This book sets out to look at what language is and what languages are with a view to arriving not at one practical theory of language, but rather at ways of assembling practical ways of thinking about language, or understanding applied linguistics as a practical assemblage. Rather than thinking about applied linguistics in disciplinary or interdisciplinary terms, this view suggests the coming together of language-oriented projects (social or educational endeavours that involve language), practical theories of language (different ways of approaching linguistic questions) and critical appraisals (ethical, material and political concerns). As applied linguists, we have to start to take responsibility for the ways we think about language. Approaches to language that derive from attempts to describe language structures or to account for language use in structural terms may not be so useful. The terrain has changed from when applied linguistics was first seen as the application of linguistic knowledge to real-world contexts. We can now start to think seriously about practical theories of language or ways of thinking about language that derive from contexts of practice.

This chapter turns to the conception of ‘legitimate’ knowledge, first examining constructions of ‘legitimacy’, drawing on political, sociological, and philosophical conceptions. The construction of legitimate knowledge in relation to the conceptions of belief, truth, and justification are considered. In addition, debates pertaining to the recent discourses of the democratisation of knowledge, linked to the notion of ‘expertise’ and ‘stakeholders’, indigenous knowledge and decolonising knowledge are discussed; this entails a critical exploration of various types of factors complicit in the formulation of knowledge, including positionality, with respect to class, political interest, gender, race, and so on; university diversity initiatives; disciplinary quality; methodology and the ‘Canon’; skills, employment, and research assessment initiatives; funding and international partnerships; and global legitimating systems such as global university rankings, publication systems, and citation practices. Furthermore, it is argued that the production of research does not sit outside these positionalities and the politics of knowledge production.

A comparison of disciplines is helpful for teaching creativity to identify similarities and differences in the creative process. A challenge for all disciplines is to create a balance between teaching higher-level abilities, such as creativity, and the lower-level technical skills required by the discipline. But there are also differences among disciplines. Scientific training emphasizes avoiding mistakes so it is more risk-aversive than training in the arts in which taking risks is often encouraged. Research on science and mathematics learning includes evaluating the effects of exposing preservice elementary teachers to multiple representations, measuring scientific creativity in elementary school students, identifying competencies for scientific reasoning in junior high school, and designing instruction on complex systems at all levels in the curriculum. TRIZ, an acronym for the Russian phrase ‘theory of inventive problem solving’, has influenced the design and evaluation of curricula for engineering students.

This chapter discusses the members of the ecumenical synods, beginning with the core members: the ‘athletes/artists who take part and win in sacred crown games’. Among these, several hierarchies are detectable: hierarchies based on agonistic victories (the more victories in sacred games, the better), on agonistic disciplines (some disciplines were regarded higher than others, e.g. kitharists were regarded higher than trumpeters and pankratiasts higher than runners) and on social background (not all competitors came from elite families). Next, the chapter proceeds to the members who offered competitive support: the so-called synagonistai of the thymelic synod took part in the performances but could not win prizes themselves; they were for instance secondary actors or choir members. In the xystic synod, the presence of trainers supporting individual athletes is documented. Finally there were other people who were not involved in the competitions themselves, such as support crews, administrative aides, family members of competitors and honorary members.

This is the general introduction to the Cambridge Handbook of Undergraduate Research. It deals with the history of the university as an institution (which has been a research institution only since the nineteenth century); with the concept of undergraduate research and its dimesions (e.g., student- or staff-initiated research); with possible alternative concepts (e.g., critical thinking or lifelong learning); with research on undergraduate research (e.g., increased retention rate but necessary mentoring); and with implementation challenges (for universities and faculty). We see a new role for students: that in ever more differentiated modern societies, collaborative, cross-segmental knowledge production becomes a new necessity, the educational means to which might be undergraduate research.

At the time of writing, there clearly is more research on undergraduate research than there are explicit efforts at formulating theory. However, any questionnaire designed to assess the effects of undergraduate research also contains theoretical assumptions; while these may not always become explicit, they can nonetheless contribute to theory-building.

This introduction has three parts. The first part will briefly introduce existing models of undergraduate research with theoretical significance, here in the context of the research–teaching nexus. The second part will introduce the four theoretical perspectives that provide the framework(s) for an understanding of undergraduate research in this handbook, namely: higher education policy, psychology, philosophy, and the sociocultural perspective. The third part will briefly discuss how we might develop a theory of undergraduate research.

Part III comprises views on undergraduate research in a broad disciplinary variety of disciplines. The section is structured within five subject clusters and a list of disciplines that do not match with the clustering. In general, we find examples of undergraduate research in any discipline. In some cases, as in psychology, undergraduate research had always been a (potential) component of the undergraduate curriculum. Therefore, undergraduate research doesn’t look new. In contrast, some university teachers, for instance in mathematics or law, are convinced that their discipline is too complicated to allow for undergraduate research. In the context of our handbook, by far the most common approach to undergraduate research is: just do research. When it comes to the implementation of undergraduate research, best practice arises with pioneering initiatives of engaged teachers or students and often results in organizational solutions, as in changed curricula, new research facilities, or a rethinking of research-based student–staff relationships.

Whereas the previous chapters dealt with the influence of Hellenistic philosophy on Roman law in terms of method, this chapter deals with the influence with regard to a substantive issue, the notion of person. The Roman jurists became interested in the abstract use of the notion of person in the slipstream of the philosophers, who combined the Greek understanding of person with a more indigenous, that is Etruscan, understanding thereof. ‘Person’ thus understood would become one of the central notions in Roman law and beyond.

This chapter investigates the disciplinary formation of Classical Philology as an especially privileged subject in the nineteenth-century university, and the degree to which it overlapped happily with theology. It looks at how the two fields, both committed to the study of antiquity, shared methodology, ideology and an approach to education. It investigates how particular scholars straddled both fields in a way that subsequent historiography and disciplinary silos have worked to conceal – and how specific books became the site for shared intellectual perspectives. The chapter explores this through the career of Benjamin Jowett, as an exemplary figure who straddles both fields. Finally, it considers how twentieth-century historiography and the self-representation of scholars in theology and philology have enacted an increasingly sharp divide between the two disciplines, and explores its reasons and consequences.

This collection of essays, by leading scholars and practitioners from a range of countries, pays homage to a pre-eminent figure in the field of intellectual property: Sam Ricketson. Inspired by the breadth of Ricketson’s work, the contributions explore issues from a perspective that looks across the field – in particular, across the regimes, jurisdictions, disciplines and professions of IP. Topics explored across the regimes include the nature of IP subject matter, overlaps in protection, historical connections between copyright and patents and the transplantation of civil law moral rights to common law copyright. In across jurisdictions, chapters address, inter alia, the application of private international law to cross-border IP disputes, the Berne Convention and AI-authored works, how countries might exit the Berne Convention and dispute settlement under TRIPS. The intersection of copyright and privacy laws, the relationship between privacy, personality and trade mark laws, the teaching of IP and human rights and the conduct of empirical and historical research in IP are among the matters considered across disciplines. Contributions across professions include the participation of scholars in IP policy making, the IP textbook in legal practice, and the role of expert evidence in IP litigation.