To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
One problem complicating the task of humanitarian protection is the quality of data on the populations most affected. If protection agencies cannot identify those who need help, then their ambitions are unlikely to be realized. This is especially relevant when considering “invisible,” hard-to-reach, or historically marginalized groups such as stateless people for whom we have little baseline data. Undercounting is often a political matter. Who is counted also tells us about governmental and institutional priorities and exposes biases about what counts, and the ways in which resources should be allocated. This chapter presents a critical review of how statelessness has been underestimated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its partners. It argues that the process of undercounting is indicative of a revisionist turn in humanitarian management characterized by a fixation with numbers and “results.” The ways in which the UNHCR data are presented reflects an increasingly top-down logic that ignores the lived experience of stateless people and does little to advance the cause of humanitarian protection.
Chapter 4 describes the composition of the self-compiled data base for the study, which consists of two comparable data sets of authentic recordings of Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) from 1978–1988 (audio) and 2003–2013 (video) as well of the respective Hansard files. It outlines how the language-external processes which have changed the interaction at PMQs between 1978–2013 provide the backdrop against which the evolution of reported speech is analysed. Specifically, it is argued that the composition of participation in the activity at PMQs has changed in correlation with the more prominent role of the Leader of the Opposition, and fostered a sharp increase of reported speech. It is demonstrated how the calculation of frequencies is conducted in relation to turn types and speaker roles. The chapter finally presents the transcription conventions and procedure, and discusses the basic methodological assumptions of the study.
Globally, mortality of Indigenous persons is greater than that of their non-Indigenous counterparts, which has been shown to be disproportionately attributable to non-communicable diseases. The historically subordinate position that Indigenous Knowledge (IK) held in comparison to Western science has shifted over the last several decades, with the credibility and importance of IK now being internationally recognized. Herein, we examine how Marsahall’s (2014) Two-Eyed Seeing can foster collaborative and culturally relevant Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) studies for health and well-being by using ‘..the best in Indigenous ways of knowing…[and] the best in Western (or mainstream) ways of knowing…and learn to use both these eyes for the benefit of all.’ At its core, Two-Eyed Seeing also includes the principles of ownership, control, access and possession, and Community-Based Participatory Research, which further reinforces the critical role of Indigenous peoples taking active roles in DOHaD research. Additionally, we also present a partnership model for working with Indigenous communities that includes the principles of respect, equity and empowerment. As researchers begin to fill the gap in Indigenous health, we outline how Two-Eyed Seeing should form the basis of DOHaD studies involving Indigenous communities. This model can be used to develop and guide projects that result in robust and meaningful participatory partnerships that have impactful uptake of research findings.
This chapter provides background about the concept of bioethics and the history of the discipline, explaining the motivations for the book and outlining the subsequent chapters. A satisfactory work in bioethical theory, as we intend to provide, would accomplish three aims: (1) provide a high-quality discussion of ethical theory and methodology in ethics, (2) avoid the narrowness of normative vision that one finds in some theories (e.g., on hypothetical agreement in contract theory, on liberty in libertarianism, on moral rules in a rule-based approach), and (3) integrate areas of philosophical theory that are often neglected in theories of bioethics such as the nature of harm, the nature of well-being, models of moral status, personal identity theory, and the “nonidentity problem.”
Chapter 2 provides the main theoretical and conceptual framework for the analysis in this book. The first section introduces the conceptual landscape of the English School, especially the concepts of primary institutions, the solidarism versus pluralism debate, and the link between international society and world society. The second section reviews how various English School authors have interpreted the rise of global environmental politics, moving from an initial neglect of environmental issues among the founders of the English School to a more comprehensive engagement with global environmentalism in recent years. Building on this, the third section outlines the analytical framework that will inform the empirical analysis in the remainder of the book.
The article explores the Legon School of International Relations (LSIR) which is the research, teaching, and academic programming of International Relations (IR) at the University of Ghana, Legon. The LSIR came out of attempts to decolonise knowledge production, dissemination, and academic programing in Ghana in early 1960s. The article shows that the LSIR is decolonial in theoretical perspective, grounded in southern epistemologies, relational in ontology, qualitative in methodology, practice-based, and it is equity-oriented. Although the LSIR scholarship as a package is distinctive, some of its ideas overlap with the work of several contemporary IR communities in the West. The article highlights implications of the LSIR story for the IR communities in the West and the value of paying close attention to the works of IR centres of scholarship in Africa.
Many commentators on the natural sciences in Islamic history have posited that the doctrine of occasionalism set out by the widespread Ash'ari school of theology was an impediment to an understanding of nature due to its rejection of secondary causality. This excursus reviews the attention paid by Ash'ari thinkers to both God's habitual action in the world and His wisdom in ordering this habitual action to argue that occasionalism can be understood as an equally viable basis for studying natural phenomena.
This essay examines Thomas Kuhn’s education and collaboration with Harvard President James Bryant Conant to consider his evolving view of relations between scholarship and politics. Aspects of Kuhn’s unpublished Lowell Lectures of 1951, correspondence with Philipp Frank from 1952, and Kuhn’s thoughts about general education from 1955 are examined to illustrate Kuhn’s intellectual movement away from the political interests and engagements of his youth and away from the salutary civic roles that Conant intended history of science to play in American education. Kuhn’s conception of what counts as methodological study of science and his conception of scientific communities, firmly separated and insulated from the sociology of public life, are upheld as central for understanding how, despite Kuhn’s formative relationship with the public-intellectual Conant, Kuhn evolved in the 1950s a style of professional scholarship about science that reached its fruition in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
In this chapter, we introduce our theoretical framework, which delineates alternative answers to the research question concerning the conditions under which peaceful borders might enable the occurrence and proliferation of illicit transnational flows. To answer this question, we assume that international peace and globalization act as permissive conditions that provide the general context for the occurrence and proliferation of illicit transnational flows across peaceful borders as parameters. At the same time, we explain the variation in the nature, occurrence, quality, and quantity of these illicit transnational flows according to three variables: (1) the degree of physical and institutional openness of the peaceful borders; (2) the degree of governance, institutional strength, and political willingness of the neighboring states; and (3) the prevalent socioeconomic conditions of the neighboring states, with reference to the regional economic characteristics of the borderlands. In addition, we discuss the methodology and introduce the case studies that illustrate and test the theoretical argument.
In this chapter the editors introduce the theoretical and methodological orientation of the book. They begin with an overview of systemic functional linguistics (SFL), introducing its model of language and two descriptions of special relevance to this volume. The chapter then moves onto key theoretical dimensions – axis (system-and-structure relations), rank, metafunction and stratification. A particular concern of this book is the way in which interpersonal grammatical systems realise the discourse-semantic systems of NEGOTIATION and APPRAISAL. Accordingly, the authors present an outline of NEGOTIATION and APPRAISAL resources relevant to the interpretation of chapters in this volume. At the end of this section of the chapter, the editors introduce the understandings underpinning the model of context proposed by Martin (1992) for interpreting patterns of language use. Next, the chapter reviews the methodological implications of SFL’s theoretical dimensions with respect to text-based data compilation, approaching grammar from above, axial reasoning and functional language typology. The goal here is to establish the common ground on which functional descriptions informed by SFL can be constructed. Finally, each chapter is introduced, highlighting its distinctive contributions to our understanding of interpersonal grammar.
From its inception, the academic study of EU administrative law has relied heavily on doctrinal categories, concepts and principles, borrowed from the administrative law of the Member States. It has largely preferred research agendas such as the Europeanisation of national administrative law or the development of common European principles derived from national administrative laws. Legal doctrine has also engaged in the critique of EU administrative law when it fails to account for the normative standards that national administrative law must usually observe. Whereas all these constitute important research agendas, they reproduce in particularly acute terms a familiar paradox. While the existence of a European administration and administrative law beyond the state cannot be seriously disputed today, legal doctrine tends to consider them, implicitly or explicitly, from the perspective of the administrative law of the nation-state. The so-called “touch of stateness” has had a firm grip on EU administrative law, even though it includes unique aspects that lack any precedent in national laws. The article considers, and proposes a methodological approach to address, the ways in which preconceptions and normative expectations originating in national law have conditioned, and indeed prevented, the deeper doctrinal development of EU administrative law.
Since the 2010s, a number of scholars have explicitly worked with the term ‘interpersonal pragmatics’ in order to zoom in on the relational and interpersonal side of communication. The purpose of the chapter is to demonstrate how the research interest on the interpersonal and relational is inspired by (im)politeness, identity construction and communication studies in order to tackle questions about pragmatic variation and interpersonal effects. Interpersonal pragmatics does not propagate a particular methodology nor only one theory but is conceptualized as a perspective on the interpersonal side of language and communication. The chapter draws on and points to a number of earlier chapters dealing with key concepts for this field, such as (im)politeness, relational work, face, identity construction, roles and the social and historical embeddedness of communication. Key themes within interpersonal pragmatics are, among others, negotiations of agreement and disagreement, negotiations of (clashes of) norms and understandings of self and other in particular social contexts.
In this chapter, we consider what methods and research in conversation analysis (CA), which examines the systematic accomplishment of action in its natural ecological contexts, can bring to sociopragmatics. While CA shares some of its methods with some other approaches in pragmatics – including its data-driven focus – we begin by first focusing on two aspects of the CA method that make it distinct from other approaches to language use: transcription and collections. We then go on to illustrate through two case studies how CA methods and research can help us leverage open areas of ongoing interest in sociopragmatics. The first case study focuses on (im)politeness and speech acts, while the second focuses on inference, identity and relationships. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the intersection between CA and sociopragmatics and possible directions for future research.
Variational pragmatics is the study of pragmatic variation, specifically the systematic study of language use conventions across national, regional and social varieties of the same language, spoken (and written) natively and increasingly also spoken (and written) non-natively. Variational pragmatics is focused on the influence on communicative behaviour of such factors as region, social class, ethnicity, gender and age and also investigates the interplay of these factors and their interaction with situational parameters, such as power and distance relations and context and discourse genre. This chapter outlines the original framework of this field of inquiry and its development, introducing recent modifications and extensions of this framework. It also provides a discussion of theoretical issues – most notably pragmatic universals and pragmatic variables and their variants – and of methodological principles, data types and data collection procedures. Finally, an overview is given of work carried out in variational pragmatics, in particular on the formal, actional, interactional, topic, organizational, prosodic, stylistic, non-verbal and metapragmatic levels of examination analytically distinguished in its framework. Detailed reference is made to the languages and language varieties considered, the social factors focused on, the phenomena examined (e.g. the types discourse markers or speech acts) and the methods employed.
This chapter about the failed peace negotiations between the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the Government of Uganda, the Juba Peace Talks, highlights the main gaps in scholarship on peacemaking, introduces the main arguments of the book, sets the scene on access to the LRA and reflects on methodological challenges. The book argues that contemporary peacemaking suffers from a theory/practice gap, with the way conflicts are supposed to be resolved not mirroring the complexity of the conflict. Current scholarship on peace negotiations emphasises game theory, failing to take context and developing dynamics into account. Yet how actors experience peace talks and their dynamics determines negotiation conduct and the extent to which they can change their own behaviour. For the Lord’s Resistance Army/Movement (LRA/M), the process was a contradictory experience with shifting loyalties and interests. Internal dynamics within the LRA/M were profoundly influenced by their perception that they were trapped in an established hostile system with an uneven playing field. Yet the LRA/M also struggled to transform their internal dynamics of distrust. The chapter further outlines the methodological challenges of access to armed groups and using likely manipulated information for research.
This chapter establishes a theoretical and methodological foundation for the quantitative corpus linguistic study of writing development. First, it defines and discusses the central constructs of writing, writing proficiency, development, and quantitative corpus linguistics. Second, it sets out four assumptions on which, we argue, quantitative corpus approaches rest and discusses in detail both the strengths of these approaches and the methodological challenges they need to confront. Third, it gives a detailed discussion of specific methodological issues related to defining and measuring key variables of development and context and of establishing the status of particular measures of language use. Finally, the chapter reviews one particular quantitative corpus linguistic approach (multidimensional analysis) which raises important questions about quantitative corpus linguistic methodology as a whole.
This chapter brings together discussions and evidence from the preceding chapters to draw conclusions about first- and second-language writing development and about quantitative corpus linguistics as a methodology. It first summarises the key patterns of development in terms of grammar, vocabulary, formulaic language, and cohesion. It then discusses implications of these findings for the key constructs of time- and quality-related development and draws methodological conclusions with regard to how quantitative measures of development have been, and in the future could be, theorised and operationalised and the types of text samples on which studies have been, and could be, built. The chapter ends by setting out a number of key priorities for future research, grouped under the headings of theorisation, broadening attention to contexts, and integration with other methods.
Perhaps the most fundamental disagreement concerning Nietzsche's view of metaphysics is that some commentators believe Nietzsche has a positive, systematic metaphysical project, and others deny this. Those who deny it hold that Nietzsche believes metaphysics has a special problem, that is, a distinctively problematic feature that distinguishes metaphysics from other areas of philosophy. In this paper, I investigate important features of Nietzsche's metametaphysics in order to argue that Nietzsche does not, in fact, think metaphysics has a special problem. The result is that, against a long-standing view held in the literature, we should be reading Nietzsche as a metaphysician.