The chapter addresses the relation between the Earth system and social systems centring on the concept and phenomenon of growthism. It argues that modern economic growth is the main reason why humans have become such a major force in the Earth system. It stresses the link between natural and social systems, and shows how complex and growing human society has emerged from nature. While the former remains part of the latter, these interdependencies between natural and social systems require the development of conscious and reflexive planetary control systems.

Over the past thirty years, the anti-corruption agenda has been integrated into dominant discourses of development, good governance, and democracy, reshaping political practices and knowledge production. This involved redefining concepts, operationalizing measures, and legitimizing policies. While academics have renewed focus on corruption, emphasizing global convergences and institutional designs, limited attention is given to how anti-corruption expertise is constituted and mobilized. Gaps remain in understanding the approaches shaping anti-corruption knowledge and how inequalities in knowledge production influence public policy. Recognizing its embeddedness requires examining historical roots, key actors, methods, and mobilization channels. This chapter uncovers the historical origins of anti-corruption conceptions, identifies experts by epistemological and methodological approaches, and interprets their positions. The study identifies three dominant poles of power: American academics, quantitative economists, and media-exposed practitioners. These poles reflect disparities in professional stability, autonomy, and proximity to international financial institutions. Using a historic, reflexive, and relational perspective, the investigation maps the social forces and structures shaping the field, offering insights into the production and mobilization of anti-corruption knowledge.

This chapter outlines Hopkins’s knowledge of contemporary energy physics as it decisively shapes his distinctive poetry and the metaphysic that undergirds it. The discussion begins with Hopkins’s appreciation of meteorology in his ‘Heraclitean Fire’ sonnet, of the earth’s atmosphere as a vast thermodynamic system. The figure that this poem presents of man as a lonely ‘spark,’ and the pyrotechnics of ‘As kingfishers catch fire,’ ‘The Windhover’ and ‘God’s Grandeur,’ are then glossed through the optical application of the energy concept in spectroscopy. Finally the chapter considers field theory and Clerk Maxwell’s reassessment of the Newtonian principle of force through the energy concept as the distributive principle of stress, tracing Hopkins’s use of this physical concept in his writings on mechanics, nature and most momentously in the definitive formulation of his metaphysic of stress, instress ,and inscape in 1868 and the concurrent advent of his metrical principle of Sprung Rhythm.

There is a tendency to treat African journalism fields as insignificant to scholarship unless the scholarly focus is on “improving” or “modernizing” them. This chapter argues against this tendency by arguing that African journalism is engaged in knowledge production and all its attendant politics. It argues that by taking a conflict such as Darfur as a locus, scholars can excavate the multiple discursive struggles over questions such as the role of African journalism, the place of African news organizations in global narrative construction about Africa, and the politics of belonging in which African journalists debate what it means to be African. Relying on field theory, postcolonial theory, and the sociology of knowledge, this chapter argues for a de-Westernization of journalism studies while cogently locating the origins of field theory in Algeria; thus connecting it not just to the colonial project but specifically locating field theory with a larger discourse of postcoloniality.

The closing chapter aims to sum up some of the experiences, albeit in a rather overarching way. It is emphasized that, while the book spans rather widely, much of what has been presented is a bit like scratching the surface. Still, the tools developed should form a good basis for further work within quantum sciences. And, hopefully, the book has worked as a way of getting to know a bit of the quantum nature of the micro cosmos. In the preceding chapters, questions related to quantum foundations have, to a large extent, been evaded. Addressing the measurement problem and alternative interpretations attempts to mitigate this. A few topics are listed which are essential to quantum physics but are not properly addressed in this book. This includes quantum field theory, perturbation theory, density functional theory and quantum statistics. Finally, there are provide suggestions for further reading.

An introduction to field Lagrangians for scalars, vectors, and the Einstein–Hilbert Lagrangian for gravity provides a venue to think about coupling together different field theories. The natural expression of that coupling comes from an action, and we show how the “Euler–Lagrange” field equations enforce the universal coupling of all physical theories to gravity. As an example, the combined field equations of electricity & magnetism and gravity are solved in the spherically symmetric case to give the Reissner–Nordstrøm spacetime associated with the exterior of charged, massive, spherically symmetric central bodies.

Chapter 9 demonstrates how RIO facilitates a field-theoretic approach to regression models. The chapter draws parallels between the data representations made possible by turning regression models inside out and the geometric data analysis (GDA) that is central to field theoretic approaches to social research.

Gestalt psychology originated as a German intellectual movement heavily influenced by the precedents of the Würzburg school and phenomenological approaches to science. The early Gestaltists directly challenged Wundt’s structural psychology and were largely successful in pursuing the traditions of Brentano and Stumpf. Originating in Wertheimer’s research on apparent movement, or the phi phenomenon, the Gestalt principles were founded on the assumption of the inherent organization of person-environment interactions. The writings of Köhler and Koffka expanded the perceptual basis to formulate a comprehensive system of psychology especially amenable to higher thought processes of insight, understanding, and productive thinking. When the movement was threatened with destruction by the intellectual sterility of Nazi tyranny, the leaders fled to America. Unfortunately, the Gestalt movement was out of tune with the prevailing behavioristic character of American psychology. However, the Gestaltists assumed an important role in broadening the basis of behaviorism to foster a complete view of learning processes. One application of Gestalt views, contained in Lewin’s field theory, met with success in providing an empirical model of personality and social activities. The Gestalt movement, although it did not retain a separate identity, contributed greatly to the reformulation of psychology.

Part II looks at the position of fixers within the larger field of journalism. The newsmaking process can be understood as a series of mediations between successive contributors along a chain that stretches from local sources all the way to foreign audiences. “Fixers,” “translators,” “producers,” and others engage in similar journalistic activities along that chain, but news contributors nonetheless draw – and police – important distinctions among these various labels. To rise in status above “translators” and perhaps be recognized as “producers,” fixers try to present themselves as objective professionals and avoid the appearance of local allegiances. Yet local connections are, paradoxically, also their greatest asset for serving client reporters’ needs. Through accounts of reporting on events from the 2014 Soma mine disaster to the Syrian and Afghan refugee crises in Turkey, these chapters illustrate fixers’ ambiguous place in journalism’s hierarchical division and their efforts to claim high-status roles and labels.

Chapter 1 lays out the cornerstones of our argument. We highlight how power is multidimensional and is related to network position. We review several works on field theory, contest arenas, and social spaces to highlight how analysts can theorize political action in multimodal settings. Then we explain why communities are a key concept for theory and research in political networks: how they can be identified, how they are created, and what effects they have on individual-, community-, and systemic-level outcomes. Last, we show that while some researchers have studied multimodal social networks (particularly 2-mode networks), few have conducted systematic treatments of multimodal political networks.

"When the first underground and submarine telegraph cables were laid around 1850, engineers noticed that sharp signals sent in at one end emerged at the other badly blurred and appreciably delayed. This “retardation” grew worse on longer cables and threatened to make operation of the proposed 2000-mile Atlantic line unprofitably slow. Retardation presented British physicists and engineers with both an intriguing physical phenomenon and a serious practical problem, and they studied it closely from the 1850s on.

Latimer Clark, a prominent British cable engineer, brought retardation to Michael Faraday’s attention late in 1853, and Faraday’s published account of the phenomenon served to publicize both retardation and the ideas about the electromagnetic field that he invoked to explain it. Faraday’s paper led William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) to reprint two papers on field theory he had written in the 1840s, and later in 1854 a related cable question prompted Thomson to work out what became the accepted mathematical theory of signal transmission. Moreover, it was at just this time, and largely under Thomson’s guidance, that James Clerk Maxwell first took up the study of electricity, with results that were to transform electromagnetic theory."