Purpose – Researchers who work in partnership with older adults in participatory studies often experience various advantages, but also complex ethical questions or even encounter obstacles during... Show morePurpose – Researchers who work in partnership with older adults in participatory studies often experience various advantages, but also complex ethical questions or even encounter obstacles during the research process. This paper aims to provide insights into the value of an intersectional lens in participatory research to understand how power plays out within a mixed research team of academic and community co-researchers. Design/methodology/approach – Four academic researchers reflected in a case-study approach in a dialogical way on two critical case examples with the most learning potential by written dialogical and via face-to-face meetings in duos or trios. This study used an intersectionality-informed analysis. Findings – This study shows that the intersectional lens helped the authors to understand the interactions of key players in the study and their different social locations. Intersections of age, gender, ethnicity/class and professional status stood out as categories in conflict. In hindsight, forms of privilege and oppression became more apparent. The authors also understood that they reproduced traditional power dynamics within the group of co-researchers and between academic and community coresearchers that did not match their mission for horizontal relations. This study showed that academics, although they wanted to work toward social inclusion and equality, were bystanders and people who reproduced power relations at several crucial moments. This was disempowering for certain older individuals and social groups and marginalized their voices and interests. Originality/value – Till now, not many scholars wrote in-depth about race- and age-related tensions in partnerships in participatory action research or related approaches, especially not about tensions in research with older people. Show less
The Internet is a global forum largely governed by private actors driven by profit concerns, often disregarding the human rights of historically marginalised communities. Increased attention is... Show moreThe Internet is a global forum largely governed by private actors driven by profit concerns, often disregarding the human rights of historically marginalised communities. Increased attention is being paid to the corporate human rights due diligence (HRDD) responsibilities applicable to online platforms countering illegal online content, such as hate speech. At the European Union (EU) level, cross-sector initiatives regulate the rights of marginalised groups and establish HRDD responsibilities for online platforms to expeditiously identify, prevent, mitigate, remedy and remove online hate speech. These initiatives include the Digital Services Act, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, the proposed Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, the proposed Artificial Intelligence Act and the Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online. Nevertheless, the HRDD framework applicable to online hate speech has focused mostly on the platforms’ responsibilities throughout the course of their operations - guidance regarding HRDD requirements concerning the regulation of hate speech in the platforms’ Terms of Service (ToS) is missing. This paper employs a conceptualisation of criminal hate speech as explained in the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)16, Paragraph 11, to develop specific HRDD responsibilities. We argue that online platforms should, as part of emerging preventive HRDD responsibilities within Europe, respect the rights of historically oppressed communities by aligning their ToS with the conceptualisation of criminal hate speech in European human rights standards. Show less
In this dialogic piece we insist on the value of keeping alive critical debates about how academic knowledge is produced, when it comes to understanding the complexities involved in laying bare the... Show moreIn this dialogic piece we insist on the value of keeping alive critical debates about how academic knowledge is produced, when it comes to understanding the complexities involved in laying bare the impact of socioeconomic and sociocultural differences crossing borders and contexts. The climate for conversations about difference is constructed and moved by sentiments like rage, shame, guilt, and resentment but also connectedness and shared excitement. Human conversations across difference involve risk-taking but also engagement, evocation and inspiration. Here we make a humble intent to do so, taking as a point of departure our participation in a symposium held to launch Christina Hee Pedersen’s book Collaborative Research Methodologies (2021). We use collaborative writing as a method of inquiry to explore how our understandings of concepts like intersectionality, social in- and exclusion, social justice and different knowledge forms represent a challenge to academic subjects within a pronounced audit culture, filled with competition and unequal employment conditions. We argue that explorative conversations are pivotal to cultivate feminist, anti-racist and decolonial pockets of critical, collaborative research and teaching practices. Show less