Democratic participation in a globalised World : immigrants in Australia in the early 21st century

This study considers patterns of political participation in Australia in the early 21st Century, using recent data from the Australian Election Study. The paper reassesses how Australia fits within broader patterns of political participation and investigates major predictors of participation in Australia to see how these have or have not changed in a globalised era that has brought new challenges. Factors considered include socio-demographic variables, such as education, age, gender, birthplace and place of residence and also attitudinal orientations towards politics, such as political interest, efficacy and trust. The paper pays particular attention to those who have moved to Australia from other countries. One of the most important findings is that immigrants show little or no sign of any participatory disadvantage and indeed tend to participate more than the Australian-born in some modes of participation, such as campaign activities. The analysis also identifies a clear participatory divide within a number of socio-demographic groups in use of the internet for gaining election information.

Democratic Participation, Engagement, and Freedom

It is commonly supposed that democracies should encourage greater political participation and civic engagement. This article identifies two distinct perspectives on political participation and civic engagement: a ‘freedom-centred’ model and an ‘ethical’ model. The ‘freedom-centred’ model defended here draws on the republican concept of freedom as non-domination, together with the political liberal notion of fair deliberative proceduralism, while the ethical model draws on Aristotelian, perfectionist, sources. It is argued that the ‘ethical’ model is overly concerned with the ‘moral renewal’ of modern social life, and is insensitive to problems of domination posed by its account of civic reciprocity and trust. By contrast, the ‘freedom-centred’ model developed offers a systematic account of personal and political freedom, which provides qualified support for deliberative modes of participation and engagement.

Educating the person for democratic participation

English language

Minority activism : trends informing political participation across Australian communities

In the late 1990’s, intense and vigorous debate surrounded the impact of minority communities on Australia’s mainstream society. The rise of far-right populism took the stage with the introduction to the political landscape of Pauline Hanson and her One Nation party, whilst John Howard’s Liberal-National Coalition Government took the fore on debate over immigration issues corresponding with an influx of irregular arrivals. In 2001, following the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States of America and subsequent attacks on western targets globally, many of these issues continued to be debated through the security posturing that followed. In recent years, much effort has been afforded to countering the threat of terrorism from home grown assailants. The Government has introduced stringent legislative responses whilst researchers have studied social movements and trends within Australian communities, particularly with respect to minorities. In 2008, the Scanlon Foundation, in association with Monash University and various government entities, released its findings into its survey approach to mapping social cohesion in Australia. It identified a number of spheres of exploration which it believed were essential to measuring cohesiveness of Australian communities generally including, economic, political and socio-cultural factors (Markus and Dharmalingam, 2008). This doctoral project report will explore the political sphere as identified in the Mapping Social Cohesion project and apply it to identified minority ethnic communities. The Scanlon Foundation project identified political participation as one of a number of true indicators of social cohesion. This project acknowledges that democracy in Australia is represented predominantly by two political entities representing a vast majority of constituents under a compulsory voting regime. This essay will identify the levels of political activism achieved by minority ethnic communities and access to democratic participation within the Australian political structure. It will define a ten year period from 1999 to 2009, identifying trends and issues within minority communities that have proactively and reactively promoted engagement in achieving a political voice, framed within a mainstream-dominated political system. It will research social movements and other influential factors over that period to enrich existing knowledge in relation to political participation rates across Australian communities.

Democratic and participatory citizenship: Youth action for sustainability in Australia

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of recent examples of action competence among young people engaged in democratic participatory action in sustainability programs in Australia. It explores examples of priorities identified for citizen action, the forms this action takes and the ways that democratic participation can achieve positive outcomes for future sustainability. It suggests multiple ways for developing action competence that provides further opportunities for authentic and engaging citizen action for youth connected to school- and community-based learning, in new and powerful ways. Design/methodology/approach – This conceptual paper examines international literature on the theory of “action competence,” its significance for education for sustainability (EfS) and the ways it can inform education for young people’s democratic participatory citizenship and civic engagement. It analyses examples of the development of action competency among young people in Australia, including the problems and priorities identified for citizen action, the forms this action takes and how it can achieve positive outcomes for sustainability. Following this analysis, the paper suggests multiple ways for developing action competence in EfS in schools and communities in new and powerful ways. Findings – Developing EfS to increase democratic and participatory action among young citizens is now widely regarded as an urgent education priority. There are growing exemplars of school and community organizations’ involvement in developing EfS learning and teaching to increase participatory citizenship. Young people are being empowered to develop a greater sense of agency through involvement in programs that develop action competence with a focus on sustainability in and out of school. New forms of participation include student action teams and peer collaboration among youth who are marshaling social media and direction action to achieve change. Originality/value – It contributes to the literature on multiple ways for developing action competence in EfS.

A conceptual multi-criteria mechanism for stakeholder participation in urban development

Australia is one of the world’s most urbanised nations, with 74.92% of the population living in 17 major cities of 100,000 people or more. To improve the productivity, liveability and sustainability of Australia’s cities, there is an increasing emphasis in urban management policies on democratic stakeholder participation. In order to obtain a full picture of stakeholders’ concerns efficiently, and manage antagonism, prejudice and conflicts between stakeholders effectively, it is important for participatory decision-making in urban development to be able to select and integrate stakeholder analysis and engagement methods. This paper investigates the characteristics of stakeholder participation approaches in urban development, and proposes criteria for approach selection and integration. The outcome is a multi-criteria mechanism for selecting and integrating approaches to stakeholder participation. This could enable effective, efficient and democratic participation in decision-making process of urban development. Meanwhile, the capacity of Australian state, territory and local governments can be largely enhanced to understand and unpack the complex challenges of urban-ecological conditions, and generate a compromise solution that best represents the preferences of stakeholders.

Participation Space Studies: a socio-technical exploration of activist and community groups’ use of online and offline spaces to support their work

Participation Space Studies explore eParticipation in the day-to-day activities of local, citizen-led groups, working to improve their communities. The focus is the relationship between activities and contexts. The concept of a participation space is introduced in order to reify online and offline contexts where people participate in democracy. Participation spaces include websites, blogs, email, social media presences, paper media, and physical spaces. They are understood as sociotechnical systems: assemblages of heterogeneous elements, with relevant histories and trajectories of development and use. This approach enables the parallel study of diverse spaces, on and offline. Participation spaces are investigated within three case studies, centred on interviews and participant observation. Each case concerns a community or activist group, in Scotland. The participation spaces are then modelled using a Socio-Technical Interaction Network (STIN) framework (Kling, McKim and King, 2003). The participation space concept effectively supports the parallel investigation of the diverse social and technical contexts of grassroots democracy and the relationship between the case-study groups and the technologies they use to support their work. Participants’ democratic participation is supported by online technologies, especially email, and they create online communities and networks around their goals. The studies illustrate the mutual shaping relationship between technology and democracy. Participants’ choice of technologies can be understood in spatial terms: boundaries, inhabitants, access, ownership, and cost. Participation spaces and infrastructures are used together and shared with other groups. Non-public online spaces, such as Facebook groups, are vital contexts for eParticipation; further, the majority of participants’ work is non-public, on and offline. It is informational, potentially invisible, work that supports public outputs. The groups involve people and influence events through emotional and symbolic impact, as well as rational argument. Images are powerful vehicles for this and digital images become an increasingly evident and important feature of participation spaces throughout the consecutively conducted case studies. Collaboration of diverse people via social media indicates that these spaces could be understood as boundary objects (Star and Griesemer, 1989). The Participation Space Studies draw from and contribute to eParticipation, social informatics, mediation, social shaping studies, and ethnographic studies of Internet use.

Student participation and disadvantage: limitations in policy and practice

The public policy of numerous nations, including Australia, articulates a clear expectation that schools will develop young people’s capacities to participate in civic society and its democratic structures and processes. A romantic policy rhetoric hides a reality that is both more complex and less well understood than is typically acknowledged. Young people’s democratic participation is subject to varying interpretations and implementation, and is employed to serve varying agendas. The role of schools in developing this participation is particularly subject to tensions and contradictions that can work to undermine and constrain the participation of marginalised young people. There is an abundance of research and policy literature on this topic. Yet, within this plethora of prescription and commentary, the key threads that might make a difference are not always clear. Moreover, there is little in this supposedly inclusive agenda that considers its implications for marginalised groups. This article provides a meta-analysis of the current policy and research landscape, examining the dominant discourses and their implications for young people’s participation. It focuses particular attention on the position of marginalised young people as it emerges from the literature and outlines an alternative agenda with the potential to challenge an overly complacent policy and practice context.

Participatory Learning in the Early Years : Research and Pedagogy

The early years are an important period for learning, but the questions surrounding participatory learning amongst toddlers remain under-examined. This book presents the latest theoretical and research perspectives about how ECEC (Early Childhood Education and Care) contexts promote democracy and citizenship through participatory learning approaches. The contributors provide insight into national policies, provisions, and practices and advance our understandings of theory and research on toddlers’ experiences for democratic participation across a number of countries, including the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Sweden, and Norway.

Educational policy for citizenship in the early years in Australia

This paper explores how young children are constructed in educational policy for citizenship in Australia, investigating tensions between early childhood educational discourses that construct young children as active citizens and the broader discourses of citizenship in Australian educational policy. There is a widespread discourse within early childhood education that regards young children as citizens and democratic participants in their own lives. This view is a reflection of the oft cited Article 12 in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC 1989). However, educational policy and curriculum for citizenship in Australia, by and large, adheres to age and stage understandings of children, implicitly deeming young children unable to conceptualise abstract ideas of what it means to ‘be a good citizen’. This paper is located in the borders and intersections between discourses of early childhood education, young children as active participants in their own lives and what it means to be an active citizen in Australia. We are concerned with the interweaving of these ideas and how they are played out in educational policy making. This is an important perspective to take for governing and policy making are exercises in harnessing existing ideas and discourses, thereby rendering strategies and tactics for managing populations thinkable and sayable (Rose 1999). The ‘views from the margins’ (Burman 2008, p. 7) can provide alternative perspectives on policymaking, illuminating discursive tactics and strategies.

Virion : new media and the development of the discursive museum

The historical rhetoric established with the very first public art museums declared that the purpose of such institutions was to provide a space where art could be accessible to all citizens. However contrary to this aim, studies show that art museums are one of the least accessed cultural institutions in the western world. The prevailing consensus for this can be attributed to the perception that museums are elitist, irrelevant and restricted to a small and privileged group. The focus of this research project is to address the issues that lead to these perceptions, and to identify possible curatorial strategies to encourage greater access to, and participation in the visual arts. This will be done through designing and curating an open submission exhibition that utilises new media technologies to increase access and dialogue between artists and audiences. This is part of a hybrid practice-based methodology that also includes scholarly research to critically investigate a number of historical and contemporary theories concerned with public museums and approaches to curatorial practice. This research will culminate in the development of Virion, an Internet based exhibition that aims to develop a curatorial model that facilitates open and democratic participation in arts practice from a diverse public audience.

Directing Democracy : The Case of the John Lewis Partnership

The John Lewis Partnership was founded in 1929 as an “experiment in industrial democracy” (Lewis, 1948). This thesis explores the meaning of democracy in the Partnership and examines the wider implications of the case. It argues that democracy in work should be viewed as something which is intrinsically valuable because of its connection to furthering justice, equality, freedom and the rights and interests of all workers. The thesis makes three main contributions. Firstly, the production of a historically situated exploration of democratic participation in the John Lewis Partnership – the largest co-owned business in the UK. Secondly, an analysis of power relations in the organisation and an examination of the ways in which disciplinary power and regimes of truth both constrain democratic practice and offer the potential for resistance and challenge. Thirdly, the thesis challenges critics of the Partnership who have dismissed it as a form of “pseudo democracy” (Pateman, 1970: 73) and “suffocatingly paternalistic” (Ramsay, 1980: 52). Despite the constant threat of degeneration and dilution of the value framework laid down by the founder, the Partnership’s continued commitment to democratic participation provides an important contribution to our understanding of co-ownership and democratically organised forms of work. The analysis shows that management have attempted to direct and define democracy in a highly constrained way, assigning it an instrumental purpose, and privileging the ‘business case’ for democratic engagement. However, the study emphasises that the meaning of democracy is heavily contested and fraught with contradictions and paradoxes. This creates a space in which understandings of equality, solidarity and democracy are debated by the 69,000 employees who are co-owners of the business.

Education for social responsibility: Ethics and imagination for engaging students and teachers in educational reform

In this chapter we make assumptions about the primary role of education for the life of its beneficiaries and for society. Undoubtedly, formal education plays an important role in enhancing the likelihood for participation in future social life, including enjoyment and employment, by the student as well as the development of the well being of society in general. Similarly, education is often seen as a main means for intergenerational transmission of knowledge and culture. However, as Dewey (1916) argues, in liberal societies, education has the capacity of enhancing democratic participation in society that goes beyond passive participation by its members. One can argue that the achievement of the ideals of democracy demands a free and strong education system. In other words, while education can function as an instrument to integrate students into the present society, it also has the potential to become an instrument for its transformation by means of which citizens can develop an understanding of how their society functions and a sense of agency towards its transformation. Arguably, this is what Freire (1985) meant when he talked about the role of education to “read and write” the world. A stream of progressive educators (e.g., Apple (2004), Freire, (1985), Giroux (2001) and McLaren (2002)) taught us that the reading of the world that is capable of leading into writing the world is a critical reading; i.e., a reading that poses “Why” questions and imagines “What else can be” (Carr & Kemmis, 1987).

Collaborative governance and innovation in social enterprises

While social enterprises have gained increasing policy attention as vehicles for generating innovative responses to complex social and environmental problems, surprisingly little is known about them. In particular, the social innovation produced by social enterprises (Mulgan, Tucker, Ali, & Sander, 2007) has been presumed rather than demonstrated, and remains under-investigated in the literature. While social enterprises are held to be inherently innovative as they seek to response to social needs (Nicholls, 2010), there has been conjecture that the collaborative governance arrangements typical in social enterprises may be conducive to innovation (Lumpkin, Moss, Gras, Kato, & Amezcua, In press), as members and volunteers provide a source of creative ideas and are unfettered in such thinking by responsibility to deliver organisational outcomes (Hendry, 2004). However this is complicated by the sheer array of governance arrangements which exist in social enterprises, which range from flat participatory democratic structures through to hierarchical arrangements. In continental Europe, there has been a stronger focus on democratic participation as a characteristic of Social Enterprises than, for example, the USA. In response to this gap in knowledge, a research project was undertaken to identify the population of social enterprises in Australia. The size, composition and the social innovations initiated by these enterprises has been reported elsewhere (see Barraket, 2010). The purpose of this paper is to undertake a closer examination of innovation in social enterprises – particularly how the collaborative governance of social enterprises might influence innovation. Given the pre-paradigmatic state of social entrepreneurship research (Nicholls, 2010), and the importance of drawing draw on established theories in order to advance theory (Short, Moss, & Lumpkin, 2009), a number of conceptual steps are needed in order to examine how collaborative governance might influence by social enterprises. In this paper, we commence by advancing a definition as to what a social enterprise is. In light of our focus on the potential role of collaborative governance in social innovation amongst social enterprises, we go on to consider the collaborative forms of governance prevalent in the Third Sector. Then, collaborative innovation is explored. Drawing on this information and our research data, we finally consider how collaborative governance might affect innovation amongst social enterprises.