Search

We examined the latest decade of Australian sociology PhD completions for differences in the number and quality of research outputs students published during doctoral enrolment. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference between Go8 PhD students and their non-Go8 PhD counterparts in terms of either the quantity of research publications achieved, or the quality of these publications as measured by high-impact journals. There was also insufficient evidence statistically to conclude that Go8 men and Go8 women differed from one another, or that non-Go8 men and non-Go8 women differed from one another in overall quantity of outputs and publishing in high-impact journals. However, publishing success of men and women, when combined, regardless of whether they were at elite Go8 or non-Go8 institutions, showed gender had a marginally significant effect on publication productivity, men outperforming women, in both publication counts and in publishing in high-impact journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

'Intergenerational difference' has become a lens through which to view issues of identity, social connectedness, belonging and agency in migrant youth research, highlighting that differences in the aspirations of migrant youth and their parents shape young people's experiences. The article will present findings from a mixed methods study of social network participation among three migrant youth cohorts in two Australian cities to address a perceived 'gap' among migrant youth and parents' aspirations for social network formation and participation. The paper will first examine current theoretical approaches to intergenerational challenges in migrant youth research. It will then introduce 'intersectionality' as a concept offering a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and hopes of migrant youth for whom social networks can be a gateway towards belonging and connectedness. This, however, requires a negotiation of complex structural, social and cultural factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Debates about the state of Australian sociology have raged for as long as sociology has existed in Australia. Concerns about the discipline's future may be inevitable for a critical, reflexive discipline, but to those entering the discipline, it is neither instructive nor productive to be subjected to lingering disciplinary anxieties. After more than fifty years, it is time to take stock of the differing visions of sociology, and examine the arguments about the health, or otherwise, of Australian sociology. To advance this debate, we consider the signs and benchmarks of a 'successful' sociology as expressed in The Australian Sociological Association magazine, NEXUS, and key writings from Australian sociologists. We suggest that much of the disagreement over the status of sociology derives from the way 'disciplines' and 'success' are defined. Regarding sociology to be an heterogeneous, multi-modal, social institution and practice, we propose a way forward in our efforts to represent ourselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This analysis offers a historical perspective to chart the contested discourses that inform understandings of the figure of the ‘bogan’, suggesting its evocation reflects unresolved tensions and accumulated meanings left by the various reconfigurations of class politics since colonial settlement in Australia. We focus on three key historical periods to show how socio-political formations influence both classed identities and class relations: the 1890s, when the ethos of the labour movement was established as the central imaginative motif of a nascent Australian nation; the post-war years, when Robert Menzies offered a political project grounded in the experiences of the middle classes; and the 1990s, where there were complex translocations of class allegiances. We trace how several meaning(s) of class have accumulated and been reworked across these periods and, related to this, how the ‘bogan’ is a composite of left- and right-wing political ideas that articulate different kinds of virtue and unworthiness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers the path of social policy and democracy in Australia and the latest set of welfare reforms under Labor. The reforms can be seen to mark a reaction to the excesses of neoliberal government on the one hand, but they also represent continuity in neoliberal thought and policy on the other. As we shall see, engrained ideas about individualist wage-earning welfare, that were established during the formative years of the 20th century, continue to shape, if not constrain collectivist solutions to some of the inherent social risks faced by Australian citizens today. In this light, efforts to create a welfare state geared towards meeting the needs of ‘hard-working’ Australian families appear much sharper. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]