WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.001 --> 00:00:05.770
okay, fantastic. I think we we should start

2
00:00:05.820 --> 00:00:23.500
trust. I'm not sure who has attended the first session of the language of risk. So we have already seen a number of interesting papers connecting risk with language, and examined what language does to the social experience of risk.

3
00:00:23.590 --> 00:00:31.349
So we hopefully have 4 or at least 3 papers today, also making that point very clear. So I'm very

4
00:00:31.420 --> 00:00:35.679
excited about them. The first presentation is

5
00:00:35.730 --> 00:00:38.750
online, the others, we hopefully have

6
00:00:39.170 --> 00:00:40.750
all the people in the room.

7
00:00:42.350 --> 00:00:54.110
So, and I would like you, a Martin to have a go and show and share your slides for that purpose, and let's check whether we can hear you. Well.

8
00:00:54.940 --> 00:00:58.110
Martin French (he/him): thanks, thanks so much, Jen. Can you hear me? Okay?

9
00:00:59.050 --> 00:01:09.269
So we have discussion at the end. We trust through the papers. We have, one after the other, so please stay with us afterwards. And then we have the discussion across all papers. Thank you.

10
00:01:10.760 --> 00:01:12.930
And it's about 20 min maximum

11
00:01:14.600 --> 00:01:15.310
record.

12
00:01:21.370 --> 00:01:22.160
Okay?

13
00:01:31.270 --> 00:01:39.319
So you probably want to change to a slides. Few at present we see everything. Oh, okay.

14
00:01:42.750 --> 00:01:50.340
Martin French (he/him): okay. Apologies. Everybody. First, first technical glitch. I'm gonna try to share my screen again.

15
00:01:51.900 --> 00:01:53.600
Martin French (he/him): let's try this

16
00:01:54.770 --> 00:01:55.650
Martin French (he/him): time.

17
00:02:05.310 --> 00:02:12.539
Yeah, we see it, but we see everything. So when you go down to to a slide, you yes, exactly. Then that should work

18
00:02:12.960 --> 00:02:13.780
hopefully.

19
00:02:15.170 --> 00:02:17.140
No, the other one. Yes.

20
00:02:20.870 --> 00:02:33.369
Martin French (he/him): okay, thanks. thanks, everybody. Well, Hi. My name is Martin French, and I'm an associate professor with the Department of Sociology and Anthropology

21
00:02:33.560 --> 00:02:41.289
Martin French (he/him): at Concordia University in Chojaw, gay or otherwise known as Montreal, And Canada.

22
00:02:41.700 --> 00:02:59.270
Martin French (he/him): And it's a great pleasure to be with you today. And I'd really like to thank Yen for putting together this wonderful session, this wonderful panel, and for inviting me to give this paper for incorporating me into this session, even though I couldn't be with you in person.

23
00:03:00.180 --> 00:03:08.909
Martin French (he/him): So the paper I'm presenting today is entitled The Risks of Gambling Studies, a Critical analysis.

24
00:03:08.950 --> 00:03:14.210
Martin French (he/him): And this is The title is meant to. suggest that well.

25
00:03:14.360 --> 00:03:23.970
Martin French (he/him): research in the field of gambling studies uses the term risk. Frequently it rarely defines what is meant by risk.

26
00:03:24.530 --> 00:03:33.580
Martin French (he/him): and I'll just pause for a moment. Can everybody hear me? Can you just hear me? Okay? And everything's coming through? Okay, Yen's. I can't see the room, so I think.

27
00:03:33.590 --> 00:03:44.189
Oh, you can't see the room. Oh, that's not good, but you'll still have not the slides of a slight. So on. You see everything the slides. And so you probably should try a 5 or so

28
00:03:45.070 --> 00:03:48.840
Martin French (he/him): okay, so you're not seeing my screen.

29
00:03:49.219 --> 00:03:59.000
Oh, I see your screen, but not the slide show. You see everything, your whole screen, with everything, with your slides on the left side, and the so if you do F 5 or so that might might work better.

30
00:03:59.001 --> 00:04:10.910
Martin French (he/him): so this this is a a talk called the risks of gambling studies. and it's a collaborative effort, part of a larger project that I'm working on

31
00:04:10.950 --> 00:04:19.959
Martin French (he/him): my former graduate students, Pierre Olivier, as well as with my colleagues, Patrizia and Eva Monson.

32
00:04:20.110 --> 00:04:39.139
Martin French (he/him): With the University of Quebec at Montreal, and with the University of Sherbrooke, and the larger project is designed to interrogate different conceptualizations of risk that we find in the field of gambling studies. And it's been really influenced by

33
00:04:39.150 --> 00:04:45.750
Martin French (he/him): the sociology of risk, and notably of several folks in this is a thematic group.

34
00:04:46.150 --> 00:05:00.049
Martin French (he/him): So the outline of my talk today there are really 3 parts of it. I'm just going to begin by highlighting the main arguments of the paper that this talk is presenting.

35
00:05:00.430 --> 00:05:03.769
Martin French (he/him): I'll say a few words about the papers methodology.

36
00:05:04.150 --> 00:05:12.300
Martin French (he/him): and then I'll give a brief presentation of our findings, and then I'll end to conclude quickly, so that lots of time for

37
00:05:12.750 --> 00:05:19.099
Martin French (he/him): for our speakers and for for discussion for other speakers and for discussion.

38
00:05:19.440 --> 00:05:20.290
Martin French (he/him): So

39
00:05:20.700 --> 00:05:25.249
Martin French (he/him): here's here's the main argument of the paper in a nutshell

40
00:05:25.380 --> 00:05:30.129
Martin French (he/him): in gambling, in the gambling studies literature that we review

41
00:05:30.390 --> 00:05:39.559
Martin French (he/him): there is a problematic tendency to reduce risk concepts to a universalizing concept of risk which is then

42
00:05:39.590 --> 00:05:44.139
Martin French (he/him): easily collapsed into and equated with harm.

43
00:05:44.780 --> 00:05:51.920
Martin French (he/him): And we think that for gambling studies research the consequences of the reduction

44
00:05:52.120 --> 00:06:00.349
Martin French (he/him): of risk to harm our manifold. They include, for instance, a kind of tunnel vision

45
00:06:00.440 --> 00:06:04.960
Martin French (he/him): when it comes to understanding people's motivations for gambling.

46
00:06:05.350 --> 00:06:15.530
Martin French (he/him): and they also include, we think, a kind of pathologization and stigmatization of people who may be identified as gamblers.

47
00:06:15.920 --> 00:06:22.339
Martin French (he/him): So that's some that the kind of the arguments and the broader context of what's what's going on.

48
00:06:22.710 --> 00:06:29.770
Martin French (he/him): in the paper? let me say a few words about the methodology of the work that we've done.

49
00:06:30.910 --> 00:06:39.070
Martin French (he/him): The analysis I'm going to present is is part of what we're calling the larger study. That's a critical view.

50
00:06:39.250 --> 00:06:45.429
Martin French (he/him): and our methodology isn't formed by different dispositions and methods.

51
00:06:45.520 --> 00:06:57.480
Martin French (he/him): to begin with, the work is informed by critical social science dispositions. And this is an idea that we draw from Eric Mikhailovsky and Vivian Stay.

52
00:06:57.520 --> 00:07:02.800
Martin French (he/him): and their work on their critical Social Science of HIV and Aids.

53
00:07:02.890 --> 00:07:12.099
Martin French (he/him): where they describe critical social science research as calling into question, quote the processes, limitations.

54
00:07:12.100 --> 00:07:33.799
Martin French (he/him): and effects of practices that govern people's lives. And they further say that a critical. A social science work often seeks to contribute to contemporary struggles against social injustice, inequality, human suffering and depression. And so we're kind of working in this vein using a flu codeian

55
00:07:33.870 --> 00:07:36.590
Martin French (he/him): understanding of discourse.

56
00:07:36.730 --> 00:07:49.319
Martin French (he/him): we also, are using techniques of scoping reviews and rapid, which are literature review techniques.

57
00:07:49.350 --> 00:07:56.229
Martin French (he/him): and designed to design to address a research question. And our research question

58
00:07:56.370 --> 00:08:03.219
Martin French (he/him): for this study is, how do gambling studies scholars discuss and conceptualize

59
00:08:03.240 --> 00:08:11.899
Martin French (he/him): risk concepts in the context of work in particular, on online and Internet gambling.

60
00:08:12.230 --> 00:08:18.400
Martin French (he/him): And the focus on online and Internet gambling was justified.

61
00:08:18.580 --> 00:08:23.900
Martin French (he/him):  thought that it was justified by research in gambling studies

62
00:08:23.920 --> 00:08:44.310
Martin French (he/him): which suggests that online gap is accompanied by different types of risks, then gambling, and what the literature calls land based venues. So the idea is just, you know, if you go to a casino land based physical, physically located Casino, you're facing different risks. Then if you

63
00:08:44.350 --> 00:08:59.310
Martin French (he/him): if you go and gamble online, and I can say more about the methodology of those larger projects afterwards, if folks are interested. But really the key point I want to make here is that

64
00:08:59.390 --> 00:09:17.249
Martin French (he/him): in the paper I'm presenting today. we analyze the Corpus of 23 articles which were published in the Journal. international gambling studies between 2,010 and 2,021. So international gambling studies is one of the

65
00:09:17.270 --> 00:09:23.330
Martin French (he/him): the journal journals of record for the field of Gabriel

66
00:09:24.800 --> 00:09:34.510
Martin French (he/him): So for the paper that I'm talking about today. we highlight 3 themes. But I'm actually only going to talk about 2 of the themes today.

67
00:09:34.620 --> 00:09:47.780
Martin French (he/him): we we highlight the theme of risk factors. And I'm not going to say a lot about this today except to say that in gambling studies this is one of the ways that the term risk

68
00:09:47.820 --> 00:09:56.099
Martin French (he/him): gets used quite a lot by sort of enumerating and defining different kinds of risk factors. these are factors that

69
00:09:56.130 --> 00:10:05.030
Martin French (he/him): are viewed in the literature as amplifying a person's probability that they might experience harm

70
00:10:05.090 --> 00:10:10.470
Martin French (he/him): in relation to gambling.  this links to my.

71
00:10:10.530 --> 00:10:23.470
Martin French (he/him): the the theme that I really focus on in today's talk, and that is the notion of risk and its relation to harm, and in particular risk as a harm.

72
00:10:23.810 --> 00:10:27.080
Martin French (he/him):  and then.

73
00:10:27.240 --> 00:10:38.040
Martin French (he/him): finally, the the the the third theme that we we find in the literature. is. we call at risk risk taking.

74
00:10:38.140 --> 00:10:58.390
Martin French (he/him): And here is a scene in the where research is really trying to identify who you know who is the person who is the subject. Position? that is at risk of gambling, really arm, and what are their behavior? So

75
00:10:58.730 --> 00:11:01.129
Martin French (he/him): practices that are

76
00:11:01.500 --> 00:11:03.149
Martin French (he/him): and need of intervention.

77
00:11:03.920 --> 00:11:11.299
Martin French (he/him): So those are the the main sort of findings that we talk about organized around.

78
00:11:11.780 --> 00:11:23.559
Martin French (he/him): So with respect to the the first of the 3 themes that I won't focus on risk of harm, slash risk as harm.

79
00:11:23.760 --> 00:11:27.910
Martin French (he/him): I want to note that the majority of studies

80
00:11:28.530 --> 00:11:41.399
Martin French (he/him): working on this theme rely quantitative methods, or they use survey data, or they use data from online gamblingators that are transactional

81
00:11:41.920 --> 00:11:48.460
Martin French (he/him): and a couple of aspects of this the think stand out

82
00:11:48.480 --> 00:11:54.559
Martin French (he/him): first. It enumerates a wide range of different and differently classified

83
00:11:54.640 --> 00:12:15.770
Martin French (he/him): arms that are related to gap. So in a paper by a castron and colleagues who are writing in in a finished context from Finland. for example, they note that these might be a financial harms, emotional harms, psychological arms, physiological harms.

84
00:12:17.580 --> 00:12:26.359
Martin French (he/him): so that they're just a range of different harms. that that get attached to the concept of risk in the literature.

85
00:12:26.540 --> 00:12:35.269
Martin French (he/him):  what's interesting second about this theme is that we sometimes see a slippage that treats

86
00:12:35.420 --> 00:12:56.609
Martin French (he/him): risk of these diverse harms as a harm in itself. So, for example, in a 2,021 study by Persian colleagues which develops a methodology for understanding the relationship between different product features, so different types of gambling games, for example, and possible levels of risk.

87
00:12:57.070 --> 00:13:06.249
Martin French (he/him):  their study, they note, didn't have the capacity to examine independent measures of harm.

88
00:13:06.570 --> 00:13:16.149
Martin French (he/him): But as a consequence, what they end up doing is developing an analysis of data reflecting user activity.

89
00:13:16.410 --> 00:13:26.490
Martin French (he/him): on this measure that they've come up with for thinking about this relationship between different product features and risk levels.

90
00:13:26.570 --> 00:13:31.379
Martin French (he/him): that that takes risk as as a proxy for harm.

91
00:13:31.920 --> 00:13:33.970
Martin French (he/him): because harm.

92
00:13:34.230 --> 00:13:46.570
Martin French (he/him): It's sort of in a weird way, because farm is methodologically excluded from the study design. risk has to kind of come and stand in for harm

93
00:13:46.760 --> 00:13:54.920
Martin French (he/him): risk of a problem here and other stands in as a proxy for harm. So in our corpus, this treatment is

94
00:13:55.190 --> 00:14:04.409
Martin French (he/him): of risk, as a harm is often connected with a tendency in research to treat.

95
00:14:04.580 --> 00:14:21.060
Martin French (he/him): They search subjects as though they are in denial. you know. Maybe an a little bit of an uncharitable reading be to, you know, understand that they're viewing research subjects as suffering from false consciousness, or as otherwise duped or

96
00:14:21.110 --> 00:14:24.629
Martin French (he/him): fooled by risk masquerading as well.

97
00:14:25.090 --> 00:14:34.920
Martin French (he/him): and this tendency is illustrated in an article by by Rowan, called in a quotation which hypothesizes

98
00:14:35.010 --> 00:14:37.160
Martin French (he/him): that their research

99
00:14:37.260 --> 00:14:41.070
Martin French (he/him): subjects are in a

100
00:14:41.150 --> 00:14:50.380
Martin French (he/him): You know, state of denial, trivializing the risks of gambling, dependence, or addiction.

101
00:14:52.200 --> 00:14:55.210
Martin French (he/him):  so.

102
00:14:55.510 --> 00:14:58.340
Martin French (he/him): summing up this notion of of a risk

103
00:14:58.630 --> 00:15:06.630
Martin French (he/him): and harm risk as harm, I think we see this kind of connection being drawn quite a lot in the literature that we review

104
00:15:07.190 --> 00:15:17.570
Martin French (he/him): And for us in this work this is linked to another tendency in the literature that we see which we talk about. in a in a final theme.

105
00:15:17.720 --> 00:15:22.010
Martin French (he/him): where we see a slippage between

106
00:15:22.130 --> 00:15:35.640
Martin French (he/him): descriptions of at-risk behaviors, and at risk people as well as a slippage between the activity of risk taking and the subject position

107
00:15:35.750 --> 00:15:57.400
Martin French (he/him): of the Risk taker. I think a lot of these slippages have been, you know, identified in the social studies of risks, sociology and risk. the for a long time. In some ways. What this paper is trying to do is just highlight. These tendencies for scholars working on gambling

108
00:15:57.420 --> 00:16:02.830
Martin French (he/him): because these slippages produce a subject position that calls out for intervention

109
00:16:03.440 --> 00:16:15.769
Martin French (he/him): a number of the papers exhibiting this characteristic of treating risk, taking and risk taker at somehow synonymous

110
00:16:15.820 --> 00:16:18.960
Martin French (he/him): that tend to use a methodology

111
00:16:19.060 --> 00:16:29.749
Martin French (he/him): that infers behaviors from digital transactional data. So, for example, in a paper 2,013 paper by a dummy and colleagues.

112
00:16:29.880 --> 00:16:32.800
Martin French (he/him): the analysis of Internet gambling data.

113
00:16:33.200 --> 00:16:52.049
Martin French (he/him): We'll provide online operators with a concrete opportunities to help quote at risk better to make more informed decisions about their gambling, and could see in a language they're talking about moving from risk behaviors to a notion of at risk. Better

114
00:16:52.670 --> 00:16:55.230
Martin French (he/him): for Dragovich on call similar

115
00:16:55.810 --> 00:16:58.210
Martin French (he/him): in a different study using

116
00:16:58.380 --> 00:17:02.239
Martin French (he/him): using behavioral things that online

117
00:17:02.480 --> 00:17:04.750
Martin French (he/him): from from

118
00:17:04.920 --> 00:17:08.559
Martin French (he/him): transactional data from an online gap like platform.

119
00:17:10.060 --> 00:17:18.150
Martin French (he/him): we see the mobilization of this concept concept of at risk players

120
00:17:18.310 --> 00:17:19.970
Martin French (he/him): and

121
00:17:20.130 --> 00:17:27.440
Martin French (he/him): this This is a repeated in in another study by Carver and Mccarty.

122
00:17:27.470 --> 00:17:34.200
Martin French (he/him): although this is a study that uses a survey data, not transactional data, but for Carver and Mccarty.

123
00:17:34.280 --> 00:17:35.749
Martin French (he/him): who use

124
00:17:35.780 --> 00:17:39.179
Martin French (he/him): an American national consumer survey

125
00:17:39.830 --> 00:17:48.059
Martin French (he/him): they set out to quote, explore the person at which personality traits, for example, impulsivity,

126
00:17:48.120 --> 00:17:53.700
Martin French (he/him): sensation, seeking and introversion are associated with those who participate in.

127
00:17:53.770 --> 00:17:55.350
Martin French (he/him): Then,

128
00:17:55.590 --> 00:17:59.120
Martin French (he/him): 3 types of gap state, sponsored gambling.

129
00:17:59.290 --> 00:18:07.179
Martin French (he/him):  casino gambling, online gambling. And what they say is

130
00:18:07.270 --> 00:18:08.470
Martin French (he/him): basically

131
00:18:08.530 --> 00:18:23.199
Martin French (he/him): all I'm gonna quote here, although other gap show tendencies towards risk taking the online, get significantly higher on this trade than the other 2 groups of frequent gamblers, as well as the casual gap

132
00:18:23.540 --> 00:18:34.999
Martin French (he/him): online G, but also showed indications of higher self-centeredness, higher self-centeredness relative to all other groups. And this study kind of goes on. It's Vane

133
00:18:35.130 --> 00:18:39.039
Martin French (he/him): and One of my slides, I put a quotation up

134
00:18:39.240 --> 00:18:54.040
Martin French (he/him): They write, quote all frequent gambler types exhibited levels of materialism and impulsiveness that were higher than casual, get to in turn exhibited levels that were higher than non gamblers.

135
00:18:54.330 --> 00:19:01.779
Martin French (he/him): No. I think we see in this discourse a kind of slippage between the identification of

136
00:19:01.830 --> 00:19:15.209
Martin French (he/him): risk taking and the interpolation of people as risk takers, and in this account, by Carver and the party in particular, we see that gamblers are described as impulsive, materialistic.

137
00:19:15.400 --> 00:19:42.839
Martin French (he/him): They are viewed as being different from non gamblers, and it is not difficult in this account to understand which category of person is, is the better person. Martin, could you conclude in the next 2 min, so I will. 2 to 3. Yeah, great. I will just wrap it up. I will conclude by highlighting. thanks again, I'll conclude by highlighting that we have really 3 action items coming out of this work

138
00:19:42.850 --> 00:19:52.219
Martin French (he/him): for gambling studies. And I I consider myself to be a researcher working in this field. So these are action items for myself as well, and our our team as well.

139
00:19:52.310 --> 00:20:03.319
Martin French (he/him): one, clearly define your risk concepts. we're calling calling out gambling studies for using this concept quite a lot, but not

140
00:20:03.410 --> 00:20:05.960
Martin French (he/him): defining it very much in literature.

141
00:20:06.260 --> 00:20:13.130
Martin French (he/him): avoid defining the second action item is avoid defining risk as an a priori harm.

142
00:20:13.540 --> 00:20:23.909
Martin French (he/him): And then linked to this, the third action item is we we have to check our paternalism at the door. And we're calling in this work for player accounts of risk

143
00:20:24.110 --> 00:20:34.309
Martin French (he/him): in their own. So what what are the we think that there is a big research opportunity in this field for more careful attention to lived experiences of risk

144
00:20:34.980 --> 00:20:52.750
Martin French (he/him): in these contexts. In identifying these action items, we're not denying or minimizing gambling, related harms. But what we are doing is calling for more careful attention to risk phenomena and gambling studies, particularly as it's lived

145
00:20:52.790 --> 00:21:05.369
Martin French (he/him): at the level of everyday experience. So I'll end there. I'm sorry I didn't get my slides to work, but I'm happy to share them via email right after this session that people people want.

146
00:21:05.720 --> 00:21:11.720
Thank you. Very fantastic. Sorry for the technical issues. Thank you very much.

147
00:21:14.050 --> 00:21:19.359
Martin French (he/him): But stay with us for the questions later. Yes, yes, I will. Yes, I will. Yeah, okay.

148
00:21:19.810 --> 00:21:20.960
so

149
00:21:33.250 --> 00:21:35.350
just hide this one.

150
00:21:35.960 --> 00:21:37.359
How do I get?

151
00:21:43.330 --> 00:21:49.280
 why.

152
00:21:54.830 --> 00:22:00.330
all right, I'll just get started, anyway. So Hello, everyone. Thank you for being here

153
00:22:11.070 --> 00:22:24.180
fabulous. Thank you. thank you for being here before I formally start my presentation. I would like to acknowledge and pay my respects to the laundry people whose land were gathered on to Today

154
00:22:24.230 --> 00:22:44.990
the subject matter of this presentation centers on the genealogical insights of Jacques-donsolo, which I'll elaborate on shortly, and its impacts for understanding both social government and its overlaps with risk-based media representations of single-parent families in Australia.

155
00:22:45.280 --> 00:22:53.200
So just to provide a quick overview of what I'll be presenting today. It'll be the context of a corpus to informed

156
00:22:53.330 --> 00:23:00.579
discourse, study the research questions, the analytical assumptions, and a little bit about the methods.

157
00:23:00.760 --> 00:23:19.270
Donslo's genealogical insights into the liberalized family and social control vis-a-vis and the parallels and differences between that genealogy of France to the Australian context, mass media representations of single-parent families so lexical and discursive patterns.

158
00:23:19.330 --> 00:23:30.639
and then I want to look a bit forward about what we can learn from Donzelow as a sensitizing foundation for discursive governmental analysis of so-called risky families.

159
00:23:31.020 --> 00:23:31.910
Whoo!

160
00:23:33.520 --> 00:23:47.029
So the research questions. The core aim within these was to understand and conceptualize better the ways in which governmental dynamics justify the punitive treatment of single parent families

161
00:23:47.080 --> 00:24:08.089
and a preliminary literature scan identified 2 major factors considered in existing conceptualizations. So governmental dynamics, impacting single-parent families as embedded in processes of globalization or neoliberalization. And the increasing centrality of gendered and racialized forms of stigma

162
00:24:08.120 --> 00:24:15.440
and this was supporting and all justifying the punitive treatment by or through the liberal welfare state, the

163
00:24:15.840 --> 00:24:36.769
But the notable absences was related to risk constructs or language, and their connection to processes of liberalization or mediatization, or the ways in which mass media can reconfigure or legitimize or delegitimize the social control exerted through or by the liberal welfare state.

164
00:24:38.210 --> 00:24:56.029
So the first step to answering these questions involve developing an analytical strategy extending for Ko's notion of the archive to the corpus, that is, mass bodies of text or textual relations beyond the capacity of unassisted human perusal.

165
00:24:56.320 --> 00:25:26.109
This analytical maneuver was born out of my frustration with the absence in fucose analyses of the processes of mediatization. that is the discursive governmental realities emerging within the The explosion of Max communication. And these realities can be traced back to at least the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, where the where the print media became increasingly enrolled in justifying the Liberal State form and its sovereignty as part of the enlightenment.

166
00:25:26.510 --> 00:25:38.240
and, as I argue elsewhere, using the work of Giorgio Garban and others, there is an absence in Fico's theories of biopolitics and neoliberal governmentality of the media or mediality.

167
00:25:38.430 --> 00:25:43.440
let alone a consideration of mass media imaginaries.

168
00:25:46.780 --> 00:25:47.460
Okay.

169
00:25:48.870 --> 00:26:14.059
sorry. And there's also another significant gap in Forco's substantive contributions, and that is the interfusion of logics, of risk with liberal capitalists, political rationalities, and social practices. And as I identified earlier risk is an important factor in giving an account of the modern and liberalised welfare state, and this is also explored in the work of Francois Ewald.

170
00:26:14.240 --> 00:26:34.590
So the expansion to corpus or back towards the textuality of discourse, allowed me to take an interest in corpus-assisted approaches, and the emerging field of corpus sociology, particularly how corpus approaches can be used to genealogically map representational features, and thus inform a governmental analysis.

171
00:26:34.630 --> 00:26:45.030
and instead of seeing our corpus approaches as something scientific, they can tell us something about society and what I understand as governmental entailments.

172
00:26:45.160 --> 00:26:49.590
So this led me to corpus inform critical discourse analysis.

173
00:26:56.090 --> 00:27:00.249
It's not changing yet. No.

174
00:27:07.160 --> 00:27:08.349
oh, sorry.

175
00:27:12.440 --> 00:27:13.739
It's just not working.

176
00:27:22.490 --> 00:27:25.050
Yeah. And this.

177
00:27:26.280 --> 00:27:26.950
okay.

178
00:27:31.120 --> 00:27:33.840
yes, I think.

179
00:27:35.500 --> 00:27:36.770
yeah.

180
00:27:36.810 --> 00:27:47.829
And and so sorry about that. My approach sort of departs from what can be called a conventional corpus assisted. Approach. I do not adopt statistical.

181
00:27:47.980 --> 00:27:49.030
this is

182
00:27:49.680 --> 00:28:09.099
I. I do not adopt statistical significance to talk about the importance of representations or lexical formations. I, instead borrow elements from a cultural materialist currents of thought and see the significance of language as deriving from how it's producing or reproducing liberal capitalist structures.

183
00:28:09.300 --> 00:28:28.160
I'm also a cultural constructivist, or what can be called a nominalist towards my understanding of risk constructs. That is, it does not matter about the reality or not of risks, constructs instead what matters is the real effects within power, knowledge, relations, and this follows the tradition of For Co. And Mitchell Dean.

184
00:28:30.730 --> 00:28:50.060
And so these are a little bit about my methods and sampling. The sampling was the most red print media articles in Australia over the last 20 years, or 2,000 to 2020, and it focused on single-parent family representations, and there were 33,161 media articles.

185
00:28:50.140 --> 00:29:08.180
and the analysis involved thematic coding of concordance examples, dictionary analyses, frequency counts, and frequency distributions, so synchronic and diachronic. and this was to support critical discourse analysis and findings are preliminary, and analysis is still underway.

186
00:29:08.680 --> 00:29:15.979
So here's a little bit about the sample. As you can see, the most red media clusters around the Murdoch Media Empire.

187
00:29:16.090 --> 00:29:27.689
there could be a criticism that there's a bias towards this concentration. But I think it reflects what can be understood as a popular consensus being promoted in the mass print media of Australia.

188
00:29:29.820 --> 00:29:44.580
And also here's the image of a relevant text, and not being a French speaker, I've had to allow the English translation, and and it's perhaps noteworthy that Giles Dolores writes the Forward, an interlocutor and admirer for Co.

189
00:29:44.630 --> 00:29:49.899
And Donsloe saw himself as a student of Forco and a colleague of Fico as well.

190
00:29:50.620 --> 00:30:05.100
So the 3 major lessons. So when looking at single parent family representations in the Corpus, I relocated the genealogical work of Don't know of the French liberalisation of the family to the Australian context.

191
00:30:05.150 --> 00:30:20.939
Particularly, I identify 3 governmental movements in Donsula's work that share continuities with Australian developments, so mothers are increasingly responsible for the social condition of their children. Crucially this is class differentiated.

192
00:30:20.940 --> 00:30:38.989
So bourgeois mothers were to send their kids to urban cent to private schools and ensure their children were engaged in the proper social activities and social control, for the bourgeois family centered on creating a hothouse in the home and privatized spaces outside the home to protect the child.

193
00:30:39.110 --> 00:30:52.570
Disciplinary interventions directed at bourgeois children emanated from the private schooling system from within the family, and it's usually from the father or behind the closed doors of psychoanalysts and psychologists, officers.

194
00:30:52.820 --> 00:31:00.129
So the bourgeois mothers were awarded as exemplary mothers, citizen mothers incorporating the values of liberal modernity.

195
00:31:00.380 --> 00:31:15.369
and this contrast the practices prior to liberalization, where bourgeois children were usually given to wet nurses or sent to rural baby farms. Children were outsourced from aristocratic households to working class female laborers.

196
00:31:15.490 --> 00:31:28.129
So with liberalisation, bourgeois mothers became more intensively responsible for the health and well-being of their children, becoming an extension of so-called social medicine and prescribed enclosures of protection.

197
00:31:28.330 --> 00:31:46.489
And this contrasted working class mothers who were mandated by the State to send their children to public school, participate in compulsory maternal education programs. And this was usually a condition of access to social supports or philanthropic programs and forced into penoptic forms of public housing.

198
00:31:46.720 --> 00:31:55.449
These activities were designed to quell opportunities for Communalism and Unionism, and what was seen as generally threats to the liberal state.

199
00:31:55.520 --> 00:32:08.409
so social control for the working class family that came to find visiv a growing industry of so-called social experts administering so-called social work that embricated with the State's juridical castral system.

200
00:32:08.720 --> 00:32:28.469
So Dons like calls this nexus of social experts, and the juridical power of the State a tutelary society, and this tutelary form of sociality is focused on administering so-called social cures to enhance welfare and prevent working class families families from becoming a so-called pathogenic circle circuit of risk

201
00:32:28.500 --> 00:32:32.290
to the broader stability of the liberal capitalist society

202
00:32:32.510 --> 00:32:40.179
and ideas of Charles Rights and well-being was often used by social experts to justify intervention.

203
00:32:40.530 --> 00:32:53.220
and, unlike the bourgeois family unit becoming the cocooning hothouse for the child, the State becomes the symbolic protector of the working-class child. The idea of the State as family assemblage emerges.

204
00:32:53.310 --> 00:32:59.140
and this is the working-class mother is to administer the State's ideas of protection and well-being.

205
00:32:59.250 --> 00:33:14.990
The result of the status, family assemblage and tutelary society for the working-class family was the symbolic attenuation of the paternal father. Figure lessening of Peter. Familiar and social experts in the court take over this symbolic role.

206
00:33:15.330 --> 00:33:30.759
Australia copied a lot of these frameworks around class differentiated major-centric responsibilities, as shown in the works of feminist historians, Marion Lake and Anne Summers, which, unfortunately, I will not have the time to talk about today or elaborate upon.

207
00:33:30.790 --> 00:33:41.039
But the crucial point of departure from the French context is that we also have settler coloniality operating alongside these class differentiations.

208
00:33:41.040 --> 00:34:02.779
So there's increasingly social roles of experts were deeply connected to maintaining the so-called purity of the white Australian nation, past leaning land into courts, foundling homes, missions, pastoralists, labor camps, and research sites that were designed to civilize aboriginal children and peoples into preferably nuclear and married family units.

209
00:34:02.870 --> 00:34:10.670
And these so-called social interventions were historically justified through castle and law and order framings.

210
00:34:11.399 --> 00:34:28.580
So, using dictionary analyses, so lists of bundled associated words particular to a certain social domain, I was able to identify that cast, rule and law and order. Language was consistently the dominant type of language used to describe single-parent families

211
00:34:28.779 --> 00:34:33.019
in the most red media in Australia over the past 20 years.

212
00:34:33.470 --> 00:34:46.709
and we see a relatively rapid rise in law and order, language and welfare language in 2,005, and this was the lead up to the implementation of the welfare to work policies for single-parent families under the Howard Government.

213
00:34:47.210 --> 00:34:57.540
There's this sense that the State needs to intervene into single parent families to ensure their welfare, and it seems to be quite correlated just by looking at the frequencies there.

214
00:34:59.120 --> 00:35:21.389
and here we see a clear ascendance of risk framing used to describe single-parent families, and this, finding, I argue, corresponds with what Donslo locates as the centrality of risk in defining the working-class family. And this is the centerpiece for state-based tutorial forms of social control. This transition from the language of vulnerability to risk.

215
00:35:23.080 --> 00:35:27.790
And here are some examples of risk framing of single-parent families in the media.

216
00:35:27.880 --> 00:35:42.740
And within these statements of the expert management of single-parent families through investment, active intervention, services, sexuality courses, special supports, and forced removals of children at the behest of social workers

217
00:35:42.870 --> 00:35:57.789
at risk, comes to be represented as an objective situation, despite little elaboration on the concrete circumstances of these families. Importantly, these interventions are about containing metaphorical spreads of risk.

218
00:35:57.800 --> 00:36:05.730
exposure to harm. This idea of the pathogenic circuit, as Donsler calls it, is associated with the risky family.

219
00:36:06.460 --> 00:36:15.069
So just a few things to conclude, and this is very broad stroke presentation, as I continue doing. The analysis is that

220
00:36:15.890 --> 00:36:35.619
Donslo's genealogy helps us to foreground risk constructions as part of the social control exerted onto or through the liberalised family, and it agitates. Some feminist claims that vulnerability is the dominant framing of the liberalised family, particularly in relation to women and children, and I think it us

221
00:36:35.620 --> 00:36:51.849
us to reflect upon is a politics of social vulnerability really a radical alternative, as Judith Butler suggests, if it leaves intact or does not directly address the dominant pet, paternalistic or patriarchal framing of social risk.

222
00:36:52.020 --> 00:37:06.800
it also locates social control of the family at the scale of massified social movements, which I think is helpful in providing a genealogical foundation for broader studies of discourse. such as the mass media.

223
00:37:06.810 --> 00:37:16.439
It also resenders class, engendered risk constructions associated with the family, which I think is often absence in many analyses in Australia.

224
00:37:16.810 --> 00:37:37.040
and I think there's the opportunities as well looking forward to go beyond gynacentric or metrocentric representations of the family or single-parent family have a greater focus on first nations, children, and so-called risky aboriginal families and kinship networks, and seeing how that language has evolved. It intersects with a sample like this.

225
00:37:37.040 --> 00:37:47.330
and also exploring, and I have to do more work into this with settler coloniality, with risk constructions, particularly the idea of the risky family.

226
00:37:47.410 --> 00:37:49.330
So that's all. I have.

227
00:38:24.960 --> 00:38:39.169
Well, welcome everybody. and thank you very much for the opportunity to present our work. This is actually my first engagement with this thematic group. and I've enjoyed some of the presentations that I've been able to go to over the course of the of the conference. So thank you very much for

228
00:38:39.330 --> 00:38:43.019
coming and talking to us on the very last day for this session.

229
00:38:43.120 --> 00:38:56.620
So we're going to talk today about risk shifting in the time of Covid, looking particularly at the Australian Federal Government's financial support measures that were provided to family daycare educators and workers.

230
00:38:58.910 --> 00:39:07.230
and similarly to our previous speaker, I'd also like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the lands upon which we're meeting today.

231
00:39:07.640 --> 00:39:13.579
So I thought I'd probably be useful to give you a little bit of context about family daycare as it operates in Australia.

232
00:39:13.920 --> 00:39:25.840
So family daycare educators are people who provide childcare in their own homes as opposed to center-based providers of childcare services. And these

233
00:39:25.970 --> 00:39:42.700
groups or individuals receive funding from the Australian Government and as a complex interplay between the Federal and State rules and regulations and funding they can be for profit or not for profit. Providers who can operate a family daycare service.

234
00:39:43.930 --> 00:40:05.990
and there are various other rules and regulations that I've listed there on the slide that I won't go into in depth here, but probably the most important one there on the screen is that these individuals are sold traders. They're not employed by a provider. They they their own businesses, in a sense, and that created some obstacles in terms of the support packages that were available throughout Covid.

235
00:40:08.930 --> 00:40:30.849
and I have listed here as well some of the financial measures that were provided by the Federal Government throughout Covid, from its start in March 2020 through to At the end of November 2021 and just a little bit of context. Some of the subsidies and arrangements that were provided included free childcare as well as childcare subsidies, and these

236
00:40:31.010 --> 00:40:44.229
all mediated via the provider with the Federal Government. So the educator themselves doesn't have a direct relationship with the Federal Government. It's all mediated through the through the provider

237
00:40:44.450 --> 00:40:58.650
They also have a a complicated relationship with the families because they provide care to the children, but they don't actually have a transactional relationship as such with their parents, that's all. Again mediated through the provider.

238
00:41:01.410 --> 00:41:25.560
So we're interested in the real life experiences and the voices of our participants and the implications that it has for them. And to do this we use semi-structured interviews with family daycare providers and educators. We really wanted to capture their personal experiences, their perspectives and their emotions about the challenges they faced, working in a family daycare during the early days, in particular, of the pandemic.

239
00:41:25.800 --> 00:41:38.009
This project is a work in progress. So our last interviews of this of this particular group were conducted in May this year. So it's very much still ongoing, and we have other stakeholder groups that we're trying to engage with. Also.

240
00:41:38.410 --> 00:41:50.750
we're also doing a content analysis of public documents which is again ongoing. So we're looking at government documents, legislation, media transcripts, all those sorts of documents as well as reports from Key Peak

241
00:41:51.010 --> 00:42:00.729
child care bodies, so that we can really get some insight into the decisions that were made, the intent behind them. And what the potential implications of that are.

242
00:42:02.860 --> 00:42:12.460
So because we're looking at the social construction of risk and the meanings that various groups and individuals attribute to this. And because we're looking at

243
00:42:12.590 --> 00:42:24.660
workers, and we're looking at their their work in the context of safety and public health. We looked at the idea of prevention work as a way to frame a concept to frame our work.

244
00:42:26.510 --> 00:42:42.250
So we really are interested in the processes of how a particular issue. In this case Covid comes to be described or presented as a danger as a public problem, and we're using the Federal government financial support packages and family daycare to have a look at that.

245
00:42:43.510 --> 00:42:52.089
We also thought that, given the way that the management of occupational risks for family day care was disrupted during Covid, as it was for many other sectors

246
00:42:52.140 --> 00:43:04.780
that we wanted to find concepts that could potentially identify any blind spots in. the idea of prevention work. And to do that We felt that the idea of risk work was useful there

247
00:43:04.830 --> 00:43:14.260
and risk work really looks at the ways that individuals in their everyday activities select and make use of risk issues.

248
00:43:14.510 --> 00:43:16.979
and they subsequently take action.

249
00:43:17.070 --> 00:43:21.170
 in relationship to those issues.

250
00:43:21.190 --> 00:43:25.469
And the 3 features that I've listed there from brown and Gale were also very relevant

251
00:43:25.610 --> 00:43:29.750
to out our data gathering in our data analysis. As we moved through

252
00:43:29.880 --> 00:43:31.269
through our work

253
00:43:34.060 --> 00:43:35.609
on top of that.

254
00:43:35.950 --> 00:43:48.209
because you can't have enough theory, really. We also wanted to look at the concept of Neoli. The the effect of neoliberalization on individuals and groups. So we

255
00:43:48.490 --> 00:43:51.629
use the concept of the great risk, shift.

256
00:43:51.820 --> 00:44:11.000
or risk privatization in which the responsibility for managing the risks of everyday modern life are devolved from the State and corporations down to the level level of individuals, families, or groups. Which is why we've used that concept of risk shifting to talk about the way that risk is transferred.

257
00:44:11.260 --> 00:44:24.520
and these ideas of risk shifting are all often constructed around a narrative of shared responsibility. So you're in partnership in partnership with the government or in partnership with the organizations. So

258
00:44:24.720 --> 00:44:29.269
what does that actually mean for individuals and groups who are the subjects of these

259
00:44:29.280 --> 00:44:35.860
of these discourses of self-regulation. and we looked at how that has an impact

260
00:44:36.110 --> 00:44:43.870
on individuals and and small businesses, the family daycare. But also whether or not it creates space for change, for doing things differently.

261
00:44:45.490 --> 00:45:04.060
So this is just the premise of our study. And today we're really going to present to you with the voices of our family daycare providers and educators. So you can see what they had to say. And we'll make some comments as time permits on whether or not the lens of risk shifting is a valuable way to look at this issue.

262
00:45:07.020 --> 00:45:08.770
so

263
00:45:10.330 --> 00:45:15.779
our participants told us that the measures that were introduced by the Federal Government

264
00:45:16.150 --> 00:45:21.200
to provide financial support. And these were issues such as free childcare and childcare subsidies

265
00:45:21.210 --> 00:45:25.739
liked clarity about how they would be how they would operate in practice.

266
00:45:25.820 --> 00:45:35.210
And as a result, many providers, who also sometimes called schemes and educators educators, found themselves in precarious financial situations.

267
00:45:35.630 --> 00:45:56.839
and this is because not all families. So remember that financial relationship with the subsidies is mediated with the finance, with the Federal Government. We're not eligible. They didn't meet the criteria to get those financial supports, and that meant that those economic benefits didn't flow down the change to providers and mainly didn't flow down the chain through to educators.

268
00:45:56.980 --> 00:46:10.040
so they were left to rely on other covid, specific but temporary income support packages, and some educators also were not eligible for those, so they were left in an increasingly precarious situation.

269
00:46:11.660 --> 00:46:32.070
It often meant that they didn't have enough funds to actually cover the ongoing costs of running their business to the same pre-covid support levels which they were required to do. So they had to run the same level of service for less money in order to be able to get whatever financial supports were available.

270
00:46:33.310 --> 00:46:52.730
And this was added a further layer of procureity. Because a lot of the family daycare educators are renters. They're not home owners, so they have to negotiate with their landlords for rent, moratoriums, or other ways to avoid being evicted, which created a lot of risk and insecurity for them around. How to do that

271
00:46:52.940 --> 00:47:04.850
many took quite drastic measures to be able to support themselves. So they tapped into their superannuation. They sold assets. They went to food banks. They did all sorts of issues so that they could maintain

272
00:47:04.940 --> 00:47:09.689
the level of service for their service, but also provide for their own families.

273
00:47:12.890 --> 00:47:26.190
Educators were very concerned to maintain the health of the children, to protect the health of the children in their care, but they were also very concerned about the risk of introducing Covid into their own homes for themselves and for their families.

274
00:47:26.710 --> 00:47:42.449
in some cases. So the response to covered was obviously different across the different States and Territories, but in some cases vaccinations were mandated. so educators had to be had to be vaccinated, but not only the educators, but also every

275
00:47:42.480 --> 00:48:07.479
person of the relevant age in their households also needed to be vaccinated in order for them to maintain operation of their household. Some people, as in the broader debate about vaccinations, were hesitant about that. Some were concerned about the safety of the vaccinations, and they felt the Government didn't have a right to come in and tell them what they could or couldn't do with their bodies in order to maintain their business.

276
00:48:08.890 --> 00:48:17.240
So family daycare educators were required to demonstrate that their business, as well as their bodies, were covered free.

277
00:48:17.340 --> 00:48:25.890
while at the same time allowing children to come into their care, based on trust that the parents were similarly compliant.

278
00:48:27.120 --> 00:48:38.250
as well as ramping up all their physical hygiene measures that they had to undertake. They also had to source and pay for relevant supply. So Ppe, such as masks for themselves.

279
00:48:38.360 --> 00:48:50.459
and that was difficult. particularly during the extended periods of lockdown and times when resources and supplies of even basic items was difficult for them to to source.

280
00:48:51.060 --> 00:49:02.090
It was difficult for everyone to source, but it was particularly difficult for them to considering the nature of their of their work. and, as I said, they were required to maintain pre-covid service levels so that they could

281
00:49:02.400 --> 00:49:06.439
remain eligible for family, for it for the support packages.

282
00:49:06.540 --> 00:49:36.340
but at the same time they were not allowed to accept any support from their families, so they were not allowed to accept groceries from their families. They weren't allowed to accept any cash payments from the families of the children that were in their care, because that would render them and to their provider, and therefore any other educators in that scheme ineligible for ongoing government support. So they really found that they were placed in a a very precarious situation.

283
00:49:39.800 --> 00:49:50.340
All our participants, providers, and educators, indicated that their main source of information or communication about what was required was through the media.

284
00:49:50.620 --> 00:50:08.160
So in perhaps a bit of useful context about the Australian context as well, they often describe the way that announcements about what they needed to do or what was available to them, were made on a Friday afternoon. In some cases they were made on a Thursday afternoon before the Easter long weekend.

285
00:50:08.260 --> 00:50:20.059
so they then had to scramble the providers over that weekend to make sure they had systems in place, so that parents could come sign their children in. So then they could qualify for the

286
00:50:20.070 --> 00:50:31.589
child care subsidy, and all those other financial transactional things could flow through. They often didn't know what the effect of of that would be, how are they meant to implement it?

287
00:50:31.680 --> 00:50:38.720
What would they do? They used informal networks, Facebook groups and noticeboards to try and fill that void of communications.

288
00:50:40.560 --> 00:51:03.500
I also talked about a lack of consultation which was more about a failure of the Government to engage with the sector, about strategies and ways to move forward. and all our participants have several decades of experience in childcare, either in centre-based care or family daycare, and felt they should have been engaged much more proactively in that in that process.

289
00:51:03.700 --> 00:51:13.710
Instead, requirements were imposed from the top down, and they felt they were intended to protect center-based care rather than the unique situation of family daycare.

290
00:51:15.590 --> 00:51:19.099
Our educators and providers told us that they felt invisible.

291
00:51:19.250 --> 00:51:24.359
They felt let down. They weren't important enough, and that they were devalued.

292
00:51:25.400 --> 00:51:31.700
and this placed a significant emotional burden on them. Considering the precarious financial situation that they were in.

293
00:51:32.760 --> 00:51:35.319
they describe to us the way that

294
00:51:36.010 --> 00:51:47.649
some State and Federal ministers described family day care and childcare as babysitting during the pandemic, and therefore a woman's role added to feelings that they

295
00:51:48.240 --> 00:51:55.619
particularly family daycare educators, were of secondary importance. They could easily be relegated to the background. Because, you know, after all.

296
00:51:55.750 --> 00:51:57.189
all they're doing is

297
00:51:57.470 --> 00:52:03.429
changing nappies and wiping dirty noses. So it's not really very difficult. You don't need to worry about it too much.

298
00:52:05.960 --> 00:52:20.949
So they felt that their livelihood was taken away, but also at the same time the responsibility for maintaining compliance of themselves and of the families was devolved to them specifically that they were responsible to do that.

299
00:52:21.020 --> 00:52:28.230
and that their access to income support was dependent on that. But that that process of accessing support was difficult and complicated.

300
00:52:31.390 --> 00:52:34.070
So they talked very much about the way

301
00:52:34.190 --> 00:52:46.989
the compliance, heavy approach of the government had an impact on them. So they talked to us about hotlines being established where families could report them if they did take any

302
00:52:47.120 --> 00:53:11.270
financial support or help from their families. Now, we don't know if that hotline ever was monitored or enacted, based on our small sample group. But certainly the family daycare educators that we spoke to were very concerned about the impact that that would have on them. They talked about feeling bullied and feeling blackmailed, about the need to continue working, to provide care for essential workers

303
00:53:11.640 --> 00:53:17.830
when they felt they were on the front line and yet not classified with the same benefits as essential workers.

304
00:53:19.550 --> 00:53:25.439
and this led them to describe to us a feeling stressed, anxious, and traumatized.

305
00:53:26.230 --> 00:53:42.279
so they already felt that they had a really heavy compliance burden But now they seem to be increasingly beset by arbitrary rules and requirements that weren't fit for purpose for the family daycare context, and that was exacerbated by the lack of communication and a lack of consultation that they reported.

306
00:53:42.810 --> 00:53:46.019
and in some cases in some parts of Australia.

307
00:53:46.420 --> 00:53:54.680
they are either experiencing or recovering from natural disasters. So these restrictions over the top of that just increase their feelings of isolation.

308
00:53:57.200 --> 00:54:04.120
I also talked about the way that dealing with these emotional and financial and health risks

309
00:54:04.160 --> 00:54:08.419
during covert was so difficult for some that they left the sector.

310
00:54:08.480 --> 00:54:12.840
and as a result, numbers of educators across the sector have fallen dramatically.

311
00:54:13.310 --> 00:54:27.110
and we can't actually say that that was because of Covid, or because of the regulatory framework. But what we can say is that that crisis event heightened and exacerbated long-standing issues in the sector which contributed

312
00:54:27.190 --> 00:54:30.660
to some individuals actually leaving that sector.

313
00:54:34.200 --> 00:54:39.980
So a key concept under a neoliberal framework that's been theorized in literature

314
00:54:40.350 --> 00:54:46.040
is the narrative that individuals or workers are partners, as I said, with the State or with employers.

315
00:54:46.710 --> 00:54:55.349
and during the pandemic the then Prime Minister, Scott Morrison drew heavily on the narrative of shared responsibility that we're all in this together.

316
00:54:55.360 --> 00:55:03.319
linked to notions of fairness and national identity. But for many of our participants this narrative did not meet or did not match.

317
00:55:03.620 --> 00:55:07.389
Their perceptions and their experiences.

318
00:55:07.830 --> 00:55:12.540
and they felt that it was really aimed at large, center-based care rather than family daycare.

319
00:55:14.020 --> 00:55:30.919
They felt that they were subject to an excessively punitive and unrealistic compliance framework, particularly as they sought to keep childcare available to parents with the supply chain issues that I mentioned and the other requirements that they they had to meet. They felt that.

320
00:55:31.600 --> 00:55:33.909
as well as the emotional and physical burden.

321
00:55:34.360 --> 00:55:41.800
all the other obligations were born by them alone. Then it was not definitely not a shared a shared experience

322
00:55:43.660 --> 00:55:57.059
more significantly. Some of the government measures have last long, lasting impacts on inequality, particularly allowing individuals to access their superannuation early, and this is again a gendered element, because women.

323
00:55:57.110 --> 00:55:59.710
as we know, we'll retire with less

324
00:55:59.790 --> 00:56:04.790
financial supports than men, so that has the potential for a long, lasting

325
00:56:05.220 --> 00:56:07.249
exacerbation of inequality.

326
00:56:09.580 --> 00:56:21.010
the the compliance, heavy approach, appeared to be predicated on the assumption that, especially for the family daycare sector, not only were they incapable of getting it right.

327
00:56:21.300 --> 00:56:26.069
but that rorting was expected, and that it would be severely dealt with.

328
00:56:26.760 --> 00:56:39.610
and that has a historical component as well, because previously there have been examples of child swapping and other issues, but it has led to a compliance heavy approach, specifically targeted at family daycare providers.

329
00:56:41.310 --> 00:56:42.180
and

330
00:56:44.520 --> 00:56:54.649
for our participants. This place them in precarious circumstances, emotionally and financially, while they were continued to required to provide that care for essential work and workers.

331
00:56:56.150 --> 00:57:08.830
So they also provided us with some suggestions for change some ways that this could be done differently for other crisis responses, or just generally in terms of how to support childcare workers.

332
00:57:09.850 --> 00:57:34.449
So one of the key points they made was to pay educators appropriately so that they can address the shortage of workers and attract more workers. And if we think about that in the context of Australia, where the labor government is introducing universal free childcare and education, and that's going to be a significant problem because they are not enough educators available at the moment to fill that need.

333
00:57:35.110 --> 00:57:46.320
Increased training and development was also highlighted as an important way to make the sector more attractive, so more opportunities for family daycare to continue as a micro employer of women.

334
00:57:46.400 --> 00:57:51.359
and to support more women and families to enter and remain in the workforce.

335
00:57:52.570 --> 00:57:54.189
That's it. Thank you.

336
00:57:57.380 --> 00:57:58.150
Thank you.

337
00:57:58.820 --> 00:58:00.010
Nice little.

338
00:58:02.480 --> 00:58:03.189
Thank you.

339
00:58:09.790 --> 00:58:11.560
Okay, thank you very much.

340
00:58:14.300 --> 00:58:18.510
I think I don't see anybody here.

341
00:58:21.890 --> 00:58:24.770
Okay, any questions, comments.

342
00:58:25.890 --> 00:58:28.090
I'm wondering how I get to this.

343
00:58:33.530 --> 00:58:34.540
It's good.

344
00:58:35.910 --> 00:58:37.850
Was it? Good?

345
00:58:38.140 --> 00:58:39.510
I hear you

346
00:58:45.070 --> 00:58:46.000
okay?

347
00:58:53.530 --> 00:58:56.560
And then not. I have to go through it.

348
00:58:58.350 --> 00:59:02.920
Yes. it's the the

349
00:59:03.110 --> 00:59:05.389
it's up to you. Put a question to both

350
00:59:05.430 --> 00:59:07.409
Dr. Kahn and Dr. French.

351
00:59:11.720 --> 00:59:14.519
I'm out. And James, Connie, you's W.

352
00:59:15.170 --> 00:59:29.010
Dr. Kahn first off. Could you reflect on if you spoke to any of the authors of the articles that you analyzed. and then perhaps reflect a little bit more on your construction of harm. And this idea of false consciousness.

353
00:59:29.130 --> 00:59:42.390
Are you trying to insinuate that there isn't a problem of harms within gambling or not? That's that question. And Dr. Kahn. So in terms of, and probably for the benefit of the International audience amongst us.

354
00:59:42.860 --> 00:59:50.640
the print news media in Australia is very right-wing. So your sample at best is centre right? Going to extreme right?

355
00:59:50.880 --> 00:59:54.150
That, of course, is going to skew the data that you're collecting

356
00:59:54.330 --> 00:59:58.140
on that question of poverty and risk

357
00:59:58.790 --> 01:00:02.320
have you thought about, say, including the guardian or incorporating

358
01:00:02.920 --> 01:00:08.260
television journalism and news media? So the ABC. To try and pull that back a little bit.

359
01:00:08.810 --> 01:00:12.289
So that's the question. I also note that on the

360
01:00:13.320 --> 01:00:17.099
example that you presented on teen mothers, and

361
01:00:17.270 --> 01:00:20.740
how that results in more mortality for their kids.

362
01:00:20.840 --> 01:00:29.460
and the answer that, of course, was given. There was more sex education in school yet within that little snippet that you gave us the true risk. Was there poverty?

363
01:00:29.580 --> 01:00:32.160
Isn't it curious that how we construct those

364
01:00:32.210 --> 01:00:37.210
particular risks to control those bodies and to hear reflections on both of those.

365
01:00:41.800 --> 01:00:44.870
Martin French (he/him): maybe I can go first.

366
01:00:45.040 --> 01:00:46.820
Martin French (he/him): if that's okay.

367
01:00:47.330 --> 01:00:55.770
Martin French (he/him): thank you so much for the question. First of all, you haven't talked to the authors of these papers.

368
01:00:55.900 --> 01:01:03.040
Martin French (he/him): it's an interesting question. We haven't built that into our methodology. We are.

369
01:01:03.580 --> 01:01:07.579
Martin French (he/him): you know, looking at papers that have been published going back

370
01:01:07.670 --> 01:01:15.660
Martin French (he/him): to 20 10, I think so. I just remind myself of the early dates.

371
01:01:15.900 --> 01:01:21.429
Martin French (he/him): 20 10 to 2021. So you know, I mean

372
01:01:21.660 --> 01:01:35.670
Martin French (he/him): we are writing this. I hope that this paper will be in conversation with those authors at a certain point. Yes, we're writing this to initiate a conversation and in gambling studies

373
01:01:35.730 --> 01:01:39.620
Martin French (he/him): about risk gambling studies

374
01:01:40.270 --> 01:01:50.800
Martin French (he/him): has done a lot of thinking about harm. Matthew Brown, who is based in Australia, for example, has, you know.

375
01:01:51.080 --> 01:02:04.480
Martin French (he/him): a significant project on trying to come up with a functional definition of harm for gambling studies. in Quebec we have been doing some similar work.

376
01:02:04.590 --> 01:02:13.340
Martin French (he/him): trying to think about you know, harms outside of that gambling related harm inside of that kind of

377
01:02:13.700 --> 01:02:27.899
Martin French (he/him): individual model. let's say, the mail liberal model that Vanessa was just talking about with respect to the risk shift right? That has downloaded all social consequences of gambling onto

378
01:02:28.040 --> 01:02:35.010
Martin French (he/him): individuals. well, I think we're trying to do something similar to that work in our paper. With

379
01:02:35.130 --> 01:02:36.689
Martin French (he/him): with respect to risk

380
01:02:36.830 --> 01:02:43.160
Martin French (he/him): we're just asking for more attention and gambling studies to risk.

381
01:02:43.260 --> 01:02:53.190
Martin French (he/him): I I recognize that in making this argument it could be read as though saying that harm is not

382
01:02:53.270 --> 01:02:59.229
Martin French (he/him): real or not importance. and we have to be very, very careful to.

383
01:02:59.950 --> 01:03:01.830
Martin French (he/him): argue.

384
01:03:01.880 --> 01:03:05.399
Martin French (he/him): you know, to make our arguments about focusing on risk, but

385
01:03:05.470 --> 01:03:12.329
Martin French (he/him): well, also accepting that There are harms, real arms associated with gambling. So I I hope that

386
01:03:12.360 --> 01:03:19.010
Martin French (he/him): I I hope I came across in the presentation. it's certainly a point that we make in the paper. And

387
01:03:19.050 --> 01:03:27.129
Martin French (he/him): yes, thank you. Thank you for the question. I'm going to think some more about the the feasibility of reaching out to the authors and engaging

388
01:03:27.620 --> 01:03:31.649
Martin French (he/him): conversation. I think that's an interesting idea.

389
01:03:32.020 --> 01:03:43.380
Martin French (he/him): you know it might be the case that we can send this initial report to them and get some feedback on it and see see what they think. And and possibly start a conversation with.

390
01:03:43.730 --> 01:03:45.160
Martin French (he/him): Thank you for the question.

391
01:03:49.170 --> 01:04:02.230
and also thank you for the questions. And I think it's it. Yes, the criticism that the sample is or not criticism, perhaps apprehension. But the sample is very right leaning. I think that we also have to accept that that is

392
01:04:02.350 --> 01:04:19.929
what the most red print media in Australia is, which is an unfortunate fact. I have thought about including the Guardian and these other well left wing. You know we could have an argument about left right. How representative that is. This was also part of a largest study. So I looked at 150.

393
01:04:19.930 --> 01:04:35.499
This was just one chapter in my Ph. D. And but I then compared this. Well, how does this really right-wing discourse? about risk or at risk and its use of into social control impacted the inquiries into parents. Next.

394
01:04:35.500 --> 01:04:50.800
if you're familiar with that program, it's a pre-employment activation program and a lot of those submissions could be construed as very left-wing, but we did see a similar use of. I saw a similar use of language there as well, that this idea of at risk was to make proposals about.

395
01:04:50.800 --> 01:05:07.410
you know, less paternalistic but still sort of paternalistic alternatives. So I tried to show the relationship between the media policy nexus. That's really where my research is interested. So the flow and effects of this really right wing ecology

396
01:05:07.590 --> 01:05:19.819
in the media and how it impacts, how we think about, and and even social policy thinkers. People who you think would be in the know still replicate these ideas. And

397
01:05:20.120 --> 01:05:33.030
with the idea of poverty, it's interesting. It was mentioned in poverty in that example. But this, since the 19 nineties, the discourse of poverty, the harms of poverty, have been increasingly replaced by the idea of intergenerational welfare dependency.

398
01:05:33.270 --> 01:05:55.150
and this has become something as well to exert control at risk of intergenerational welfare dependency. And this construct tends to occur more in the inquiry submissions, and, in fact, the policies, such as the cashless debit card, and you know, income management regimes parents next, or use this idea of at risk of

399
01:05:55.150 --> 01:06:14.639
intergenerational welfare dependency. And it goes back. This idea of intergenerationality is also quite problematic in the context of Australia because of its racialised tones as well. This idea of intergenerationality has a genealogy that connects to set the colonial ideas of, you know, half blood.

400
01:06:14.980 --> 01:06:18.429
This sort of horrible stuff as well, but

401
01:06:18.440 --> 01:06:27.120
I have thought about in particular, bringing in the Guardian, and seeing if we still have this patterns, it does vulnerability become more prominent.

402
01:06:27.330 --> 01:06:29.910
I need to look into that. But thank you for that.

403
01:06:30.090 --> 01:06:31.950
That question. It's really interesting.

404
01:06:41.810 --> 01:06:44.989
Okay, thank you. Some more questions.

405
01:06:45.470 --> 01:06:47.909
Yes, please. Vanessa, yeah.

406
01:06:56.060 --> 01:07:08.550
I noticed in your graph when you looked at the peaks of when these different things happen, and you mentioned the peak when the Howard Government came to power. And then, further along there were some other sort of dips and flows, and you mentioned just then parents next.

407
01:07:08.550 --> 01:07:26.949
So I'm wondering if you are planning on incorporating those policy shifts and changes as articulated and implemented by the various departments and the language that they use so as well as the media. There's also their publicly available stuff around parents. Next, which was a big, I was actually working in the Department of Education employment at the time.

408
01:07:27.100 --> 01:07:33.070
The impact that that had on on these narratives on this discourse as well.

409
01:07:38.990 --> 01:07:41.809
Yeah, that's the

410
01:07:42.920 --> 01:07:46.450
no that I think that's great as well. It's something I've thought about

411
01:07:46.600 --> 01:07:48.660
doing.

412
01:07:50.250 --> 01:07:51.900
I think my apprehension.

413
01:07:51.910 --> 01:08:05.580
Was it such a large sample? And I have 33,000 articles here, and when we look at the sample for the inquiry, submissions, and policy documents, it's so I'd have to do more. You know apples to apples comparison as opposed to.

414
01:08:05.880 --> 01:08:10.669
But I think that's important, and what I did see is I didn't see the mention of parents next quite often

415
01:08:10.750 --> 01:08:12.000
in this sample

416
01:08:12.240 --> 01:08:20.230
which I was quite surprised by it, didn't seem to figure into the media descriptions, perhaps because there was such negative press

417
01:08:20.260 --> 01:08:38.809
from the Guardian, and things like this of parents next and so the right wing media didn't even factor that in it didn't even want to have a conversation about that, these paternalistic, racialized programs. So it was an interesting emission from my sample. But I think I'll have to try and find a way of

418
01:08:39.230 --> 01:08:46.330
marrying them. And and and it's how do I do? A dictionary analysis on a smaller

419
01:08:46.370 --> 01:08:55.280
sample and make it a meaningful comparison between those things. So it wasn't imminent to it. And how I and go about imposing that onto the data I have to think about.

420
01:09:16.510 --> 01:09:35.920
thank you to the 3 presenters. I really enjoyed everyone's paper and had lots of questions for for each of them. I really just wanted to know much more about what it is exactly that you did, and want to get a much better sense of the methodology, and wondered if you'd considered things like ownership

421
01:09:35.920 --> 01:09:58.939
of news media outlets, and what that actually meant. for the for the materials that you were engaging in, and the story that you were telling, but my question was actually for Vanessa. So I got a little bit distracted as I was listening to the question that you asked of us, which was something about the the explanatory potential of the concept of risk

422
01:09:59.080 --> 01:10:05.080
in terms of explaining what it is that you're that you're talking about. So I started to wonder about that.

423
01:10:05.140 --> 01:10:10.409
And my my sense is that risk offers only a partial

424
01:10:10.430 --> 01:10:11.709
I count

425
01:10:12.330 --> 01:10:24.469
and I started to think about. You know, it doesn't necessarily help to understand or question the normative assumptions that were attached to the policy decisions at the time.

426
01:10:24.640 --> 01:10:33.779
And how does that feature is that something you consider. And then I started to think, you know, there's a story there about deservingness

427
01:10:34.340 --> 01:10:40.619
and of value judgments that underpinned decisions, government decisions about the allocation of resources.

428
01:10:41.400 --> 01:10:58.690
And then I started to think about much bigger questions about you know, much bigger. sort of value, assessments about different occupations, and what sorts of labor gets valued, what sorts of labor doesn't get valued. And then, of course, the gender dimension of that. So

429
01:10:58.710 --> 01:11:01.939
I mean, there's a whole bunch of stuff that I don't know if you want to come in.

430
01:11:09.860 --> 01:11:25.060
Thank you. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to remember everything that you just raised. But yes, there definitely are normative assumptions about this idea of risk and things that go along with them that that I didn't really get into probably the key thing that

431
01:11:26.520 --> 01:11:27.970
fed this

432
01:11:27.990 --> 01:11:36.839
interest as well is the way that various compliance, regimes, rules, procedures, regulations, can act to control

433
01:11:37.410 --> 01:11:40.599
particular types of behaviour, and some groups are more

434
01:11:41.110 --> 01:12:08.199
liable for control than other than other groups. So what's the intent behind the policy policy making and the provision of those supports? Why are some groups privileged over other groups? Why are some occupations privileged over others? So in the debate around the family daycare educators and Covid. At the time there was a big debate and narrative around who are essential workers, and they were the public health workers, the doctors, the nurses, all these people on the front line

435
01:12:08.460 --> 01:12:19.029
but the family daycare educators also felt they were on the front line, but they didn't receive that same acknowledgment. Instead, they were subject to highly punitive compliance

436
01:12:19.040 --> 01:12:20.240
frameworks.

437
01:12:20.470 --> 01:12:30.690
And a thing about highly punitive compliance frameworks is that it looks good for the government or the enforcer to say, look, we're catching all these people who are doing the wrong thing.

438
01:12:30.690 --> 01:12:50.530
and it means that the individual person is blamed. So they become blameworthy. And they? I mean, there are a whole range of processes. You could talk about othering, and you know ideas of the centre versus the periphery, and how those things play out, but that's really it. Those compliance frameworks create a narrative that enables

439
01:12:50.570 --> 01:13:01.820
individuals or particular occupations or particular types of groups to be the the deviant to the deviant other who needs to be monitored and controlled and surveilled, and we can

440
01:13:02.570 --> 01:13:16.200
hide those objectives in terms of safety, public safety, public health. We have to do these measures because the rest of the community is at risk. So we have to keep this dangerous group of people under control.

441
01:13:16.500 --> 01:13:21.359
That's essentially where my thinking was so hopefully. That makes some sense.

442
01:13:33.200 --> 01:13:51.630
It's quite hard to go through all the the methods and methodological considerations of what happened. But I don't know if you're familiar with like Max Qda and these kind of software suites. And so I'd extract a Concordance sample. And that would include thousands of examples say they search for at risk or

443
01:13:51.680 --> 01:14:11.300
with or without a heathen, and it pull all those out and look and analyze for a certain window. Maybe it's 50 words surrounding and expand where I thought was appropriate to get more context. So using keyword and context concordances in a caucus linguistics. And this is something that Yen's does as well. And that was.

444
01:14:12.080 --> 01:14:15.190
And then the dictionaries involved.

445
01:14:15.640 --> 01:14:28.759
took a long time of 35 40 words, I thought a quite representative of, say, ideas of welfare, ideas of the economy, and this involved looking at the Oxford English Dictionary looking at

446
01:14:29.190 --> 01:14:33.820
you have certain websites that will show you the popular uses of

447
01:14:34.080 --> 01:14:52.830
a certain phrases, as you can see. Well, this generally talks about crime, this framing less so about welfare. And then you could come up with a broad understanding of different dictionaries and run them through and look at the the frequencies in that way. And once again on this idea of concentration of media in Australia. I think

448
01:14:53.180 --> 01:14:55.690
this is why I use the most red metric.

449
01:14:56.000 --> 01:15:08.440
I think that's quite meaningful. But this is what most people are reading and how they're thinking through the idea of single parents, and particularly single motherhood in this country.

450
01:15:08.600 --> 01:15:17.049
But I think once again, I think it's important that I try and skew that more left Lynn something like that. But my interest was how that then translated

451
01:15:17.120 --> 01:15:24.239
into the policy context, particularly around parents. Next is my case study. So this was sort of giving me a

452
01:15:24.500 --> 01:15:25.810
a backdrop

453
01:15:26.040 --> 01:15:33.160
to then to tend to talk about the policy context. I don't know if that fully answers the question, but I'd love to go into more detail and discuss it.

454
01:15:33.620 --> 01:15:34.340
Yeah.

455
01:15:34.660 --> 01:15:36.350
yeah.

456
01:15:45.920 --> 01:16:01.620
okay. Vanessa, I was wondering about one thing, because that session is called a language of risk. I was wondering what you make out of you. You start with risk, and then you use the term danger in the context of

457
01:16:01.620 --> 01:16:17.280
Covid. And so I'm wondering whether you in general have sort more closely to the idea of the different phrases or language is used in a particular context, so I would be interested to hear more about that

458
01:16:17.350 --> 01:16:22.229
for Martin. I had also a question

459
01:16:22.250 --> 01:16:23.860
about

460
01:16:24.250 --> 01:16:48.019
you have selected a particular kind of gambling with with your articles. What probably has a particular meaning in the discourse, and I thought probably, how it is framed is influenced by that kind. What you have selected don't know whether you have looked into that more closely because I looked, for example, at lotteries and lotteries were framed much more positively.

461
01:16:48.020 --> 01:17:04.380
actually, some other type of gambling. So I was wondering whether you have more systematically considered how the type of gambling influenced the way how it is debated in scholarly as well as publicly.

462
01:17:05.090 --> 01:17:10.489
Ok. But she would. No, no, you would like to start with answering. Vanessa is

463
01:17:12.960 --> 01:17:27.480
Martin French (he/him): sure thing. I I can. Sorry. Thank you so much for that question. you know. it's another great question. Thank you. we in this in this study. We haven't looked at.

464
01:17:27.770 --> 01:17:29.910
Martin French (he/him): yes, the

465
01:17:30.450 --> 01:17:44.750
Martin French (he/him): So this is. This is, I guess, our first for A Into data paper that I presented today I got a bunch of articles and a lot of different ways to look at them. And this is another way. We can look at them because,

466
01:17:45.890 --> 01:17:55.489
Martin French (he/him): The literature, I think, has not been sufficiently attentive to date about the differences between

467
01:17:55.670 --> 01:18:14.659
Martin French (he/him): like slot machine gambling, for example, which is generally recognized as one of the most kind of potentially harmful products versus playing poker, which you know some people argue, is it actually gambling? So I mean, this is. This is being discussed in gambling studies. But I think there's a lot more for

468
01:18:14.810 --> 01:18:24.720
Martin French (he/him): this type of discussion to develop. And this is something that we should look at. but we haven't looked at it yet. so thank you very much for that.

469
01:18:35.720 --> 01:18:52.449
thank you very much for your question. That's a a great question about language and risk, because that is something that we need to look into a little bit more. in much offence. I would, as I mentioned earlier. This is the first, my first engagement with this thematic group. So it's good to get a better understanding of.

470
01:18:52.450 --> 01:19:16.559
What its aims and objectives are. And also when I wrote the abstract and submitted it to this group, I actually had Covid. So I'm not sure that it was. I was at my most lucid when I wrote it, but definitely the issue of language, and how these concepts are discussed, and by whom and for what purpose is a really key central part, which is why we want to talk to the family daycare providers and educators

471
01:19:16.790 --> 01:19:32.010
to see how they talk about it. but also talk to policymakers. So public servants, other stakeholder groups and peak bodies to really get a better view of how language is used, and the way those terms are,

472
01:19:32.080 --> 01:19:35.700
you get how they're used and how they're understood by the various people.

473
01:19:38.810 --> 01:19:39.970
Friday.

474
01:19:42.140 --> 01:19:45.780
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

475
01:19:47.170 --> 01:19:48.910
yeah.

476
01:19:49.190 --> 01:19:54.170
yeah. Yeah. Yep. Yep, thanks, thanks, James.

477
01:19:55.290 --> 01:20:09.210
So so there's a historical context to how the language that's used around family daycare educators and family daycare is a problematic or dangerous sector, and particularly, and it particularly occurred in Victoria, actually, with issues around child swapping.

478
01:20:09.250 --> 01:20:21.080
So family and daycare educators who knew each other, who had kids because you don't get paid for your own child. If you've got a child, you don't get paid for that child. You pay for other people's kids, but not yours. So they would say, Hey.

479
01:20:21.840 --> 01:20:40.769
I'll look after your kid. You look after my kid, and that way they can get paid for the care of that child, and then it eventually developed further into well, I don't really need to go. You just say that they went, and we'll just all be fine because you'll get paid, I'll get paid, and that's all great. And that was child swapping.

480
01:20:40.940 --> 01:20:45.930
and that tended to be more prevalent in particular

481
01:20:47.470 --> 01:20:57.169
communities of you know not Australian communities, I, in a way that doesn't sound racist. So so that tended to have

482
01:20:57.230 --> 01:21:07.060
a very negative connotation. It led to extreme crackdowns and increasing regulatory compliance for the sector as a whole. So they already had that historical

483
01:21:07.360 --> 01:21:13.740
construct of being a problematic, perhaps dangerous, is too extreme. But definitely a problematic group.

484
01:21:24.510 --> 01:21:29.129
Okay, how are you? You still have any questions, comments.

485
01:21:29.760 --> 01:21:37.339
I don't know why this light is here, so I feel I have missed my son class. Somehow I cannot remember that I had any room.

486
01:21:37.440 --> 01:21:48.239
because only my first lecture on research methods at Melbourne, where it was similar, I wasn't able to see the audience I only was was was very uncomfortably experienced.

487
01:21:48.250 --> 01:21:59.150
Ok, if nobody else has a question any longer, I would like to thank all the presenters, and for the presentations, and the audience for the very interesting debate.