Criminologists,duct tape,and Indigenous peoples: quantifying the use of silencing research methods

A recent quantitative evaluation of mainstream criminological research found that there is a dearth of research on “Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice context” conducted in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States and published in elite criminology journals while these nations continue to incarcerate Indigenous peoples at markedly disproportionate rates. Although the silence prohibits public attention to this social issue, counter-colonial critics have mostly focused on criminologists who deliberately marginalize Indigenous peoples through use of inappropriate research methods. This study is a first attempt to quantify the use of “silencing research methods” in contemporary mainstream criminology. It involves a comprehensive review of research published in elite criminology journals over the past decade (2001–2010). The findings reveal that although mainstream criminologists generally prefer non-silencing research tools, they primarily employ silencing research methods when studying Indigenous peoples. Also, studies that focus on Native American peoples use silencing research tools more often than studies on other disproportionately incarcerated social groups, i.e., African and Hispanic Americans. The study concludes that by using “silencing research methods,” elite mainstream criminology has contributed to the marginalization of Indigenous peoples to varying degrees in all four countries over the past decade.     

覆盖与节制:一个有关“审判阴影”的悖论

当事人之间的合意是以自治为目标的调解正当化的首要原理。在现实实践中,纯粹的合意取得面临诸多障碍,合意贫困化的现象在各种调解模式中都有可能产生。在当事人自主交涉的场合,力量的不均衡和信息的不对称导致交涉中恣意的蔓延,以审判阴影覆盖交涉过程、围绕法律判断凝炼合意以抑制其中的恣意因素成为必要。审判阴影覆盖的路径可以划分为一般路径和特别路径。特别路径的审判阴影的覆盖在抑制恣意的同时又可能损害自律这一调解本质属性,反过来又成为另一形式的合意贫困化生成的契机。审判阴影也要有所节制。调解这一难解悖论提醒我们,无论是审判阴影的传递亦或是审判阴影的抑制与自我收缩,都应该也只能将提高当事人的自治能力奉为圭臬。     

An Appreciative Assessment of Prison Quality for Australian First Peoples of the Kimberley Region in Western Australia

In an attempt to understand the meaning of prison quality for Australian First Peoples, the authors examine the aspects of prison considered to be positive and negative for First Peoples serving sentences of imprisonment in the Kimberley Region in Western Australia. The meaning of prison quality as experienced by First Peoples is compared with the meaning of prison quality as defined by an existing measure of the quality of prison life. Through a qualitative analysis of interviews with 25 prisoners and staff members from West Kimberley Regional Prison and Broome Regional Prison, seven key aspects of prison as experienced by First Peoples are identified. Six of these key aspects, respect and courtesy, staff-prisoner relationships, bureaucratic legitimacy, fairness, family contact, and personal development, are consistent with dimensions previously identified as pertaining to the quality of prison life. An additional culture-traditions dimension was also identified. The findings show that the differences between prison quality as experienced by First Peoples and non-Indigenous peoples are influenced by aspects relevant to the culture and traditions of First Peoples. The authors highlight the importance of considering culture and traditions in understanding the meaning of prison quality for First Peoples.     

Applying Self-Determination Theory to Understand Public Employee’s Motivation for a Public Service Career: An East Asian Case (Taiwan)

The research on employee motivation for choosing a public service career has largely been grounded in the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy along with limited motives such as job security, instrumental reward, and public service motivation (PSM). Such an approach narrows the view of researchers, especially those in cultures where major reasons for choosing a public service career exceed these factors and the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy. By employing self-determination theory (SDT) to examine data collected in Taiwan, an East Asian cultural setting, a measurement instrument is developed that captures five major motivations for a public service career. A discussion of applying this survey instrument for future research follows.     

Participatory democracy and ethnic minorities: opening inclusive new spaces or reproducing inequalities?

In the past decade, Latin America has emerged as the epicentre of participatory democracy innovations. Proponents argue that participation should lead to more equitable access to public goods and a greater sense of political efficacy. There has been considerable debate in the academic literature and in the public sphere over the extent to which participation can produce these benefits. Yet, while Latin America has witnessed an explosion of participatory mechanisms and related academic attention, the literature has focused on socioeconomic dimensions. There has been little attention paid to the experiences of racialized groups, such as indigenous peoples and Latin Americans of African descent. Research suggests that in order for participatory mechanisms to produce positive outcomes, they must be inclusive and offer participants a forum for real deliberation, but how do groups that have faced barriers related to racism and discrimination engage in these initiatives? Drawing on evidence from indigenous Ecuadorian and Afro-Venezuelan citizen participants, this article argues that participatory mechanisms may reproduce the very types of inequalities that representative institutions are criticized for. Comparing cases across and within different jurisdictions reveals that certain conditions enhance the ability of ethnic minorities to benefit from involvement in participatory mechanisms.     

What Drives Political Participation? Motivations and Mobilization in a Digital Age

This article provides insights into the driving forces that underpin new forms of political participation. Digital technologies offer opportunities for engaging in a wide range of civically oriented activities, each of which can contribute to deeper democratic engagement. Conventional acts of political participation are argued to be driven primarily by intrinsic motivations relating to self-efficacy and empowerment, with participants feeling they can have influence over decision makers. Little research explores whether similar motivations drive participation in less conventional acts, as well as whether mobilization attempts via social media by peers or political organizations mediate those motivations. Drawing on data from a survey among a representative sample of the U.K. electorate, we find the offline and online spheres of agency remain fairly distinct. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations both matter but extrinsic motivations have the strongest explanatory power independent of the sphere of activity. The mediating effect of mobilization tactics has a minimal effect on extrinsic motivations, online or offline, but online intrinsic motivations lose their explanatory power. As intrinsic factors offer little explanatory power, some forms of online political participation may lack meaning to the individual. Rather, these non-conventional acts result from reward seeking and are more likely to be encouraged by nongovernmental campaigning organizations, suggesting social media users are most likely to perform simple acts in support of non-contentious causes.     

Building capacity in indigenous governance: Comparing the Australian and American experiences

This paper compares key aspects of governance structures for Indigenous populations in the United States and Australia. The paper focuses on policy coordination and administration, in particular the nodes of decision-making in the two countries in relation to government contracting and accountability. The U.S. approach to funding Indigenous organizations stems from the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Act and its subsequent expansions. Through the development of contracting into permanent compacting via block grants, this approach builds established nodes of Indigenous government and facilitates whole-of-government coherence at the level of the American Indian tribe. The U.S. approach seems correlated with better performance and may lighten bureaucratic loads over the long term. The Australian model, on the other hand, seeks to create whole-of-government coherence through top-down financial accountability in a way that hampers the development of Indigenous political capacity. The paper traces the development of these practices through time and illustrates how they contribute to the fragmentation rather than growth of Indigenous political capacities. It suggests ways the Australian model could be improved even in the absence of fundamental reform by drawing on the contracting-to-compacting framework of longstanding U.S. practices.     

浅析民族自决权与国家主权的关系

国家主权与民族自决权是伴随着现代民族国家的建立而形成的。在绝大多数国家获得了主权和独立的背景下,民族自决权的内容发生了很大的变化,然而,一些多民族国家内部的民族分裂势力却打着＂民族自决＂的旗号试图分裂现有国家,对国家主权原则构成了极大的挑战。实际上,民族自决权和国家主权在现实生活中的冲突与矛盾并不意味着两者简单的对抗,并不是抵触的关系,民族自决权要以尊重国家主权为前提。     

Exhibiting the Enlightenment: Joseph Banks’s Florilegium and Colonial Knowledge Production

ABSTRACT

The returned Australia-Japan Foundation Visiting Professor of Australian Studies at the University of Tokyo (2014–15), Anna Johnston, reflects on a 2014 exhibition held in Tokyo: The Bunkamura Museum of Art’s “Captain Cook’s Voyage and Banks’ Florilegium.” The Florilegium continues to have resonance as part of Australia’s complex colonial inheritance from the Enlightenment past. Its display and interpretation both overseas and within Australia provides an opportunity to better understand its origin in a pivotal historical period, globally, and its contribution to knowledge in arts and sciences. The Florilegium also reveals how Indigenous knowledge was central to European exploration and knowledge production. This article outlines contextual issues and seeks to provide a complex biography of this scientific and artistic artefact of Empire, in order to propose new ways of reading the Florilegium that pay attention to that enriched biography.     

人民自决权与国家领土完整的关系

人民自决权与国家的领土完整是统一不可分割的;人民自决权不具有改变现有国家边界的效力;国际法不承认一国的少数人民通过自决实行单方面分离的一般权利;国际法尚未肯定也未否定“救济性分离权”;国际法承认有关各方经自由协议达成的分离安排的合法性;国际社会应当通过多种途径实现人民自决权与国家领土完整的和谐统一;有关国家应当依照国际法解决因单方面分离行为而引发的冲突。