Even as she engaged with contemporary innovations in science and technology, Margaret Cavendish cultivated a cautious approach toward both artificial tools and quantitative methods. In that sense, she anticipated the “productive unease” of modern digital humanities scholars, who derive principles of a critical praxis from the tension between traditional humanistic research and computational techniques. This chapter examines the intersection between Cavendish studies and the digital turn in order to demonstrate the impact of digitally aided methods on interdisciplinary inquiries into Cavendish’s life and works and also to consider the influence that Cavendish’s own philosophy can have on digital humanities practices. It examines the contributions of the community associated with the Digital Cavendish (digitalcavendish.org) collaborative, and then addresses the larger question of how Cavendish’s awareness of the social dimensions of knowledge production and her pragmatic concerns about the limits of artifice might generate insights into the institutions, forms, and models of digital humanities research.

This chapter examines the New York Times’ representation of the Elián González custody case in 1999 within the broader context of the conflict between the United States and Cuba. The central question that frames this work is the extent to which the ideas that underpin the conflict can be shown to influence the Times’ coverage of this specific episode – i.e., the extent to which the coverage of an episode can be influential on the broader conflict. The results point to support for the hypotheses that the discourses represented by the New York Times in its coverage of the González case corresponded with the themes of the broader conflict between the United States and Cuba and that American sources represented in the coverage exemplified predictable attitudes about Cuba and Communism.

Chapter 5 considers evidence that disagreements about the jus ad bellum are linked to disagreements about between ‘pacificist’ and ‘interventionist’ strategic cultures ‘extra-legal’ politico-strategic and ethical principles. The chapter describes extra-legal reasoning, particularly in evaluating facts, in UK government statements and writings by eight legal scholars about the lawfulness of military action in Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), judges’ opinions in the ICJ cases Nicaragua (1986), Wall (2004), and Congo (2005), and in interviews and a survey with thirty-one UK-based international lawyers. The chapter concludes that lawyers’ extra-legal reasoning and views on lawfulness of force broadly align, on a continuum between pacificists preferring a restrictive jus ad bellum, and interventionists favouring an expansionist approach. But again, there are caveats. Most interventionists accept some legal prohibitions they believe are politically or ethically wrong. Most pacificists accept some justifications they politically or ethically condemn. This suggests most lawyers’ politico-strategic and ethical intuitions act as forms of cognitive biases, shaping but not wholly determining opinions about legal interpretation and the jus ad bellum.

Chapter 4 considers evidence that disagreements about the jus ad bellum are linked to disagreements between ‘formalist’ and ‘dynamist’ legal cultures. The chapter describes legal interpretation techniques identified in analysis of UK government statements and writings by eight legal scholars about the lawfulness of military action in Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), judges’ opinions in the key ICJ cases Nicaragua (1986), Wall (2004) and Congo (2005), and in interviews and a survey with thirty-one UK-based international lawyers. The analysis suggests the jus ad bellum displays the forms of vagueness already identified: paradigms, supervaluationism, and fuzzy logic. Lawyers’ legal interpretive choices broadly aligned with their views on the lawfulness of force, on a continuum between a formalist legal culture aligning with a restrictive approach to the jus ad bellum, and a dynamist culture aligning with an expansionist approach. But the correlation has caveats: expansionist lawyers sometimes deployed formalist arguments, while restrictivist lawyers sometimes deployed dynamist arguments. Competing interpretation techniques also do not explain lawyers’ differing factual assessments and forecasts about the jus ad bellum.

While chapter 3 outlines how colonial indirect rule created the structural conditions for Maoist insurgency through multiple causal pathways, it also emphasizes that rebel agency in the form of ideological frames and organizational legacies plays an equally important role in mobilizing the ethnic networks of lower castes and tribes. In this chapter, I provide qualitative evidence to demonstrate this interaction between rebel agency and structural conditions created by colonial institutions. I first provide a detailed history of the organizational evolution of the various Maoist factions since the 1960s. Then, I use fieldwork interviews and textual analysis of Maoist documents to demonstrate that the Maoists are strategic about their choice of area, based on local politics, terrain, ethnic composition, and level of economic development. However, even within those areas they considered favorable based on terrain, inequality, and politics, they were successful only where the British colonial institutions of zamindari (landlord) land tenure or certain types of princely states were present. This demonstrates that rebel agency interacts with and is constrained by the opportunity structures of land/ethnic inequality available in areas of former indirect rule and revenue collection.

Germany has frequently been cited as a case study in the contemporary dialogue around refugee higher education. Much of the emerging literature that focuses on refugee education in Germany has dealt with access to higher education institutions (HEIs), profiling ‘pathway’ or ‘bridging’ programmes that prepare students for higher education and are familiar in other national settings. This chapter seeks to take a somewhat different approach, employing quantitative textual analysis to parse the webpages of sixteen German universities – one per federal state – that represent the ‘home page’ for refugee services at the given HEI. A particular focus of this research is on the question of whether and how women are reflected in the institutional initiatives represented on refugee ‘home pages’. In quantifying the language used and supports offered across HEIs, the distinct policy contexts and diffusion of information available to prospective university entrants become clear. In short, the results of quantitative textual analysis reflect the disjointed nature of refugee student information and services at this sub-set of German research universities.