This chapter describes how relationship scientists conduct research to answer questions about relationships. It explains all aspects of the research process, including how hypotheses are derived from theory, which study designs (e.g., experiments, cross-sectional studies, experience sampling) best suit specific research questions, how scientists can manipulate variables or measure variables with self-report, implicit, observational, or physiological measures, and what scientists consider when recruiting a sample to participate in their studies. This chapter also discusses how researchers approach questions about boundary conditions (when general trends do not apply) and mechanisms (the processes underlying their findings) and describes best practices for conducting ethical and reproducible research. Finally, this chapter includes a guide for how to read and evaluate empirical research articles.

This chapter provides an introduction to Swiss contract law. It discusses the Code of Obligations as the main source of law, the fundamental principles of Swiss contract law, the notion of an obligation as the effect of the contract, the formation of contracts, including pre-contractual liability, as well as the notions of offer and acceptance. This chapter then turns to the principles applicable to the interpretation of contracts and the principles governing the validity of contracts. This chapter further discusses the notion of agency, general terms and conditions as well as the various categories of contracts found under Swiss law. This chapter moreover explores the significant issues of the performance of the contract and breach of contract. Finally, this chapter analyses the extinguishment of obligations as well as the concepts of the assignment of a claim and the assumption of debt.

Social and behavioral researchers often draw on archival data – data collected by an entity other than the research team – to conduct scientific inquiry. Researchers typically seek to make claims about measured variables that extend beyond the measures themselves, such as interpreting a measure as representing an unobservable theoretical construct. Though researchers using archival data encounter many issues, this chapter focuses on two that have received less attention. The first concerns how researchers should justify the interpretations and uses they attach to archival measures. The second concerns how to justify generalizing findings. This chapter provides a framework to help researchers address these issues by drawing on contemporary validity theory in education and psychology as well as theory regarding causal mechanisms from philosophy and sociology. These concepts are illustrated using multiple examples from published studies.

Chapter 6 is dedicated to reconstructing how Kant sets limits to the validity of the categories. In my reading, the argument that establishes these limits belongs to the negative part of the critique of pure reason. I first find confirmation that it is correct to distinguish between a positive and a negative argument concerning the validity of the categories, the former belonging to transcendental philosophy and the latter to the critique of pure reason, in three different texts by Kant: the transcendental deduction of the categories, the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science and On the Use of Teleological Principles in Philosophy. However, since these texts provide different pictures concerning how the two arguments are related to one another, I analyze in which sense the negative argument depends on the positive one by reconstructing relevant passages in the B-deduction.

The High-Level Language Aptitude Battery (Hi-LAB) measures the cognitive and perceptual abilities hypothesized to be important for adults to reach advanced levels of foreign language proficiency (Doughty, 2019; Doughty et al., 2010; Linck et al., 2013). This chapter will provide a historical overview of the Hi-LAB and its use, starting from the selection of constructs to measure, development of the battery, exploration of the battery’s measurement properties, and its use today. Over 15 years of work have been dedicated to selecting, refining, and validating the measures of the battery. We will explore how University of Maryland researchers as well as those of wider academia have used the battery to explore aspects of language aptitude, most notably, perhaps, the potential for Hi-LAB to inform language aptitude-by-treatment interventions. Potential directions for future work will also be discussed, pointing ahead to how the battery can continue to provide valuable aptitude information for language learning across populations, including language learners themselves, language instructors, academic researchers, and organizations who are interested in training personnel in new languages.

Cognitive diagnosis models originated in the field of educational measurement as a psychometric tool to provide finer-grained information more suitable for formative assessment. Typically, but not necessarily, these models classify examinees as masters or nonmasters on a set of binary attributes. This chapter aims to provide a general overview of the original models and the extensions, and methodological developments, that have been made in the last decade. The main topics covered in this chapter include model estimation, Q-matrix specification, model fit evaluation, and procedures for gathering validity and reliability evidences. The chapter ends with a discussion of future trends in the field.

The previous chapter highlighted the difficulties of combining logical pluralism with a semantic account of rivalry between correct logics. This chapter discusses the weaker conception of applicational rivalry and its relation to the idea that logical consequence has a certain kind of normative force. I argue that all variants of logical pluralism that meet the following three conditions are susceptible to what has been called the collapse problem for logical pluralism: (i) that there are at least two correct logical systems characterized in terms of different consequence relations, (ii) that there is applicational rivalry among the correct logics, and (iii) that logical consequence is normative. I argue that if a position satisfies all these conditions, then that position is unstable in the sense that it collapses into competing positions. In a final step, I show how the collapse problem persists even without an explicitly logical normativity constraint, leaving only conditions (i) and (ii). The problem can therefore be viewed as a result of two core assumptions: plurality and a very weak sense of rivalry that is endorsed by virtually all logical pluralists.

Empirical research into investment treaty conflict is simultaneously promising and potentially perilous. This chapter identifies both its costs and benefits while striving to provide a clear set of guidelines for quality research in an effort to identify the potential uses and abuses of empiricism in international investment law. Empirical research is not immune from the polarization within the field, but certain steps can ensure that empirical work is not influenced by narrow or ideological perspectives. First, we need to understand norms of quality social science to enable a data-driven, rather than emotive, conversation. Second, we need to create time and space for balanced contemplation that cuts across ideological groupings – rather than having conferences and events attended by one selected segment – and ensuring that alternative perspectives are welcomed. Third, we need to work on developing empathic dialogue to engage productively about empirical research and normative reform, including focusing upon aspects that are valuable and those that require development. The objective should be to organize conversations about international investment law around data to engage productively, so that reason and intuition can interact to create solutions that are constructive and sustainable for the longer term.

In an ideal world, people who enter into contracts would choose to enter the contract, and agree to its terms, because they have accurate and comprehensive information on which to base their decision. This chapter will first explain when a contract may be invalid, because one or both parties entered into the contract under some sort of misapprehension, or on the basis of misinformation. We will look at mistake (mutual mistake, unilateral mistake and common mistake) and misrepresentation. We will also briefly explain the old action ‘non est factum’ (‘not my deed’) and the remedy of rectification. Second, the chapter will explore when a contract may be invalid because of ‘unfair’ conduct by one of the parties – for example, where one party (Party A) enters an agreement because another party (Party B) subjected A to undue pressure (duress or undue influence); or because the conduct of B is so ‘unconscientious’ or the contract is able to be set aside in equity for unconscionable conduct.