theology, religious sciences, art, etc.). [...]neo-colonialisms\" in epistemic, symbolic, and media perspective forms the \"ideological\" foundation for actual (neo-)colonization in terms of economic, political, and military power. In 1992, the Peruvian sociologist Anibal Quijano published a landmark text on the subject of \"coloniality and modernity/rationality,\" in which he sees the continuation of the colonization of the whole planet by the \"West\" in the universalization of typical Western rationality and thus of its forms of knowledge and knowledgeproduction, coining the expression \"coloniality of power.

The Setswana language is one of the Southern African languages that was “reduced” into a written language through the translation of Christian literature by the London Missionary Society. The introduction of the Setswana spelling book in 1826 epitomised the vernacularisation and standardisation of Setswana. In 1826, Robert Moffat also translated the first Setswana catechism. Rev. William Brown’s Catechism served as a source text. He also added the third chapter of the Gospel of John and the Lord’s Prayer. This paper focuses on the second section of the 1826 Setswana catechism, namely the third chapter of John’s Gospel. It is argued that translation does not happen in a vacuum; rather, it also has the ideological intentions of the translator. Through the translated texts, Moffat performs a technology of power by eroding, dislocating, and disassociating the Batswana from their epistemic and spiritual heritage. The paper applies a decolonial lens to analyse the theme of conversion (metanoia) in the Gospel of John, as translated by Moffat.