This chapter addresses some of the scientific, philosophical and theological arguments brought to bear on the debates surrounding human–robot relationships. Noting that we define robots through our relationships with them, it shows how factors such as emotion and agency can indicate things such as a theory of mind that condition users to expect reciprocal relationships that model a sense of partnership. These factors are important in ‘lovotics’, or a trend in social robotics to produce robots that people want to develop relationships with. Such relationships, however, at least given current capabilities in robotics, will always fall short of conditioned expectations because robots, rather than being full partners, are largely reducible to the self or user. The chapter introduces the notions of anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism to demonstrate these critiques, and then moves on to consider alternative figurations of relationships – drawing in particular on articulations of relationality – that may enable us to rethink how we image and imagine robots.

In a remarkable article published in the official journal of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in December 1992, the Director-General of the Economic Affairs Bureau and one of the most senior figures in the Ministry, Kazuo Ogura, wrote in an analysis of Japan’s diplomacy that only Australia could fill the role of Japan’s real partner in an Asian-Pacific regional alliance: their similar democratic values, market economies and approach to free trade, and common interests in security and political matters, gave the two countries a firm basis for a continuing and closer partnership. This view was warmly endorsed by Australia’s Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans, as echoing his own remarks about Australia being a natural ally of Japan, and was enthusiastically taken up by the Australian press in terms of the opportunity and challenge presented to Australia.

The trans-Tasman relationship matured in the 1990s as Australia and New Zealand assumed somewhat more distinct identities, while simultaneously forging a closer partnership on the periphery of the Asia-Pacific region. No one in New Zealand pretends that the relationship with Australia is one of equals. Each is a central but asymmetrical priority for the other in economic, trade, foreign and security policies. The momentous global changes of the 1990s affected the two countries in similar ways and produced many similar responses. Along with the abatement of the Soviet threat from Southeast and North Asia, this gave rise to some fears of the retrenchment of the United States from Asia and to a resulting instability in Asia. Australian and New Zealand concerns therefore focused more sharply on the creation of structures of confidence building and security dialogues in the Asia-Pacific region. Yet New Zealand’s geopolitical distance from Asia relative to that of Australia, as well as New Zealand’s dissociation from the Australia, New Zealand and United States (ANZUS) security alliance for fears of nuclear contamination, took Canberra and Wellington along some separate defence paths.

As the Middle East became an economically underdeveloped region, its entrepreneurs did not form movements to constrain either rulers or clerics. They did not bring about liberalization through organizational innovations that strengthened them politically. A basic reason is that, until the transplant of modern economic institutions from Europe, the Middle East’s private enterprises remained small and ephemeral. These characteristics precluded sustained coalitions representing business interests. A further consequence was the failure to institute political checks and balances of the type that made European rulers submit to rule of law. Several elements of the Islamic institutional complex contributed to keeping Middle Eastern enterprises structurally stagnant until the 1800s. Most critically, Islam’s partnership rules allowed partners to pull out at will, and its inheritance system hindered capital accumulation. The upshot is that enterprises did not experience operational challenges of the type that would have stimulated organizational innovations. Among the innovations that did not emerge indigenously are banks, chambers of commerce, business publications, stock exchanges, and formal insurance markets. Their long absence contributed to keeping private economic actors politically weak. It also compounded the endemic weaknesses of civil society.

Chapter 19 opens by asking readers to reflect on prior collaborations, writing down their views on what makes people easy to work with and what makes them hard to work with. The chapter argues for a team-based approach to public engagement, and suggests ways to build effective teams. Also, it’s important to trust our partners at informal learning venues, as they have expertise on the audiences and logistics in these settings. Emphasizing that communication with these partners is still a conversation, the chapter returns to the principles of a successful conversation described in Chapter 3 and unpacks each one with reference to venue partners. A case study exemplifies these points, describing a partnership between university students and faculty and museum professionals. Details are given of negotiation about institutional missions and daily operations through to a demonstration on children’s science practices in a game about vowel sounds. This chapter’s Closing Worksheet asks readers to make a detailed plan for getting their demonstration into a specific place or event.

The Conclusion recapitulates the lessons of the comparative, empirical, and economic analyses and points out future directions that enable us to even better test the grand property theories and understand property legal systems around the word.

In Chapter 7 we share strategies to facilitate successful collaboration with colleagues. We make a case for collaboration, share ideas on how to find colleagues for collaboration and what to look for, and provide tips for how to be a good collaborator.

In this chapter, we begin by examining the term ‘family’ and how it is defined in different contexts. As we examine these different definitions you will come to understand the complexity of ‘family’ and the diverse ways in which families can be defined. We then explore some of the structural and functional definitions of the family before moving towards examining some of the underlying assumptions made about families within wider society, including how these assumptions might position families in educational contexts. Through this exploration, some of your own underlying assumptions may be challenged as you come to understand the importance of educators and families working together to achieve the best educational outcomes for children. The chapter continues by discussing the idea of a subjective definition of families and what this might mean for you as an educator. We then move toward the term ’partnership’ and explore some of the barriers and opportunities to partnership work and how they can be harnessed and/or overcome. The chapter concludes by introducing the notion of innovative partnership work, your role in it as an educator, and the importance of this work in the educational context.

In the 21st century, it doesnt necessarily take much to start a business – you can set up on your own, with just an idea and a website or social media account. However, as most aspects of business today are highly regulated, either at the state or federal level, advice as to which business structure is most appropriate for a new or existing business venture will be fundamental to its success or failure. This chapter examines potential business structures in relation to a number of key factors and provides examples for you to consider the impact of each business structure in practice. In this chapter, seven business structures will be examined in detail: sole trader, partnership, joint venture, franchise, trust, unincorporated association and incorporated association. The chapter will also briefly introduce the corporation, which is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 14.

Relationship problems relating to sex and desire, including mismatches in desire and how to successfully address these; mismatches in preferred sexual activities and how to address these; the value of couples counselling for all couples.

Our food systems have performed well in the past, but they are failing us in the face of climate change and other challenges. There is a broad consensus that transformation of food systems is required to make them sustainable and equitable for all. Transformation occurs via agents of change: individual behaviour, policies and institutions, research and innovation, and partnerships and alliances. Outcome-oriented agricultural research for development can help bring about directed transformation that maximises benefits and minimises trade-offs.

The agricultural research for development (AR4D) domain is becoming increasingly complex, and theory of change (ToC) approaches can provide critical guidance through the maze of transformation concerning engagement, partnership, and research. Most of the major benefits that accrue through the use of ToCs relate to internal learning within project teams. Finding the balance between applying a ToC that is both useful and time- and resource-smart is challenging and may need iteration to get right. Quantitative impact assessment methods must be blended with qualitative methods in ToC-based AR4D, so that evaluation becomes about both the process and numbers, while new methods require developing for blended evaluation. The evidence base concerning the efficiency, efficacy, and failings of ToC-based AR4D urgently requires further development and synthesis, and the lessons must be applied broadly.

Partnerships are crucial for fostering change in society, particularly in the solving of complex problems such as climate change. They are particularly important for researchers interested in societal change, given that research in the strictest sense is only about knowledge generation. Given partnerships are crucial for outcome-focused research, the selection of diverse strategic partners is key and must be guided by theories of change. Complementary visions are important but do not always need to be tightly structured. From farmers and producer groups to international agencies, multi-level partnerships help promote action at different levels. Collaborative arrangements are important but can be informal and flexible; many successful longer-term partnerships are deep and trustful at their core, often with informal relationships.

There have been several calls for transformation in food systems to address the challenges of climate change, hunger, continuing population pressure, and to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although complicated, working across scales and actors is critical for food-system transformation, alongside understanding the entry points. As agricultural research for development (AR4D) is ultimately about farming practices and farmer livelihoods, a focus on the local scale is essential, as in most cases, farms and districts are where the most action is required. Through effective cross-scale work, lessons from local levels can shape the thinking of regional and national governments, as well as the private sector. Involving multiple and ideally nested scales, designing sets of solutions, and developing actionable, fundable, and implementable solutions is likely to provide rich food-system outcomes. Partners need to provide the tools, signals, and resources so that local people, communities, and policy planners are empowered to drive transformation.

Meinhard v. Salmon found a heightened duty of loyalty among joint adventurers: the duty of finest loyalty. Famously, Chief Judge (and later, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court) Cardozo wrote that trustees are held to “not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive.” Professor Christine Hurt comments on the missing history surrounding the relationship of Meinhard and Salmon and the condition of the United States at the time the underlying transactions took place. Professor Dalia Mitchell, rewriting the Meinhard opinion as Justice Mitchell, reaches the same conclusion but through vulnerability theory and the feminist widening the lens method. In doing so, she considered the history, context, and persons affected by the outcome in a way unique to the rewritten opinion. The original opinion is critiqued for essentially providing the utmost care or no duty whatsoever with nothing in between. Notably, the initial decision only takes the contractual relationship between Meinhard and Salmon into account. Under vulnerability theory, the opinion should consider the overall context of joint adventurers’ relationships to reach more equitable decisions.

We are using communication and engagement with stakeholders to attempt to foster positive view of eagles. We are exploring the opportunities for nature-based tourism to highlight the benefits of eagles. We are taking a partnership approach with equal input from land management sectors and conservationists.