The three chapters in this section offer critical diagnoses of how algorithms govern through their interactions with and beyond data. Each focusses on a particular technical practice of algorithmic governance, provides an account of its logics, and seeks to reveal the consequences of embedding such practices in assemblages of governance: ‘proxification’ (Phan and Wark), the ‘human in the loop’, (Goldenfein), and commercial techniques of machine learning in public administration (Yeung). In this short intervention, we offer, first, some reflections on what these papers share along three distinct axes – the analytical, the methodological, and the political – before, second, seeking sympathetically to extend them, including by identifying novel questions raised by their analyses.

This chapter explores the meaning, function, and development of International Relations (IR) theory. It considers central questions, including: what constitutes theory? What are the principal types of theories? And why is theorising essential to the study of international relations, including in the context of the Middle East? The discussion is organised into four main sections. Section 1.1 addresses complex issues concerning the nature and purpose of theory, as well as its relationship to the empirical world. Section 1.2 contends that, although achieving metatheoretical consensus on the nature of theory and its connection to reality is highly unlikely, the practice of theorising remains both necessary and intrinsically political. Section 1.3 traces the disciplinary evolution of IR theory, highlighting its increasing self-reflexivity in line with related developments across the broader social sciences. Finally, in Section 1.4 the chapter examines the current state of theoretical fragmentation and pluralism within the field, concluding with reflections on the future trajectory of theorising in IR.

This chapter concludes that narrative change both precedes and sustains legal transformation. Across Ghana, Israel, Greece, and India, the study shows that the (in)cohesion of judicial narratives decisively shapes minority trust, procedural justice, and reform. Narratival cohesion sends a strong signal to lower courts, religious authorities, and communities, reinforcing legitimacy and the rule of law, while incohesion undermines harmonization and fuels alienation. The chapter introduces a “Narrative Cohesion Test” to complement Irshai and Zion-Waldoks’s “Narrative Ripeness Test,” arguing that internal readiness for reform yields results only when courts articulate coherent, consistent narratives. Through the example of S. Sushma v. Commissioner of Police (2021), it illustrates how judicial reflexivity and narrative literacy can deconstruct exclusionary norms and construct new, dignity-affirming meanings. A proposed “Blueprint for Narrative Transformation” outlines practical judicial and civic steps for narrative reform, framing law itself as an act of storytelling that links justice, empathy, and coexistence.

This chapter situates reflexivity and positionality as central to critical race social work praxis, centering the role of storytelling and counterstorytelling in dismantling dominant narratives. This chapter challenges social work’s historic alignment with neutrality, professionalism, and liberal reform while exposing its entanglement with racism, capitalism, and colonialism. By engaging first-person narratives and counternarratives, the section emphasizes how social workers can critically interrogate power, privilege, and positionality across micro, mezzo, and macro levels of practice. Ultimately, this section invites readers into an ongoing practice of reflexivity, self-disclosure, and communal care, positioning social work as a deeply political and justice-oriented profession.

This chapter provides a critical reflection on past and current research on ethnic and racial discrimination and youth development with recommendations for future research directions. First and foremost, I emphasize the need for positionality, reflexivity, and representational ethics to avoid advancing false or problematic narratives and to advance research that is more transparent and accountable. It also is necessary to distinguish and better contextualize ethnic discrimination (rooted in ethnocentrism) and racial discrimination (rooted in modern imperialism and White supremacy) rather than conflate these two constructs and measure them in ahistorical ways. These considerations require researchers to select or develop critically appropriate measurement tools, moving beyond commonly used measures that may not be relevant or appropriate to all racialized groups. Ethnic and racial discrimination during youth development requires special considerations, as discrimination coincides with identity formation and pubertal development. Yet there remains limited research on the ways in which these developmental tasks and experiences interplay. Given the complexities of how ethnic and racial discrimination manifest during youth development, researchers may want to consider novel methods like storytelling to embody discriminatory experiences and strengthen ecological validity.

Causes must occur before effects. So causal relations are irreflexive and asymmetric. Causes are also transitive-along-causal-pathways in that along a given causal pathway, to causally contribute to something that causally contributes to an effect is to causally contribute to that effect. This may generate counterintuitive judgement where a feature causally contributes both to an effect occurring and to it not occurring along different pathways. But these results should be accepted, we argue, because it is often important to know both are occurring (even though at the cost of complicating relations between causal contributions and legal or moral responsibility). Notational conventions are outlined.

Chapter 1 starts with a discussion of the relevance of images to the displine of psychology, then it proceeds to a definition of some of the key terms of the book: public images, visual culture, visual/language distinctions, and the researcher’s viewing position.

The conclusion examines more contemporary versions of anthropology’s dominant current of antiformalism. Tracing this pattern across diverse approaches – embodiment, assemblage thinking, infrastructure – it reveals how a certain sort of Wittgensteinian antiformalism has become orthodox. While scholarship focussed on form exists, it remains largely subordinate to an implicit picture that finds ethnographic facts ‘unanalysable, specific, indefinable’. By contextualzing this stance, the conclusion suggests holding commitments – formalist or antiformalist – more lightly in order to recover explanatory power without sacrificing reflexivity.

Transitions research has gained traction in sustainability studies for its systemic approach to environmental challenges. A central tenet is that the persistence of these challenges can be attributed to ‘system failures’, and that system innovation is needed, i.e. a multitude of innovations that co-evolve into system-wide transformations. However, many contrasting views of ‘systems’ and ‘systemic frameworks’ are seemingly always clamouring for attention, whilst it is not always clear what they’re referring to. Taking a reflexive methodology approach, this chapter addresses recurring questions: Transforming ‘systems’: Which? How? Whose? Why? Whither? Whence? For instance, is transitioning the ‘mobility system’ a matter of electrification or of unlearning car dependency? In transitioning the ‘energy system’, is importation of rare minerals a central part or an externality? The chapter presents a methodological overview of systems analysis in transitions research. It brings out how transitions research has developed a fine sense of Critical Systems Thinking. On the other hand, it also shows the need for further methodological reflection on the study of transitioning ‘systems’.

This chapter argues that reflexivity - an introspective process in which researchers turn their engagement into an object of research - is essential to sustainability transitions research (STR). Reflexivity in STR encompasses not only the non-neutrality of its normative categories, such as ‘sustainability’ and ‘radical’, but also its descriptive categories, including ‘regime’ and ‘system’. This inherent social embeddedness, or ‘engagedness’, positions transition researchers with both an inescapable responsibility and a unique opportunity to shape their engagement reflexively. Reflexivity, which is relevant at every stage of STR, is illustrated in terms of research orientation, role and positionality. It highlights that much of reflexivity lies in the question of how - and with what kind of awareness - you are personally doing what you are doing. As a transition researcher, you are in a comparatively powerful societal position. Your choices matter and make a difference in the world.

This chapter focuses on the county level of analysis. Drawing from fieldwork conducted in the county seat, it studies the Jinyun County’s response to the 19th Party Congress and state’s further elaboration upon the Rural Revitalization Strategy. It highlights how a ’xiangchou plan’, concocted in summer 2018, culminated in a five-year developmental strategy: ’Jinyun’s Xiangchou Industries to Enrich the People’. Interviews highlight the county’s ambitions to coin the term “Xiangchou Industries” and to make it a national model for revitalization, replicable and adaptable by small towns and villages nationwide. The usage of xiangchou as the means and model for rural revival highlights the potency of feelings such as ‘homesickness’ embedded in xiangchou, and it reminds us how the countryside is central to the imagining of this ‘hometown.’ This Chapter also discusses the application of the ’hometown ethnography’ as method and explores the ’hometown’ as a topic for ethnographic study.

The epilogue provides a reflection on the experience of writing this book and it uses an anecdote surrounding the construction of a pond in Heyang village as a way to provide an update on the changes and developments in village life since the primary research for this book was conducted in 2017-2022.

This chapter outlines the basic principles of qualitative research in the context of mental health. We begin by discussing the philosophy of reality and knowledge production, demonstrating how these discussions filter through to every aspect of qualitative research. We then explain the fundamental elements of qualitative research, including how to formulate a research question, different methodological approaches, the application of qualitative methods in clinical trials, data collection, sampling, and analysis. This chapter also focuses on how qualitative research can make a change, providing unique insights on how to influence policy and engage government. We devote a substantial part of the chapter to research ethics and reflexivity, summarising not only basic bioethical principles, but thinking about ethics from an anti-colonial perspective. We end the chapter by exploring what constitutes high quality qualitative research, laying out some guiding principles and practices for promoting quality. Our aim with this chapter is not to provide an exhaustive account of qualitative research, rather to offer guidance and inspiration to fledgling researchers who would like to find out more.