“Just a little bit of cheeky ribaldry”? Newsroom discourses of sexually harassing behaviour

 This paper is concerned with how Australian print news media journalists, male and female, remember, talk about, experience, acknowledge, condemn, and/or deny sexually harassing behaviour in the newsroom. A total of seventeen in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight male and nine female journalists in late 2003 and early 2004. The interviewees ranged in age from 19 to 56 and differed in levels of industry experience. The interviews were not set up to specifically discuss sexually harassing behaviour in the newsroom; however it was a theme that arose in seven of the interviews about newsroom culture, my broader PhD project. The female interviewees make clear their encounters are constant reminders of how their bodies do not "fit" and/or where and how they do fit in this occupation. This is the case, even though some women do not use the term "sexual harassment" to describe the behaviour that clearly constitutes it under Australian government legislation. The two male journalists interviewed who mentioned harassment talk about it in defence of accepted office behaviour, or in passing about procedural business policy. The use of the term "sexual harassment," or lack of its use, also tells us about the place of feminism and/or feminist inspired government legislation in journalism's occupational culture. © 2007 Taylor & Francis.

Communication of scientific uncertainty : international case studies on the development of folate and vitamin D Dietary Reference Values.

Transparent evidence-based decision making has been promoted worldwide to engender trust in science and policy making. Yet, little attention has been given to transparency implementation. The degree of transparency (focused on how uncertain evidence was handled) during the development of folate and vitamin D Dietary Reference Values was explored in three a priori defined areas: (i) value request; (ii) evidence evaluation; and (iii) final values.

Scientific and Religious Mindsets: A Candid Look at the Perils of a Panglossian President

Through Voltaire’s novella Candide, this essay examines the differences between a scientific and a religious mindset and the consequences of poor decision-making when a political leader has a religious mindset that he misapplies to fundamentally scientific questions. By analyzing various decisions that President Bush has made, it is argued that he has a religious mindset that has resulted in several fallacious choices of extreme import, yielding considerable losses. As such, a decision-maker with power should be able to distinguish questions best answered with a scientific mindset from those that are in the realm of philosophy or religion and apply a scientific mindset to the former. A scientific mindset formulates a theory that yields testable propositions, it acquires data and uses that to evaluate the verity of the theory. As the data contradict the theory’s predictions, the theory is adjusted. The religious mindset proffers certain explanations but then holds steadfastly to them. It ignores contrary evidence, does not adjust its tenets, or alter its prescribed behaviors, attacks the integrity of those who espouse contrarian viewpoints, and commits logical falla- cies, such as inverting the causative relationship.

Pluralist risk cultures: the sociology of childbirth

Western medical approaches to childbirth typically locate risk in women’s bodies,making it axiomatic that ‘good’ maternity care is associated with medically trainedattendants. This logic has been extrapolated to developing societies, like Vanuatu, anIsland state in the Pacific, struggling to provide good maternity care in line with theWorld Health Organization’s Millennium Development Goals. These goals include thereduction of maternal mortality by two-thirds by 2015, but Vanuatu must overcomechallenging hurdles – medical, social and environmental – to achieve this goal.Vanuatu is a hybridised society: one where the pre-modern and modern coincide inparallel institutions, processes and practices. In 2010, I undertook an inductive study of30 respondents from four main subcultures – women living in outer rural communitieswith limited access to Western-trained health workers; women from inner urbancommunities with ease of access to medical clinics; traditional birth attendants whoare formally untrained but highly specialised and practised mainly in remote communities;and Western-trained medical clinicians (obstetricians and midwives). I invitedall the participants to comment on what constituted a ‘good birth’. In this article, Ishow that participants interpreted this variously according to how they believed theuncertainties of childbirth could be managed. Objectivist approaches that define risk asan objective reality amenable to quantifiable measurement are thus rendered inadequate.Interpretivist approaches better explain the reality that social actors not only findrisk in different sites but gravitate towards different practices, discourses and individualsthey can trust especially those with whom they feel a strong sense of community.Strategies are, therefore, formed less through scientific rationality but according tofeelings and emotions and the lived experience. The concept of risk cultures conveysthis complexity; they are formed around values rather than calculable rationalities. Riskcultures form self-reflexively to manage contingent circumstances.

Writing scientific papers, with special reference to evolutionary ecology

© 2015, Springer International Publishing Switzerland. The advancement of science, as well as scientific careers, depends upon good and clear scientific writing. Science is the most democratic of human endeavours because, in principle, anyone can replicate a scientific discovery. In order for this to continue, writing must be clear enough to be understood well enough to allow replication, either in principle or in fact. In this paper I will present data on the publication process in Evolutionary Ecology, use it to illustrate some of the problems in scientific papers, make some general remarks about writing scientific papers, summarise two new paper categories in the journal which will fill gaps that appear to be expanding in the literature, and summarise new journal policies to help mitigate existing problems. Most of the suggestions about writing would apply to any scientific journal.

Surveillance, responsibility and control: an analysis of government and industry discourses about 'problem' and 'responsible' gambling

Background: Discussions of gambling have traditionally focused on ideas of “problem” and “responsible” gambling. However, few studies have examined how Institutions attempt to exert social control over gamblers in order to promote so-called “responsible” behaviour. In this study, we examine the way “problem” and “responsible” gambling are discussed by Australian governments and the gambling industry, using a theoretical framework based on the work of Foucault.

Method: We conducted a thematic analysis of discourses surrounding problem and responsible gambling in government and gambling industry websites, television campaigns and responsible gambling materials.

Results: Documents distinguished between gambling, which was positive for the community, and problem gambling, which was portrayed as harmful and requiring medical intervention. The need for responsible gambling was emphasised in many of the documents, and reinforced by mechanisms including self-monitoring, self-control and surveillance of gamblers.

Conclusions: Government and industry expect gamblers to behave “responsibly”, and are heavily influenced by neoliberal ideas of rational, controlled subjects in their conceptualisation of what constitutes “responsible behaviour”. As a consequence, problem gamblers become constructed as a deviant group. This may have significant consequences for problem gamblers, such as the creation of stigma.

Medical and scientific authorship: a conflict between discipline rules and the law

When the results of medical collaborations are to be published, questions of authorship arise. Which members of the research team are to be acknowledged as authors of the paper? In what order are they to be acknowledged? Institutional rules will generally determine the attribution of authorship to members of the research team. However those rules are most unlikely to be consistent with the legal rules governing authorship and its attribution, most of which will apply regardless of a team’s adherence to institutional rules. This article examines the meaning of authorship in the medical community, and in the legal community under the copyright laws. It considers various formulations of the institutional rules governing authorship, as well as editorial practices. Through consideration of a hypothetical scenario, the consequences of the disparity between authorship norms in law and in medicine are elaborated.