Repression sometimes can lead to greater movement mobilization: repressive events that are perceived as unjust have the potential to generate enormous public outrage against those seen as responsible. One result of repression-backfire-can contribute to the understanding of the conditions under which some repressive events may become transformative for social movements. Three case studies that highlight the processes involved in backfire are examined: the 1930 Salt March in India, in particular the beatings at Dharasana, that mobilized popular support for independence; the 1991 massacre in Dili, East Timor, which stimulated a massive expansion in international support for East Timorese independence; and the arrest of alternative cancer therapist John Richardson in 1972, which led to a huge growth in the U.S. movement for alternative therapies. The cases generate a preliminary understanding of the potential scope of backfire, the processes involved in backfire, and new hypotheses.

According to both traditional positivist approaches and also to the sociology of scientific knowledge, social analysts should not themselves become involved in the controversies they are investigating. But

Background Pressure offloading treatment is critical for healing diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU). Yet the 2011 Australian DFU guidelines regarding offloading treatment are outdated. A national expert panel aimed to develop a new Australian guideline on offloading treatment for people with DFU by adapting international guidelines that have been assessed as suitable to adapt to the Australian context. Methods National Health and Medical Research Council procedures were used to adapt suitable International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines to the Australian context. We systematically screened, assessed and judged all IWGDF offloading recommendations using best practice ADAPTE and GRADE frameworks to decide which recommendations should be adopted, adapted or excluded in the Australian context. For each recommendation, we re-evaluated the wording, quality of evidence, strength of recommendation, and provided rationale, justifications and implementation considerations, including for geographically remote and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This guideline, along with five accompanying Australian DFU guidelines, underwent public consultation, further revision and approval by ten national peak bodies (professional organisations). Results Of the 13 original IWGDF offloading treatment recommendations, we adopted four and adapted nine. The main reasons for adapting the IWGDF recommendations included differences in quality of evidence ratings and clarification of the intervention(s) and control treatment(s) in the recommendations for the Australian context. For Australians with plantar DFU, we recommend a step-down offloading treatment approach based on their contraindications and tolerance. We strongly recommend non-removable knee-high offloading devices as first-line treatment, removable knee-high offloading devices as second-line, removable ankle-high offloading devices third-line, and medical grade footwear as last-line. We recommend considering using felted foam in combination with the chosen offloading device or footwear to further reduce plantar pressure. If offloading device options fail to heal a person with plantar DFU, we recommend considering various surgical offloading procedures. For people with non-plantar DFU, depending on the type and location of the DFU, we recommend using a removable offloading device, felted foam, toe spacers or orthoses, or medical grade footwear. The six new guidelines and the full protocol can be found at: https://diabetesfeetaustralia.org/new-guidelines/. Conclusions We have developed a new Australian evidence-based guideline on offloading treatment for people with DFU that has been endorsed by ten key national peak bodies. Health professionals implementing these offloading recommendations in Australia should produce better DFU healing outcomes for their patients, communities, and country.

Sexual harassment can be conceptualized as a series of interactions between harassers and targets that either inhibit or increase outrage by third parties. The outrage management model predicts the kinds of actions likely to be used by perpetrators to minimize outrage, predicts the consequences of failing to use these tactics-namely backfire, and recommends countertactics to increase outrage. Using this framework, our archival study examined outragemanagement tactics reported as evidence in 23 judicial decisions of sexual harassment cases in Australia. The decisions contained precise, detailed information about the circumstances leading to the claim; the events which transpired in the courtroom, including direct quotations; and the judges' interpretations and findings. We found evidence that harassers minimize outrage by covering up the actions, devaluing the target, reinterpreting the events, using official channels to give an appearance of justice, and intimidating or bribing people involved. Targets can respond using countertactics of exposure, validation, reframing, mobilization of support, and resistance. Although there are limitations to using judicial decisions as a source of information, our study points to the value of studying tactics and the importance to harassers of minimizing outrage from their actions. The findings also highlight that, given the limitations of statutory and organizational protections in reducing the incidence and severity of sexual harassment in the community, individual responses may be effective as part of a multilevel response in reducing the incidence and impact of workplace sexual harassment as a gendered harm.

In the routine practice of scientific research, there are many types of misrepresentation and bias which could be considered dubious. However, only a few narrowly defined behaviours are singled out and castigated as scientific fraud. A narrow definition of scientific fraud is convenient to the groups in society – scientific elites, and powerful government and corporate interests – that have the dominant influence on priorities in science. Several prominent Australian cases illustrate how the denunciation of fraud helps to paint the rest of scientific behaviour as blameless.

Systematically biased editing, persistently maintained, can occur on Wikipedia while nominally following guidelines. Techniques for biasing an entry include deleting positive material, adding negative material, using a one-sided selection of sources, and exaggerating the significance of particular topics. To maintain bias in an entry in the face of resistance, key techniques are reverting edits, selectively invoking Wikipedia rules, and overruling resistant editors. Options for dealing with sustained biased editing include making complaints, mobilizing counterediting, and exposing the bias. To illustrate these techniques and responses, the rewriting of my own Wikipedia entry serves as a case study. It is worthwhile becoming aware of persistent bias and developing ways to counter it in order for Wikipedia to move closer to its goal of providing accurate and balanced information.

Previous studies have explained opposition to fluoridation in terms of misinformation, alienation, or confusion. These studies have several shortcomings stemming from an uncritical attitude toward scientific knowledge. Recent perspectives in the sociology of scientific knowledge provide the basis for developing a wider understanding of the fluoridation issue, including analysis of scientific disagreements, the promotion of fluoridation, and experiences in other countries. Contrary to the usual view, public opposition to fluoridation does not necessarily signify a failure of education or democracy.

Dissenters from the dominant views about vaccination sometimes are subject to adverse actions, including abusive comment, threats, formal complaints, censorship, and deregistration, a phenomenon that can be called suppression of dissent. Three types of cases are examined: scientists and physicians; a high-profile researcher; and a citizen campaigner. Comparing the methods used in these different types of cases provides a preliminary framework for understanding the dynamics of suppression in terms of vulnerabilities. AbstractDissenters from the dominant views about vaccination sometimes are subject to adverse actions, including abusive comment, threats, formal complaints, censorship, and deregistration, a phenomenon that can be called suppression of dissent. Three types of cases are examined: scientists and physicians; a high-profile researcher; and a citizen campaigner. Comparing the methods used in these different types of cases provides a preliminary framework for understanding the dynamics of suppression in terms of vulnerabilities.