Daily Archives: Thursday, October 29, 2015

IRiS Joint Seminar with Tamsin Barber (Oxford Brookes University) and Emma Mitchell (Macquarie University)

IRiS Joint Seminar with Tamsin Barber (Oxford Brookes University) and Emma Mitchell (Macquarie University).
5 November: 2.00-4.00pm, Courtyard Room, Park House, University of Birmingham

This is a joint seminar which draws together two studies concerned with superdiversity, one relating to multicultural perspectives of welfare in the Australian context, and the other concerned with processes of identification among second-generation Vietnamese in a superdiverse context. Further details of the speakers and their studies are below.

To book a place, please contact Ann Bolstridge a.bolstridge@bham.ac.uk<mailto:a.bolstridge@bham.ac.uk>

Dr Tamsin Barber – Oxford Brookes University
‘Oriental’ identities in Super-diverse Britain: the young Vietnamese in London.

A growing scholarship on super-diversity now considers questions of identity, belonging and the visibility of difference within super-diverse contexts (Gidley 2013, Knowles 2013, Wessendorf 2013). Notably, amidst this proliferation of difference, new challenges are raised about how we categorise people and how we might encounter them (Valentine 2013). Taking the focus of everyday lived experiences, this paper interrogates the role of super-diversity in shaping encounters across difference by exploring its dynamic effects upon individual and collective identities and belonging. Using the case study of the British-born Vietnamese as an overlooked and ‘invisible’ minority population in super-diverse London, it raises questions about whether or not super-diversity obscures the boundaries between groups leading to an increased inability to recognise or distinguish between groups and identities, and why this matters. Findings from empirical research with British-born Vietnamese suggest that super-diversity may offer new opportunities for the identity construction of groups (like the Vietnamese) by concealing ‘undesirable’ differences, while at other times, inhibiting these by reinforcing crude distinctions and marking the boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’ (the other/ stranger). The research explores the complex and creative ways in which the British-born Vietnamese are compelled to actively manage their identities within super-diverse contexts to negotiate a range of shifting and contradictory discourses of coercive Orientalisms, racial visibility and public invisibility in Britain.

Biography: I am Senior Lecturer in Sociology at Oxford Brookes University. My research interests are in the area of race, ethnicity, migration and identity and my recent book ‘Oriental Identities in Super-Diverse Britain’ focuses upon the Vietnamese community in Britain.

Emma Mitchell, Macquarie University and Visiting Doctoral Student
Vulnerability in superdiversity

The language of vulnerability is in popular usage in many spheres of public life, not least social policy. However, with the currency of the concept has come critique of the ways in which social groups come to stand as indicators of vulnerability and become categorised as ‘the vulnerable’, standing in for an analysis of the dynamics of vulnerability to specific risks – the how and the what of vulnerability (Levine 2004; Brown 2011). This paper thinks through the resonances of refining the conceptualisation of vulnerability with the (conceptual, methodological and policy) orientations of superdiversity. Superdiversity responds to the primacy of ethnic and racial categories over-determining research design and findings by highlighting increasing diversification in terms of migration and legal status, labour, along with gender and age (Vertovec 2007). Recent efforts to refine the analytic promise of the concept reiterate processes rather than categories of differentiation and diversification (Meissener and Vertovec 2014). Yet both concepts potentially lend themselves to the allure of categorisation when operationalised in social policy, betraying the conceptual promise of dynamic process. The conceptual exercise of relating superdiversity to debates about the rise of vulnerability may help refine the former. It is relevant also given that research on superdiversity remains inclined to focus on dynamics of marginalisation and disadvantage. The paper is drawn from an empirical study of multicultural perspectives of welfare and the cultural politics of welfare reform in Australia.

Biography: I am a PhD candidate in the Department of Sociology at Macquarie University. My doctoral research explores diverse moral and material economies of support and how they interact with welfare state provision. In particular I’m interested in how responsibility and vulnerability are experienced and expressed by those who are typically identified as vulnerable and compelled to be responsible in contemporary social policy.


Call for interest: Refugee-led organisations in cities

Call for Papers: ‘Trafficking Representations’, Anti-Trafficking Review issue 7, Submissions due 8 January 2015

Call for Papers: ‘Trafficking Representations’, Anti-Trafficking Review issue 7, Submissions due 8 January 2015

Trafficking Representations
Anti-Trafficking Review
Guest Editors: Rutvica Andrijasevic and Nicola Mai

Deadline for Submission: 8 January 2016

The Anti-Trafficking Review calls for papers for a themed issue entitled ‘Trafficking Representations.’

Work that migrants do in the sex industry and other irregular employment sectors is increasingly characterized as exploitation and trafficking. Representations of trafficking and forced labour are pervasive within media, policymaking, and humanitarian debates, discourses and interventions. Of late, the notion of ‘modern slavery’ is on show in campaigns aiming to raise funds and awareness about anti-trafficking among corporate and local enterprises and the general public. Celebrity interventions, militant documentaries, artistic works and fiction films have all become powerful vectors of distribution of the trafficking and ‘modern slavery’ rhetoric. These offer simplistic solutions to complex issues without challenging the structural and causal factors of inequality. They also tend to entrench racialised narratives; present a narrow depiction of an ‘authentic victim;’ and confuse sex work with trafficking. Such representations play a key role in legitimising oftentimes problematic rescue operations that can involve criminalisation, detention and arrest of both non-trafficked and trafficked persons as well a justifying restrictive labour and migration laws that exacerbate migrants’ precarious living and work situations.

This issue of the Anti-Trafficking Review will seek to explore the specific ways in which different forms of representation erase the complexity of the life trajectories of people who have experienced trafficking, as well as those of migrants, women, sex workers and others who are labelled as trafficked according to the rhetoric of neoliberal humanitarianism. At the same time, the special issue is interested in ways in which popular representations of trafficking and modern slavery have weakened the efforts to gain a better understanding of how social, economic and political inequalities and labour exploitation are produced and maintained in various locations.

In addition, this issue also welcomes alternative artistic, scholarly and activist attempts to produce counter-representations of trafficking and ‘modern slavery’ in films, literature, art, theatre and social media, as well as reflections on those.

Authors may be interested in addressing the following themes:

* The embedding of anti-trafficking campaigns within corporate marketing and social responsibility campaigns including the creation of goods made by formerly trafficked persons
* The use of interactive technology to promote anti-trafficking representations and fundraising
* Political representations of trafficking and anti-trafficking, including in social activism
* The impact of the reframing of trafficking as ‘modern slavery’ in popular discourse on trafficked persons and on others also affected by anti-trafficking campaigns and interventions
* The human rights implications of the representations of sex workers only as victims of trafficking
* The politics, aesthetics, and ethics of documentary and artistic representations and counter-representations of trafficking
* Fictional and documentary representations of trafficking being used as evidence in public debates and in court
* Resisting anti-trafficking through art, celebrity and other spectacular forms of anti-trafficking humanitarianism
* The disjuncture between representations of trafficking and the everyday lived realities of potentially and actually trafficked persons including their own self-representations.

The Review promotes a human rights based approach to anti-trafficking, exploring anti-trafficking in a broader context including gender analyses and intersections with labour and migrant rights. Academics, practitioners, trafficked persons and advocates are invited to submit articles. Contributions from those living and working in developing countries are particularly welcome. The journal is a freely available, open access publication with a readership in over 100 countries. The Anti-Trafficking Review is abstracted/indexed/ tracked in: ProQuest, Ebsco Host, Ulrich’s, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, Directory of Open Access Journals, WorldCat, Google Scholar and CrossRef.

Deadline for submission: 8 January 2016

Word count for submissions: 4,000 – 6,000 words, including footnotes, author bio and abstract

Special Issue to be published in Autumn 2016

We advise those interested in submitting to follow the Review’s style guide and submission procedures, available at www.antitraffickingreview.org<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001U1c5r215YjQpGW4IcWzKU6ChGvzIxVj0c_KV2X98m1pkTeDkCgGAJ9NxEIAYfuEPVu4bSEUu7lJJGQ1zIHzRggORXJTf70lixiUlEy1USyyJAGUGFfaITfuVYxXIEn_dewUNW_p1FOKsU-d2FzfZVuy8i4ukCFZ791kdSgLyDxzzyJPVzLtrCCRhubfJhCCD&c=wy2v_p-3jFya6Fk4RC_FnHLzRf5Mz_msr8OFnvkH1PVZ-PE6OdKx2A==&ch=K8U30L9kDjvzdUyvDUn3OX2T7vL9bDlQ6oBj7nvGLOOZBRraCm0L5g==>>. Manuscripts should be submitted in line with the issue’s theme. Email the editorial team at atr@gaatw.org<mailto:atr@gaatw.org> with any queries.

Thematic Issue Guest Editors: Rutvica Andrijasevic, University of Bristol, and Nicola Mai,
Kingston University London

Editor: Rebecca Napier-Moore


Conferences: Human Rights in an Age of Ambiguity • 13-15 June • New Yor

Human Rights in an Age of Ambiguity
Fordham University
13 – 15 June 2016

5th joint conference, organized by:
Human Rights Section, International Studies Association (ISA)
Human Rights Section, American Political Science Association (APSA)
Human Rights Research Committee, International Political Science Association (IPSA)
Standing Group on Human Rights and Transitional Justice, European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR)

In association with:
Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS)

We are pleased to announce the fifth joint international conference on human rights, on the theme Human Rights in an Age of Ambiguity, to take place from 13 to 15 June 2016 at Fordham University’s Lincoln Center Campus, located in New York City. The conference will be held immediately prior to the annual meeting of the Academic Council on the United Nations System (16 – 18 June), also being hosted at Fordham University.

The global political, economic, normative, structural and ideational landscape has undergone significant change in recent decades, with no signs of abating. There are new – or newly important – players, both state and non-state-based, which affect global political power asymmetries and inject competing ideas, interests, and priorities into the global political scene. New and evolving institutions and authority structures raise deep and profound questions about global (and regional and national) governance. These questions lead to an ambiguous global situation as norms, institutions and power structures are called into question and challenged on multiple levels.

Nowhere has this ambiguity been more acute and clear than in the area of human rights. A human rights regime which, while far from perfect, appeared to rest on a global consensus and seemed impervious to change, has undergone rapid and deep transformation – in ways which appear to both support and undermine the protection of human rights.

Challenges from emerging non-Western powers highlight a lack of consensus on fundamental priorities and approaches to the relationship between people and power, the governed and the governors, freedom and order. Terrorism and other security challenges pose seemingly imponderable conundrums for civilian and basic human rights protection. Climate change raises questions of intergenerational justice and poses corollary rights threats resulting in forced migration, food insecurity, and humanitarian crises.

The global refugee regime, a core set of ideas and institutions dating from the end of the Second World War, now faces unprecedented challenges and been put to tests never imagined by its creators – challenges and tests that states and international institutions have failed to adequately meet. International criminal justice mechanisms have been created with high hopes that those who commit mass atrocities will be punished and justice will be done, only to be undone by lack of adequate global support and political will. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which heralded a new recognition that human rights are a core part of states’ claim to legitimacy – has frequently failed to gain decisive advantage over traditional notions of sovereignty and state interest.
This combination of new players, political power asymmetries, institutions, along with deep material challenges to the contemporary global order, raises profound questions about the future of human rights norms and institutions, as well as the actual enjoyment of human rights across the globe.

We welcome paper and panel proposals on the general theme of the conference from researchers and policymakers from academia, think tanks, IOs and NGOs featuring both traditional and innovative  scholarship which address the unsettled state of human rights norms and institutions. Papers might address, among others, the following questions:

·       What challenges do shifting global power structures pose to human rights?
·       Are traditional state supporters of human rights still supporting human rights?
·       Are emerging global and regional powers supporting or challenging human rights?
·       Has the global consensus on human rights changed? Was there ever a consensus in the first place?
·       Is universality under serious threat?
·       Are there regional or other political divides on human rights?
·       How will new(er) global threats (e.g. climate change, terrorism) affect the realization of human rights in the future?
·       How can resiliency in human rights be better cultivated and practiced?
·       Have the Human Rights Council and other human rights institutions lived up to their promise?
·       Do our global institutions need to be revived/renewed/reimagined in order to properly realize human rights?
·       What are the implications of ambiguity across different generations of rights (e.g. civil/political vs. economic/social/cultural)?
·       What are the implications of the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean and elsewhere?

Consideration will be given to publishing an edited volume with a select range of papers presented at the conference.

Please note that proposals must relate to the conference theme to receive full consideration. You may submit either an individual paper or a panel proposal. Each full panel proposal should include exactly 4 papers plus a chair and discussant.

The submission site will open later in October 2015. Please upload your paper or panel abstracts (no longer than 200 words) and all other necessary details as required through the site. Further conference information will be made available later in 2015. Check back at bit.ly/HRjc2016 for information on submission.

The deadline for submissions is 11:59pm EST on Monday, 30 November 2015.

Notification of acceptances will be sent by e-mail on Monday, 21 December 2015.

Registration fees for the conference are as follows:

General registration: $225
Student registration: $125

All individuals accepted on to the program will be expected to register for the conference by Monday, 1 February 2016.

For more information please contact: HRjc2016@global-human-rights.org.

Please Note: This conference is being held in conjunction with the Annual Meeting of the Academic Council on the United Nations System, which will have as its theme Meeting the Challenges of Development and Dignity. Individuals registering for one conference will be eligible for a 20% discount on registration for the other conference. More information will be provided.

Follow us on Twitter @HRjc2016 for updates.

Conference Co-Chairs:

Melissa Labonte (Fordham University)
Kurt Mills (University of Glasgow)

We look forward to welcoming you to Fordham University in June 2016!

Daily News and Updates on Refugee and Forced Migration Studies 10/29/2015

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Daily News and Updates from ReliefWeb 10/29/2015

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

New Journal Research Articles for Refugee and Forced Migration Studies 10/29/2015

  • Purpose

    This study seeks to describe hitherto unexplored issues related to sexual abuse of left-behind children of migrant women in Sri Lanka.

    This qualitative study was conducted in high labour-sending districts. Focus group discussions were conducted with school teachers, community youth groups and members of civil organisations and semi-structured interviews were conducted with community leaders, religious leaders, social workers, and primary healthcare workers. Data were analysed using content analysis, and emerging themes were mapped.

    Community members reported that sexual abuses of migrant women’s children, although not uncommon, are scarcely notified due to societal and institutional factors. They have a high awareness on types of sexual abuses faced by migrants’ children, extent of such abuses, and physical, emotional, and social complications of such abuses. They also reported factors that increase these children’s vulnerability to abuse. Role perceived to be played by state and non-state social institutions and authorised personnel in protecting children is inadequate, leading to low reporting and community cooperation.
    Practical implications

    High community awareness found provides a good platform to launch culturally sensitive child protection interventions.

    This study provided first in-depth exploration of issues related to sexual abuses of migrant women’s children in Sri Lanka and possible opportunities for community-based interventions.


  • Purpose

    The purpose of this study was to explore how individual legislators perceive unaccompanied minors seeking asylum, their life situation, needs and best interests.

    The total number of participants were 15. Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) was used in order to identify and analyse patterns in the interview data. We focused on their responses to the questions about the best interest of the child in migration policy and practice, and how this principle was related to unaccompanied children seeking asylum.

    The main finding is that chronological age becomes a key sign for how legislators understand the life situation, needs and best interests of unaccompanied children. Also, the findings from this study suggests that that the moralizing welfare ideology of the past is still present in political discourse and social planning, construing unaccompanied minors as an ambivalent category between civilization and savagery. The findings from this study indicate that legislators enact reforms of importance for unaccompanied children without considering them as agents of their own future, with their own motives and reasons to seek asylum
    Practical implications

    The findings from this study indicate a need to adapt the understanding of the existing Aliens Act (SFS 2005:716) to the knowledge that unaccompanied minors need to be assessed on their own terms.

    This study contributes to increasing the understanding about how the subjective values of legislators may have influenced migration reform in Sweden that can be valuable to both legal and social research, as well as policy planners.


  • Purpose

    To provide an overview of the literature pertaining to occupational health disparities experienced by Latino immigrant workers in the United States and to advance a general framework based on systems-science to inform epidemiological and intervention research.

    Using articles and other sources from 2000 to the present, we examined the employment conditions and health outcomes of Latino immigrant workers and critically analyzed the pervasive evidence of health disparities, including causal mechanisms and associated intervention programs.

    The occupations, including the work environment and resultant living conditions, frequently performed by Latino immigrants in the U.S. represent a distinct trigger of increased injury risk and poor health outcomes. Extant intervention programs have had modest results at best and are in need of more comprehensive approaches to address the complex nature of health disparities.
    Practical implications

    An integrated, systems-based framework concerning occupational health disparities among Latino immigrant workers allows for a holistic approach encompassing innovative methods and can inform high-leverage interventions including public policy.

    Reductionist approaches to health disparities have had significant limitations and miss the complete picture of the many influences. The framework we have provided elucidates a valuable method for reducing occupational health disparities among Latino immigrant workers as well as other populations.


  • “Standard accounts of nineteenth-century anti-slavery movements have depicted a European continent largely marked by a lack of interest in, or compassion for, the plight of the slaves. On the Continent the ‘sounds of silence’ prevailed, in contrast to the emotional outcry against slavery heard in nineteenth-century Britain and the United States.1 The continental anti-slavery movement was never really successful: the few efforts to combat slavery were undertaken by small elite societies that had little effect in destroying the institution.2 Dutch abolitionism has received some attention as an interesting case study to test whether capitalism produces a strong anti-slavery movement — one of the explanations given for British abolitionism. This claim has been disproved with some fervour and the conclusion is that the Netherlands knew only ‘occasional minuscule protests’ against slavery.3 In general there was ‘little sign of abolitionism’, and ‘Efforts … to produce a significant anti-slavery movement, often encouraged by British anti-slavery associations, generally failed’.4

    Abolitionist movements in continental Europe have been contrasted with those in Britain and the United States as part of the historiographical controversy on the nature of the British abolition of the slave trade (1807) and of slavery (1833). If the debate Eric Williams started when he claimed that abolition served the interest of industrial capitalism is still controversial, most scholars agree with Seymour Drescher’s assertion that abolition was detrimental to the British economy: Britain committed ‘econocide’. This put the focus back on religious and humanitarian factors as well as on the methods anti-slavery advocates used to mobilize a mass movement.5 It was in this context that abolitionist movements on the European continent were scrutinized to explain the relatively late abolition of slavery. Why had France, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain failed to follow swiftly the British example by abolishing slavery … ”


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.