Previous discursive research has found that minority group members may deny or downplay the existence of discrimination. However, to date little research has addressed the issue of violence against minority group members. This study therefore draws on interviews with asylum seekers and refugees in a Scottish city to analyse their reports of violence committed against them. One form of reporting violence was by way of a complaint available to any speaker, in making no reference to attributes of attackers of victim. When racism was alleged, it was presented as a tentative, reluctant or 'last resort' explanation. The descriptions offered by interviewees reflected the contributions made by the interviewer, highlighting the ways in which these reports are interactional co-productions. The results suggest that accounts from victims of seemingly racially motivated violence may function in similar ways to 'new racism' in making racism seem to 'disappear'. These findings point to the potential difficulties that arise in identifying and looking to challenge instances of 'new racism'.

Previous research has explored the 'othering' and dehumanisation of asylum seekers and refugees, yet comparatively little research has explored the opposite process: the humanisation of refugees. This article applies discursive psychological analysis to the transcripts of five UK Parliamentary debates on the European refugee 'crisis' from September 2015 to January 2016, examining an explicit form of humanisation: categorising refugees as 'human beings'. The analysis focuses on the nature and function of such categorisations to explore the social functions of the discourse. It illustrates how politicians draw on the human qualities of both refugees and 'us' to make the government and nation morally accountable for protecting refugees. Moreover, it shows how the humanisation or dehumanisation of others implicates or denies the self as morally responsible. This highlights how research on dehumanisation-and the opposite process of humanisation-needs to attend to the rhetorical, relational and dialogical aspects of discourse.

Word count including extracts: 6793Key words: Indigenous rights; Maori; Pakeha; discourse analysis; discrimination; racism; biculturalism Zealanders over Maori. The third submission works up the similarity between indigenous rights and general property rights, negotiating the relationship between equal treatment and self-determination to legitimise the claims. We argue that discursive research on discrimination should approach texts as contributions to a dialectics of racism and anti-racism. This is useful for gaining a better understanding of oppressive discourses, and developing arguments that actively challenge discrimination.

This article addresses political and media discourses about integrating refugees in the UK in the context of the “refugee crisis”. A discursive psychological approach is presented as the best way to understand what talk about the concept is used to accomplish in these debates. A large corpus of political discussions (13 hours of debate featuring 146 politicians) and 960 newspaper articles from the UK were discourse analysed. The analysis identified five dilemmas about integration: Integration is positive and necessary, but challenging; Host communities are presented as welcoming, but there are limits to their capacity; Refugees are responsible for integration, but host communities need to provide support; Good refugees integrate, bad ones don't; Refugees are vulnerable and are skilled. All are used to warrant the inclusion or exclusion of refugees. The responsibility of western nations to support refugees is therefore contingent on the refugees behaving in specific ways.

The development of scholarship related to particular categories of people who are subject to different forms of social control often results in subfields that become or remain isolated from each other. As an example, theory and research relating to the reintegration of ex-offenders and the integration of asylum seekers have developed almost completely independently. However, both processes involve people who are marginalized and stigmatized through legal and social processes, and policies and practices in the two fields share somewhat similar concepts and goals. This article therefore seeks to identify insights through a critical comparison of these two areas of research, theory and practice, with the intention of enriching our understanding of both. This comparison highlights that the frameworks reviewed here enable us to move beyond a narrow focus on service user's behaviours, needs or risks, and into an examination of questions of identity, belonging and justice.