Rich in funds but short on facts: the high cost of human trafficking awareness campaigns | openDemocracy

“When we reduce global concerns about women’s labour to questions of trafficking – which strips women of agency – we overlook the much bigger and more profound abuse undertaken by the global garment industry.”

Anne Elizabeth Moore has just published a great piece on the cost of focusing on human trafficking on real women in precarious positions. Check it out here: Rich in funds but short on facts: the high cost of human trafficking awareness campaigns | openDemocracy

Advertisements

#Decrim: A call for evidence-based policy making

One of the biggest reasons that has been given by the South African state for the continued criminalization of sex work has been that decriminalizing sex work would fuel the trafficking industry in the country. The problem with this reasoning is that it relies on assumptions about trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation that we have very little evidence to support. And, what’s particularly concerning is that these assumptions have effected the making of anti-trafficking policy in South Africa.

Let’s be very clear, the trafficking (recruitment, transport, and coercion) of anyone, regardless of purpose, is completely apprehensible and should be criminalized. BUT, it should also not be confused with sex work. Sex work is actively chosen by people as a livelihood, whether it be for economic reasons or simply because they enjoy the work.

Through research that Ingrid Palmary and I have done over the last two years, as part of the Migrating out of Poverty Research Consortium – tracing the development of the Trafficking in Persons Act of 2013 – it has become apparent that myths and misconceptions about trafficking and sex work drove both the emergence of an anti-trafficking movement in South Africa and the development of the Act.

A good example of one of these myths was the panic that emerged just prior to the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa about the fact that thousands of women and children would be trafficked in to South Africa for the purposes of sexual exploitation at the hands of soccer-loving tourists. This, thankfully, did not happen. But what’s concerning is that this panic was simply another panic in a long list that emerge prior to major sporting events and which never come to fruition.

Unfortunately, most of what we ‘know’ about trafficking is not evidence-based. But what’s concerning about our findings, is that these myths were and are accepted at face value by policy makers. It’s one thing that ordinary people are unable to effectively interrogate what they read, a global phenomenon. But it’s another thing entirely when our policy makers embrace the post-truth/ post-factual world and fail to sufficiently interrogate the information with which they are presented and upon which they make policy.

As it currently stands, the fight for the decriminalization of sex work and against trafficking in South Africa, and globally, seems to be one in which we won’t see the triumph of evidence-based policy making. Rather the triumph of conservative ideas, which advocate for the continued policing of women and men and their decisions in respect to their sexuality.

If we are serious about human rights, specifically the rights of people in deciding what to do with their bodies and not be exploited or trafficked, policy makers need to do a better job of taking into account the evidence-based case for #Decrim.

**

This blog is part of a really great blog carnival initiative by Change: Centre for Health and Gender Equity. See here for other great blogs on the importance of #Decrim!

If you’d like to know more about the importance of and case for decriminalizing sex work, specifically in relation to the fight against trafficking, the New York Anti-Trafficking Network have produced a great video on the topic. Bhekisisa have also produced a great video on the importance of decrim in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

 

 

#sex #slavery / ethical considerations in research communication

We’ve just finished day 2 of the workshop, and I’m pretty sure the facilitator thinks I’m the most annoying person in the world. What?! I’m enthusiastic!

I’m really enjoying the workshop, but am a bit concerned that we haven’t once spoken about the ethics around research communication. We’ve discussed in depth the use of social media, but ethical considerations have not been given the same consideration.

From my experience, once you’ve developed a research proposal you send it to an ethics committee who assess whether you have sufficiently engaged with the ethical implications of your research and will provide for your participants’ needs. By, for example, providing them with an outline of the research and your contact details, and the details of support networks and care providers if you are talking to vulnerable people or asking personal questions.

While, to my knowledge, research communication is not subjected to the same degree of scrutiny, as researchers this is definitely something we should be thinking about. The most effective way to communicate your research may be to use an image of a participant, but is that ethical? Perhaps it may be to use the moral panics around women and children, #sex and #moderndayslavery, but is it ethical to indulge that panic even momentarily and even if it gets people to read your research? We’re being told to communicate our research as much as possible, but every study has its limitations, and those limitations are seldom acknowledged in our dissemination where we focus on the findings and evidence – because that’s what people/policy makers want – but surely that’s problematic?

But perhaps I’m being too difficult, maybe all of these things are ok. There’s so much terrible information and bad evidence out there, if you have to appeal to people’s love of panic or breeze past your study’s limitations what’s the harm really? At least people are reading your work?

 

Remember Kony 2012? / The importance of research communication

I’m currently at a three day science communication and engagement workshop facilitated by Dialogue Matters and organised by the British Council, Newton Fund, and ASSAf (Academy of Science in South Africa). In honour of my involvement in this event and because I might (secretly) enjoy blogging, I’ve decided to do a short three part series on science communication and my experiences of it to date.

Some of the research that I’ve been working on around policy process and the Trafficking in Persons Act has shown that South Africans, generally, are incredibly reactive towards any information that gets shoved in their faces. We don’t tend to be proactive and find information out for ourselves, we wait for information to come to us via Facebook or Twitter and then, without verifying it, repost or retweet and come to bizarre conclusions about the world. Anyone remember Kony 2012? This is largely what happened with the moral panic* around trafficking in South Africa – those who shouted their ‘facts’ loud enough and presented them in a glossy enough way were believed and were able to make trafficking – a phenomenon of which there is no evidence in SA – part of the national conversation.

So there’s definitely a need for those of us doing methodically sound research to do a better job of telling people about it so that we can avoid or defuse moral panics. Some have also, however, suggested that it’s an obligation of those doing research to communicate it better, or at all. Philosophically, I agree. But on a practical level part of me wonders whether we can expect a bunch of socially awkward academics, in a time of budget cuts, increasing class sizes, and decreasing research funds to find the time to do more with their research findings.

Luckily for me, I’m on a fully funded position with no teaching load, and plenty of time to blog!

 

*For those interested:

For more on moral panics see Cohen, S. 1980. Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the mods and rockers. Oxford: Martin Robertson

‘Societies appear to be subject, every now and then, to periods of moral panic. A condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylised and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other right-thinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; ways of coping are evolved or (more often) resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible. Sometimes the object of the panic is quite novel and at other times it is something which has been in existence long enough, but suddenly appears in the limelight. Sometimes the panic passes over and is forgotten, except in folklore and collective memory; at other times it has more serious and long-lasting repercussions and might produce such changes as those in legal and social policy or even in the way the society conceives itself.’