An innovative program aimed at improving the sleep of children aged 3-5 years is helping parents tackle what can be an enduring problem.

Led by Griffith University researchers and funded by Rotary Health, the Lights Out Program is a parent-focussed, group-based cognitive behaviour therapy program for sleep problems in young children delivered in the year prior to beginning Prep.

One hundred and nineteen parents participated in the program delivered over six weeks at the Gold Coast and Mt Gravatt campuses. The program included 5 x 1.5-hour weekly workshops and a personalised, one-on-one phone call check-in. Parents were randomised to either receiving the Lights Out program or care-as-usual.

Lead researcher Associate Professor Caroline Donovan from the School of Applied Psychology said 14% of young Australian children (aged 3-5) have a moderate to severe sleep problem.

“Sleep problems in the preschool years predict the later onset of anxiety in primary school, throughout adolescence and into adulthood. They also predict conduct problems at age 7, and attention problems into mid-adolescence,” she said.

“Sleep problems in pre-schoolers are associated with deficits in working memory, executive function, language skills, learning scores and school adjustment.

“If we treat the sleep problems early, we hope to reduce or even prevent, the emergence of anxiety, behavioural, and academic problems when these kids first go to school.”

Preliminary results of the first phase of the two-year program show that treatment has worked for 80% of children.

“There are three main types of sleep behaviour problems and our program provides strategies for all three,’’ Associate Professor Donovan said.

  1. Behavioural – Anxiety (scared of the dark) issues
  2. Biological – Circadian rhythm issues (going to bed too late, ie at 10pm and not getting enough sleep)
  3. Behavioural

At the beginning of the program, all children in the ‘care as usual’ group and the treatment group were rated by their parents as having a moderate to severe sleep problem.

By the end of the first-term of Prep, 80% of the care as usual group were rated by their parents as having a moderate to severe sleep problem, yet only 20% of the treatment group were rated as such.

Associate Professor Donovan said the researchers also found significant differences in child anxiety between the care as usual and the treatment group — so the sleep program helped their anxiety as well.”

The researchers are recruiting for the second phase of the study. Find out more.

Pitching an 80 thousand or so word doctoral thesis with a three minute spiel was all in a night’s work for Peta Zivec, who won Griffith’s annual Three Minute Thesis Final at South Bank.

The PhD candidate from Griffith Sciences, impressed the three person judging panel with her presentation – ‘Understanding pathways of revegetating abandoned farming lands in a changing climate’.

2019 3MT Final winner with judges (L-R) Phillip Stork, Dr Jens Tampe and Professor Sue Berners-Price

Peta showed confidence, passion and was able to articulate her research work into an engaging and accessible three minute summation.

“It was daunting to begin with but the wonderful support I had from Griffith Graduate Research School (GGRS) who helped me prepare and offer all the finalists guidance and expertise was unbelievably helpful,” Peta said

A Griffith Honours graduate, Peta is hoping to finish her thesis in eighteen months.

“The lessons from my PhD can be applied to agricultural and urban landscapes across the world and the challenges they face.

“It’s learning to love weeds. It’s learning to love this rambunctious garden that this anthropocene is creating and if we learn to see the value in exotics and natives pull together we can create a lot more sustainable habitat.

“I grew up on a farm so my love of the land has never left me”.

Peta will represent Griffith at the upcoming 3MT Asia-Pacific Final at the University of Queensland in early October

Lynn Nazareth from Griffith Health was runner up and also took out the People’s Choice Award for her presentation titled ‘Glia: The (unknown) Guardians of the Brain.

Griffith University would like to thank UniSuper for again sponsoring the 3MT final.

2019 3MT finalists (from back L-R) Christa van Aswegen, Bronte Alexander, David Schmidtke, Rachel Perkins, Connie Gan (Front l-R) Joanna Musik, Olivia Tan Hui, Siyao Gao, Lynn Nazareth (front) Peta Zivec

 

 

Griffith University has vaulted into the 201-250 band in the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings 2020 placing it firmly in the top 2% of global universities.

Since 2015 Griffith has been placed in the 251-300 range but the THE Rankings released in early September sees the University rise into the Top 250, matching its result on the 2019 U.S. News Best Global Universities ranking.

Griffith is positioned at equal 12th position in THE’s Australian rankings among 35 listed universities.

“This result is outstanding and well-earned, confirming Griffith’s continued rise in a highly competitive global field, Vice Chancellor and President Professor Carolyn Evans said.

Vice Chancellor and President Professor Carolyn Evans

“Placement in the global Top 250 demonstrates sustained improvement in the quality of the education provided, research excellence and our ability to partner strategically with industry, government and high-calibre academic partners domestically and internationally.

“It is welcome recognition that Griffith University is on an upward trajectory, reaffirming our increasing strengths in research, teaching and engagement.”

Founded in 2004, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings is acknowledged as one of the world’s pre-eminent rankings due to its use of a broad range of metrics.

The main pillars of methodology are teaching, research, citations, industry income and international outlook (international students, staff and co-authorship).

For the 2020 rankings, nearly 1,400 institutions were assessed.

 

 

 

 

 

Griffith students and staff are being encouraged to hit the pool for a free meditation session on RUOK? Day this Thursday September 12.

Australian swimmer Jade Edmistone will guide a session on using pool meditation to de-stress and unwind at Griffith University’s Gold Coast campus as part of the university’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Week.

Edmistone, who suffers from bipolar disorder, will also deliver amotivational presentation about managing her personal mental health at the Aquatic Centre, before leading the pool meditation.

Australian swimmer Jade Edmistone.

The swimmer said anyone who is confident and feels safe in an aquatic environment can benefit from pool meditation.

“Being in the water is an immensely rewarding opportunity to practice mindfulness,” Edmistone said.

“By performing a series of specific drills and exercises that require focused attention to control your body and its movement, you will transform a regular visit to the pool into an immersive form of active meditation.”

Edmistone said it does not require swimming laps, so swimming ability is not a limiting factor and can be done in shallow water for those who are not as confident in deeper water.

“Research shows that meditation can help you better handle negative feelings and emotions and can also reduce depression and anxiety as well as help manage chronic pain,” she said.

“This activity seeks to bring focused attention to the present moment with self-compassion and without judgement.”

Pool meditation can help to de-stress.

Griffith Student Services event co-ordinator Pam Bradshaw said the activity was a key part of Mental Health and Wellbeing Week.

“It provides a great opportunity for students to engage with inspiring activities, raising their awareness of the mental health and wellbeing support and resources available to them during their time with Griffith,” Ms Bradshaw said.

“Students will hear about Jade’s lived experience with depression and bi-polar, her fight back to health as she’s navigated the difficult transition from elite sport to “normality”.

Edmistone will hold two sessions, one from 11.30am-12.30pm and the second at 1pm-2pm. Both will include a short motivational presentation and the guided pool meditation.

It is free for both students and staff and no registration is required.

His Honour Judge Bradley Farr SC from the District Court of Queensland recently visited Griffith Law School thanks to the unique Judge-in-Residence program.

Now in its fifth year, the Dean of Law and Head of Griffith Law School invites a sitting judge from the Federal Court, Supreme Court or District Court to spend a week immersed in the Griffith Law School community.

While law students are given rare access to a judge and their invaluable insight, staff also benefit by building professional connections with the judiciary says Dean of Law and Head of Griffith Law School Associate Professor Therese Wilson.

“It’s fabulous to have someone from the judiciary to come and talk to all of the staff about their research interests and their teaching interests and to really get to understand what it is that we do at Griffith Law School.”

“Judges also get to see how passionate we are about a positive legal education for our students,” she said.

During his visit Judge Farr held lectures on advocacy skills and how criminal procedure operates in court for law students studying Criminal Law at the Gold Coast and Nathan campuses.

Law students were also given the opportunity to think about their future careers with a seminar on becoming a judge’s associate and one-on-one consultations with the Judge.

Associate Professor Therese Wilson says the program is an important bridge for students to the profession.

“I think Griffith law students have a real appreciation of the need to take advantage of every opportunity.”

“Many of our students are first in family to come to university, first in family to law so they don’t have any legal connections through their family. The opportunity to meet one-on-one to discuss a judge’s career and think about their own career is invaluable and our students recognise that,” she said.

New Griffith University research has revealed a 71% decline in tiger sharks across Queensland’s coastline.

“This has been particularly rapid in southern regions which is unusual,’’ says lead author Dr Chris Brown from the Australian Rivers Institute.

“Tiger sharks are top predators that have few natural enemies, so the cause of the decline is likely overfishing,’’ he said.

“This decline is surprising, because tiger sharks are one of the most resilient large shark species. Mothers can birth up to 70 pups every three years, which means the population should be resilient to moderate levels of fishing.”

He said past studies have implicated multiple types of fishing as causes of tiger shark death. They are caught by commercial fisheries both internationally and in Australian waters, recreational fishing, and the Queensland Shark Control Program.

“Australia has more imperilled native shark species than almost any other nation with some of the strictest regulations for shark, protection including a ban on shark finning.

“The decline in tiger sharks, which are a very resilient species, suggests that Australia is not doing enough to protect our unique shark fauna,’’ Dr Brown said.

“We were also surprised to learn the decline has been stronger in southern Queensland, when compared to tropical waters,’’ said study co-author Dr George Roff from the University of Queensland.

“Tiger sharks are a tropical species and are expected to move further south with long-term warming of the East Coast of Australia.”

Recent studies that followed tiger sharks with satellite trackers have identified that the East Coast of Australia is a risk hotspot for tiger sharks and commercial long-line fisheries.

The shark control program reports catching 9547 tiger sharks since 1984. Catches in commercial and recreational fisheries are not comprehensively reported.

The study has been published online in the Journal Biological Conservation.

The study was conducted by researchers at Griffith University and The University of Queensland and supported by funding from the Australian Research Council.

 

The Griffith University 7s squad has officially launched its’ season with a uniform presentation and 2019 jersey unveiling at the Gold Coast Campus uni bar.

The launch signals the countdown to the first leg of the AON series, at the University of Queensland on September 14 and 15.

The team has been on the field making final preparations but the launch was the perfect opportunity to step away from training for the night and celebrate the hard work that defines pre-season.

After being presented their official uniforms, new players Cecilia Smith and Sissy Masters reflected on the opportunity to grow their 7s skills as part of Griffith this year.

“Everyone has been so welcoming, and I love the environment,” Smith said.

“I’m looking forward for the chance to just get on the field and play alongside some of the best 7s players in the country.

“It has been a tough but really important lead up to the first tournament. Each week we’re growing and for myself I’m just glad to have the opportunity to be part of it.”

Coach Moana Virtue has retained 50 per cent of players from the championship squad of 2018, however the new talent joining the ranks this year has been impressive in training. At just 19, Masters is one of the youngest in the squad.

“The culture is great, and I’ve been thankful to learn under Moana and the experienced players,” she said.

“The AON series is a chance for players like myself to see what it takes to compete and train with the best.

“Receiving our uniforms tonight was a chance for it all to sink in and get ready to put in as much work as possible before the first UQ tournament.”

The team for the first tournament at U.Q. is as follows:

 

By Fran Humphries
Law Futures Centre

More than 60% of the world’s ocean biodiversity is legally unprotected. These are the areas beyond national jurisdiction, which include life in the high seas (international waters) and in the ocean floor below the high seas water column.

In August 2019, the United Nations held its third negotiating session for a new ocean treaty on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

Griffith University (QLD), together with its partners the International Institute for Environment and Development (UK), ANCORS Nereus program at University of Wollongong (NSW) and the Australian Earth Laws Alliance (QLD), held a side event in New York during the negotiations to explore new ideas for addressing key elements of the draft treaty text.

Over forty delegates and academics joined the ‘One Ocean’ side event with presentations from experts involved in the negotiations on the following key topics (click on the topics in the left hand column of the table for pdfs of the presentations and click on the presentation title for the link to information papers):

Marine genetic resources A Tiered Approach to the Marine Genetic Resource Framework under the proposed UNCLOS Agreement for Biodiversity beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Fran Humphries (Griffith University, Australia)
Information components of marine genetic resources What happened to free information? Information as an ABS resource Charles Lawson (Griffith University, Australia)
Area based management tools Beyond static spatial management: scientific and legal considerations for dynamic spatial management in the High Seas Guillermo Ortuno Crespo, (Duke University, USA), Kristina Gjerde (IUCN Global Marine and Polar Programme) & Joanna Mossop (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand)
Technology transfer and capacity building Capacity building and technology transfer for improving governance of marine areas both beyond and within national jurisdiction Marjo Vierros (Coastal Policy and Humanities Research, Canada)
Institutional governance arrangements Beyond Global, Regional, and Hybrid: Institutional Arrangements for the new BBNJ Treaty Nichola Clark (University of Wollongong, Australia)
Questions of adjacency Clarifying Adjacency: What might it mean and how can it be reflected in the BBNJ treaty? Joanna Mossop (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand)
Traditional knowledge Integrating the traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities into a BBNJ instrument Clement Yow Mulalap (Legal Adviser at the Permanent Mission of the Federated States of Micronesia to the United Nations)
Data use for Conservation Planning Tools Data-driven approach for highlighting priority areas for protection in the high seas Morgan Visalli & Douglas McCauley (University of California) and Benjamin Best (EcoQuants), USA
Monitoring, control and surveillance Strengthening monitoring, control and surveillance on the high seas Klaudija Cremers (Institut du Developpement Durable et des Relations Internationales, France)
Coherence between cross cutting elements Ensuring Coherence between BBNJ Elements: Strengthening Interlinkages for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction Carole Durussel (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V. Germany)

 

The second half of the ‘One Ocean’ symposium was a ground-breaking exploration of how ‘Rights of Nature’ laws might apply to the context of ocean biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction and the key issues raised above. The Rights of Nature approach represents a paradigm shift, where nature is recognised as having its own legal right to exist, regenerate and evolve.

The pdfs of the guest speaker presentations on the Rights of Nature session are here:

Countries aim to conclude the treaty negotiations in 2020 with the hope that the international community will be one step closer to a framework for conserving and sustainably using marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction.

 

Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd AC emphasised the importance of a positive Australia-China relationship at a Griffith University public lecture on September 4.

Addressing a capacity crowd at the Queensland College of Art, Mr Rudd suggested ways in which the coalition could successfully navigate its relationship with China at a time when relations were already tense between the United States and the Asian superpower.

“I fear we have become the complacent country — complacent about the many great political, economic, social, environmental and security challenges that now threaten our future,” Mr Rudd said.

He said he wanted to address “alternative visions for our future in the region” with “China’s rise and given America’s response to it” by outlining ten major challenges for Australia and potential solutions.

The challenges ranged from an unfolding global technology revolution and climate change, to strong and long-term economic growth, social policy challenges, failure to prepare sufficiently for an ageing population and the polarisation of our democracies between rich and poor.

Specifically, Mr Rudd said Australia needed to be aware of the challenge of a fragmenting global order driven in part by China’s rise, an increasingly isolationist America and a divided Europe.

Mr Rudd addresses a sold out event.

He also said there was “increasing polarisation of our region between Chinese and American spheres of geo-strategic and economic influence, reducing the freedom of policy manoeuvre for regional states as they seek to secure their own futures.”

However, he noted “hysteria” had turned the country’s working relationship with China from a “three out of ten operational challenge” into a perceived “nine out of ten existential threat”.

Mr Rudd outlined the strategies of both China and the United States, along with Australian Policy before suggesting solutions.

“The most important thing about having a national China strategy is to have one,” he said.

“At present, we do not. I would say… to be very careful about simply seeing the China relationship as a domestic political tool to use in either intra or inter-party politics.”

Mr Rudd advised the Federal Government needed analytical consensus on the future content and direction of US and Chinese strategy — including that of a post-Trump administration.

Mr Rudd with Griffith University Vice Chancellor and President Professor Carolyn Evans.

“A balanced national strategy for dealing with China, managed through the framework of a coherent national China strategy, is difficult but do-able.”

He said embracing “constructive realism” was essential to a successful national China strategy.

“Constructive realism is about (being) realistic about where we fundamentally disagree with China and where the diplomatic challenge is to manage these disagreements peacefully; constructive about where it’s difficult but nonetheless do-able to work together on common challenges as well as constructive in those areas where we should be working together as a matter of course.”

By Dr Hugh Breakey
Senior Research Fellow
Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law, Griffith Law School

‘Multidimensional legitimacy’ is the idea that there are an array of distinct dimensions on which an institution (or instrument like a law or code) might gain or lose legitimacy. In my recent writings on the subject, I’ve focused on normative legitimacy. On this understanding, legitimacy refers to objective legitimacy–that is, the presence of specific qualities that provide subjects with good moral reasons to respect and support the institution. I’ve explored this in recent publications in The Oxford Journal of Legal Studies ((2018a), considering copyright law), Law and Philosophy ((2018b), considering human rights), and in The Journal of Business Ethics ((2019), considering institutional codes of ethics). But the idea of multidimensional legitimacy also has a descriptive inflection, where it refers to subjective legitimacy–that is, the presence of specific qualities that tend to encourage actual people to respect and support the institution.

Either way, the idea isn’t particularly new or particularly controversial. After all, many moral theories intrinsically capture multiple dimensions of legitimacy. For example, Locke’s influential social contract theory developed in his 1690 Second Treatise of Government initially focuses on natural rights and correlative duties (‘substantive’ legitimacy). Yet because the unilateral protection of these rights creates inevitable risks of coercive violence, Locke appealed to contractual devices (employing ‘rule of law’, ‘fairness’ and ‘consent’ legitimacy), and went on to recommend democratic and deliberative legislative bodies (implicating ‘process’ and ‘decision-making’ legitimacy).

Multidimensional legitimacy is also well-known from a sociological perspective. A famous example is Max Weber’s tripartite position on state legitimacy, considering rational, traditional and charismatic legitimacy.

Yet even if the idea of multidimensional legitimacy is not new, many intriguing questions remain about what dimensions should be included in any multidimensional legitimacy framework, which elements are reducible to one of the others, and how trade-offs and compromises can be appropriately managed.

By way of quick illustration, my current (though still evolving) view includes ten distinct dimensions of legitimacy:

It works: Functional legitimacy.

It’s right: Substantive legitimacy.

It’s reasonable: Fairness legitimacy.

It’s predictable and followable: Rule of law legitimacy.

It’s ours: Communitarian legitimacy.

It respects us: Autonomy legitimacy.

I agreed: Consent legitimacy.

I trust: Transmission legitimacy.

We debated: Process legitimacy.

We decided: Decision-making legitimacy.

In my work, I’ve generally focused on the positives created by multidimensional legitimacy. For the ability of human beings to develop several distinct lines of legitimacy for their institutions or laws has real value. Perhaps most importantly, it allows us to create scope for agreement when initially agreement seems hard to come by. Even if we disagree on the substance of the collective action we should perform, perhaps we can come to agree on the process by which the decision will be made, on key features that any solution will have to include, or on certain outcomes that we should ensure. Through such mechanisms, we can develop widespread support that hitherto seemed impossible. This support can be important intrinsically, when it creates the conditions for consent to collective actions or rules, when it deescalates conflicts, or when it allows participants to show mutual moral respect to others, even as they disagree. And it is important instrumentally, as it increases the efficacy of social institutions and systems of rules through improved compliance and buy-in. In so doing, the effective pursuit of multidimensional legitimacy can create wide assent even in the face of a strong diversity of substantive views. If we think that diversity is generally a good thing, morally and epistemically, then multidimensional legitimacy helps us manage and maintain that diversity.

Yet I want to briefly raise here the worry that there is a darker side to multidimensional legitimacy. For there are ways that having multiple distinct routes to legitimacy can create less desirable outcomes.

One concern is that we might become too perfectionist about legitimacy, aiming for full legitimacy on each dimension. This pursuit might be distracting, costly and time-consuming. But it might also foment unnecessary controversy. Cass Sunstein (1996) rightly lauds what he calls ‘incompletely theorised agreements’–where shared agreement on a way forward should not be threatened by the desire to ensure unanimity on the reasons why that way forward is ultimately justified. Indeed, the tendency to appeal to various forms of legitimacy may even escalate conflicts, by allowing new grievances to be brought into a dispute, frustrating resolution of the original issue (Glasl, 1999).

The pursuit of multidimensional perfection might also raise the standards for legitimacy beyond what is actually feasible by fallible humans and their institutions. Ten sources of legitimacy means ten potential lines of critique–and it will be a rare alignment of the planets when an institution is immune from critique on any dimension. If our moral standards are too demanding, then the best may become the enemy of the good.

But perhaps the main worry I have with multidimensional legitimacy is that it can work to entrench already polarised political views. Multidimensional legitimacy empowers the capacity of cooperative agents who want to find a way forward together despite their deep disagreements. But it also empowers the capacity for those who want to resist a collective way forward by allowing them to find new reasons to disagree. For when there is disagreement on the substance of what law or policy we should have, commentators and leaders can be tempted to reach for alternative sources of legitimacy not as a way of securing more widespread assent, but instead as a means of selecting lines of argument that further cement their position.

Consider, for example, controversies about the rightful strength and scope of international law and governance (see Bodansky (1999) for an earlier like-minded treatment). Those sceptical about international law can appeal to communitarian legitimacy (‘It’s not our way of doing things.’), transmission legitimacy (‘It comes from a source captured by international elites.’), process legitimacy (‘Most citizens don’t even know how international law is formed.’) and decision-making legitimacy (‘We didn’t vote for it.’)

Meanwhile, those sympathetic to international law will stress functional legitimacy (‘This is critically necessary to deal with urgent and potentially catastrophic global problems.’), rule of law legitimacy (‘We need to protect against might-makes-right arbitrary power in international affairs.’), substantive legitimacy (‘It’s the morally right thing to do.) and fairness legitimacy (‘It appropriately shares the burdens and goods of collective endeavours and resources.’)

These different lines of argument may all be valid on their own terms, and worthy of serious consideration. After all, that is the very point of multidimensional legitimacy–the awareness that there are different and irreducible qualities that provide genuine moral reasons for or against an institution, policy or law. But with the current state of political deliberation, commentators and leaders can be tempted to exclusively focus on the sources of legitimacy that support their view. If a commentator is, for example, against the Paris Climate Agreement, then the lines of argument noted above give them an enormous amount to validly critique–so much, indeed, that they might never get around to explicitly confronting whether they agree that harmful climate change is likely and–if so–what should be done about it. By adopting and focusing explicitly and repeatedly on certain legitimacy dimensions, to the exclusion of all others, each side can create echo-chambers of partisan agreement.

Ultimately, the ability to appeal to multiple routes to legitimacy empowers groups that possess internal disagreements, but have a commitment to cooperation and equal respect, to find ways forward that everyone can potentially respect and support. Unfortunately however, there are also darker sides to multidimensional legitimacy, and we will sometimes need to be aware of the worrying ways it may contribute to conflict escalation or group polarisation effects.

References

Bodansky, Daniel. 1999. “The Legitimacy of International Governance: A Coming Challenge for International Environmental Law?” American Journal of International Law 93, no. 3: 596-624.

Breakey, Hugh. 2018a. “Deliberate, Principled, Self-Interested Law Breaking: The Ethics of Digital ‘Piracy’.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 3, no. 4: 676-705.

Breakey, Hugh. 2018b. “It’s Right, It Fits, We Debated, We Decided, I Agree, It’s Ours, and It Works: The Gathering Confluence of Human Rights Legitimacy.” Law and Philosophy 37, no. 1: 1-28.

Breakey, Hugh. 2019. “Harnessing Multi-Dimensional Legitimacy for Codes of Ethics: A Staged Approach.” Journal of Business Ethics Forthcoming.

Glasl, Friedrich. 1999. Confronting Conflict. Gloucestershire: Hawthorn.

Sunstein, Cass R. 1996. Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press.