The House of Commons Library has published an updated research briefing, authored by Dr Mark Bennister, Director of the Lincoln Parliamentary Research Centre and Richard Kelly from the Commons Library on the Prime Minister’s Evidence Sessions to the Liaison Committee. The Liaison Committee has held oral evidence sessions with the Prime Minister since 2002. The Prime Minister is scheduled to appear before the Committee on 6 July 2022. Dr Bennister held an Academic Fellowship in the House of Commons researching the Liaison Committee from 2016 until 2019.

The Liaison Committee was formally established in 1980, following the creation of departmental select committees in 1979. The Liaison Committee comprises all the chairs of select committees in the House of Commons and in the 2019 Parliament is chaired by an additional member, appointed by the House. It considers matters relating to select committees and has administrative, advisory and co-ordinating roles. It advises House authorities on select committee matters; determines which select committee reports are debated; considers issues facing committees; reviews committee practice; and takes oral evidence from the Prime Minister.

You can read the full research briefing here

Many social network theories emphasise the importance of network properties. Strong networks with many interlocking and reinforcing connections are essential to reinforcing beliefs. Homophily within networks arises as individuals within them  seek out and maintain strong connections with those who are like them. People seeking to join a network are often already connected to people who hold similar beliefs. Thus, as more people join the network, the strength of the ties between individuals grows stronger and homophily increases.

University of Lincoln, College of Social Science Research

Sam Andrews, University of Lincoln, School of Social and Political Sciences

Joshua Skoczylis, University of Lincoln, School of Social and Political Sciences

The coach-athlete relationship and social support are stressors that impact athletes’ well-being, however, most research in this area focusses on the relationship between these variables and burnout. Researchers have shown differences in stressors experienced between sport types (individual and team) where evidence suggests individual sport athletes report higher mental health concerns compared to those in team sports. This study aimed to understand the relationships between the coach-athlete relationship, social support, and psychological well-being among collegiate athletes, and the impact of sport type on these variables. A total of 153 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I student-athletes completed coach-athlete relationship, social support, and well-being measures online. Results indicate the coach-athlete relationship and social support were both positively correlated with well-being, but there were no significant differences between sport type on any outcome variables. Findings from this study may influence future coaching practices and support networks, thus positively impacting student athletes’ well-being.

University of Lincoln, College of Social Science Research

Eadie E. Simons, University of Lincoln, School of Sport and Exercise Science

Matthew D. Bird, University of Lincoln, School of Sport and Exercise Science

Suicide is political: both individual acts of suicide, and suicide rates, are partly influenced by political and social contexts, policies, and discourses. While it is important to understand individual psychology in relation to suicide, it is equally vital to examine how policy regimes impact on the lives and deaths of citizens. For example, activists and scholars have suggested that recent austerity policies in the UK have led to increased suicide within marginalised groups (recipients of welfare benefits). The political nature of suicide is sometimes recognised in academic studies, however, most research concerning suicide tends to frame the practice as exclusively about mental ill-health, and as such is conducted from psychological or psychiatric perspectives. There is an increasing and pressing acknowledgement that different forms of knowledge about suicide are needed, along with more interdisciplinary ways of approaching its study. Despite this acknowledgement, research exploring suicide from within sociology and political studies is still limited, and there remains a lack of qualitative and interdisciplinary knowledge in this field.

Central Asian Survey has remained as the premier world-leading peer-reviewed journal for Central Asian studies for four decades. To mark the 40th anniversary of the journal, this volume is intended to be a reader of selected essays from the journal over the last four decades.

This book is not just a mere collection, but also a critical reflection on the field over that time. Each of the nine sections in the book feature a critical appraisal of the selected excerpts by young scholars who analyse the reproduced excerpts and the contribution they make to advancing our understanding of the field. The nine sections encapsulate prominent themes in Central Asian studies: history, identity and nationalism, Islam, governing and the state, informal institutions, contentious politics, gender, everyday life, and regional and global perspectives. The book is not just intended to reflect on the role of Central Asian Survey in the development of Central Asian studies, but also the aim is for the volume to be used as a teaching resource where the different sections in the collection could correlate to specific teaching weeks in courses on the region. The different contributions cover many case studies from across a range of countries that have featured in the journal over the years, and thus is not just restricted to the Central Asian republics but also includes Mongolia, Azerbaijan, and Xinjiang.

This book will serve as a great resource for researchers and students of Central Asian history, politics, culture, society, and international relations.

University of Lincoln, College of Social Science Research

Rico Isaacs, University of Lincoln, School of Social and Political Sciences

The Politics of Disorder Research Group at the University of Lincoln in collaboration with the Department of History, Faculty of Arts, University of Groningen present:

Virtual Roundtable – ‘Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine: regional perspectives from the Baltic Republics, Central Asia and China’

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues to cause anxiety and concern both for the tragic humanitarian crisis it is causing and for the implications it has for international law, sovereignty, and security. In this roundtable we bring together three experts to discuss the implications of Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine from three regional perspectives: the Baltics, Central Asia and China. The aim is to understand how responses from these regions are tied to their international relations with Russia and Ukraine, as well as the internal tension in these regions. The aim is to gain a deeper insight into how the unfolding war is understood across the broader Eurasian continent.

This roundtable will be a virtual event which takes place on Friday 11 March from 1pm GMT.

The link can be accessed here:

https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_OTk1ZDVlMzEtZWYxYi00YjA1LTliM2UtYmE5ZWVhY2Q4YTM2%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22952e47c4-05de-4282-83af-5f4b46b1628f%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%223feb802a-2204-4fe8-bb9d-fcba9f2808ce%22%7d

and here:

https://pod.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/events/

Speakers:

Dr. Māris Andžāns, Center for Geopolitical Studies, Riga, Latvia

Māris Andžāns, Dr.sc.pol., is the Director of the Center for Geopolitical Studies Riga. He is also Assistant Professor and leads Diplomacy and Russia & Eurasia MA study programs at Riga Stradins University.

Previously, he has worked for the Latvian Institute of International Affairs. He was also a Visiting Fulbright Scholar at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.

He has authored around 100 publications, primarily on security and defense issues of the Baltic states, but also Central Asia, as well as transport and digital policies.

Dr. Andžāns has ten years of experience in the public administration of Latvia. He served in positions related to the coordination of EU and NATO issues, security of transport and communications, civil-military cooperation, aviation, electronic communications, and postal issues. Among other duties, he has served as the Chairman of the National Cyber Security Council of Latvia and the Dangerous Goods Movement Consultative Council of Latvia.

Dr Nargis Kassenova, Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Harvard University

Nargis Kassenova is Senior Fellow and director of the Program on Central Asia at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies (Harvard University) and Associate Professor at the Department of International Relations and Regional Studies of KIMEP University (Almaty, Kazakhstan). She is the former founder and director of the KIMEP Central Asian Studies Center (CASC) and the China and Central Asia Studies Center (CCASC). Kassenova holds a PhD in International Cooperation Studies from the Graduate School of International Development, Nagoya University (Japan). Her research focuses on Central Asian politics and security, Eurasian geopolitics, China’s Belt and Road Initiative and governance in Central Asia, and history of state-making in Central Asia. Kassenova is a member of the Advisory Board of the Open Society Foundations (OSF) Eurasia Program, the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Watch (HRW) Europe and Central Asia Division, the UN High-level Advisory Board on Economic and Social Affairs, the Advisory Group of the EU Central Asia Monitoring (EUCAM) program, and the Academic Council of the European Neighbourhood Council (ENC). She is on the editorial boards of Central Asian Survey, Central Asian Affairs, and REGION: Regional Studies of Russia, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia journals.

Dr Ming-chin Monique Chu, University of Southampton

Dr Monique Chu is lecturer in Chinese Politics at the University of Southampton. Her research sits within the areas of international political economy and security of international relations. Her specific research interests include the concept and practice of sovereignty and the impact of globalization on security with reference to semiconductors. She’s the author of The East Asian Computer Chip War (Routledge, 2014). Her other scholarly research has been published in The China Quarterly and China Perspectives. In March 2018, she gave oral evidence on China’s capabilities in the field of emerging technologies in front of the House of Lords International Relations Committee. She has been interviewed by numerous news outlets such as the BBC on issues pertaining to Chinese foreign policies, semiconductors, Chinese politics, and Cross-Strait relations. She obtained MPhil and PhD degrees in international relations from the University of Cambridge.

Social inequalities fuel a debate about the meaning of political equality. Formal procedural equality is criticised for reproducing discriminatory outcomes against disadvantaged groups but affirmative action, particularly in the form of group quotas, is also contested. When opposing conceptions of substantive equality support divergent views about which procedural rule genuinely respects political equality, democracies cannot identify a standard or rule of procedural fairness to be widely accepted as fair. This dispute over procedural fairness can carry on indefinitely and could challenge democracy’s legitimacy claim. I argue that democracies can renew their legitimacy claim by embracing this debate and by accommodating it through constitutional deliberation that must be as impartial and meaningful as possible. Impartiality ideally requires the presence of every citizen in this process because each of them has a unique and evolving experience of inequality. Meaningful deliberation is about offering periodic opportunities for constitutional reform, allowing for continuous feedback, reflection, and learning.

University of Lincoln, College of Social Science Research

Aris Trantidis, University of Lincoln, School of Social and Political Sciences

Fisheries management has been a strongly contested aspect of the UK’s position in the EU since UK accession, with the fishing industry frequently questioning both the efficacy and fairness of arrangements. During the campaign for UK exit (Brexit) from the EU, and the subsequent negotiations of a new legal and political relationship from 2016 to 2020, senior UK political leaders strongly committed to deliver radically changed fisheries arrangements with respect to the three central issues: regulatory autonomy; access to waters; and quota shares, all while maintaining minimal trade impacts. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement diverges from this Brexit rhetoric. While some regulatory independence has been achieved, UK fisheries management continues in a state of interdependence and significant EU access to UK waters remains, even in the 6–12 nautical mile territorial waters. While the UK gained an increase in quota shares which is estimated to reach 107 thousand tonnes of landed weight annually by 2025 (an increase of 21.3% for quota species and 16.9% for all species, or 17.8% and 12.4% by value), this pales in comparison to the UK Government’s stated ambitions for zonal attachment (achieving 68% by weight and by value – a potential shortfall of 229,000 tonnes / £281 million). This modest change explains the negative reaction of the fishing industry and claims of betrayal in the face of the UK Government’s announcement of a “successful” deal. The stark delivery gap between rhetoric and reality means the UK government faces a challenging start to managing fisheries outside of the Common Fisheries Policy.

University of Lincoln, College of Social Science Research

Bryce D. Stewart, University of York, Department of Environment and Geography

Chris Williams, New Economics Foundation

Richard Barnes, University of Lincoln, Lincoln Law School

Suzannah F. Walmsley, Medina Chambers

Griffin Carpenter, Brussels