Soon we will circulate the Call for Proposals for the 2027 Special Issue of the journal, so keep an eye out for that if you have a topic in mind. However, please also note that beyond entire Special Issues we also publish Special Sections as part of standard journal issues, as a ‘mini’ Special Issue. For these we have no set deadlines, but encourage authors to get in touch with proposals as ideas develop. In short, a Special Section consists of 3-5 articles focused around a particular topic as well as a short section introduction.

Our first year as new EiCs and editorial team coincides with a special anniversary for the journal – this year JoS celebrates its 60th birthday. To mark this event, we are planning a birthday section for the last issue of 2025 with a few special pieces lined up. If you have something you wish to contribute, please get in touch with us asap.

As we are working to achieve quicker paper processing times and solicit quality and rigorous peer reviews, you might notice some changes in the day-to-day running of the journal. We have also created new submission guidelines which we hope you will consult. JoS already boasts numerous high-quality articles but of course also competes with highly ranked Sociology journals based outside of Australia. It is our hope that new and dynamic formats, increased visibility and a clear sense of sociological community will help make JoS the number one choice for more and more sociologists. We are excited about taking on this role and look forward to receiving your next paper :)

In this issue 

While this issue is a standard issue, we have curated the contents to form two thematic sections. The first focuses on critical analyses of intercultural relations, while the second features papers about contemporary uses of digital platforms. In the first section, the two first articles share a focus on cultural assumptions and cultural barriers at play, demonstrating how these impact professional collaborations and  everyday examples of racism, respectively. The other three articles in this section have in common a focus on  migrant lives and experiences related to their varying visa statusesThe issue opens with an article by Brosnan and colleagues, who draw on qualitative interviews with Australia-based scientists to explore Australian-Chinese research collaborations. Analysed through a Bourdieusian framework, the authors show how Australian and Chinese researchers pursue different forms of capital in such collaborations, reflecting their differential positions in global knowledge hierarchies. They also demonstrate how cultural barriers at times complicate the otherwise ‘international’ field of science. Next up, Worrall-Carter and Yasseri explore whether the Black Lives Matter social movement paved the way for greater recognition of racism and hence positive support for the Voice to Parliament referendum. While originating in the US in 2020, BLM was digitally mediated across the globe and in Australia it took a particular focus on Indigenous issues. Despite this, this article found that the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians widened during the referendum campaign. 

The third article in this issue explores how Afghan Hazara refugees to Australia have settled in Adelaide with a focus on the ordinary and everyday aspects of integration processes. In contrast to narrow conceptions of ‘integration’ that emphasise e.g., economic participation and language proficiency, Radford and colleagues argue for a more holistic approach to the notion of integration. In this article, they zoom in on education, sport and business to explore how these arenas facilitate connecting with  and becoming part of local communities, at the same time as strengthening connections with the migrants’ co-ethnic communities. The fourth article takes us back to the China-Australian relations explored in the first article, but this time from the perspective of personal rather than professional relations. Here Stevens explores how Chinese migrants settled permanently in Australia decide which country’s citizenship they prioritise as China does not allow double citizenship. Based on qualitative data, Stevens shows how such dilemmas become strategic decisions, balancing benefits and the accumulation of rights, and importantly, how these decisions are not taken at the level of the individual, but with the family as the central unit in what then becomes split-nationality households. And rounding out this first section, and the focus on migrant status and rights, Tran and colleagues shed light on international students’ pathways to permanent residency in Australia. Based on a large, mixed-methods study, the authors show how this pathway has become more complex with time as shifting governments have sought to control permanent migration. Through the notion of ‘spacetime’ the article explores how participants in the study experienced and sought to navigate the varying requirements for PR eligibility and how work has come to play a central role in the education-migration pathway.

The second section of this issue of JoS features exciting new sociological research on digital platforms and their uses for work and life. Brought together by concerns about how algorithmic, monetised spaces are structuring social divisions and inequalities, the four papers in this section look at diverse social groups, including food-delivery workers, Youtube exorcists, vaxxers and anti-vaxxers using dating apps, and online sex workers. First, Wang and Churchill explore the issue of workplace safety among food-delivery workers who secure work via digital platforms like UberEATS and Deliveroo. To understand the working lives of the delivery riders, particularly those of migrant backgrounds, the authors draw on concepts ‘liminal precarity’ and ‘necrocapitalism’ to analyse qualitative interviews with riders. With this framework they show the risks riders face and the exploitative hours and pay conditions they endure. Wang and Churchill also explore how riders demonstrate agency by mediating risks through strategic use of the platform’s features to resist potentially hazardous conditions. In the next paper, sociologists of religion Possamai and Gower track how the digital world provides a new arena for exorcists to share their messages of morality. The authors track the spread of exorcism into the digital realm, particularly on social media. They offer a case study of YouTube videos uploaded by a well-known evangelical exorcist, Bob Larson, known for his role in the ‘satanic panic’ of the 1980s. They argue that moreso than casting out demons, the aim of the exorcists is an evangelical one: to share their ‘re-Christianising’ messages about morality to viewers. 

Moving from demons to dating, Yodovich, Heaphy and Iglesias examine the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on people’s experiences of using dating apps. Analysing 53 interviews with dating app users, the authors analyse how the use of ‘I’m vaccinated’ badges created silos of ‘homophily’ and debates on the platforms, as wider politics and social divisions about whether to vaccinate against the virus or not played out on the platforms. App users sought ‘covid compatibility’ with matches, or to share similar views about mask-wearing, vaccination, or rule-following. The authors found this issue to be ‘bracketed’ within the pandemic period, as app users sought to distance themselves from such conflicts and concerns after social life ‘opened up’ again. And finally, Palatchie, Beban and Nicholls look at the rise of online sex work and argue that platform capitalism enacts violence against online sex workers structurally, through algorithmic systems and precarious financial payment options embedded within platform interfaces. To understand the experiences of online sex workers the authors conducted content analysis of sticky forum threads on the AmberCutie forum used by sex workers to discuss issues such as emotional labour, pay precarity, and unsafe conditions. The authors argue that we need further sociological research about online sex work platforms, whose embedded inequalities primarily punish women who are already precariously placed in our society.  

The issue also features one book review, written by Newitt and Nelligan, about Global Networks of Indigeneity: Peoples, Sovereignty and Futures by Bronwyn Carlson, Tristan Kennedy, and Madi Day. The reviewers read the book as a scholarly text and a call to action, as well as a celebration of how Indigenous peoples globally have not just survived but resisted and reasserted their sovereignty.