Search results

This chapter explores the proposition that Australia’s abusive treatment of refugees and asylum seekers can be traced back to a denial of the foundational violence of colonisation.

By adopting a psychoanalytic frame, the research explores three questions: is Australia engaging in cruel, degrading and humiliating treatment of asylum seekers, a treatment that devolves into torture? If so, how is this operationalised? And finally what does the abuse satisfy within the state?

The work uses Freud’s paper, ‘Mourning and Melancholia’, and Melanie Klein’s work on the paranoid/schizoid position to describe the psycho-affective terrain from which this abuse emanates.

The chapter takes this psycho-affective terrain as the foundation and then investigates the impact the privatised detention regime has had in enabling the known/unknowability of the abuse and mechanisms at work within media practice to create ‘torturable subjects’ (Mendiola, 2014, p. 13).

This chapter provides a decolonial critique of Kenya’s encampment and asylum policy. By using a decolonial framework, the chapter examines how asylum, a supposedly humanitarian gesture, has become a political tool of deterrence, dehumanisation and detention in this country. In examining the camp through a decolonial lens, the author advances an Afrocentric perspective and foregrounds that asylum policy across the African continent, which is largely focussed on keeping asylum seekers on this continent, should be understood against the context of colonial relations in Africa. The author contrasts Kenya’s refugee camp with Australia’s offshore detention camp. Central to the author’s critique is Australia’s outsourcing of its offshore detention camps to Papua New Guinea and Nauru which epitomises a neo-colonial engagement with these post-colonies. Inspired by the author’s personal experience as a former refugee, this chapter also challenges refugee literature which is dominated by voices either without lived experience of the camp or produce work that is inadequately attentive to such knowledge.

When it comes to deterring and incarcerating people seeking asylum, there is a fusion between racialisation and politicisation. The bedrock is the colonisation of the nation now called Australia, where the dispossession of Indigenous peoples was a national project that later merged into the building of a state that lauded British heritage and the exclusion of migrants through the White Australia policy. This foundation of nationhood continues in a manner that challenges the myth of harmonious multiculturalism by determining who is deemed worthy and who is excluded. The centrepiece of racialised bordering is the immigration detention regime which is increasingly characterised by transporting people to offshore sites. This chapter argues through examples, how people seeking asylum have been racialised, dehumanised and criminalised, particularly through a national security lens.

The Australian Government has long used its international scholarship programs as an instrument of soft power in international diplomacy. The paper examines an international scholarship program and its role in Australia’s soft power efforts during a period in recent history.

The Australia in the Asian Century White Paper of 2012 is used as a lens to reveal how the Australian Government viewed the role of international scholarship programs in international diplomacy at a specific point in the recent past, and compares it with research revealing what was contemporaneously happening with one key government-funded scholarship program.

This paper is based on a comprehensive case study of the Australian Government’s Endeavour Scholarships and Fellowships program (2004–2019). Endeavour was an ambitious and expensive merit-based program with 6,600 recipients in numerous and diffuse sub-categories. The program was complex and cumbersome and lacked clear priorities, particularly in its lack of geographic focus. It missed opportunities to connect with the political zeitgeist, largely due to opaque priorities and inadequate evaluation regimes which focused entirely on outcomes for individual recipients rather than on relationships for Australia.

This research draws on the first academic study of the Endeavour program. Other scholarship programs (for example Australia Awards and the New Colombo Plan) have attracted considerable scholarly interest. The Endeavour research provides an additional counterpoint for studies of Australian scholarship programs and their contribution to international diplomacy. It is timely to consider this in 2024 when Australia is putting a new focus on its investment in international scholarships.

Public information campaigns (PICs) have increasingly become part of global migration deterrence projects. Australia’s No Way campaign has been widely publicised for its harsh messaging, declaring to would-be asylum seekers that ‘you will not make Australia home’. In this chapter, the author argues that in addition to targeting potential asylum seekers throughout the Middle East and Southeast Asia, the No Way campaign is directed towards multiple audiences, including diaspora communities in Australia, the Australian voting public, and a wider network of anti-immigration political figures. The No Way campaign represented one of the largest and best-funded Australian deterrence campaigns to date, with the distribution of materials ranging from billboards and social media advertisements to street theatre performances and graphic novel storyboards between 2014 and 2016. In the sections that follow, the author situates this argument within the context of the rise of PICs throughout the globe, as well as their use within Australia. Through the lens of this campaign, the author considers the question: for whom is this deterrence messaging? How does it target multiple audiences? The author concludes by considering the future of information campaigns as deterrence projects around the world.

This chapter offers a critical evaluation of the concept and application of global carceral archipelagos designed as punitive barriers to refugees. With a focus on policies and practices in Australia for over two decades, the chapter shows how more recently, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) are also adopting similar strategies to Australia in a pattern of Western countries turning their backs on their human rights obligations. The histories of colonial practices of the racialisation of certain minorities within and outside nation-state borders are an important aspect of understanding contemporary bordering regimes that exclude refugees. The chapter discusses examples of resistance, as well as alternative politics emerging from refugees who have suffered from the carceral border complex, drawing on creative and collaborative work and practices.

The central hypothesis of the chapter is that Brazilian colonialism and slavery produced different material conditions or different governmentalities, from those at the base of the disciplinary project of the Global North, conditions that re-signified the penitentiary reform proposal. This chapter is structured into five sections: the first section introduces the hypothesis that the houses of correction were not the institutions that originated the Brazilian penitentiary system. The following section develops this idea based on an analysis of the social and economic dimensions of Brazil’s colonial formation. Unlike the global North, which officially envisioned the penitentiary as the institutional foundation of a democratic society, the penitentiary in Brazil was first envisioned as a mere symbol of modernity, then as an instrument for preserving order. The third section describes how the first prisons emerged without industrialization and how the material conditions for a prison reform discourse based on discipline remained absent. The fourth section indicates the inapplicability of the original conception of discipline in a context without Protestantism, presenting the Jesuit experience as the one closest to a project of moral reform and constraint to work. Being absent the category of disciplinary power in its original form, at least regarding its economic dimension, the national penitentiary project was born from the dungeons where public and private power overlapped for the corporal punishment of the enslaved. The last section analyzes the importation of the penal reform discourse and its adaptation in the context immediately following the abolition of slavery in 1888.

How can managers reduce information asymmetry in dyadic manager-external stakeholder relationships in a complex and evolving environment? Addressing this question has significant implications for firm survival, growth, and competitive advantage.

We have adopted a multiparadigm approach to theory building, known as metatriangulation. We integrate the dynamic capabilities, sensemaking, and evolutionary theory literatures to theorize how managers can relate to stakeholders in a complex and evolving environment.

We propose, via a conceptual framework and three propositions, “evolutionary sensemaking” as the managerial metacognitive dynamic capability that helps managers hone their understanding based on the evolutionary changes in the stakeholder’s interpretations of information quality preferences. The framework unfolds across three evolutionary stages: sensing preferences' variation of the stakeholder, seizing preferences, and transforming for complexity alignment and retention. The propositions focus on managing complexity in stakeholder information quality preference, employing cognitive capabilities to simplify, interpret, and align interpretations for effective information asymmetry reduction.

To develop the metacognitive dynamic capability of evolutionary sensemaking, managers need to train for and foster the underlying complex cognitive capabilities by enhancing their (1) perception and attention skills, (2) problem-solving and reasoning skills, and (3) language, communication, and social cognition skills, focusing specifically on reducing the complexity embedded in stakeholder cognition and diverse stakeholder preferences for information quality. Contrary to the current advice to “keep things simple” and provide “more” information to the stakeholders for opportunism reduction, trust-building, and superior governance, our framework suggests that managers hone their cognitive capabilities by learning to deal with the underlying complexity.

The proposed framework and propositions address research gaps in reducing information asymmetry. It enriches the dynamic capabilities literature by recognizing complexity (as opposed to opportunism) as an alternative source of information asymmetry, which needs to be addressed in this stream of research. It extends the sensemaking literature by identifying the complexity sources – i.e. stakeholder preferences for diverse information quality attributes and the associated cognitive preference interpretation processes. The article enhances evolutionary theory by delving into microprocesses related to information asymmetry reduction, which the existing literature does not thoroughly investigate.

The records surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) have been subject to unique treatment in their management and opening. The John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Records Act) mandated that the records would be opened in full by 2017, unless there was intervention from the sitting president. This study aims to examine the extent to which access to the JFK assassination records has been granted. It evaluates how open the archive is, and the consequences of withholding government records. It examines how the continued non-disclosure of this archive has helped to fuel the controversy and conspiracy theories surrounding Kennedy’s death.

This research was approached as traditional historical document analysis, reviewing the JFK assassination records releases from 2017–2018 and the broader landscape of access to information in America. A random sampling of the open and redacted records was used to undertake a statistical analysis on the amount of information that has been withheld. It was supplemented with freedom of information requests intended to reveal further information on the approach taken to redaction. The work was situated within a broader global literature review.

The research identified the limits to access to the JFK assassination records that exist because of the continued postponement and redaction of information by US federal government agencies. It found that the ambiguous language used for exemptions in the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the JFK Records Act has allowed agencies the freedom to interpret and limit access to information if they desired. Furthermore, agencies have had the power to hold and sanitise their own records. The work identifies how these approaches have caused questions, inconsistences, a lack of transparency and accountability in the US government. The lack of centralised processes and related explanations can be seen to fuel further controversies and conspiracies.

Using a systematic research methodology, this work presents a careful analysis of the varying processes and their implications for understanding of the events that surrounded Kennedy’s assassination. Lessons learnt can be applied to the general management of freedom of information and access to information.