The Sociology of Exclusion: A Knowledge Synthesis of Imperialism, Colonialism, and Postcolonialism in Accounting Research^*

Reimagining Indigeneity in Accounting Research

Defining Indigeneity and who has it is a complex exercise. Weaver (2001) identifies three facets of Indigenous identity: self-identification, community identification, and external identification. External identification—namely, when Indigenous identity is defined from a non-Indigenous perspective—is problematic because it most often reinforces a colonial approach to Indigeneity. Weaver (2001) cites “[US] federal policy makers,” for example, as imposing “their own standards of who is considered a Native person in spite of the fact that this is in direct conflict with the rights of tribes/nations” (p. 246). Most of the accounting literature recognizes only the original inhabitants of Old Commonwealth countries as Indigenous. Although the literature also recognizes that attempting to define who qualifies as Indigenous perpetuates colonialism, it nonetheless falls into the same trap by adopting a narrow, external definition of Indigeneity.

In its first session in 1982, the UN WGIP (UN, 1982a) made the case for self-identification and the decolonization of definitions of Indigeneity. This 1982 meeting marked the first time that various Indigenous nongovernmental organizations such as the International Indian Treaty Council, the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, and the Indian Law Resource Centre, came together with governments to participate in UN-led discussions on the marginalization of Indigenous peoples; these discussions eventually culminated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007.

One of the key takeaways from this first meeting was the need for self-identification. The participants “stressed that some of the main problems with existing definitions were that they had not been formulated by the Indigenous populations themselves or with their significant participation. In order to attain meaningful definitions, it was indispensable to have a significant Indigenous input” (UN, 1982a, p. 8). Simply put, in postcolonial times, imperialist forces retained the prerogative to define Indigeneity, effectively continuing the marginalization of colonization, and the WGIP sought to correct this. The WGIP concluded that the following elements should be considered when addressing the question of Indigeneity: the existence of competing systems (e.g., culture and religion), subjective elements (e.g., self-identification), and objective elements (e.g., historical continuity and conformity with social, cultural, and institutional principles, including ecological attitudes) (UN, 1982a).

Under the WGIP's recommended processes and criteria by which Indigenous peoples self-identify, many African, Asian, and South American people of former colonies would also be considered Indigenous. Similarly, being the majority of the population in any country does not end Indigeneity; otherwise, Indigenous peoples in most of Oceania—Samoa, Guam, Tonga, Kiribati, and Fiji, to name a few countries—would not be Indigenous. Yet OECD-UN member countries have perpetuated the exclusion of Indigenous peoples in countries other than the Old Commonwealth from recognition as Indigenous. In the case of Africa, Sy and Tinker (2006) argue that “colonial and post-colonial ideologies have been integral to perpetuating a one-sided version of human development which denies a central role to Africa” (p. 112). They explicitly link colonialism and slavery and implicitly make a connection to accountancy by noting the specter of compensation: “A history that overlooks Africa, virtually excluding it from the map, makes it easier for colonial powers to evade recognizing moral and economic responsibility for the institution of slavery. Even an apology for slavery has been unforthcoming for fear that it might affect litigation and compensation” (Sy & Tinker, 2006, p. 112).

The 1982 UN WGIP session was the first global forum with the participation of governments to acknowledge certain rights of Indigenous peoples. It is noteworthy that the Anti-Slavery Society for the Protection of Human Rights was acknowledged at this meeting as dealing with Indigenous populations; however, slavery and Indigeneity have since been decoupled. The reasons are clear: economics. In 1981, the global movement to address colonial injustices against Indigenous peoples was initiated at the UN through a commissioned study of the problem of discrimination against Indigenous populations, with José Martínez Cobo as special rapporteur (UN, 1982b). Two aspects of Cobo's report stand out: first, he argued that Indigenous peoples had to be the original inhabitants of the colonized lands; second, he described Indigenous peoples as overcome or dominated by settlers. Cobo's argument that Indigenous peoples had to be original inhabitants was superseded by the UN WGIP in 1982, which held instead that the inhabitants of the territory at the time of the arrival of new groups of people (of a different culture) were to be known as Indigenous. The ensuing debate on how to define Indigenous status showed that pushback by Australia, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Mexico came down to an economic basis for Indigeneity; these countries were concerned that granting Indigenous status would entail the awarding of benefits, which would create an expense for governments (UN, 1982b). The UN WGIP's and UNDRIP's recognition of Indigenous peoples' rights (Buhr, 2012)—an asset in accounting parlance—created a liability for governments, as the benefits linked to those rights were also attributable to past fiscal periods.

We have seen some of these government liabilities crystalize, such as the $1.3 billion settlement between Canada and Siksika Nation, one of the largest land claim settlements in Canadian history (Prime Minister of Canada, 2022). We have also seen assets adjudged to be exploitative such as the asset created by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, which established the Alaska Native Corporations and issued the shares to Alaskan Natives in exchange for all land claims (Thornburg & Roberts, 2012). In both examples, acknowledging Indigeneity came with recognizing rights and imposing obligations on governments.

The decolonization of research and education requires an acknowledgment of Black Indigeneity and the exclusion of Indigenous groups in Africa, South America, Asia, and elsewhere as well as the interconnectedness of colonization and slavery. Colonizers referred to the inhabitants of African colonies as Native, Indigenous, or Black in much the same way that Indigenous peoples were described in the Old Commonwealth. For instance, the Protection Board of New South Wales in Australia used fractions of Blackness to determine benefits eligibility for Aboriginal peoples (Greer, 2009), who today are not identified as Black peoples.

Colonialism was premised on a two-nation approach: the notion that one nation was advanced and developed and the other was “underdeveloped and in need of aid” (Sy & Tinker, 2006, p. 112). The view of Pygmies as Indigenous peoples, for example, may stem from them being perceived as recently discovered and therefore “underdeveloped.” This colonial pedagogy reinforces the idea that Africa (and Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, for that matter) was “discovered” and ignores the existence and reality of those who inhabited the lands before the arrival of European colonialists. Said (1993, cited in Gallhofer & Chew, 2000) finds the theme of discovery among novelists of the imperialist era, who, he notes, share a “standing interest in what was considered a lesser world, populated with lesser people of color, portrayed as open to the intervention of so many Robinson Crusoes” (p. xviii). In the countries of the Old Commonwealth, Neu (2000a, 2000b), Greer (2009), and Neu and Graham (2004), among others, document these colonial beliefs that certain places were underdeveloped, in need of discovery and aid. In Africa, Sy and Tinker (2006) argue that this two-nation ideology was officially adopted by the Berlin Conference on Africa of 1884–1885 and thereafter by its successors, the League of Nations and the UN.5 Prior to the Berlin Conference, however, “80 percent of Africa, composed of a thousand quite distinct indigenous languages and regions, was under traditional and local control. … In this paternalistic vision [of the Berlin Conference], the colonial powers were destined to lead, and the colonized were condemned to follow—as protectorates” (Sy & Tinker, 2006, p. 112).

Hence, in the spirit of decolonization, the current study also incorporates colonial and postcolonial studies in Africa, the British West Indies, and other parts of the Caribbean and South America. Jamaica is an interesting case study of how Indigenous peoples from Africa would qualify as Indigenous to the island as their arrival predates British colonialism. Jamaica is the largest island in the British West Indies, and over 2 million enslaved people from Nigeria (Igbo, Ibibio, and Yoruba), Ghana (Akan and Ashanti), and the Central African Republic were forced into slavery in Jamaica. Jamaica was colonized first by the Spaniards between 1494 and 1655 and subsequently by the British between 1670 (when the Treaty of Madrid was signed) and 1962, when Jamaica obtained independence (Embassy of Jamaica, n.d.). At the time of the Spanish conquest, Indigenous Jamaicans were Taino Indians; however, the Taino were enslaved by the Spaniards shortly after the Spaniards established their colony in 1510, and within 50 years of the Spanish conquest, the Taino had been exterminated entirely due to exploitation, starvation, and the introduction of European diseases from which they had no immunity (Embassy of Jamaica, n.d.). The Spaniards started importing enslaved Africans to Jamaica in 1513. As such, at the time of the arrival of the British, there were many Indigenous African Jamaicans, many of whom also fought against the British invasion in 1655.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, I discuss my method, followed by summaries of two previous relevant SLRs. Next, I present my findings, starting with my theoretical thematization—the sociology of exclusion and the sociology of inclusion—followed by the subthemes. The paper ends with a discussion and conclusion that presents my observations and suggestions for future research.

Previous Structured Literature Reviews

I identified two prior SLRs on Indigenous studies: the first focuses on accounting research (Bujaki et al., 2023), and the second focuses more broadly on management and organization research (Salmon et al., 2023). Bujaki et al. (2023) is the first SLR to focus exclusively on accounting research on Indigenous peoples. It highlights three prior literature reviews: Hammond (2003), Buhr (2011), and Greer and Neu (2009). Bujaki et al. (2023) exclude studies in Asia (Jayasinghe & Thomas, 2009; Miley & Read, 2021) and Africa (Degos et al., 2019; Power & Brennan, 2021) and focus on Oceania, the United States, and the former colonies of the Old Commonwealth. The SLR reviews 72 papers published between 1979 and 2019 and identifies nine broad themes: accountability and control, accounting education, accounting profession, accounting research, culture, governmentality, imperialism, postcolonialism, and social accounting.

Although critical studies effectively illuminate marginalization (i.e., the sociology of exclusion), they have been criticized for not doing enough to promote pathways to reconciliation and achieving a more inclusive society (i.e., the sociology of inclusion). Bujaki et al. (2023) opine, “Critical research in accounting tends to focus on the critique part of critical, and less so on the specific changes needed to promote social change” (p. 5).

Bujaki et al. (2023) further argue for the expansion of research that proposes avenues for the inclusion of Indigenous peoples (a view initially advanced by Buhr, 2011, 2012) and offer critical Indigenous theory (CIT) as a possible theoretical framework to assist in that quest: “More research related to accounting and Indigenous Peoples [should] adopt a CIT approach respecting Indigenous worldviews and developing suggestions for positive, forward-looking solutions” (Bujaki et al., 2023, p. 5).

In their study, Salmon et al. (2023) aspire to objectivity and state that they refrain from a critical study. They conduct an SLR analysis of 776 articles published in 253 journals between 1932 and 2021. Forty-five of these articles adopt a critical theory framework, and 24 are published in accounting journals. The SLR proposes three broad themes: cultural and epistemological elements that distinguish Indigenous peoples from their societal context; managerial and organizational aspects of Indigenous cultures; and perspectives and interactions between Indigenous peoples and other actors such as governments and firms.

Both Salmon et al. (2023) and Bujaki et al. (2023) adopt a definition of Indigenous peoples as the First Nations (in Canada), Māori (in Australia), and American Indians (in the United States). Gallhofer and Chew (2000) also recognize the groups of Indigenous peoples in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and Oceania, and Pygmies as Indigenous peoples in Africa. I extend the work of these SLRs and prior studies by adopting a broader definition of Indigenous peoples consistent with the 1982 UN WGIP report discussed earlier. Furthermore, I argue that the chronology of colonialism and slavery cannot be decoupled. In aspiring to decolonize pedagogy and research, I must first highlight and explain exclusion in its current form and then strive for a sociology of inclusion. My theorization of these concepts follows.

Sociology of Exclusion and Sociology of Inclusion

Sociology of Inclusion

Table 4 shows that 22 studies are classified as the sociology of inclusion. These studies rely on multiple theoretical perspectives to simultaneously identify and propose solutions to marginalization. Consequently, CIT, practice theory, and action research all lend themselves to the sociology of inclusion, as do various forms of emancipatory research. The studies classified as the sociology of inclusion show more theoretical fluidity than those classified as the sociology of exclusion. Seven of the 22 articles adopt a theoretical lens other than critical theory—specifically, practice theory (1 article), theory of Indigenous alternatives for development (2 articles, including Bujaki et al., 2023), grounded theory (2 articles, Rkein & Norris, 2012, Rossingh, 2012), actor-network theory (1 article, Ufodike et al., 2022), and common pool theory (1 article, Ufodike et al., 2021). One study, Dillard and Reynolds (2008), adopts a feminist framework resulting in “inclusion” findings. Dillard and Reynolds (2008) discuss the Acoma myth of creation, which adopts a feminist (spiritual, emotional, and experiential) archetype story about creation and community. This message facilitates social integration, and although the article finds that the Acoma version of creation was supplanted by the Spaniards' Christian patriarchal ways of understanding, their dominant argument is that First Peoples' ancient creation myths worldwide are similar in their vision of unified beginnings and can inform our understanding and offer guidance on new ways of knowing and doing.

TABLE 4. Sociology of inclusion articles

Theory	Level of analysis	Author(s)	Title	Year	Journal	Country
Practice theory	Organization	Adams et al.	The views of corporate managers on the current state of, and future prospects for, social reporting in Bangladesh	2007	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	Bangladesh
		Gallhofer et al.	Some reflections on the construct of emancipatory accounting: Shifting meaning and the possibilities of a new pragmatism	2019	Critical Perspectives on Accounting	Global
Critical theory	Society	Baker et al.	Programme devolution accountability for First Nations: To whom for what?	2012	International Journal of Business and Globalisation	Canada
		Bujaki et al.	A systematic literature review of Indigenous Peoples and accounting research: Critical Indigenous theory as a step toward relationship and reconciliation	2023	Accounting Forum	Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States, Oceania
		Constable and Kuasirikun	Accounting for the nation-state in mid nineteenth-century Thailand	2007	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	Thailand
		Craig et al.	The concept of taonga in Māori culture: Insights for accounting	2012	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	New Zealand
Critical theory	Society	Dillard and Reynolds	Green owl and the corn maiden	2008	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	United States (New Mexico)
		Gallhofer and Chew	Introduction: Accounting and Indigenous peoples	2000	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	Global
		Gallhofer et al.	Developing environmental accounting: Insights from Indigenous cultures	2000	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	Australia
		Lombardi	Disempowerment and empowerment of accounting: An Indigenous accounting context	2016	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	Australia
		Miley and Read	Entertainment as an archival source for historical accounting research	2021	Accounting History	Cambodia
		Sauerbronn et al.	Decolonial studies in accounting? Emerging contributions from Latin Americaa	2021	Critical Perspectives on Accounting	Latin America
		Sian	Inclusion, exclusion and control: The case of the Kenyan accounting professionalisation project	2006	Accounting, Organizations and Society	Kenya
		Sian	Reversing exclusion: The Africanisation of accountancy in Kenya, 1963–1970	2007	Critical Perspectives on Accounting	Kenya
		Wickramsinghe	Getting management accounting off the ground: Post-colonial neoliberalism in healthcare budgets	2015	Accounting and Business Research	Sri Lanka
Actor network theory	Society	Ufodike et al.	Network accountability in healthcare: A perspective from a First Nations community in Canada	2022	Accounting Perspectives	Global
Common pool theory	Society	Ufodike et al.	First Nations gatekeepers as a common pool health care institution: Evidence from Canada	2021	Financial Accountability & Management	Canada
Grounded theory	Society	Rkein and Norris	Barriers to accounting: Australian Indigenous students’ experience	2012	Social and Environmental Accountability Journal	Australia
		Rossingh	Collaborative and participative research: Accountability and the Indigenous voice	2012	Social and Environmental Accountability Journal	Australia
Theory of Indigenous alternatives for development	Society	Brown and Wong	Accounting and accountability of Eastern Highlands Indigenous cooperative reporting	2012	Social and Environmental Accountability Journal	Papua New Guinea
N/A	Society	Buhr	Indigenous peoples in the accounting literature: Time for a plot change and some Canadian suggestions	2011	Accounting History	Canada, United States, New Zealand, Australia
N/A	Society	Buhr	Indigenous peoples: Accounting and accountability	2012	Social and Environmental Accountability Journal	Global

• Notes: ^aStructured literature review.

Table 4 shows that 2 of the 22 studies have an organizational setting, compared with 2 of 43 (see Table 3) in the case of the sociology of exclusion. Table 4 shows that 2 of the studies employ ethnomethodology (observation and participatory methodology)—level 3 conceptualization as per Llewellyn (2003)—and 5 rely on interviews as part of case studies—level 1, 2, or 3 theorizations as per Llewellyn (2003). Seven of the 22 articles utilize primary data, compared with 1 of 43 for the sociology of exclusion.

Figure 2 shows that only 2 articles were published before 1995 and that the period between 2000 and 2014 saw the most research output. The first article, by Burchell et al. (1980), argues that accounting is neither objective nor purpose-free, and the second, by Hardman (1984), investigates the devolution of responsibility for social programs to Indigenous communities. The articles categorized as the sociology of inclusion are primarily anchored in the Hardman (1984) perspective that accounting is not value-free, and many of the sociology of inclusion articles, given their approach to finding ways to achieve empowerment and agency, are related to principles of devolution—agency, self-governance, and highlighting Indigenous knowledge.

Table 4 shows that only 13 articles employ primary data or literature reviews as methods. Four are literature reviews, including two SLRs (Bujaki et al., 2023; Ufodike et al., 2023), and 8 rely on interviews or ethnomethodology (observation or participatory research). Llewellyn (2003) argues that “structural phenomena such as social institutions, culture, and the distribution of power and resources are not directly observable from the standard methods of qualitative research (i.e., interviews, focus groups, and participant observation) hence the greater reliance on rational argumentation (rather than empirical research)” (p. 677).

Table 5 shows the methodological distribution of the articles. Of the 43 articles classified as the sociology of exclusion, only Alawattage and Wickramasinghe (2009) use interviews. By contrast, of the 22 papers categorized as the sociology of inclusion, 7 use interviews, observation, or participatory research.

TABLE 5. Reviewed papers that use primary data collection and literature review as a methodology

Author(s)	Title	Year	Journal	Ranking	Framework	Method
Jayasinghe and Thomas	The preservation of indigenous accounting systems in a subaltern community	2009	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	A*	Exclusion	Interviews
Adams et al.	The views of corporate managers on the current state of, and future prospects for, social reporting in Bangladesh	2007	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	A*	Inclusion	Interviews
Lombardi	Disempowerment and empowerment of accounting: An Indigenous accounting context	2016	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	A*	Inclusion	Interviews
Ufodike et al.	First Nations gatekeepers as a common pool health care institution: Evidence from Canada	2021	Financial Accountability & Management	A	Inclusion	Interviews
Brown and Wong	Accounting and accountability of Eastern Highlands Indigenous cooperative reporting	2012	Social and Environmental Accountability Journal	B	Inclusion	Observation/textual analyses
Rkein and Norris	Barriers to accounting: Australian Indigenous students' experience	2012	Social and Environmental Accountability Journal	B	Inclusion	Interviews
Rossingh	Collaborative and participative research: Accountability and the Indigenous voice	2012	Social and Environmental Accountability Journal	B	Inclusion	Participative methodology
Ufodike et al.	Network accountability in healthcare: A perspective from a First Nations community in Canada	2022	Accounting Perspectives	B	Inclusion	Interviews
Buhr	Indigenous peoples in the accounting literature: Time for a plot change and some Canadian suggestions	2011	Accounting History	A	Inclusion	LR
Sauerbronn et al.	Decolonial studies in accounting? Emerging contributions from Latin America	2021	Critical Perspectives on Accounting	A	Inclusion	LR
Bujaki et al.	A systematic literature review of Indigenous Peoples and accounting research: Critical Indigenous theory as a step toward relationship and reconciliation	2023	Accounting Forum	B	Inclusion	SLR
Ufodike et al.	A knowledge synthesis of anti-Black racism in accounting research	2023	Accounting Perspectives	B	Exclusion	SLR

• Notes: LR indicates literature review. SLR indicates structured literature review.

Modern Multiculturalism

As previously discussed, imperialism and colonialism “involve political and economic control over a dependent territory” (Kohn & Reddy, 2023, p. 1) and are about dominating and subjugating others who were deemed inferior. The basis for European imperialism—the dispossession and subjugation of others—was the Doctrine of Discovery, which stated that any lands not inhabited by Christians—the subjects of a European Christian monarch—were “empty” and available for colonization. The implication was that non-Christian Natives were of significantly lower or even nonhuman status (Ufodike & Vredenburg, 2020). Oppression often precedes subjugation because colonial oppression manifests several effects, including the “resistance struggles of various peoples and political movements” (Sauerbronn et al., 2021, p. 3). Consequently, resistance often results in imperialist efforts to suppress the resistance to maintain their dominion over the lands in question. Sian (2007) argues that “the race-based system of privilege constructed and operated in the colonial period is inextricably linked with the struggle for political power and the social and economic reforms” (p. 838).

Although there are similarities in the nature of oppression faced by Indigenous peoples worldwide, it is important to highlight a crucial distinction between the Indigenous experience with European immigration in the countries of the Old Commonwealth and the experience of Indigenous peoples elsewhere. The societies of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand became multicultural societies (where Indigenous populations became a minority) with the arrival of the British and other European settlers, whereas Indigenous peoples elsewhere (e.g., in Africa) may have been the majority of the population in their multicultural societies.

With the wave of immigrants during the colonial era, European imperial powers sought to eradicate the cultures they met and supplant Indigenous ways of knowing and doing with their own—not gradually, through fusion over ages, but forcefully and oppressively in a compressed period, leading to charges of genocide (see Neu, 2000a). The Europeans who settled in the Old Commonwealth then sought to exclude subsequent racialized non-European immigrants from participating in the wealth of the new countries.

In postcolonial times, after generations of immigration to the new country, immigrants may see their culture become fused or gradually influence the dominant culture. The Indigenous experience with multiculturalism in the Old Commonwealth is different. The mass migration from Europe over a relatively short time, coupled with strategies to eradicate Indigenous cultures, resulted in Indigenous peoples in the Old Commonwealth becoming a minority of the population on their own lands, in contrast to the African Indigenous experience, for example, where the Indigenous peoples remained as the majority even as colonies were settled and after the end of colonial rule. This meant that several African colonies, through nationalization and other efforts, have been able (or are actively seeking) to restore their cultures or achieve inclusion in accountancy (Mihret et al., 2012; Sian, 2007, 2011).

Subthemes

In total, only 12 of the 65 articles rely on primary data (Table 5), which highlights the methodological challenge of accessing Indigenous sites faced by non-Indigenous researchers. While the method adopted to conduct research has implications for the nature of the research findings (inclusion vs. exclusion, in this case), there are opportunities for more research that employs primary data.

Table 6 shows that approximately 68% (44 of 65) of the articles reviewed were published between 2000 and 2014, driven by three special issues, which published 14 of the 44 (32%) articles. Interest in the subject appears to be dwindling, as the total number of articles published between 2015 and 2019 is the lowest since the early 2000s.8 However, there also appears to be a pivot toward a sociology of inclusion following Buhr (2012) and Social and Environmental Accounting's special issue calling for a shift to research that highlights the agency of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous ways of knowing and doing. Consequently, 8 of the 17 (47%) articles published since 2015 are sociology of inclusion, compared with 14 of the 47 (30%) published before that.

Further analysis of Table 6 also shows the number of articles published on each of the four subthemes by period. The articles classified in the Western accounting and accountability subtheme investigate the use of accounting and accountability constructs to dispossess Indigenous peoples or the cultural conflicts and tensions that Western standards of accountability create with Indigenous values. Emancipation studies highlight how accounting can be mobilized for an emancipation project or document the nationalization and localization of accounting practices. Indigenous knowledge and accounts studies highlight Indigenous ways of being, knowing, and doing as well as how Indigenous accounts, accounting, and accountability practices can further societal knowledge. Lastly, the professionalization subtheme documents how the professional accounting bodies in colonies went from excluding racialized peoples to minimally including them in more recent times. Next, I present my findings on each subtheme.

Western Accounting and Accountability

Studies in this subtheme examine the colonial legacy of accountancy in former British colonies. These articles primarily highlight exclusion (31 of 32 articles). These authors often explore these issues within the concepts of Western accounting, accountability, and accountants through the lenses of Bourdieu (Finau et al., 2019; Poullaos, 2009) and Foucauldian governmentality (Neu, 2000a, 2000b; Neu & Graham, 2004, 2006). Their aims are to foreground the harmful effects of accounting on Indigenous peoples through either marginalization or dispossession or examine how accounting was used to disempower (Gibson, 2000; Lombardi, 2016) and alienate (Finau et al., 2019) Indigenous peoples (e.g., through nonpermanent dispossession using land leases rather than sale). In these studies, dispossession occurred primarily by taking Indigenous wealth and resources, most notably land (for Canada, see Neu, 2000a, 2000b, and Neu & Graham, 2004, 2006; for Australia, see Gibson, 2000; for Oceania, see Davie, 2000, and Finau et al., 2019). Neu (2000a) argues that while accounting discourse was used to rationalize colonial relations, professional accounting techniques such as determining the value of land taken from Aboriginal peoples were intentionally used by the colonial government for dispossession; this is a common theme among these articles. Articles in this subtheme also find that the common custodianship of land was an integral Indigenous value.

Some studies use academic and nonacademic sources to explore the harmful effects of Western-based notions of accountability on Indigenous peoples and cultural conflicts or impacts on cultural values (Hardman, 1984). Chew and Greer (1997) and Greer (2009) provide an Australian perspective based on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, while Ufodike et al. (2022), Baker and Schneider (2015), and Baker et al. (2012) provide a Canadian perspective. Power and Brennan (2021) provide a perspective based on the British South Africa Company, and Ferry et al. (2021) provide a Nigerian perspective based on a case study of two public sector organizations. These studies find that the notions of accountability, based on a principal-agent model, are inconsistent with Indigenous culture or are ineffective. Dispossession also deprived Indigenous peoples of agency, as enslaved people in the case of the Tainos, the residential school system in Canada, boarding schools in Australia, and Native schools in New Zealand.

The final group of studies investigates the role of accountants (Finau et al., 2019; Oldroyd et al., 2008) or accounting (Fleischman et al., 2011a, 2011b; Heier, 2010) in slavery and plantation economies as well as how slavery shaped accounting standards (Fleischman et al., 2011a, 2011b; Rosenthal, 2013; Tyson et al., 2004). These studies are primarily conducted in the United States (Fleischman et al., 2011a, 2011b; Heier, 2010; Oldroyd et al., 2008) or British West Indies (Fleischman et al., 2011a, 2011b; Tyson et al., 2004). However, Rodrigues et al. (2015) provide a South American perspective, which is not as visible in the literature. Their study, which is important because more enslaved people were imported into Brazil (a Portuguese colony) than any other country, provides a case of non-British imperialism. Rodrigues et al. (2015) primarily rely on documentation originally written in Portuguese, expanding the Latin American context, as Sauerbronn et al. (2021) advise. A discussion of imperialism is incomplete without a discussion of slavery; while imperialism saw the largely voluntary migration of Europeans to colonies for economic reasons, these new economies were sustained by the involuntary, forced migration of enslaved Africans to the same colonies for economic reasons—namely, to provide free labor.

Oldroyd et al. (2008) appears to be the first accounting article to highlight accounting's role in achieving compensation paid to enslavers at the end of slavery. Other studies have sought to explore how accounting technologies have aided plantation economies in postcolonial times (Bakre, 2008; Fleischman et al., 2011a, 2011b). In his case study of Jamaica, Bakre (2008) examines the exploitative roles of accounting as a tool of imperialism in colonial and postcolonial Jamaica. He argues that during colonial times, Jamaica was primarily a plantation economy and that ending the slave trade did not halt imperial efforts. Rather, the emancipation of enslaved people was followed by a period of transformation along political, economic, class, ethnic, and cultural lines that aimed to continue the plantation-based economy. Emergent industries such as bauxite mining and tourism became the dominant foreign exchange earners, benefiting capitalistic corporations, multinational banks, and accounting firms. Bakre (2008) states that accounting practices were crucial elements of these ongoing colonization practices, as accountants and auditors helped legitimize the new capital generation methods and their utilization.

Similarly, Fleischman et al. (2011a, 2011b) discuss how accounting numbers were used to differentiate and discriminate against Black people during the transition from slavery to waged labor in the United States and British West Indies. They find that racial control, labor structures, and governmental mandates impacted the development of the accountancy profession and those who performed accounting functions and expanded accounting colonization in the postcolonial era.

Professionalization

Similar to the Western accounting and accountability subtheme, the studies in this subtheme highlight exclusion (six of eight articles), focusing on the postcolonial era. The articles find that exclusion has continued in postcolonial times, with discrimination based on societal relevance or class (Annisette & Trivedi, 2013), gender, immigration status (Annisette & Trivedi, 2013), and ethnicity/race (Annisette & Trivedi, 2013; Bakre, 2008; Sian, 2006). Public interest legislation that marginalizes Indigenous peoples (Ufodike, 2020), such as the Family Endowment Act of 1927 in Australia (Greer, 2009), has also played a role, as has professional closure (Ufodike et al., 2023), a form of gatekeeping equity as accountants (and other professions) are wont to do. Others highlight the role of accounting as a device of control and responsibilization. Lehman et al. (2016), for example, argue that “advanced” neoliberal governments such as colonial-era ones exercised their power through the process of responsibilization. Annisette and Trivedi (2013) argue that the Canadian government's Darwinian efforts aimed to select the “ideal” immigrant, who would then become acculturated into an ideal Canadian citizen over time, which resulted in accounting colonization being a technology of control and a tool to reduce the social and oral agency of immigrants within the points-based system.

Laws are expected to be made in the public interest (Gagnon & Bosc, 2017), including decisions on who can practice and how accounting (or the other professions) can be practiced. In the case of accounting, excluding racialized people from the profession is meant to protect the public from “inferior” or “poor quality” accountants trained in a foreign jurisdiction. Currently, it is a norm among accounting bodies in OECD countries that only accountants trained in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, the United States, Australia, and Western Europe are given reciprocity. The globalization of accounting as a consequence of British imperialism led to the formation of new accounting organizations, with the ensuing power paradigms resulting in intra-organizational rivalries (Carnegie & Edwards, 2001) and power struggles between local and international (primarily British-based) accounting organizations (Ashraf & Ghani, 2005; Poullaos, 2016). This accounting-based colonization created two types of accountants in many countries: the professional and the “other.” Members of the “other” nonprofessional accounting bodies (or non-responsibilized populations) were then actively marginalized based on class, gender, immigration status, and ethnicity (Annisette & Trivedi, 2013; Lehman et al., 2016; Sian, 2006; Thomson & Jones, 2016). In both colonial and postcolonial times, British imperialism has shaped countries' societal institutions, including their accounting organizations, and defined what it means to be a professional accountant (Chua & Poullaos, 2002).

As such, when Indigenous peoples in former colonies or racialized immigrants in OECD and/or the Old Commonwealth countries sought to participate in the new economic wealth of those countries, they were excluded via professionalization—gatekeeping by the professions—and responsibilized to be minimally included. In the professionalization literature (Annisette, 2000; Annisette & Trivedi, 2013; Poullaos, 2009), Western autonomous professional associations “employ occupational closure strategies by setting membership criteria to exclude nonmembers from providing professional services” (Mihret et al., 2012, p. 1206).

Burchell et al. (1980) demonstrate how accounting strategies are implicated in action and not necessarily essential to the craft itself. This argument continues to resonate, as in many ways accounting was used as a device of colonization, which has continued well into postcolonial times. For example, Bakre (2008) argues that “the advent of independence did not necessarily mean that these methods were withdrawn with formal decolonization” (p. 487). These ongoing discriminatory practices are sustained by legislation or by actors such as professional bodies (Ashraf & Ghani, 2005; Poullaos, 2016), with professionalization as the rationale. In 2021, Ontario passed legislation to curtail incidences of professional organizations such as the chartered accountancy profession demanding Canadian experience for licensing foreign-trained professionals except when they obtained exemptions “in the public interest,” an exception that unfortunately allows the practice to continue. The legislation stipulates, “10.2 (1) A regulated profession shall not require as a qualification for registration that a person's experience be Canadian experience unless an exemption from the prohibition is granted by the Minister for the purposes of public health and safety in accordance with the regulations—2021, c. 35, Sched. 3, s. 5” (Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act, 2006). Ufodike (2020) argues that “organizations that often purport to advocate in the public interest sometimes have a conflict of interest and ethical dilemma which they resolve by pursuing their own superordinate goals which may be at odds with the (true) public interest” (p. 4).

Poullaos (2009) makes the linkage between professionalization and race. He argues that “while the association between professionalization and empire has been noted in the accounting professionalization literature, the race link has received less attention” (Poullaos, 2009, p. 430). Sian (2011) documents discussions by the British Expatriates Association of Accountants in East Africa (AAEA) in Kenya's meetings that showed strategies of professional closure, including setting up a new institute for racialized members to be regulated by the AAEA. The author states, “However, perceived difficulties with this plan were costs, the burden of administration for such an Institute, and the ‘likelihood of other races clamoring for something at a lower level’ (AAEA Minutes 29/7/59, p. 1)” (Sian, 2011, p. 378).

Annisette (2000) argues that despite anti-British and anti-imperialist movements in Trinidad and Tobago, both the accounting profession and the training and certification of local accountants have remained overly dependent on overseas qualifying associations such as the British-based Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. This situation has profoundly undermined the national goal of local accountancy training. For instance, local universities, which were eager to participate in the education and certification of the country's accountants, remain marginalized. By contrast, some studies provide evidence of how nationalization efforts in the accountancy profession by governments of former colonies such as Kenya (Sian, 2006, 2007, 2011) resulted in including otherwise excluded Indigenous peoples in the accounting profession and strengthening the local accounting profession.

Furthermore, Mihret et al. (2012) find that cooperation between Indigenous professional institutions and transnational accounting bodies will likely weaken Ethiopia's fight for jurisdictional control, the localization of knowledge, and overall indigenization. They highlight how accounting professionalization has facilitated colonization in accounting by the British in Ethiopia, a country that was never a British colony. While the majority of studies that fall into this topic focus specifically on British/Eurocentric imperialism in previous colonies, notable exceptions include Sauerbronn et al. (2021), who argue that colonialism is not just a Eurocentric construct—an under-researched perspective. Furthermore, Sauerbronn et al. (2021) introduce several Latin American scholars who are facilitating critical accounting research from a more marginalized perspective. Of these, Rodrigues et al. (2015) examine the taxing of enslaved Brazilians (findings supported by Rodrigues & Craig, 2018) and compare slave trade practices in the United States and British West Indies (for studies of the United States and British West Indies, see Fleischman et al., 2011a, 2011b).

Emancipatory Accounting

In addition to the literature outlining the historical and contemporary problems caused by both imperialism and Western accounting, another stream argues that accounting practices offer solutions to societal issues and support the emancipation of Indigenous peoples (Alawattage & Wickramasinghe, 2009; Buhr, 2011; Gallhofer et al., 2000; Gallhofer & Haslam, 2019; Jayasinghe & Thomas, 2009). Gallhofer and Haslam (2019) model emancipatory accounting after the work of British journalist and activist Henry Hyde Champion. The aforementioned articles argue that emancipatory accounting mobilizes accounting through the lens of Marxist framing to provoke societal transformation.

Emancipatory accounting is both a construct (Gallhofer & Haslam, 2019) and a tool (Alawattage & Wickramasinghe, 2009) used to emancipate historically oppressed peoples, including Black, Indigenous, and persons of Color (BIPOC). Emancipatory accounting's core concern is to overcome certain hegemonic ideologies, such as orthodox Western accounting, that function as reproductive technologies of Western governance (Alawattage & Wickramasinghe, 2009). Some authors believe that emancipatory accounting is a type of social accounting (Alawattage & Wickramasinghe, 2009; Gallhofer & Haslam, 2019). Alawattage and Wickramasinghe (2009) also discuss one type of emancipatory social accounting they call “subalterns' emancipatory accounting,” which they define as the “socially embedded practices of providing accounts, though not necessarily calculable, with or without the formal organizational parameters of reporting, but within socially embedded accountability relations such as patronage politics” (p. 380).

Given their emancipatory objectives, these articles have the second-highest count of sociology of inclusion articles (2/3 vs. 17/22 for the Indigenous knowledge and accounts subtheme). The key distinction between emancipatory accounting studies and Indigenous knowledge and accounts studies is that emancipatory accounting often fails to produce the desired positive outcome. An example is provided by Ferry et al. (2021), who investigate the development of accounting in Nigeria, the most populous former British colony in Africa, using a critical theory lens. Specifically, they theorize that accounting plays both an oppressive and an emancipatory role. They adopt a case study approach based on two public sector institutions in Nigeria. The first case highlights the use of a coercive accounting design, while the second highlights the use of an emancipatory design. However, both institutions failed to achieve their desired governance outcomes.

Indigenous Knowledge and Accounts

The articles that focus on Indigenous knowledge and accounts are overwhelmingly on inclusion (17 of 22). Additionally, 15 of the 22 articles on Indigenous knowledge and accounts were published since 2010, which may reflect Buhr's (2011) call for a pivot to research that treats Indigenous peoples as having agency. From a time series perspective (Table 6), the sociology of exclusion studies (1980–2004) on the deleterious impacts of Western accounting, often in colonial times, spurred an interest to highlight other ways of accounting colonialism, specifically by the professions (2000–2014), which eventually led to the call for an emancipatory role for accounting (2005–2014). The current research direction (2010 to now) appears to be focused on the sociology of inclusion, highlighting the value of incorporating Indigenous knowledge into accountancy practice and research.

Studies in this subtheme focus on Indigenous ways of being, knowing, and doing (Ufodike et. al., 2021, 2022) and the benefits to accountancy research and practice. They adopt a decoloniality framework, and themes include Indigenous tools in accounting (Brown & Wong, 2012; Craig et al., 2012; Gallhofer et al., 2000; Jacobs, 2000) and accounting for, by, or with Indigenous peoples (Baker et al., 2012; Buhr, 2011, 2012; Bujaki et al., 2023; Chew & Greer, 1997). These studies also have more diverse methodologies and propose solutions and directions for further research. This literature is primarily informed by Chew and Greer (1997), who advocate accounting for and by Indigenous peoples, and Buhr (2011, 2012), who offers new “positive” avenues in Indigenous research.

In their paper on Australian Indigenous peoples, Chew and Greer (1997) quote a 1982 Central Australian Aboriginal Congress resolution that academic research should be conducted “for and by Aboriginal people and not on Aboriginal people” (p. 14). Buhr (2011) expands on this call, claiming that the literature in this field largely focuses on accounting “for” Indigenous peoples rather than accounting “by” them. Keeping the latter in mind, the author suggests four new directions for future research involving First Nations peoples in Canada. The first proposed research direction involves understanding how accounting was used among Aboriginal trade networks in precolonial times. The second direction relates to research being conducted on a string of white or purple shell beads called wampum, which, among their many other uses, have been used as an accountability device. The third research direction involves studying the Certified Aboriginal Financial Manager Program, which was established in 1999 as an Aboriginal accounting designation. Finally, Buhr's (2011) fourth research direction involves exploring the results of establishing other First Nations institutions and legislation, such as the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act of 2005, which was designed to address the economic barriers experienced by Indigenous peoples. In conclusion, Buhr (2011) emphasizes the importance of cross-country and longitudinal comparisons of Indigenous peoples' funding and accountability relationships/practices. Although the directions suggested by this author are relatively narrow, they would still extend the body of the academic literature by Indigenous accounting scholars.