Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The recent literature linking economics with ethnic conflict largely discounts the explanatory potential of grievances presuming that relative deprivation is constant across ethnic groups. While it may be true that all rebel groups have grievances, the assumption that all grievances can be treated as equal has not been adequately examined in literature. Therefore, we argue that the decision that grievances cannot add to our understanding of the propensity of groups to rebel violently is premature. We develop an experimental design to examine the effect of specific grievance characteristics on the probability that a group will seek to resolve those grievances through violent means. The experiment focuses on grievance strength and type factors which may both vary between groups and differentially affect the probability that a group will seek to achieve its goals through violence.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper explores the nature and character of the politicisation of Islam in Southeast Asian states where Muslims form a minority of the population. It notes that a key dimension of state security in Southeast Asia has long revolved around the question of domestic sources of threat and instability. At the heart of this lies the interrelated issue of identity and legitimacy, where the nexus between nation and state remain key areas of contestation. In the case of Thailand and the Philippines, the two countries to be explored in detail here, one of the most pressing security issues is the matter of the identities and grievances of their respective Muslim communities towards the central government. While much attention is given to this problem in the contemporary security literature, most perspectives have been dominated by the field of terrorism studies where a generalised macro-snapshot of the security situation has motivated the portrayal of countries such as Thailand and the Philippines as countries of convenience for international terrorist groups looking to leverage on longstanding Muslim grievances in order to expand their influence into Southeast Asia. Not surprisingly, many of the experts within this field dismiss the complex socio-political grievances of Muslim communities as unnecessary detail that complicate and cloud the ever-urgent global war on terror. This paper argues that dismissing the detail is a fundamental conceptual and policy mistake, and misses the forest for the trees. In looking at the Thai and Philippine cases, the paper intends to locate the political aspirations of the Muslim communities in these countries in their socio-historical contexts in order to provide a broader contextual analysis to the problems of Muslim grievances and militancy. Against this backdrop, the paper will argue that in their obsession to answer the where question, terrorism experts have often neglected the equally important questions of why.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper explores the nature and character of the politicisation of Islam in Southeast Asian states where Muslims form a minority of the population. It notes that a key dimension of state security in Southeast Asia has long revolved around the question of domestic sources of threat and instability. At the heart of this lies the interrelated issue of identity and legitimacy, where the nexus between nation and state remain key areas of contestation. In the case of Thailand and the Philippines, the two countries to be explored in detail here, one of the most pressing security issues is the matter of the identities and grievances of their respective Muslim communities towards the central government. While much attention is given to this problem in the contemporary security literature, most perspectives have been dominated by the field of terrorism studies where a generalised macro-snapshot of the security situation has motivated the portrayal of countries such as Thailand and the Philippines as countries of convenience for international terrorist groups looking to leverage on longstanding Muslim grievances in order to expand their influence into Southeast Asia. Not surprisingly, many of the experts within this field dismiss the complex socio-political grievances of Muslim communities as unnecessary detail that complicate and cloud the ever-urgent global war on terror. This paper argues that dismissing the detail is a fundamental conceptual and policy mistake, and misses the forest for the trees. In looking at the Thai and Philippine cases, the paper intends to locate the political aspirations of the Muslim communities in these countries in their socio-historical contexts in order to provide a broader contextual analysis to the problems of Muslim grievances and militancy. Against this backdrop, the paper will argue that in their obsession to answer the where question, terrorism experts have often neglected the equally important questions of why.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Some suggest that grievance procedures and the arbitration process are effective tools that encourage careful decision making by school districts and administrative staff in the handling of personnel decisions (Shipley, 1974). While others contend that grievance procedures, which typically include arbitration as the final stage of the process, may be a hindrance in administrators’ ability to exercise discretion in school management operations (Hess & Kelly, 2006; Johnson & Donaldson, 2006). Providing for several levels of resolution at the school and district, the grievance process enables parties to address the issue before bringing in a third party to settle the dispute through arbitration. Little recent research has examined grievance arbitration in education. By analyzing collective bargaining agreements between teachers unions and school districts in Florida, I address the following questions: How do the agreements outline the grievance and arbitration process? Do some agreements incorporate more mechanisms for resolution than others, and if so, what are the varying mechanisms?

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper explores the nature and character of the politicisation of Islam in Southeast Asian states where Muslims form a minority of the population. It notes that a key dimension of state security in Southeast Asia has long revolved around the question of domestic sources of threat and instability. At the heart of this lies the interrelated issue of identity and legitimacy, where the nexus between nation and state remain key areas of contestation. In the case of Thailand and the Philippines, the two countries to be explored in detail here, one of the most pressing security issues is the matter of the identities and grievances of their respective Muslim communities towards the central government. While much attention is given to this problem in the contemporary security literature, most perspectives have been dominated by the field of terrorism studies where a generalised macro-snapshot of the security situation has motivated the portrayal of countries such as Thailand and the Philippines as countries of convenience for international terrorist groups looking to leverage on longstanding Muslim grievances in order to expand their influence into Southeast Asia. Not surprisingly, many of the experts within this field dismiss the complex socio-political grievances of Muslim communities as unnecessary detail that complicate and cloud the ever-urgent global war on terror. This paper argues that dismissing the detail is a fundamental conceptual and policy mistake, and misses the forest for the trees. In looking at the Thai and Philippine cases, the paper intends to locate the political aspirations of the Muslim communities in these countries in their socio-historical contexts in order to provide a broader contextual analysis to the problems of Muslim grievances and militancy. Against this backdrop, the paper will argue that in their obsession to answer the where question, terrorism experts have often neglected the equally important questions of why.