This chapter lays down the conceptual foundations of Institutional Status Theory. It situates IST in the literature on status in world politics, and on social identity in particular. It elaborates on the concept of status as an intrinsic value and as a role that entails symbolic equality with higher-status actors, as distinct from status as a set of valued attributes. It discusses the psychological and social foundations of IST, in particular its relationship to and difference from constructivist theory. Finally, the chapter theorizes the great-power club and international institutions as sites of status struggles.

The small and somewhat fringe praxis of processual self-esteem research is described with respect to its enactment of a process ontology. The chapter shows that a process approach has resulted in a focus on ‘how’ questions in self-esteem research (rather than on predictive validity, for example) and a more pluralistic approach to the operationalization of self-esteem. What the various processual-studies reviewed have in common is a conceptual and methodological approach to self-esteem as a situated and action-based process, rather than a thing that individuals have to different degrees. Here, the central role of situational affordances is highlighted. This processual praxis often relies explicitly on complex dynamic systems principles, such as self-organization, emergence, variability, and attractor landscapes. With processes and actions as its focus, this praxis constructs self-esteem knowledge that emphasizes one’s agency in the world and the centrality of our actual context-bound actions and experiences as we move through it. This chapter ends with a discussion of how a process approach is beneficial for the lived reality of self-esteem, where individuals are encouraged to embrace and reflect on their situated and fluctuating experiences of self, rather than a pursuit of ‘high’ self-esteem.

The Introduction first highlights the value added of practice approaches to international relations, and demonstrates how a practice perspective differs from other IR theoretical approaches. The chapter then offers a contextualization of practice theories in IR through a historical discussion that highlights the foundations of practice theoretical thought, its connections to, and shared assumptions with preceding IR scholarship, but also the ways in which it fundamentally differs from other theoretical approaches. With this narrative we respond to some allegations and misunderstandings within the discipline that the practice talk is plainly a reinvigoration of old ideas, that there is little new about practice approaches, or that they present us with a new version of constructivism. Third, we proceed in discussing the scope and contours of practice-driven research by discussing how the practice debate might be ordered. Arguing against pitching discrete practice approaches against each other, we draw attention to a number of fault lines that run through the practice debate, such as stability and change. We then showcase how each chapter in this volume engages with broader IR scholarship, and how it provides a new practice-driven vista on relevant IR questions.

This chapter begins by describing what is unique about mathematics that has made it a central topic in the learning sciences. This research has historically been interdisciplinary, drawing on psychology, mathematics research and theory, and mathematics educators. It then describes two distinct approaches – the acquisitionist and the participationist. The acquisitionist approach considers learning to be what happens when an individual learner acquires mathematical knowledge. This part of the chapter reviews research on misconceptions and conceptual change that has been based in Piaget’s constructivist theories. The participationist approach views learning as originating in social interactions in diverse settings such as classrooms, homes and playgrounds, museums, and workplaces. This approach views learning as a collective sociocultural phenomenon, and uses methodologies such as interaction analysis and design-based research. This chapter concludes with a discussion of how teachers learn to teach mathematics.

Scaffolding is the support provided to students by the learning environment, which includes the teacher but also curricular design, technological tools, and classroom social practices. Scaffolding is a social encounter between a teacher and a student and can involve tutoring and mentoring, but is more effective when both teacher and learner participate jointly in a complex and authentic disciplinary practice. Scaffolding simplifies a task so that it is within reach of the learner; it supports learners in participating in authentic disciplinary practices even before they have mastered the discipline; it helps learners focus on the most important aspects of the problem. Effective scaffolding is adaptable and contingent on the learner’s evolving understanding – the degree of structure should be gradually reduced or “faded.” This can be done by inferring a learner’s current understanding using digital traces or dynamic software.

This chapter describes the intellectual foundations that have influenced the learning sciences (LS) from its beginning, and identifies the core elements that unify many chapters of this handbook. Its theoretical influences include pragmatism, constructivism, sociocultural theory, situated learning, and distributed cognition. The chapter organizes LS research into two levels of analysis: the individual or elemental, and the sociocultural or systemic. The chapter reviews the methodologies that have been used to study each level of analysis and summarizes research findings at each level. LS research bridges research and practice and combines elemental and systemic perspectives on learning across a range of timescales of human behavior.

This chapter starts by arguing that traditionally the writing of history has a strong connection to the construction of identities, be they national, class, ethnic, gender or spatial identities. The theory of history has also re-inforced that link until a range of diverse thinkers came to question this. I am discussing in particular Hayden White, Michel Foucault, Mikhail Bakhtin, Chris Lorenz, Chantal Mouffe, Michel de Certeau, Pierre Bourdieu, Stuart Hall, Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan and Jacques Derrida. The collective impact of these authors has been to produce a greater self-reflexivity about the relationship between history and identity formation in many historians. The book, however, is not about a whiggish story of progress towards self-reflexivity, but it highlights that work which, in the author’s view, has been successful in being self-reflective about the historians’ part in the construction of identities.

How can the matrix developed and explored in this project be used to solve real-world coordination and cooperation problems? An analysis of the International Health Regulation’s procedure used by the WHO during the COVID-19 pandemic points to the conflict between protecting sensitive state interests and upholding prevalent ideas of procedural justice. This shows why the present empirical research needs to be integrated with other narratives of institutional design and development.

GAL is one of the most ambitious projects to capture the role of procedure in global governance. Other concepts are briefly introduced and compared. The idea of procedural justice as akin to GAL in scope but focusing on perceptions of fairness and legitimacy rather than normativity emerges.

The main strands of international relations theory regarding institutions are briefly introduced. The work focuses on rational choice, notably Rational Institutional Design theory.

To unite the concept of procedural justice with the perspective and methods of rational institutional design, the factor of state interest is studied. It is shown how state interest can operate even within nominally private institutions and which factors determine whether and how a state is interested in introducing procedural justice.

The codebook variables creating the matrix of sensitivity of state interest - quantitative and qualitative procedural density is introduced. The mode of sample collection is explained.

In Chapter 2, I draw from pragmatist philosophy and relational sociology to develop a new theory of normativity and institutional change. I propose the concept of a normative configuration as an alternative to the concept of a norm, defined as an arrangement of ongoing, interacting practices establishing action-specific regulation, value-orientation, and avenues of contestation. I argue that situated creativity, problem-solving, and the institutionalisation of action establish normativity within enduring social arrangements. This alternative conception helps clarify the origins of normativity in situations where existing IR theory is limiting, as I show through a review of scholarship on norms drawn both from the field of IR and from the social sciences and humanities more broadly. To develop this new concept, I draw heavily from the work of John Dewey, Hans Joas, and the insights of practice theorists.

In this Introduction to the book, I raise the question of the possible erosion of prohibitions on assassination, torture, and mercenarism. I discuss the limits of ‘norm death’ as an explanation and propose instead that a ‘normative transformation’ has occurred. I outline how pragmatism, practice theory, and relational sociology will inform my perspective, how I will critique and build on theories of norm change in IR, and how I will analyse the three cases: the USA’s targeted killing programme, the CIA’s detention and interrogation programme, and the USA’s extensive employment of armed contractors in war zones.

In this concluding chapter, I discuss my overall findings and their implications. I draw three paired comparisons. Contrasting the first two cases, I find technology was especially important in determining the robustness of normative transformation. Contrasting the first two and third cases, I find normative transformation can occur even without a dedicated set of elite actors acting as ‘entrepreneurs’. Contrasting my approach with that of others, I find a focus on situated creativity, situational rather than personal agency, and a pragmatist view of action clarifies dynamics that are confusing in conventional constructivist theories. I also discuss how my approach may support investigations into other kinds of normative transformations, such as those involving diaspora communities and global governance. I finish by discussing how my findings and my approach support the projects of critical war and security studies and can inform activists and NGOs seeking to limit aggressive or militarised counterterrorism.

This chapter analyses India’s challenges to jurisdiction before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in 2014 and 2015, comparing the implications of the bodies’ differing procedures and perceptions of their own jurisdiction, and assessing the international relations dynamics at hand. In the Nuclear Zero and Enrica Lexie cases, high-profile matters of lethal weight were repeatedly held hostage by conflicting understandings of jurisdiction. India’s relationship with international jurisdiction, and especially its respective success and failure challenging ICJ and ITLOS jurisdiction, demonstrate how ITLOS procedure is designed to (and successfully does) cabin jurisdictional challenges in interstate disputes. After exploring the courts’ jurisdictional procedure in design and experience, this chapter offers reflections on the impact of the procedural variances, and future implications for states’ behaviour challenging jurisdiction – both for rising powers, who may wish to follow India’s example exerting status in nuanced embrace of international jurisdiction, and for major powers such as the United States, which in time may have to engage international courts if it cannot neutralise the decline of the status which allows it to broadly reject ICJ jurisdiction in state-to-state disputes.