In order to set the scene for this volume, I begin the chapter with a narrative of my experience on the day when I got promoted to a professor at a Japanese university by combining my professional experience to the ideologies of native-speakerism and trans-speakerism. I also include the overall background of the study through providing the aims of the research, explicating the significance of the current inquiry, and outlining the core ideas of this book: native-speakerism and trans-speakerism. In other words, this chapter delineates how these two influential ideologies in language education come together in this book and makes a case for why the present inquiry is a fertile endeavor to make. The chapter concludes with a brief description of the structure and content of the volume.

This chapter describes the origin, development, and subsequent conceptualization of native-speakerism, as well as profiling relevant research on it. Importantly, it also offers my own understanding and interpretation about the notion. To do this, the chapter presents a selection of previous discussions and empirical research into native-speakerism and documents some of the most deleterious effects that native-speakerism has had on the lives and identities of both NESTs and NNESTs worldwide – specifically the effects on NNES teachers and researchers in Japan, who are the focal points of this book. I commence this chapter with a theoretical overview of the ways in which native-speakerism came to be recognized and defined. I then introduce my own analysis of what native-speakerism entails at this moment in time within the ELT field. Afterward, I provide an overview of germane conceptual and empirical studies on native-speakerism while offering my own critiques of them as I do so. With the key points and positionings of the discussion established, I conclude this chapter by positing my case for the originality and significance of this endeavor and by presenting the focal research questions which the research within this volume attempts to answer.

This final chapter, divided into three major parts, draws together the findings and discussion presented in previous chapters and provides recommendations and implications for stakeholders and researchers. The first part outlines summaries of findings and relevant literature followed by a conceptual framework, which exhibits diagrammatically the findings of this study and their interrelationships. The second part regards recommendations for further research and the limitations of my study. A narrative of my reflection on the journey of the study and the writing of this book concludes the volume.

The chapter begins by probing skeptical criticism, with key contributors like Stegenga (2018) questioning our unwavering trust in contemporary medicine. Next, it delves into the criticism of overmedicalization (see Moynihan and Cassels 2005; Conrad 2007; Le Fanu 2012; Parens 2013), viewed as an inappropriate use of medical resources for sociopolitical issues. The chapter also investigates the criticism of objectification related to the quality of care, drawing from thinkers like Cassell (2004), Haque and Waytz (2012), and Topol (2019). Rounding out the chapter, utilizing insights from Popper (2000) and Haslanger (2018), it identifies these criticisms as both social and internal to the practice of medicine. It concludes that medicine is falling short of its own standards, thereby posing fundamental questions about its nature and purpose to be explored in the succeeding chapters.

The chapter revisits the criticisms and challenges presented at the book’s outset. It highlights how the book’s central theses - the Systematicity, Understanding, and Autonomy Theses - help resolve issues related to skepticism, overmedicalization, and objectification in medicine. The chapter argues that a moderate position, supported by these theses, provides better understanding of these challenges and suggests potential solutions. The criticisms of skepticism are countered by increased systematicity in knowledge-seeking. Concerns of overmedicalization are tackled through the Autonomy Thesis, which argues that medicalization is justifiable if a condition is harmful and adequately understood by medicine. Objectification, as examined through the Autonomy Thesis, can impede medicine’s aim by undermining personal understanding. The chapter emphasizes the necessity of counteracting the potential decrease in personal understanding caused by standardization and technological advances.

This chapter gives an introduction to key concepts in epidemiology for the clinician, student, trainee or early career researcher interested in psychiatry and mental health. Following a brief introduction to the history of epidemiology, we provide a comprehensive, yet accessible introduction to key epidemiological concepts and how these apply to psychiatry and mental health. We introduce the major observational (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional, ecological) and experimental (randomised controlled trial) designs used in epidemiology, their strengths and limitations and specific issues for their use in psychiatry. We also cover measures of disease frequency (incidence, prevalence), measures of effect (risk, rate and odds ratios) and measures of impact (population attributable risk). Our chapter then provides a comprehensive introduction to traditional and contemporary approaches to understanding the critical issue of causation, illustrated via the use of causal diagrams known as Directed Acyclic Graphs. Throughout, we use accessible examples from published research and hypothetical worked examples to consolidate the reader’s knowledge about key methods in psychiatric epidemiology.

This chapter examines facial recognition technology (FRT) and its potential for bias and discrimination against racial minorities in the criminal justice system. The chapter argues that by defining the technology as an automated process, there is an implied objectivity, suggesting that such technologies are free from errors and prejudices. However, facial recognition is dependent on data used to train an algorithm, and operators make judgements about the wider social system and structures it is deployed within. The algorithms that underpin FRT will continue to advance the status quo with respect to power relations in the criminal justice system, unless both data-based and societal-based issues of inequality and discrimination are remedied. FRT is imbued with biases that can negatively impact outcomes for minority groups. The chapter argues that there is a need to focus on systemic discrimination and inequality (rather than calling for a ban of the technology). While the data-based issues are more straightforward to address, this alone will not be sufficient: addressing broader and more complex social factors must be a key focus in working towards a more equal society.

Consumers are at the forefront of market uses of AI. There are also myriad consumer uses of AI products. Consumer protection law justifies greater responses where the interactions involve significant risks and relevant consumer vulnerability; both such elements are present in the current and predicted AI uses concerning consumers. Whilst consumer protection law is likely to be able to be sufficiently flexible to adapt to AI, there is a need to recalibrate consumer protection law to AI.

On AI-assisted adjudication, concerns including biases (such as automation bias, anchoring bias, contrarian bias, and herd bias) and ethical worries (such as human adjudicators ceasing to be decision-makers, excessive standardisation of decisions, and the fact that judges may be pressured to conform to the AI’s predictions) can be addressed. Adjudicators may use AI to assist them in their decisions in three aspects: training and implementation; actual use; and monitoring. Because AI will not be able to provide the legal justifications underlying its predictions, the human adjudicator will have to explain why the AI-generated prediction is legally justified. AI will not replace adjudicators.

This chapter discusses the growing body of research that examines the social cognitive processes of jurors used when making verdict or sentencing decisions. This includes the empirical findings related to priming ideas and attitudes and impression formation. The chapter then discusses heuristics, or cognitive “shortcuts,” that jurors employ during their decision-making processes in trials and deliberations. For instance, there is a tendency for jurors to over-rely on dispositional attributions, stereotypes, and schemas. Cognitive biases that jurors are prone to, such as the hindsight bias, the outcome bias, and counterfactual thinking, will also be discussed in the context of evaluating evidence and making verdict decisions, along with the potential of debiasing techniques. Finally, jurors’ biases and prejudices regarding factors, such as race, gender, and religion, and how they relate to decision-making are examined. The chapter also addresses areas of social cognition that have not yet been explored in current research and provides recommendations for future directions.

This chapter discusses the legal and extralegal factors that affect a parole board member’s decision regarding whether or not to release a prisoner on parole. While some states have mandatory parole, others have discretionary parole, which is the most widely cited process for parole release in the US currently. Discretionary parole allows a board to decide if the prisoner should be released based on statutory factors, which are examined in this chapter. However, they might also be influenced by emotions, biases, public/political pressure, and other extralegal factors. The chapter provides an overview of what these extralegal factors are and how they might affect decisions. The chapter also provides an examination of both parole board member and inmate characteristics that influence release decisions, with a focus on if and how they affect risk assessments. The chapter synthesizes this body of research and offers future directions and implications for the legal field. Future research and/or policy implications are discussed.

This chapter focuses on the expertise of forensic science practitioners who make legally relevant decisions from both a skills-based and vulnerabilities-based perspective. We bring together research relevant to forensic examiners’ decision-making to inform the development of empirically based solutions for some of the issues we raise. We begin by describing a general model of bias in judgment, explaining how experts can be vulnerable to systematic errors and biases in decision-making, but also how expertise can protect against bias in some circumstances. We then explore the cognitive mechanisms underpinning forensic science expertise to explore the unique abilities examiners develop, the important role of these unique abilities in forensic science decision-making, and their implications for selection and training. We describe what can be done now to enhance experts’ strengths and mitigate the negative effects of bias. Finally, we conclude by exploring how future research can continue to explore the unique abilities and vulnerabilities in forensic science decision-making to enhance professional performance.

This chapter will examine complex decisions relevant to family law. Decisions shaped by bias can lead to outcomes that place certain people and groups at an unfair disadvantage while placing others at an unjustified advantage. Implicit bias can have significant implications for outcomes in the legal system, including in family court. Although decision-makers might view themselves as free of bias, decades of research indicates that this is simply not the case. Though it is not possible to completely remove bias from decision-making, awareness can partially mitigate the harm of unconscious bias. In particular, the chapter will address family law decisions and decision-making bias in various domains, including bias in (1) credibility determinations, (2) gender, (3) sexual orientation and gender identity, (4) socioeconomic status, (5) intimate partner violence, and (6) substance use. The chapter will consider both psychological research and legal principles and identify areas where additional research needs to be conducted. Future research and/or policy implications will be discussed.

Randomised controlled trials are the most rigorous means of assessing the outcomes of interventions. A control group enables the ‘signal’ of the intervention effect to be distinguished from the ‘noise’ of the other influences in the absence of intervention. Randomised allocation to intervention and control groups allow as fair a comparison as possible. However, most trials and systematic reviews are not as useful as they could be. Trials generally focus on estimating effects, often failing to explore the mechanisms through which these occur or how these interact with context to generate different outcomes in different settings or populations. Systematic reviews concentrate on pooling effect estimates from multiple trials from different contexts, as though there were one underlying effect that can be uncovered by pooling. They often, like most trials, fail to examine mechanisms and how these might interact with context to generate different outcomes in different settings and populations. These omissions hinder trials and systematic reviews in their role of providing useful evidence for understanding which interventions are likely to be the most promising candidates for transfer to other settings and with other populations.

This chapter dwells at the intersection of the social psychology of knowledge resistance and epistemic normativity to offer the first full taxonomy of resistance to evidence. It first individuates the phenomenon via paradigmatic instances, and then it taxonomises it according to two parameters: (1) paradigmatic triggering conditions and (2) epistemic normative status. I argue that the phenomenon of resistance to evidence is epistemologically narrower but psychologically broader than is assumed in the extant literature in social psychology. This, in turn, gives us reason to believe that addressing this phenomenon in policy and practice will be a much more complex endeavour than is currently assumed. In the remainder of the book, I examine the extant literature on evidence, defeat, justification, permissible suspension, and epistemic responsibility in search of the normative resources required to fully accommodate the psychological breadth and epistemic normative status of the phenomenon of resistance to evidence.

Precarious work characterised by low pay, inadequate and variable hours, and short-term/temporary contracts refers to the employment conditions that include the situations of uncertainty’, ‘instability’, and ‘insecurity’. Precarious work arrangements skyrocketed in the 1970s as a result of the worldwide recession and the weakened power and forced reduction of organised labour. As a result, considerable power shifted back to employers who steadily repeal employment protections whenever possible. This chapter seeks to shed light on the missing link between diversity and precarious work from the viewpoint of sexual and gender identity minorities whose voices have been silenced and marginalised in mainstream discussions. Due to the long history of legalised discrimination and the stigmatisation they experience, LGBTQ+ employees are overrepresented in precarious work arrangements. Since LGBTQ+ employees are already a vulnerable population, the adverse effects of precarious work arrangements are exacerbated. We adopt an institutional approach to explore the challenges LGBTQ+ individuals face in precarious work concerning macro-institutional factors (e.g., social, organisational, political, legal, and economic) and micro-level factors (e.g., interpersonal discrimination, exclusion, incivility within organisations). Through case studies from Turkey and the United States, we demonstrate the political and social mechanisms that legitimise and proliferate precarious work arrangements for LGBTQ+ individuals. We conclude the chapter by highlighting research questions that scholars should pursue further to uncover the unique challenges LGBTQ+ individuals endure in precarious work arrangements.