Pub Date : 2022-02-27DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2022.2043241
K. Gelber, Katie Brennan, David Duriesmith, E. Fenton
ABSTRACT Much research has been undertaken on gender bias in student evaluations of teaching (SETs) in universities, with inconsistent findings. We undertake a qualitative analysis of the comments in four years of SETs in a school of political science and international relations in a highly regarded Australian university. We ask, can the same evaluations produce different results when analysed qualitatively rather than quantitatively? And do students evaluate male-identified and female-identified teachers differently, and if so what are the differences? We show that qualitative analysis can reveal gender bias that is invisible in quantitative analysis. We find that female-identified staff are evaluated more positively than their male counterparts for undertaking time-intensive, stereotypically feminine, emotional labour. Male-identified staff are evaluated more positively for their technical expertise and teaching style. This suggests SETs evaluate gender-stereotypical behaviour rather than only teaching quality, and has significant implications for their use in universities.
{"title":"Gendered mundanities: gender bias in student evaluations of teaching in political science","authors":"K. Gelber, Katie Brennan, David Duriesmith, E. Fenton","doi":"10.1080/10361146.2022.2043241","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2022.2043241","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 Much research has been undertaken on gender bias in student evaluations of teaching (SETs) in universities, with inconsistent findings. We undertake a qualitative analysis of the comments in four years of SETs in a school of political science and international relations in a highly regarded Australian university. We ask, can the same evaluations produce different results when analysed qualitatively rather than quantitatively? And do students evaluate male-identified and female-identified teachers differently, and if so what are the differences? We show that qualitative analysis can reveal gender bias that is invisible in quantitative analysis. We find that female-identified staff are evaluated more positively than their male counterparts for undertaking time-intensive, stereotypically feminine, emotional labour. Male-identified staff are evaluated more positively for their technical expertise and teaching style. This suggests SETs evaluate gender-stereotypical behaviour rather than only teaching quality, and has significant implications for their use in universities.","PeriodicalId":46913,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Political Science","volume":"57 1","pages":"199 - 220"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41622491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-24DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2022.2040426
Paul Strangio
ABSTRACT Leadership ranking exercises, which have a storied history in the United States, have recently gained a foothold in Westminster democracies. In 2020, the author conducted a major survey of Australian political scientists and historians to gauge their opinion of the leadership performance of the nation’s past prime ministers. Read in tandem with the results of earlier surveys, particularly that conducted out of Monash University in 2010, the 2020 rankings indicate that expert opinion about who have been Australia’s most successful prime ministers is largely settled. The 2020 results also suggest that the experts believe that the policy legacy of a leader is a more important indicator of prime-ministerial success than is the longevity of office.
{"title":"Prime-ministerial leadership rankings: the Australian experience","authors":"Paul Strangio","doi":"10.1080/10361146.2022.2040426","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2022.2040426","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Leadership ranking exercises, which have a storied history in the United States, have recently gained a foothold in Westminster democracies. In 2020, the author conducted a major survey of Australian political scientists and historians to gauge their opinion of the leadership performance of the nation’s past prime ministers. Read in tandem with the results of earlier surveys, particularly that conducted out of Monash University in 2010, the 2020 rankings indicate that expert opinion about who have been Australia’s most successful prime ministers is largely settled. The 2020 results also suggest that the experts believe that the policy legacy of a leader is a more important indicator of prime-ministerial success than is the longevity of office.","PeriodicalId":46913,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Political Science","volume":"57 1","pages":"180 - 198"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49359460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-24DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2022.2040425
Joshua Black
ABSTRACT Former politicians produce political memoirs for a variety of reasons, many of which are self-serving. However, given that active politicians who aspire to emulate or at least learn from the example of their predecessors often read political memoirs, we need to understand how these books conceptualise the policy process. In this article, I argue that political memoirs are a manifestation of their author’s (mis)conceptions of the policy process itself. Adopting the Hawke Government’s Taxation Summit of 1985 as a case study, I comparatively analysed the way that six political memoirs and autobiographies account for that policy process, examining the varying significance that each author ascribes to policymaking agents, chiefly the leadership, the executive, the bureaucracy, the intra-party factions, and external community interest groups. I conclude that memoirs are conditioned by genre conventions, and by their author’s specific vantage point within the policy network.
{"title":"‘Lessons in statecraft’?: Political memoirs, tax reform, and the National Taxation Summit 1985","authors":"Joshua Black","doi":"10.1080/10361146.2022.2040425","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2022.2040425","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Former politicians produce political memoirs for a variety of reasons, many of which are self-serving. However, given that active politicians who aspire to emulate or at least learn from the example of their predecessors often read political memoirs, we need to understand how these books conceptualise the policy process. In this article, I argue that political memoirs are a manifestation of their author’s (mis)conceptions of the policy process itself. Adopting the Hawke Government’s Taxation Summit of 1985 as a case study, I comparatively analysed the way that six political memoirs and autobiographies account for that policy process, examining the varying significance that each author ascribes to policymaking agents, chiefly the leadership, the executive, the bureaucracy, the intra-party factions, and external community interest groups. I conclude that memoirs are conditioned by genre conventions, and by their author’s specific vantage point within the policy network.","PeriodicalId":46913,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Political Science","volume":"57 1","pages":"164 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43206531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-01DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2022.2028720
H. Hobbs, Benjamin T. Jones
ABSTRACT The 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart called for a constitutionally enshrined Voice to parliament, and a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of treaty-making and truth-telling. The recommendations were rejected by the Turnbull government and appear unlikely to be implemented under a Morrison government. Initially, the main objection to the Voice from government MPs was that it would upset the balance of Australia’s bicameral system by creating a third chamber. Other concerns include the potential of an Indigenous Voice to divide Australians and create special privileges for a particular group. Drawing on Chaim Gans’ theory of egalitarian Zionism, this article introduces the idea of egalitarian nationhoods. It argues that the Voice does not provide privilege but equality in allowing First Nations to enjoy self-determination and collective rights, something most non-Indigenous Australians take for granted.
2017年《来自内心的乌鲁鲁声明》(Uluru Statement from The Heart)呼吁向议会发出宪法规定的声音，并成立一个马卡拉塔委员会(Makarrata Commission)来监督条约制定和真相讲述的过程。这些建议被特恩布尔政府拒绝，似乎不太可能在莫里森政府下实施。最初，政府议员反对声音的主要原因是，它将创建第三个议院，从而打破澳大利亚两院制的平衡。其他担忧还包括，“土著之声”可能会分裂澳大利亚人，并为某个特定群体创造特权。本文借鉴查伊姆·甘斯的平等主义犹太复国主义理论，介绍了平等主义国家的概念。它认为，“声音”没有提供特权，而是平等地允许第一民族享有自决权和集体权利，这是大多数非土著澳大利亚人认为理所当然的事情。
{"title":"Egalitarian nationhoods: a political theory in defence of the voice to parliament in the Uluru Statement from the Heart","authors":"H. Hobbs, Benjamin T. Jones","doi":"10.1080/10361146.2022.2028720","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2022.2028720","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart called for a constitutionally enshrined Voice to parliament, and a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of treaty-making and truth-telling. The recommendations were rejected by the Turnbull government and appear unlikely to be implemented under a Morrison government. Initially, the main objection to the Voice from government MPs was that it would upset the balance of Australia’s bicameral system by creating a third chamber. Other concerns include the potential of an Indigenous Voice to divide Australians and create special privileges for a particular group. Drawing on Chaim Gans’ theory of egalitarian Zionism, this article introduces the idea of egalitarian nationhoods. It argues that the Voice does not provide privilege but equality in allowing First Nations to enjoy self-determination and collective rights, something most non-Indigenous Australians take for granted.","PeriodicalId":46913,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Political Science","volume":"57 1","pages":"129 - 144"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43043758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-07DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2021.2023093
M. Dowling
ABSTRACT As liberal democracies intensify their efforts to digitise democracy, more governance services and processes are shifting online. Malign foreign entities (MFEs) are exploiting this phenomenon of digital era governance (DEG) to weaken democracies through information warfare operations. Australia is not immune to this, yet there is limited research exploring the relationship between digital democracy and foreign interference in the Australian context. Addressing this lacuna, this paper identifies the ways in which DEG might inadvertently produce opportunities for MFEs to target the Nation’s core democratic infrastructure. Through the implicit application of a tri-theoretical framework of DEG, democratic theory, and institutional theory, I argue that DEG has induced a series of new vulnerabilities in Australia’s political processes and institutions that challenge the legitimacy of decision-making inputs and outputs. MFEs may exploit these potential vulnerabilities by tapping into key digitally-amplified problems such as inauthenticity, data insecurity, and disinformation, thereby threatening Australia’s democratic sovereignty.
{"title":"Foreign interference and digital democracy: is digital era governance putting Australia at risk?","authors":"M. Dowling","doi":"10.1080/10361146.2021.2023093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2021.2023093","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As liberal democracies intensify their efforts to digitise democracy, more governance services and processes are shifting online. Malign foreign entities (MFEs) are exploiting this phenomenon of digital era governance (DEG) to weaken democracies through information warfare operations. Australia is not immune to this, yet there is limited research exploring the relationship between digital democracy and foreign interference in the Australian context. Addressing this lacuna, this paper identifies the ways in which DEG might inadvertently produce opportunities for MFEs to target the Nation’s core democratic infrastructure. Through the implicit application of a tri-theoretical framework of DEG, democratic theory, and institutional theory, I argue that DEG has induced a series of new vulnerabilities in Australia’s political processes and institutions that challenge the legitimacy of decision-making inputs and outputs. MFEs may exploit these potential vulnerabilities by tapping into key digitally-amplified problems such as inauthenticity, data insecurity, and disinformation, thereby threatening Australia’s democratic sovereignty.","PeriodicalId":46913,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Political Science","volume":"57 1","pages":"113 - 128"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49025971","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2021.2023094
Carol Johnson
Abstract COVID-19 has shone a spotlight on many areas of inequality. Despite its public commitment to gender equality, Australia’s Morrison government has been accused of implementing economic stimulus policies in response to the pandemic that are often ‘gender blind’ and disadvantage women. This article examines both the Morrison government’s gender equality policies and key criticisms of its economic measures. It argues that the government’s claimed ‘gender blindness’ results not so much from an opposition to gender equality policy as from a particular neoliberal framing of it.
{"title":"What COVID-19 revealed about gender equality policy framing","authors":"Carol Johnson","doi":"10.1080/10361146.2021.2023094","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2021.2023094","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract COVID-19 has shone a spotlight on many areas of inequality. Despite its public commitment to gender equality, Australia’s Morrison government has been accused of implementing economic stimulus policies in response to the pandemic that are often ‘gender blind’ and disadvantage women. This article examines both the Morrison government’s gender equality policies and key criticisms of its economic measures. It argues that the government’s claimed ‘gender blindness’ results not so much from an opposition to gender equality policy as from a particular neoliberal framing of it.","PeriodicalId":46913,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Political Science","volume":"57 1","pages":"93 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44343305","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-28DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2021.2014397
Henry Maher
ABSTRACT This article explores the relationship between neoliberal ideology and ‘actually existing neoliberalism’. Critical scholarship on neoliberalism identifies significant discrepancies between neoliberal ideology and neoliberal state practice in advanced economies, but struggles to account for the exact relationship between ideology and practice. Through a critical reading of neoliberal thinker Milton Friedman, I propose two hypotheses. Firstly, I argue that access to power resources determine which social actors are able to successfully resist neoliberal reform, and therefore that attention to power relations can account for the variegated, uneven development of neoliberalism. Secondly, I suggest neoliberal reforms limiting the role of government have allowed corporate actors to accrue unprecedented economic and political power, which is leveraged by corporations to create increasingly pro-corporate, but often anti-neoliberal, forms of economic regulation. I test my hypotheses by examining the regulation of the mining industry in Australia from 2009 to 2019, finding strong support for both claims.
{"title":"The relationship between neoliberal ideology and state practice: corporate power in the Australian mining industry","authors":"Henry Maher","doi":"10.1080/10361146.2021.2014397","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2021.2014397","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article explores the relationship between neoliberal ideology and ‘actually existing neoliberalism’. Critical scholarship on neoliberalism identifies significant discrepancies between neoliberal ideology and neoliberal state practice in advanced economies, but struggles to account for the exact relationship between ideology and practice. Through a critical reading of neoliberal thinker Milton Friedman, I propose two hypotheses. Firstly, I argue that access to power resources determine which social actors are able to successfully resist neoliberal reform, and therefore that attention to power relations can account for the variegated, uneven development of neoliberalism. Secondly, I suggest neoliberal reforms limiting the role of government have allowed corporate actors to accrue unprecedented economic and political power, which is leveraged by corporations to create increasingly pro-corporate, but often anti-neoliberal, forms of economic regulation. I test my hypotheses by examining the regulation of the mining industry in Australia from 2009 to 2019, finding strong support for both claims.","PeriodicalId":46913,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Political Science","volume":"57 1","pages":"59 - 74"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49493940","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-16DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2021.2014398
R. Levy, I. McAllister
ABSTRACT Over the last decade, the debate about Australia’s relationship with Indigenous people has entered a new phase with the prospect of a referendum to amend the Constitution. In this paper we use a wide range of survey data going back to the 1970s to examine public opinion towards Indigenous issues and likely voting in any future referendum to recognise Indigenous Australians. Our results show a long-term liberalisation in public opinion which can be traced mainly to period effects within the electorate. This liberalisation in opinion is the major explanation for the large majority who would currently support a change in the Constitution to recognise Indigenous peoples. Our results have significant policy implications for how governments approach the inherent difficulties surrounding Indigenous recognition.
{"title":"Public opinion on Indigenous issues and constitutional recognition: three decades of liberalisation","authors":"R. Levy, I. McAllister","doi":"10.1080/10361146.2021.2014398","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2021.2014398","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Over the last decade, the debate about Australia’s relationship with Indigenous people has entered a new phase with the prospect of a referendum to amend the Constitution. In this paper we use a wide range of survey data going back to the 1970s to examine public opinion towards Indigenous issues and likely voting in any future referendum to recognise Indigenous Australians. Our results show a long-term liberalisation in public opinion which can be traced mainly to period effects within the electorate. This liberalisation in opinion is the major explanation for the large majority who would currently support a change in the Constitution to recognise Indigenous peoples. Our results have significant policy implications for how governments approach the inherent difficulties surrounding Indigenous recognition.","PeriodicalId":46913,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Political Science","volume":"57 1","pages":"75 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41807226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-09DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2021.2012125
Elliott Johnston
ABSTRACT Contestation over the date of Australia Day is waged yearly as a passionate culture war between conservatives who wish to ‘save the date’ and progressives arguing to ‘change the date’. This article argues that despite clear ideological differences, settler engagements with both movements reflect a common emotional commitment to preserving a positive self-understanding as innocent and benevolent political actors. Both movements are therefore similarly invested in the maintenance and justification of settler authority, though by way of very different strategies. It follows that broader relations between settlers and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are at least partially constituted by dynamics of collective settler emotion that are felt deeply in relation to disputed qualities of Australian nationhood, sovereignty and culture. This analysis further reveals the pressing need to move beyond the narrow boundaries of ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ settler identity in which discussions of Indigenous politics are all too often trapped.
{"title":"Unsettling emotions: settler innocence in Australia Day debates","authors":"Elliott Johnston","doi":"10.1080/10361146.2021.2012125","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2021.2012125","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Contestation over the date of Australia Day is waged yearly as a passionate culture war between conservatives who wish to ‘save the date’ and progressives arguing to ‘change the date’. This article argues that despite clear ideological differences, settler engagements with both movements reflect a common emotional commitment to preserving a positive self-understanding as innocent and benevolent political actors. Both movements are therefore similarly invested in the maintenance and justification of settler authority, though by way of very different strategies. It follows that broader relations between settlers and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are at least partially constituted by dynamics of collective settler emotion that are felt deeply in relation to disputed qualities of Australian nationhood, sovereignty and culture. This analysis further reveals the pressing need to move beyond the narrow boundaries of ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ settler identity in which discussions of Indigenous politics are all too often trapped.","PeriodicalId":46913,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Political Science","volume":"57 1","pages":"41 - 58"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45528609","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-06DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2021.2009764
J. Parkinson, Núria Franco-Guillén, Sebastian de Laile
ABSTRACT This paper uses novel electronic tools to identify the degree to which Australia was listening to Indigenous peoples in a ‘national conversation’ about constitutional recognition between 2015 and late 2017. The results show that while there was a superficial overlap in themes, there were important differences of framing. Recognition remained a largely formal, elite and non-Indigenous concern, with First Nations focusing on treaties, sovereignty, listening and respect. Interaction was noticeably aggressive, but not exclusively so. Non-Indigenous people avoided discussing racism, and talked more frequently about history, framing issues in the past tense; First Nations talked about the here and now. And despite more focus on everyday racism, Indigenous peoples were consistently more positive and proud, rejecting ‘plight’ constructions.
{"title":"Did Australia listen to Indigenous people on constitutional recognition? A big data analysis","authors":"J. Parkinson, Núria Franco-Guillén, Sebastian de Laile","doi":"10.1080/10361146.2021.2009764","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2021.2009764","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper uses novel electronic tools to identify the degree to which Australia was listening to Indigenous peoples in a ‘national conversation’ about constitutional recognition between 2015 and late 2017. The results show that while there was a superficial overlap in themes, there were important differences of framing. Recognition remained a largely formal, elite and non-Indigenous concern, with First Nations focusing on treaties, sovereignty, listening and respect. Interaction was noticeably aggressive, but not exclusively so. Non-Indigenous people avoided discussing racism, and talked more frequently about history, framing issues in the past tense; First Nations talked about the here and now. And despite more focus on everyday racism, Indigenous peoples were consistently more positive and proud, rejecting ‘plight’ constructions.","PeriodicalId":46913,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Political Science","volume":"57 1","pages":"17 - 40"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44646266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：