Search

Digital automation is on the rise in a diverse range of industries. The technologies employed here often make use of artificial intelligence (AI) and its common form, machine learning (ML) to augment or replace the work completed by human agents. The recent emergence of a variety of design automation platforms inspired the authors to undertake a review of the research literature on the impact of Automation, AI and ML on visual communication, and its subset practice of graphic design, with a view to understanding the implications for the education of practitioners entering that specific field. This review discovered that there was relatively little research published on the topic but what did exist noted that graphic design as we have known it has an uncertain future. Furthermore, the scant literature argued for a shift in educational and professional focus away from the aesthetic and technical skills required to design visual modes of communication and towards a deeper engagement with the softer, more human skills associated with negotiation, facilitation and judgement. The paucity of literature on this topic suggests to the authors that visual communication design education and the industry are poorly prepared for the impact of automation, AI and ML on them.

Research which attends to LGBTQ+ students' experiences in Higher Education (HE) asserts that they are more likely to be targets of physical, verbal and symbolic violence than non-LGBTQ+ students, have poorer mental health and wellbeing, and report university settings and systems as generally exclusionary and unsafe. The Australian body of research concerning LGBTQ+ people in HE is developing but remains sparse, relying largely on concepts and empirical evidence from the United States and United Kingdom. While important to understanding LGBTQ+ exclusion in HE as a global phenomenon, we argue that concepts of 'campus climate' and 'harm' are under-theorised in Australian literature. This obscures a consistent and meaningful analysis of LGBTQ+ student lived experience. As an extension, a focus on LGBTQ+ students as 'at-risk' means understandings of the everydayness of student life and education remain limited. We suggest that by attending to the particularity of Australian HE settings, we might open our thinking to the possibilities of a global research agenda which sets out to account for similarities and differences among diverse populations while attending to LGBTQ+ students as social citizens. Ultimately, institutional frameworks that deny LGBTQ+ people full participation in university life can be critiqued meaningfully, leading to an evidence-base of equity principles, which can be implemented for LGBTQ+ students in Australia and abroad.

Young people form the primary target demographic of new 'buy now pay later' (BNPL) and digital credit services. Despite consistent data showing young people as a cohort are particularly vulnerable to unsustainable levels of indebtedness, little is known about how young people define and make sense of the experience of being in debt through consumer credit services. This paper explores how indebtedness is experienced and understood in relation to wellbeing through a qualitative study using interviews alongside arts-based participatory methods of bodymapping and sandboxing with 24 young people in the Hunter region of NSW, Australia. These methods enabled particular attention to the embodied and affective elements related to the experience of indebtedness to understand debt's significance for wellbeing for young people. The embodied and affective registers of indebtedness are integral for understanding the conditions informing how wellbeing is negotiated and felt in this context. This study considers the role of BNPL services in young people's economic lives as part of broader processes of financialisation, and the significance of extended and ubiquitous forms of credit for young people's wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses contradictory imperatives in contemporary Australian pedagogy--the notions of "controversy" and "diversity" as they relate the subjects of genders and sexualities. It is a common view that both gender and sexuality are important organising features of identity, society and politics. Consistent effort is made in the Australian educational context to combat discrimination, prejudice against sexually, and gender 'diverse' people. However, the state's commitment to diversity policies must be balanced with a secondary focus on appeasing those who are hostile to non-heteronormative expression, or who view such expression as inherently "political" in nature and therefore inappropriate for the school setting. Australia has arguably demonstrated this dilemma recently in two notable controversies: an intervention in planned school screenings of "Gayby" Baby, a documentary exploring the experience of children in same-sex families, and media furore over the trans-positive "All of Us" teaching kit. Using these case studies, this paper explores the competing imperatives of controversy and diversity, commenting on the tendency for the lives and experiences of LGBTIQ people becoming consequently politicised. To do so, is arguably detrimental to the meaningful participation of LGBTIQ people as social citizens.

At present, Australian sex(uality) education curricula aim to equip students with information which facilitates "healthy" sexual choices as they develop. However, this is not neutral information, but rather socially and culturally regulated discourse which encodes a normative binary of sexuality. The largely US-focused sexuality education literature tends to categorise curricula as belonging to either "comprehensive" or "conservative" factions, consisting of progressive, secular approaches or religious- or abstinence-based programmes, respectively. Neither of these factions, however, appear to be able to cater for the integration of issues relevant to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (GLBTIQ) students nor does this binary conceptualisation represent the reality of Australian sexuality education policy and practice. This paper argues that contemporary sexuality education has a fundamentally neoliberal focus, which aims to assimilate GLBTIQ people into existing normative frameworks (economic and social), rather than challenge them. Such an approach does not foster critical student understandings of oppression, power or morality. The development of critical literacy around sexuality is regarded as essential to meaningfully address the complex needs of GLBTIQ students. The paper explores missing queer discourses within Australian teaching resources. The inclusion of these would benefit GLBTIQ students by bringing previously silenced issues to the fore.

Sexuality education in Australian schools continues to struggle in its ability and willingness to address many of the broader social issues associated with sexuality, such as the needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, intersex and queer (GLBTIQ) students. Studies involving teachers have demonstrated that a reticence on their part to teach GLBTIQ-inclusive sexuality education is driven by a lack of training in handling "sensitive" issues, a fear of backlash and confusion over their obligations under relevant departmental policies. This reticence may, in part at least, stem from a commonly held inference that the inclusion of queer sexualities is inherently "controversial". There appears to be a tendency for curricula and government directives to "juggle" principles of social justice for marginalised sexualities with "risk management" policies, which seek to screen course content for potential "controversy". Much of this controversy has its roots in the language and rhetoric used to describe and discuss issues dealt within sexuality education curricula. The paper demonstrates, through the process of "languaging", how the language and rhetoric of controversy and sexuality can be exposed so that they may be better addressed through policy and government directives.

Research which attends to LGBTQ+ students' experiences in Higher Education (HE) asserts that they are more likely to be targets of physical, verbal and symbolic violence than non-LGBTQ+ students, have poorer mental health and wellbeing, and report university settings and systems as generally exclusionary and unsafe. The Australian body of research concerning LGBTQ+ people in HE is developing but remains sparse, relying largely on concepts and empirical evidence from the United States and United Kingdom. While important to understanding LGBTQ+ exclusion in HE as a global phenomenon, we argue that concepts of 'campus climate' and 'harm' are under-theorised in Australian literature. This obscures a consistent and meaningful analysis of LGBTQ+ student lived experience. As an extension, a focus on LGBTQ+ students as 'at-risk' means understandings of the everydayness of student life and education remain limited. We suggest that by attending to the particularity of Australian HE settings, we might open our thinking to the possibilities of a global research agenda which sets out to account for similarities and differences among diverse populations while attending to LGBTQ+ students as social citizens. Ultimately, institutional frameworks that deny LGBTQ+ people full participation in university life can be critiqued meaningfully, leading to an evidence-base of equity principles, which can be implemented for LGBTQ+ students in Australia and abroad. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sexual Citizenship and Queer Post-feminism: Young Women's Health and Identity Politics Grant, Ruby Abingdon: Routledge, 2021 I Sexual Citizenship and Queer Post-feminism i offers much-needed insight into how queer young women and nonbinary people perceive and access health services outside of major metropolitan cities. In chapter 3, Grant cleverly selects sex education to illustrate how institutional constraints on gender identification and embodiment are internalised by queer young people. [Extracted from the article]