Search

This paper examines indirect discrimination in Australian universities that tends to obstruct and delay women's academic careers. The topic is defined and contextualised via a 1998 speech by the Australian Human Rights Commission's Sex Discrimination Commissioner, juxtaposed with a brief contemporaneous exemplar. The paper discusses the prevalence of women among casual and fixed-term academic workers, and the contrasting low numbers of women in senior academic positions. It is argued that the neo-liberal "marketisation" of higher education, which still prevails, has fostered a number of indirectly discriminatory practices and conditions that substantially disadvantage women. A selection of studies of the problem are critiqued. It is argued that a broad statistical methodology is inadequate due to its tendency to "homogenise" the academy and its component individuals, in the process giving scope for unjustified optimism among university policy-makers. A particulate approach is advocated, acknowledging the wide variation between and within universities, and the range of hidden difficulties individual women academics can face. It is concluded that despite apparent reforms over the past decade, the situation of women has improved little in practical terms.

Background: In the absence of a standardized cannabis unit, self-report instruments are inadequate for accurate quantification of cannabis use. The study extends the feasibility of using a cannabis substitute to reliably and validly measure quantity of cannabis use., Method: Ninety-eight adult Australian cannabis users (M age=27.98, SD=11.10; 65.31% male) completed a 90-day Timeline Followback interview regarding their cannabis use, utilizing the cannabis substitute Marijuanilla to report on quantity of use. Ninety-two of these individuals completed the interview at two time-points, and 56 of these participants had collaterals corroborate their cannabis use reports., Results: Inter-rater reliability was excellent, while test-retest reliability was good to excellent. Intra-class correlation coefficients between participant and collateral reports, while similar to previous research, were unacceptable. Quantity of cannabis use statistically significantly added to frequency of use in predicting cannabis problems and dependence severity. Concurrent and discriminant validity were established with single-item and positive impression management measures, respectively. In addition, Marijuanilla appeared similar to one specimen of street seized cannabis, but not to two others. Importantly, participants' cravings to use cannabis did not increase as a result of using the cannabis substitute to report on their cannabis use., Conclusions: These data suggest that utilizing Marijuanilla to facilitate the reporting of grams of cannabis use may be reliable and valid; however, such comprehensive assessment may only be necessary for clinical trials and epidemiological studies, which rely on precise estimates of cannabis use., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)