Abstract The importance of higher degree research supervision is well studied and understood. There is also an increasing body of literature examining cross‐cultural and intercultural supervision. Much less research, however, focuses on supervision experiences with Indigenous postgraduate students and their non‐Indigenous supervisors. High‐quality, culturally appropriate, and safe supervision is even more significant for Indigenous postgraduate students, who also have to deal with the ongoing inequities of colonialism in both higher education and broader society. The doctoral research at the centre of this article is undertaken by an Indigenous person who is supervised by two non‐Indigenous settler academics in geography. Drawing on Indigenous and non‐Indigenous scholarly research, we provide narrative examples of some of the complexities and possibilities experienced through the research process and supervisory relationship. The article does not present an argument for a best practice model in intercultural supervision, nor does it make recommendations or argue for standardised practices in geography. Instead, we seek to contribute to emerging discussions on Indigenous doctoral supervision in settler colonial contexts and, in doing so, highlight spaces of resistance as we challenge conventional supervisory relationships and knowledge making practices.
Recent installments of Joseph Mitchell’s uncompleted memoir, published in The New Yorker, strongly support and extend claims made by Michael Adams in “‘The Course of a Particular’: Names and Narrative in the Works of Joseph Mitchell,” published in Names 63 (2015). Mitchell explicitly describes lists of names as possessing a lyrical quality, so that such lists — lyrical inserts — would exhibit prosodic features out of tempo with the surrounding narrative. And the fragment of memoir titled “Days in the Branch” suggests — in the dissonance between topographical and genealogical views of experience and personal history — why names had the epistemological, ontological, and finally affective significance Adams claimed they had for Mitchell.
AbstractAmerican law discourages trademark registration of words that look and sound like surnames, yet some surnames are trademarks or parts thereof. The controlling issue in determining whether a mark is “primarily merely a surname” is its primary significance to the purchasing public, but several factors contribute to this determination: (1) surname rareness; (2) personal relation to the surname; (3) alternate meanings; (4) whether the mark has the structure and pronunciation of a surname; and (5) the mark's style. Thus, rarer, semantically developed, transparently onomastic words have a better chance of trademark status: it is by no means easy to determine what counts as the look and sound of a surname. Trademark law inadvertently promotes onomastic discrimination. Because the mass of American consumers easily identifies Western European surnames, those names are better protected from commercial appropriation. The “look and sound of a surname,” after all, is culturally determined. As a result, the law both reflects and reinforces attitudes about what counts as a surname and what doesn't.
'/%3e%3c/defs%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0h10080v5040H0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='.6' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23b)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='.4' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23c)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='840' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='504' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cg fill='%23fff'%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' x='2520' y='3780'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='4200'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='6300' y='2205'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='840'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='8680' y='1869'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23e' x='8064' y='2730'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)