Equity in the twenty-first century

Issues of equity and inequity have always been part of employment relations and are a fundamental part of the industrial landscape. For example, in most countries in the nineteenth century and a large part of the twentieth century women and members of ethnic groups (often a minority in the workforce) were barred from certain occupations, industries or work locations, and received less pay than the dominant male ethnic group for the same work. In recent decades attention has been focused on issues of equity between groups, predominantly women and different ethnic groups in the workforce. This has been embodied in industrial legislation, for example in equal pay for women and men, and frequently in specific equity legislation. In this way a whole new area of law and associated workplace practice has developed in many countries. Historically, employment relations and industrial relations research has not examined employment issues disaggregated by gender or ethnic group. Born out of concern with conflict and regulation at the workplace, studies tended to concentrate on white, male, unionized workers in manufacturing and heavy industry (Ackers, 2002, p. 4). The influential systems model crafted by Dunlop (1958) gave rise to The discipline’s preoccupation with the ‘problem of order’ [which] ensures the invisibility of women, not only because women have generally been less successful in mobilizing around their own needs and discontents, but more profoundly because this approach identifies the employment relationship as the ultimate source of power and conflict at work (Forrest, 1993, p. 410). While ‘the system approach does not deliberately exclude gender . . . by reproducing a very narrow research approach and understanding of issues of relevance for the research, gender is in general excluded or looked on as something of peripheral interest’ (Hansen, 2002, p. 198). However, long-lived patterns of gender segregation in occupations and industries, together with discriminatory access to work and social views about women and ethnic groups in the paid workforce, mean that the employment experience of women and ethnic groups is frequently quite different to that of men in the dominant ethnic group. Since the 1980s, research into women and employment has figured in the employment relations literature, but it is often relegated to a separate category in specific articles or book chapters, with women implicitly or explicitly seen as the atypical or exceptional worker (Hansen, 2002; Wajcman, 2000). The same conclusion can be reached for other groups with different labour force patterns and employment outcomes. This chapter proposes that awareness of equity issues is central to employment relations. Like industrial relations legislation and approaches, each country will have a unique set of equity policies and legislation, reflecting their history and culture. Yet while most books on employment and industrial relations deal with issues of equity in a separate chapter (most commonly on equity for women or more recently on ‘diversity’), the reality in the workplace is that all types of legislation and policies which impact on the wages and working conditions interact, and their impact cannot be disentangled one from another. When discussing equity in workplaces in the twenty-first century we are now faced with a plethora of different terms in English. Terms used include discrimination, equity, equal opportunity, affirmative action and diversity with all its variants (workplace diversity, managing diversity, and so on). There is a lack of agreed definitions, particularly when the terms are used outside of a legislative context. This ‘shifting linguistic terrain’ (Kennedy-Dubourdieu, 2006b, p. 3) varies from country to country and changes over time even within the one country. There is frequently a division made between equity and its related concepts and the range of expressions using the term ‘diversity’ (Wilson and Iles, 1999; Thomas and Ely, 1996). These present dilemmas for practitioners and researchers due to the amount and range of ideas prevalent – and the breadth of issues that are covered when we say ‘equity and diversity in employment’. To add to these dilemmas, the literature on equity and diversity has become bifurcated: the literature on workplace diversity/management diversity appears largely in the business literature while that on equity in employment appears frequently in legal and industrial relations journals. Workplaces of the twenty-first century differ from those of the nineteenth and twentieth century not only in the way they deal with individual and group differences but also in the way they interpret what are fair and equitable outcomes for different individuals and groups. These variations are the result of a range of social conditions, legislation and workplace constraints that have influenced the development of employment equity and the management of diversity. Attempts to achieve employment equity have primarily been dealt with through legislative means, and in the last fifty years this legislation has included elements of anti-discrimination, affirmative action, and equal employment opportunity in virtually all OECD countries (Mor Barak, 2005, pp. 17–52). Established on human rights and social justice principles, this legislation is based on the premise that systemic discrimination has and/or continues to exist in the labour force and particular groups of citizens have less advantageous employment outcomes. It is based on group identity, and employment equity programmes in general apply across all workplaces and are mandatory. The more recent notions of diversity in the workplace are based on ideas coming principally from the USA in the 1980s which have spread widely in the Western world since the 1990s. Broadly speaking, diversity ideas focus on individual differences either on their own or in concert with the idea of group differences. The diversity literature is based on a business case: that is diversity is profitable in a variety of ways for business, and generally lacks a social justice or human rights justification (Burgess et al., 2009, pp. 81–2). Managing diversity is represented at the organizational level as a voluntary and local programme. This chapter discusses some major models and theories for equity and diversity. It begins by charting the history of ideas about equity in employment and then briefly discusses what is meant by equality and equity. The chapter then analyses the major debates about the ways in which equity can be achieved. The more recent ideas about diversity are then discussed, including the history of these ideas and the principles which guide this concept. The following section discusses both major frameworks of equity and diversity. The chapter then raises some ways in which insights from the equity and diversity literature can inform employment relations. Finally, the future of equity and diversity ideas is discussed.

Getting beyond 'heroic agency' in conceptualising social workers as policy actors in the Twenty-First Century

The professional project of social work assumes a particular orientation to human agency on the part of social workers. Specifically, the social work educational literature focusing on the nature of the profession suggests that social workers exert considerable control over the means and ends of their practice. In this paper we ask whether this assumption is warranted. While we conceptualise this issue as relevant to the entire spectrum of professional social work practice, here we discuss our claim in relation to social workers adopting policy activist roles. We suggest that the actual engagement of social workers in policy practice and political change in liberal democracies is muted and we canvas a number of reasons that help explain why this is the case. We canvas the impact of naive conceptualisations of what we call the ‘heroic agency’ of social work identity as employed in texts used in pre-service social work education. Specifically we pose the thesis that new social work graduates, when immersed into the organisational rationalities of reconfigured ‘welfare states’, may experience a considerable mismatch between the promise of being a social change agent and their experience as a beginning practitioner, making it difficult for them to confidently articulate their political identity and purpose.

Visions and values : the Children’s Book Council of Australia’s prizing of picture books in the twenty-first century

The Children’s Book Council of Australia (CBCA) administers the oldest national prize for children’s literature in Australia. Each year, the CBCA confers “Book of the Year” awards to literature for young people in five categories. In 2001, the establishment of an “Early Childhood” category opened up the venerable “Picture Book” category (first awarded in 1955) to books with an implied readership up to 18 years of age. As a result, this category has emerged in recent years as a highly visible space within which the CBCA can contest discourses of cultural marginalisation insofar as Australian (“colonial”) literature is constructed as inferior or adjunct to the major Anglophone literary traditions, and the consistent identification of children’s literature (and, indeed, of children) as lesser than its ‘adult’ counterparts. The CBCA is engaged in defining, evaluating, and legitimising a tradition of Australian children’s literature which is underpinned by a canonical impulse, and is a reflexive practice of self-definition, self-evaluation and self-legitimisation for the CBCA itself. While it is obviously problematic to identify award winners as a canon, it is equally obvious that literary prizing is a cultural practice derived from the logic of canonicity. In his discussion of the United States’s Newbery Medal, Kenneth Kidd notes that “Medal books are instant classics, the selection process an ostensible simulation of the test of time” (169) and that “the Medal is part of the canonical architecture of children's literature” (169). Thus, it is instructive to consider the visions and values of the national, of the social, and of the literary-aesthetic, in the picture books chosen by the Children’s Book Council of Australia (CBCA) as the “best” of the early twenty-first century. These books not only constitute a kind of canon for contemporary Australian children’s literature, but may well come to define what contemporary Australian children’s literature means in the wider literary field. The Book of the Year: Picture Book awards given by the CBCA since 2001 demonstrate that it is not only true of the Booker Prize that, “The choices of winning books reflect not only on the books themselves, then, but also back on the Prize, affecting its reputation and creating journalistic capital which is vital for the Prize to achieve its prominence and impact.” (81). Many of the twenty-first century CBCA award-winning picture books complicate traditional or comfortable understanding of Australianness, children’s literature, or “appropriate” modes of form and content, reminding us that “moments when texts resist or complicate recuperation into national discourses offer fruitful points for exploring the relationships between text and celebratory context” (Roberts 6). The CBCA has taken the opportunities offered by the liberation of the Picture Book category from an implied readership to challenge dominant constructions of children’s literature in Australia, and in so doing, are engaged in overt practices of canonicity with potentially long-lasting effects. Works Cited: Kidd, Kenneth. “Prizing Children’s Literature: The Case of Newbery Gold.” Children's Literature 35 (2007): 166-190. Roberts, Gillian. Prizing Literature: The Celebration and Circulation of National Culture. Toronto: U Toronto P, 2011. Squires, Claire. “Book Marketing and the Booker Prize.” Judging a Book by Its Cover: Fans, Publishers, Designers, and the Marketing of Fiction. Eds. Nicole Matthews and Nickianne Moody. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. 71-82.

Audience as performer: The changing role of theatre audiences in the twenty-first century

'Actors always talk about what the audience does. I don’t understand, we are just sitting here.' Audience as Performer proposes that in the theatre, there are two troupes of performers: the actors and the audience. Although academics have scrutinised how audiences respond, make meaning and co-create while watching a performance, little research has considered the behaviour of the theatre audience as a performance in and of itself. This insightful book describes how an audience performs through its myriad gestural, vocal and paralingual actions, and considers the following questions: •If the audience are performers, who are their audiences? •How have audiences’ roles changed throughout history? •How do talkbacks and technology influence the audience’s role as critics? •What influence does the audience have on the creation of community in theatre? •How can the audience function as both consumer and co-creator? Drawing from over 140 interviews with audience members, actors and ushers in the UK, USA and Australia, Heim reveals the lived experience of audience members at the theatrical event. It is a fresh reading of mainstream audiences’ activities, bringing their voices to the fore and exploring their emerging new roles in the theatre of the Twenty-First Century.

Escaping From The Past? The Falkland Islands in the Twenty-First Century

This paper discusses the competing claims for the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic, which led to a war in 1982 between the United Kingdom and Argentina, which given that it was over competing claims for sovereignty over a non-independent territory seemed to be redolent of the nineteenth rather than the late-twentieth century. Post-war developments are outlined whilst the paper considers whether or not the Falkland Islands can ever escape from the Conflict, now more than thirty years ago.