Working as a group of three with people I had not yet worked with before was a good opportunity to brainstorm ideas and hear different opinions that were different to the previous conversations I had been having in the initial stages of the stakeholder maps. Re-visiting the maps and expanding on them further definitely became clearer than it did the first time I did this in-class activity as many new ideas were coming to mind since I had done much more research. It was also evident that highlighting the relationships (who is connected to who) was a much straightforward task than it was in week two. As we started breaking down each stakeholder into four categories; corporations, NGOs, Media (Australia) & Government it became clear of just how many people are involved.
The second map we produced outlined the polemics within the issue and next to this outlined a single emotion connected with the controversy. This was an interesting exercise as the controversies didn’t seem to be that difficult to outline, it was the emotion that was the most challenging part. We noticed a pattern in the same emotions we were outlining and they were all focusing on the negative; anger, fear, sadness and so on. To me all this exercise did was reiterate the complex and depressing nature of the topic and that the further you delve into the refugees & asylum seeker issue within Australia there seems to be a never-ending line of connections where issues continue to arise and because of this feels as though nothing will be resolved and we will solve the problem in an unethical and inhumane way.
Thirdly, our group chose three stakeholders that we identified around these polemics and colour-coded the intersection. Our three main emotions looked at Legitimacy, Responsibility & Detention Centres / Treatment. This map again showed the extent of linkage that each stakeholder has and that very few independent stakeholders are involved / have control over the matter.
Co-creating these maps with a new group confirmed my doubts I had in regard to defining the stakeholders and also raised many that I had not previously thought of or was not aware of, however, as good as it was to make these maps it seemed that by the third one we were repeating ourselves as there was only so much information we could provide. For me, creating these maps made me feel slightly more overwhelmed than I initially did about the issue. Seeing all the stakeholders involved written down, even if some don’t play a huge role just seemed to dramatise the entire problem and makes the issue seem unresolvable. I know this is a heavy way at looking at it but as a young person I feel like I should be advocating points of debate in order for change. I think thats where I see potential for action to create change, Australian’s should be rallying and voicing an ethical approach to the public in order to gain the attention of the stakeholders who sit higher up on the ladder. Those such as the government who may possibly do more if they notice people unhappy with how the issue is currently being dealt with. It’s so common for those living in the city who are busy with their own lives to turn a blind eye to the matter and think that the issue will be dealt with by those higher up as our voice couldn’t possibly make any difference. I really think this negative way of thinking needs to change and the younger generation need to begin making more of an impact in embedding a responsible voice. Another action for change I think is to make more Australian’s aware of the issue. So much information is thrown out there and is not necessarily true. In this case many ‘scare’ tactics are being fed which leads to fear and is why so many people are against the idea of allowing those seeking asylum to come into the country. This could possibly be resolved in developing a systematic way of identifying the issue on a global and ethical scale and ruling out many fears that people may be feeling and hopefully also reduce racism.