Curating Open Academic Fora

Decolonizing Management and Organization Studies (MOS) has emerged as an important stream in recent literature (for instance, Allen & Girei, 2024; Jammulamadaka et al., 2021; Pal et al., 2022; Yousfi, 2021) that recognizes a strong Western-centric bias, which generates lopsided knowledge and theories incommensurate with other cultural contexts (Banerjee, 2022; Filatotchev et al., 2022) and urgently calls for engaging in alternative “forms of theorizing” (Cornelissen et al., 2021) – including forms of theorizing rooted in Indigenous perspectives (Bothello et al., 2019; Bruton et al., 2022; Salmon et al., 2023). It requires going beyond just recognizing WEIRD bias¹ and undertaking serious “emancipatory” steps to recognize and address institutional factors hampering the heterogenization of knowledge creation (Banerjee, 2022; Cornelissen et al., 2021). Normalizing the inclusion of previously unheard voices in academia demands reflection and reconfiguration of the setup of scientific journals (Barros & Alcadipani, 2023; Zoogah et al., 2025), universities, especially business schools (Abdallah, 2024; Woods et al., 2022), or curricula and pedagogy (Allen & Girei, 2024; Jaya, 2001).

Such a reconfiguration necessitates paying attention to MOS workshops and conferences as potentially field-configuring events that can link individual action to field evolution (Lampel & Meyer, 2008) toward decolonizing our discipline (Etzion et al., 2022; Henderson & Burford, 2020; Höllerer & Geiger, 2022; King et al., 2023). On these lines, we look to MOS conferences and seek to “open up” academic fora. Contemporary academic conferences have been described as “neoliberal commodities” (Nicolson, 2017) and may be described as characterizing instrumentality and exclusion (Chatterjee, 2022; Owusu-Gyamfi, 2024). We wish to envision and advocate a move away from “instrumental scholarship” toward a more “holistic scholarship” that nurtures pluralism, community, and a developmental spirit (Robinson et al., 2022).

To do so, we start by highlighting a number of issues with current modes of Western-style academic conferencing before turning to, and critically reviewing, selected non-Western and arguably more Indigenous perspectives of learning and scholarship. We then derive a set of shared ideals to build what we dub a “6-R framework,” centering around the principles of Representation, Relationality, Responsibility, Reciprocity, Reflexivity, and Respect, supported by an underlying shared rationale.

With our work, we aim to contribute to the conversation on decolonizing MOS in two major ways. First, we strive to concretize what Bhabha (1994) calls the “third space”: a liminal, temporal, and transient space with transformative potential, where dominant and suppressed cultures and discourses can engage in unexpected ways, enabling new hybrid identities and futures to emerge (Tatham, 2023). In this sense, an open academic forum embracing the idea of a third space can give voice to previously marginalized actors and, therefore, provide the opportunity to contribute to decolonial endeavors (Seremani & Clegg, 2016). Second, we hope to encourage the academic community to find tangible ways and “practical solutions” (Seremani & Bazana, 2025) for decolonizing MOS by approaching the proposed 6-R framework not as the ideal solution but as a starting point for reimagining contemporary conferencing and reconfiguring traditional arrangements for inclusive academic fora.

For more than 2,500 years, colloquia and conferences – in all their varying forms – have been central to the academic endeavor in civilizations across the world. The scholarly dialogue and exchange they foster are essential for researchers (Stanley, 1995) and their individual journeys through refining ongoing scholarly work, sharing and gaining information and insights (De Vries & Pieters, 2007), learning about new frontiers of knowledge, having intellectually stimulating discussions with peers (Henderson, 2015), and providing valuable opportunities for serendipity and collaboration that can lead to methodological advantages and promising research (Wang et al., 2017). When the 2012 American Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting was canceled due to Hurricane Isaac, manuscripts scheduled for presentation there were cited less (De Leon & McQuillin, 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic similarly prevented informal, spontaneous encounters among colleagues as conferences went online and negatively affected knowledge dissemination (Hauss, 2021; Medina & Shrum, 2022). Evidently, scholarly dialogue and exchange are crucial in contemporary academia: what is discussed, amongst whom, and how at conferences defines research agenda, output, impact, and career trajectories.

MOS are no exception to this. On-site conferences remain popular despite increasing environmental concerns around global academic travel and hurdles to inclusive community building (Gill, 2021; Nevins et al., 2022; Poggioli & Hoffman, 2022; Reay, 2004). For instance, the annual meeting of the Academy of Management (AOM) reverted to its pre-pandemic attendance in 2023 with over 10,000 attendees (AOM, 2023). A significant number of scholars participate in annual gatherings of other scholarly associations such as the European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS), the European Academy of Management (EURAM), the Strategic Management Society (SMS), the Institute for Operations Research and Management Sciences (INFORMS), the Academy of International Business (AIB), the Association for Information Systems (AIS), along with their regional affiliates. Besides some differences in modalities, most of them are relatively “closed” settings with specific, Western-centric institutional arrangements, often aligned with the norms of the AOM as the “gold standard” in the field.

We now proceed to elaborate on how institutional arrangements shape “mainstream” academic conferencing and influence who attends, what is done/privileged during a conference, how participants engage, and why participants attend conferences.

The first aspect to consider about contemporary conferences is the “who” – who governs and who attends conferences.

In terms of the “governance” of conferences – that is, decisions about locations, organizers, format, rules of engagement, selection criteria for participants, and so on – the responsibility usually lies with boards and committees having officers elected by members of the scholarly associations legally and financially responsible for organizing the conference. Many of these associations originated and have the majority of their members in the Global North (although continental European scholars also bemoan the continued Anglo-American hegemony in many scholarly disciplines and fields), and despite some noteworthy attempts at inclusion and diversity (for instance, EGOS’ inclusivity policy (EGOS - Inclusivity Policy - European Group for Organizational Studies, n.d.)), conferences cater to the “typical” attendee and “gate-keeping” tendencies remain. While some associations such as AIB and AIS have made efforts to democratize access by hosting conferences worldwide, including in the Global South, most conferences are consistently held in and scheduled according to academic calendars of North America and Europe, effectively signaling the target audience.

These decisions are crucial and dictate who is able to attend and benefit from conferences on a consistent basis. Statistics reveal the lack of diversity of participants at international conferences. For instance, 75% of the more than 8,000 attendees of the Annual Meeting of the AOM in 2022 belonged to North American and European universities, even as the conference theme talked about “Creating a Better World Together” (AOM Newsletter, August 24, 2022). This is a throwback to colonialism, with scholars from the Global South disproportionately experiencing inaccessible locations, humiliating visa regimes, and hefty costs of registration and travel (Chatterjee, 2022; Owusu-Gyamfi, 2024). The consequences are inconsistent attendance and a related Sisyphean relationship-building, minority status in a crowd of academic elites from the Global North deterring non-Western voices, and interrupted experience of belonging, all making conferences into “closed” arrangements. Indeed, mainstream conferences limit the inclusion of diverse voices (Ford & Harding, 2010).

Surprisingly, virtual and hybrid conferencing seems to have had little effect. To us, this points to a deeper set of hurdles that hamper participation in international conferences due to the signals communicated by conference agenda, norms, and praxis. Evidently, the potential answers here are all but simple.

Similarly, the “what” – the themes and research agenda – driving academic conferences in MOS are skewed by the demography of participants and governing bodies, even as they claim to cater to the global scientific community. Further, although regional scholarly associations increase accessibility for non-Western scholars in Africa, South America, or Asia, even their agenda aligns with the mainstream Western template. It comes as no surprise, then, that the discourse at contemporary MOS conferences remains rather narrow and too often uninspiring and misses the opportunity to engage with novel and innovative themes, topics, phenomena, and methodologies.

Another issue is “how” knowledge and research insights are currently exchanged at MOS conferences, with the norms of engagement dominated by Western standards.

Prestigious MOS conferences require research to be submitted in a standardized format, often influenced by templates of top Western journals, and regional affiliates follow suit. Thus, acceptance at conferences depends on understanding, internalizing, and reproducing Western standards of knowledge communication.

This is problematic, as Barros and Alcadipani (2023) elaborate: Based on their experience as Brazilian scholars, they share how epistemic coloniality poses a hurdle to acceptance in such arenas. Not only do they have to communicate their ideas in a foreign language but also in a certain style targeted at a mainly Western audience. This type of Anglicization or “Colonialingualism” is prevalent across the board (Boussebaa & Brown, 2017; Meighan, 2023). Implicit epistemological and ontological assumptions in MOS, often building on Enlightenment thoughts (Banerjee & Arjaliès, 2021) and limiting methodological approaches, further hamper non-Western insights from being shared at MOS conferences.

Even when accepted, non-Western scholars may be unable to fully participate in these fora. MOS conferences are characterized by Western and hypermasculine culture, discourse, and performativity (Mills, 2006), leading to low diversity and the experience of “stage fright” and “performance anxiety” for groups that do not share the praxis. Studies have shown that ethnic minority members experience less psychological safety if such issues are not actively tackled (Fujimoto & Presbitero, 2022).

Beyond the listed conference program, contemporary conferencing involves socializing and networking, the norms around which also reinforce Western cultural and social praxis and can lead to non-Western scholars experiencing heightened anxiety and low belonging. Lipton (2020) notes experiencing the pressure to conform in such spaces and missing the collegiality such encounters should provide. Not surprisingly, Nicolson (2017) labels today’s academic conferences as “neoliberal commodities” where knowledge is created as a product and evaluated based on certain performance standards, such as journal rankings. Ford and Harding (2010) go so far as to describe conferences as a setting that fosters control over academics.

Finally, the core motivations or “why” for scholars to attend conferences have shifted over the past decades; the rise of business schools, the broader “managerialization” of universities, and the performativity of a myriad of metrics on the individual and organizational level have contributed their fair share to this development. We want to be neither nostalgic nor naïve here. Substantial reputation and power games have always characterized modern academia. Yet, what arguably still used to be a contest of ideas in an intellectual arena has increasingly come to be shaped by the neoliberal rulebook, focused on gaining visibility and status, instrumental networking, and chasing future publications that help improve individual metrics and institutional rankings (Höllerer & Geiger, 2022). The development of a balanced body of relevant knowledge, the spirit of shared scholarship, and the joy of experiencing community have taken somewhat of a backseat with an increasingly capitalistic production paradigm percolating into academia.

While mainstream conferences are but one – albeit central – mosaic stone toward decolonizing MOS (Nevins et al., 2022), the predominance of Western institutional arrangements in global scholarly debates and exchange is problematic for two reasons: it unfairly discriminates against scholars from the Global South, and it risks generating skewed and impractical insights incongruent with the diversity of the social world and global challenges due to the centrality of MOS conferences for setting the research agenda and output (Auerbach Jahajeeah et al., 2025).

In response, observers have called to “collectively work to create spaces where diversity and inclusion are the norm” (Rydstedt & Lachowsky, 2020, p. 202) by incorporating an ethic of interconnectedness and care, rethinking the prevalent hierarchical model to address power differentials and promote dialogic engagement (Bell & King, 2010), considering “partnerships with local associations to promote meetings and conferences between communities” (Barros & Alcadipani, 2023, p. 582), and even redesigning the physical environment and spaces at conferences to disrupt the status quo (Bell & King, 2010). The time is ripe to engage in decoloniality and proactively reimagine institutional arrangements, driving academic fora to provide space for diverse approaches to knowledge creation by looking beyond Western thought as the sole framework or source of knowledge (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018).

Some noteworthy attempts toward addressing the status quo are formats such as “Open Walked Event-Based Experimentations” (OWEE) (de Vaujany et al., 2018), “unconferences” (King et al., 2023; Owen, 2008), “slow conferencing” (Ruddick, 2019) and a “federated model of conferencing” (Etzion et al., 2022). Together, these efforts seek to counter hierarchy in academic exchange by promoting horizontal linkages to encourage the free flow of ideas among peers and improve solidarity, deepen engagement among participants, and better situate the conversation in its local context for better governance and solutions. While the issues at hand are multilayered and complex, these efforts are valuable in envisaging alternatives.

We intend to further these efforts and contribute toward decolonizing MOS (Banerjee, 2022) by transcending practices and focusing on foundational principles that may help transform academic exchange through “emancipatory” steps and inspired by the “third space” (Bhabha, 1994) since “knowledge production spaces have the potential to be sites of liberation from oppressive norms and practices, rather than sites of disenfranchisement for members of marginalized communities” (Rydstedt & Lachowsky, 2020, p. 202).

Overall, we hope to collectively address the question of how to curate open academic fora by reimagining the institutional arrangements for scholarly dialogue and exchange.

In search of alternative principles of conferencing – beyond Western or Eurocentric perspectives – that could serve as the foundation of curating academic fora and facilitate reimagination, reconfiguration, and reconstitution of scholarly exchange, we turned to the “Others” and sought out diverse Indigenous perspectives on scholarship and learning in search of non-hegemonic conceptualizations of scholars and principles of scholarship. Here, we understand Indigenous as referring to knowledge and perspectives native or original to a particular region or area and developed in the civilizations and communities of that region or area. We turned to perspectives from communities in Africa, the First Nations of the American continents, Indian Hinduism and Buddhism, and Chinese Confucianism. None of these are monoliths, and their practical interpretations, coupled with colonial impositions, have resulted in deeply problematic societal institutions and inequalities such as gender, race, caste, class, and more in various parts of the world. However, we follow Shroff’s (2011) lead and look for similarities at the level of perspectives to extract and translate their essence into guiding principles for our purpose. In the following sections, we present a summary of the principles of scholarship distilled from Indigenous perspectives to help reimagine academic fora.

In contrast with the Cartesian dualism of mind and body that makes the mind the central source and target of learning, Indigenous perspectives are rooted in a holistic and socio-ecological view of individuals as well as of education and scholarship, emphasizing the interconnectedness of mind, body, spirit, and environment such that education encompasses not only cognitive but also physical, emotional and spiritual development (Merriam & Kim, 2008; Reagan, 2005; Shroff, 2011; Walker, 2001). As an example, among Indigenous American peoples belonging to the Cree, Cherokee, Anishinaabeg, Navajo, Ojibwa, and other nations, the concept of the Medicine Wheel (or Sacred Circle or the Great Hoop of Life) symbolizes four components of a whole person and considers equal development of all four components necessary for achieving harmony – the ultimate aim of education (Merriam & Kim, 2008; Underwood, 2000), while Yoga and Buddhist thought in India hold enlightenment as the goal of education, to be attained by balancing mind, body and spirit (Merriam & Kim, 2008).

Further, the individual is interconnected with the community, an entity central to Indigenous perspectives: the community is both the facilitator and beneficiary of all learning and scholarship, with its issues and problems dictating the teleology of the scholarly endeavor (Merriam & Kim, 2008).

The above relational ontology of the individual manifests in education and scholarship, which have the intertwined goals of individual development and community benefit (Peters, 2019).

At the individual level, scholarship and the pursuit of knowledge are means for self-actualization, a goal that manifests in diverse ways across perspectives. The pursuit of knowledge serves self-realization in Confucianism and Indian Hindu philosophy (Merriam & Kim, 2008; Mookerji, 1944; Nanavati, 2022; Reagan, 2005; Thaker, 2007), the attainment of harmony through personal responsibility and efforts toward salvation in Indian Buddhist and Indigenous American perspectives (Cajete (Tewa), 2005; Reagan, 2005), and the strengthening of values and character across perspectives (A. S. Altekar, 1933; Mookerji, 1944; Moumouni, 1968; Reagan, 2005).

However, this individual development is not an end in itself but in service of the community. Indigenous African perspectives prioritize communal interests over the individual; in Indigenous American and Indigenous Australian perspectives, “love” for the people and the land fuels the pursuit of knowledge along with an aspiration to assimilate in society; and Confucianism and Indian Hindu perspectives value a harmonious society based on societal ideals and achieved through individual learning and scholarship (A. S. Altekar, 1933; Cajete (Tewa), 2005; Merriam & Kim, 2008; Merriam & Ntseane, 2008; Reagan, 2005). Thus, education and scholarship are structured by community problems and issues, and the effectiveness of these endeavors assessed by the efficacy of solutions provided to the community’s problems (Merriam & Kim, 2008).

Indigenous perspectives are also often characterized by epistemological diversity, allowing for a broader range of sources and forms of data to be considered valid for the generation of knowledge. Learning and scholarship are seen as lifelong processes that are naturalistic and intertwined with everyday praxis such that education is situated at the nexus of nature, community, life, and leisure (Cajete (Tewa), 2005; Cajete in Denzin et al., 2008; Merriam & Kim, 2008; Reagan, 2005). Observation, interaction, imitation, participation in the rites and rituals of the community, assimilation, and context-ed experience are key in this regard (Cajete in Denzin et al., 2008; Merriam & Kim, 2008; Reagan, 2005). Furthermore, the oral tradition and effective use of language are central to nearly all Indigenous perspectives (Reagan, 2005), leading to knowledge being embedded in, generated from, and transmitted through a myriad of narrative tools such as myths and mythology, legends, fables and storytelling, songs and dances, proverbs, metaphors, riddles, and even gossip as seen among the African Hausa, for example (Reagan, 2005).

The idea of a specialized and separate teacher with expertise and skills is alien to many Indigenous philosophical perspectives; instead, everyone, irrespective of age and stage of learning, has a responsibility bordering on obligation to share knowledge while continuing to learn (Merriam & Kim, 2008; Reagan, 2005). Among many First Nations, all adults, as well as older children, are meant to engage in teaching, while community elders pass on ritual and ceremonial knowledge and function as custodians of community wisdom, experience, and culture (Reagan, 2005). The idea of reciprocity concerning knowledge is embedded within Chinese, Indian Hindu, and Indian Buddhist perspectives, even if the role of a teacher is more formalized in practice (Merriam & Kim, 2008; Mookerji, 1944; Reagan, 2005). Similarly embedded is the idea of engaged learning.

Finally, Indigenous perspectives of education and scholarship value equality, inclusion, and access but not necessarily along the same dimensions, resulting in concerning exclusions over time. For example, in ancient India, financial hurdles to scholarship were addressed with scholarships drawn from royal patronage but social structures evolved over time to institutionalize exclusions based on gender and caste (Nanavati, 2022). This makes it important to focus on the spirit rather than dimensions of inclusion for our purpose.

Confucianism deems everyone to be alike but differing owing to their experience. It considers education to be transformative, advocating for it to be available to all who stand to benefit from it (Reagan, 2005). The principles of Buddhist philosophy decried caste, descent, and status and advocated for recognizing competence such that ancient Buddhist educational centers admitted everyone and attracted students from across South-East Asia (Altekar, 1944; Merriam & Kim, 2008). The Aztecs ensured universal schooling regardless of gender and class, and at the end of formal education in the cuicacalli, made equivalent institutions available for males and females (Reagan, 2005). Furthermore, perspectives from African communities and the First Nations recognize and accommodate individual differences in the intellectual capacities of children while educating them without imposing normative standards (Reagan, 2005). Thus, the aim was to be meritocratic, accessible, and accommodative of individual differences in backgrounds and capacities.

The set of common characteristics that emerged across perspectives is preliminarily summarized in Table 1.

Inspired by the various Indigenous perspectives reviewed, we develop a set of principles addressing aspects of who, what, how, and why to serve as the basis for reimagining institutional arrangements for scholarly dialogue and exchange.

The core principle manifested across Indigenous perspectives, as seen in Table 1, is one of holism, relationality, or connectedness – the lack of a stark divide between the body-mind-spirit, individual and community, living and learning, mentor and mentee. We draw on these core principles and suggest that academic exchange and fora be reimagined to facilitate a move away from current paradigms of instrumental scholarship toward “holistic scholarship” (Robinson et al., 2022), marked by “pluralism, community building, nurturing, and developing of individuals and the field” (Robinson et al., 2022, p. 365). We propose a 6-R framework to this end, centering around the principles of Representation, Relationality, Responsibility, Reciprocity, Reflexivity, and Respect, supported by an underlying rationale. Together, they guide the vision for curating open academic fora toward enabling holistic scholarship:

The goal here is to facilitate the self-fulfillment of scholars by addressing problems identified collectively. We suggest moving away from an individualistic view of scholars, which leads us to look at a scholarly community as a constellation of individual “stars” and those who are best at connecting to each other through often imaginary and fungible ties. Instead, a relational (or ecological) view of the scholarly community may be adopted, where scholars and their work are interconnected and interrelated, and indeed, individual successes and failures impact the sustainability and credibility of the community. The development and fulfillment of a scholar in this paradigm is the community’s responsibility, while it is the responsibility of the scholar to support the community by sharing knowledge. This view also involves transcending differences and dichotomies and enabling access, irrespective of background and financial capacity, to celebrate unique backgrounds and world views that can help address community problems in novel ways. The process is ongoing and lifelong, employs diverse epistemologies, and is characterized by reciprocity and sustained engagement between scholars simultaneously responsible for learning from and developing each other with reflexivity and respect.

Open academic fora will foster inclusivity and representation by moving toward recognition of differences and of the inequity that these differences entail, along with relocating in time and space to enable equity.

Representation with recognition. Curating open academic fora must begin with addressing who attends and governs scholarly exchange and reconsidering what constitutes representation. This involves accounting for underrepresented institutions and countries, recognizing differences among participants of the field, recognizing how these differences derive from or perpetrate structural barriers such as income disparities, acknowledging that economic strength does not represent voice and worth, and finding ways to facilitate the congregation of diverse scholars and plural perspectives by addressing these realities.

Representation also needs to be ensured in the governance of open academic fora to ensure fair academic exchange. The Indigenous democratic system of Kgotla driven by principles of tolerance and freedom of expression may be pertinent here, with its roots in the principle of Ubuntu that emphasizes community and interconnectedness, its focus on equitable dialogue and discussion about any issues concerning the community, and everyone having the right to have their views heard (Molebatsi & Morobolo, 2021; Tlou & Tlou, 2021).

Relocation in space and time. The oppression and humiliation faced by scholars from most countries while trying to access Western geographies, along with the obliviousness of dominant groups to these problems, necessitate considering more accessible geographies that do not symbolize hegemonic ways of being. Further, deferring to North American and European academic calendars creates trade-offs for academics from “misaligned” contexts: between academic duties and academic exchange, between scholarly responsibilities and private life. This necessitates temporal reconsiderations for scholarly exchange to improve representation.

Relationality is central to moving away from existing arrangements and norms of scholarly exchange such that individual and community development are seen as interrelated and interdependent. In this paradigm, acquiring and sharing knowledge are considered responsibilities of individual scholars, while the community is responsible for developing individual scholars. The norms and activities in open academic fora may be organized around symbiotic individuals and community development focused on issues the community considers important.

The individual as a collective responsibility. Open academic fora will transcend dehumanized scholarship and be deeply concerned with the development and self-fulfillment of individual scholars at various stages of the academic journey. Such a forum would enable scholars to chart their own path, discover scholarly purpose, and experience belonging to better contribute to the community. The product and practice of scholarship will be intertwined. Furthermore, the product of scholarship may not be commoditized forms of knowledge, rather the individual scholar shaped by a community that cares.

Issue focus. The above community-supported individual development occurs through and toward addressing issues relevant to the community. It is pertinent here to consider how these issues may be identified. In the spirit of Kgotla, open academic fora may introduce mechanisms for the community to dialogue and build consensus on issues of interest, around which scholars congregate and generate solutions and draw upon plural perspectives through deliberation in issue-driven dialogue circles. The circle is “an ancient symbol that can offer new possibilities and hope across many cultures to those who are discouraged with their life” (Garner et al., 2011, p. 65). Everyone is equal in a circle, but it also acknowledges the knowledge and wisdom of those with more experience. Thus, the circle could inspire organizing knowledge exchange without hierarchy around challenges faced by society or scholars. Scholarly challenge circles could be proposed afresh by scholars based on the needs of the times and the context. Resorting to circles allows for flexibility and interdisciplinary engagements; topical circles may be merged in different ways to allow for generativity such that radical theoretical and practical insights may emerge. The effectiveness of solutions and, hence, the quality of knowledge is judged by its ability to address identified solutions.

Inclusive epistemologies. Open academic fora will encourage alternate ways of developing and disseminating knowledge by drawing upon broader sources and forms of knowledge, diverse methodologies and modes of engagement, and better integration with lived realities. The crux is a radical transformation regarding what is considered valid knowledge and valid ways of generating knowledge. Broadening the epistemological repertoire and embracing other ways of knowing (Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021) seems imperative for generating solutions in a world rife with challenges. Further, refocusing is required to assess the worth of a contribution and consider scholarly contributions’ ability to address problems identified by the community rather than commoditizing knowledge. The possibilities are rich here to promote knowledge creation by breaking away from set molds of knowledge dissemination and engaging in forms foreign to Western contexts to generate solutions.

The “how” of open academic fora concerns rules of engagement that imbibe reciprocity, reflexivity, and respect. Indigenous scholarly perspectives are characterized by a fluid boundary between mentors and mentees and a necessary reciprocity between them. Everyone teaches, and everyone learns from each other through praxis. Reciprocity is key to realizing an open academic forum. Again, we suggest resorting to the circle as an enabling form of more equal dialogue among participants. Furthermore, scholarly circles may be overseen by the equivalents of elders and custodians, driven by the spirit of tolerance and dialogue.

At the same time, it is important to remember that we are not entering or approaching new institutional arrangements tabula rasa but are pre-conditioned by existing forms of engagement. Thus, an important element of enabling reciprocity in open academic fora is reflexivity (Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021). By reflecting on their positionality and being acutely aware of power dynamics that are embedded, entrenched, and internalized (Cajete in Denzin et al., 2008) and of how their worldview may have been shaped by dominant discourses (Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021), scholars can aspire to create a space for more equal dialogue and voice for diverse participants. Dei’s (2008, p. 8) notion of “epistemological equity” is essential here for facilitating conversations between plural perspectives with an awareness of the power-knowledge complex (Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021). Rather than assuming that Western methodologies are the only valid ways of understanding reality, scholars reflect on their own assumptions and seek to engage with and integrate non-Western methodologies with respect (Simonds & Christopher, 2013), which is the third component of the rules of engagement in open academic fora. To go from representation to voice, scholars thus must demonstrate respect for perspectives and engage respectfully with not only open ears and eyes but also open hearts and minds (Delpit, 1988; Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021). Listening affectively and actively is central to creating space for growth and becoming (McDermott, 2014).

Knowledge generation and problem-solving in this paradigm might employ various methodologies that communities devise to allow plural perspectives to converse with reciprocity, reflexivity, and respect. An example is Cajete’s (in Denzin et al., 2008, p. 493) approach, which seeks to open up conversations between plural perspectives on science by demonstrating analogous approaches across Native American and Western thought to “illustrate that these principles are the result of the creative thought process and to establish this as a point of commonality between both cultural perspectives.” The approach emulates real-world problem-solving that synthesizes collective learning to generate ideas and applies the best solution to problems identified in salient situations (Cajete in Denzin et al., 2008). Ultimately, “‘Braiding Indigenous Science and Western Science’ is a powerful metaphor used to symbolize and acknowledge that different ways of knowing can coexist; in this metaphor, each strand remains a separate entity, however all strands come together to form a whole (Snively & Williams, 2016)” (Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021, p. 5).

Finally, we come to the why of the enterprise. Open academic fora seek to readjust the focus of scholarly exchange on scholarship, scholarly development, and scholarly community/camaraderie driven by the 6-Rs outlined in pursuit of holistic scholarship that embraces a non-individualistic relational view of scholars and knowledge, and fosters a true community that invests care in scholars and is enriched with scholarship in the process. As Thambinathan and Kinsella (2021) suggest, the key is to adopt a transformative praxis: theorizing based on issues deemed important by the community, aligned with the community’s values, and enriching the community with individual capability and service.

This paper seeks to reimagine scholarly dialogue and exchange, focusing on academic conferencing (Etzion et al., 2022; Höllerer & Geiger, 2022) and believes that lasting change requires philosophical reconsiderations. We, thus, offer ontological, epistemological, teleological, and axiological principles through a 6-R framework to help reimagine MOS conferences. The aim is to reconfigure institutional arrangements toward dismantling colonizing influences, effecting inclusion, ensuring holistic scholarship, and promoting diversity in knowledge generation. With this, we aim to contribute to discussions on decolonizing MOS in two ways.

First, we look to the concept and possibilities of Bhabha’s (1994) “third space,” which is an “inherently productive” space marked by productive and disruptive tensions arising from ongoing contestations, negotiations, and transformations that result from “subversion, transgression and resistance” (Haig-Brown, 2021; Tatham, 2023, p. 4). It is characterized by hybridity, openness, and possibilities of new positions (Bhabha in Rutherford, 1990), and “displaces the histories that constitute it, and sets up new structures of authority, new political initiatives, which are inadequately understood through received wisdom” (Koliska & Roberts, 2021; Bhabha in Rutherford, 1990, p. 211). Following recent discussions on how epistemological third spaces can contribute to decolonizing MOS (Hamann et al., 2020; Kothiyal et al., 2018; Seremani & Clegg, 2016), we suggest seeing open academic fora as third spaces, wherein epistemological encounters between dominant perspectives and perspectives long suppressed can occur resulting in contestations, negotiations and transformations of conferencing. The disruptions and reconfigurations of structures in these spaces, which essentially are field-configuring events, shall allow new hybrid meanings and understandings to emerge and transform the larger field through individual realizations and actions.

Second, we offer the 6-R framework not as a fruit or end product but as a seed or starting point. We invite the academic community to make the framework their own, reflect on and extend the principles for reimagining contemporary conferencing, and adapt them in ways that speak to their context and community toward realizing the vision of open academic fora. In keeping with the spirit of the framework, we hope this will lead to a diversity of imaginaries and a myriad of “practical suggestions” (Seremani & Bazana, 2025) for decolonizing MOS and building momentum toward institutional change and inclusive academic fora.