This chapter, the collective project of the book editors, has arrived at a place none of us envisioned as we began to explore the theoretical and methodological differences that brought us together. We found ourselves focusing on questions about difference as central for participants engaged in transforming their ongoing practices and themselves. Such a perspective draws on conceptions of difference, not as an abstract impediment to equality, but as crucial to debates about social justice. We ask how differences are constitutive of learning processes that partly transcend marginality and alienation. Not surprisingly then, we study learning from the point of view of learners, learners engaged – differently – in personal and collective struggles for personal and collective transformation. Our approach is interwoven with three bodies of theoretical work: research on marginalization (of persons, places, practices, and more), a dialectical relational reading of Marxist theory (especially the work of Henri Lefebvre) and a theoretical focus on everyday life.

The Introduction situates the book’s contribution within broader anticolonial thought and praxis by articulating an intellectual and political framework of connectivity and anticolonial solidarity – one that neither collapses the differences between decolonization and other political projects nor loses sight of the importance of coalition-building across fields, approaches, and geographical regions. It positions decolonization and social justice within contemporary higher education and advances the case for anticolonial synergy as a shared intellectual and political project for making sense of the diverse practices, struggles, and lived experiences of resistance to colonialism and imperialism worldwide. It is argued that anticolonial synergies in higher education (and beyond) cannot be universalized, but must be carefully attuned to specific historical, political, and institutional conditions. The Introduction concludes by outlining the book structure and introducing the chapters, highlighting how each contributes to the book’s overarching commitment to context-sensitive and politically grounded anticolonial synergies in higher education.

This chapter critically interrogates the incommensurability thesis in contemporary debates on decolonization in higher education, showing how, despite its important political interventions, it can inadvertently generate new binaries – such as decolonization versus anti-racism, or land versus epistemology – that fracture possibilities for solidarity. The chapter advances a both/and approach that takes contextual specificity seriously: in settler-colonial contexts, land, sovereignty, and Indigenous self-determination remain irreducible, while in other sites decolonial struggle may center racial capitalism, language, labor, migration, or resource extraction. Rather than treating these orientations as mutually exclusive, the chapter theorizes conditions for anticolonial synergy, including relational accountability, non-substitution (refusing to collapse or displace Indigenous land claims), intersectional and historically grounded analysis, and coalitional politics built around shared campaigns such as alliances between Indigenous land struggles and abolitionist movements. The analysis supports the book’s proposal for a coalitional framework that bridges decolonial and social justice politics through anticolonial solidarity.

In November 2022, Curtis James Jackson, Aubrey Drake Graham, and 100 other hip-hop artists signed an open letter on change.org, “Art on Trial: Protect Black Art,” denouncing the use of defendant-authored rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials. The petition was a direct response to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s public announcement that her office would seek to admit the rap lyrics of Jeffery Lamar Williams (a.k.a. Young Thug) as proof of criminal intent in his RICO prosecution.

This volume offers the first collection of Critical Evidence scholarship. By using the moniker, “Critical Evidence,” we mean to denote a school of thought that is quite broad but shares certain features. First, Critical Evidence scholars maintain that social conditions matter to what an ideal system of evidence will look like. The quality, depth, and breadth of knowledge inputs affect the quality of the knowledge produced through the application of rules in an adjudicative process. Critical Evidence thus questions one fundamental assumption of the rationalist tradition in evidence, namely, that the system generally achieves “rectitude of decision through correct application of valid substantive laws” and “rational weighing of evidence” by an “impartial decisionmaker.”

Social justice in psychiatric prescribing necessarily elevates the personhood of the patient, in the context of the relationship with the provider as well as in the larger societal milieu. Grounded in a historical narrative, we offer practical tools to apply a social justice framework to prescribing practices. Simple steps advise the reader to consider practice context, utilize nuance in formulation, and pursue quality improvement in three common scenarios. At the end of the chapter, we offer reflection questions to encourage ongoing social justice in your psychiatric prescribing practice.

Awareness of the structural context of prescribing is essential for clinicians to provide appropriate care to our patients. However, there is an opportunity to move beyond this awareness and be active participants in changing the structural factors that impact health and illness. This chapter highlights examples of healthcare workers and systems addressing such structural determinants and moving toward justice. We offer ideas of how clinicians can take action, from the individual physician–patient relationship to policy-level change.

This chapter extends the implications of free will skepticism into the broader realm of social justice. While critics argue that justice requires belief in free will and basic desert, the author contends that many compelling theories of justice – such as those of John Rawls, David Hume, and Amartya Sen – do not rest on desert-based foundations. The chapter introduces and defends the capabilities approach, developed by Sen and Martha Nussbaum, as a promising framework for promoting justice without reliance on retributive or meritocratic notions. This approach emphasizes enhancing individuals’ real freedoms and opportunities – what they are actually able to do and be – while acknowledging the profound effects of luck, social structures, and unequal starting points. Free will skepticism reinforces the moral urgency of this view by highlighting the arbitrariness of birth and circumstance in shaping life outcomes. Rather than attributing success or failure to personal choice alone, this perspective demands attention to systemic barriers and privileges. By rejecting the myth of the self-made individual, the chapter makes a strong case for redistributive justice, inclusion, and structural reform. Ultimately, it argues that free will skepticism not only coheres with the pursuit of social justice but provides a compelling moral rationale for greater compassion, equity, and solidarity.

Islam views labor as the most critical factor in production, alongside capital and machinery. It highlights ethical considerations in distributing production benefits fairly among these factors, strongly opposing exploitation inherent in capitalist systems, which prioritize profits over workers’ rights. Islam forbids interest/usury (riba) – profit from capital without labor – as unjust, emphasizing that wealth must arise through actual work and effort.

Islam distinguishes between capital, machinery and labor, each having different rights. Machinery should not receive profits but rather fixed monetary compensation. Capital owners cannot claim fixed interest as it is deemed exploitative; instead, their gains must come as profit-sharing, subjecting them also to losses. Laborers have privileged rights: workers can earn fixed wages, share profits and remain shielded from business losses.

Islamic principles ensure economic fairness, giving prominence to laborers’ welfare. Labor can either be rented (fixed wage) or engaged in profit-sharing partnerships (mudaraba), where capital bears the risk. Islamic economic ethics provide clear guidelines for fair distribution, recognizing labor’s essential contribution, limiting capital exploitation and assigning machinery as supportive but non-profiting components. The overarching aim is a balanced, ethically driven economy safeguarding human dignity and social justice.

The most shocking changes in the near future will involve the sharp decline in the world’s linguistic diversity, as massive numbers of languages cease to be spoken. The focus of this chapter is endangered languages, why the problem is so serious, what has brought it about, and what can be done about it.

This chapter first situates our field with reference to discussions around the numerous “turns” in applied linguistics and SLA, e.g., social, multilingual, decolonial and racial. While the time seems ripe for transdisciplinary SLA pursuits because of facilitative conditions created by the open science and the slow science movements, for instance, there are also obstacles including the neoliberal management structure in academia which can challenge such undertakings. The chapter provides some pointers for how transdisciplinary research can be conducted. Reflecting on transdisciplinarity can stimulate the rethinking of a monolithic conceptualization of language, the reexamination of the monolingual basis against which development and success are measured and the interrogation of the nature of multilingual competence. Moreover, working transdisciplinarily can potentially help better serve the users we need to serve and mitigate against the misapplication or misinterpretation of our findings. Importantly, as a field that sits on and benefits from intersections (e.g., between languages, cultures, experiences), the chapter argues that SLA researchers have a moral and ethical duty to try to alleviate the plight and tackle injustice that some of our learners and participants are subject to in their contexts.

A juridical commentary to this provision further states: ‘[t]hat which is protected is to be worth more than that which is harmed and the danger is not to be avoidable through any other means’ (Anonymous, 2025, see: https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K24).

In a world grappling with pressing environmental challenges, the intersection of Islamic epistemologies and sustainable development models offers a unique perspective. This chapter book delves into Islamic perspectives on environmental ethics and sustainability, exploring the theological foundations, ethical principles, and practical implications of stewardship and trust in Islam. Drawing upon Quranic teachings and scholarly insights, it examines humanity’s role as stewards of the Earth, emphasizing responsible resource management, moderation, and justice. Rooted in concepts of Khilafah (stewardship) and Amanah (trust), Islamic environmental ethics highlight the ethical obligation to ensure sustainable resource use and protect the environment for future generations. Additionally, the concepts of moderation and justice, known as "Al-Wasatiyyah," offer guidance for achieving balance, equity, and harmony in all aspects of life, including environmental conservation. Through case studies and examples, this chapter book demonstrates how Islamic principles can inform environmental decision-making processes and contribute to holistic, sustainable development efforts. By integrating spiritual dimensions into environmental conservation practices, it advocates for a more comprehensive approach to addressing contemporary environmental challenges, fostering a harmonious relationship between humans and the natural world.