A universal basic income is widely endorsed as a critical feature of effective governance. It is also growing in popularity in an era of substantial collective wealth alongside growing inequality. But how could it work? Current economic policies necessarily influence wealth distributions, but they are often sufficiently complicated that they hide their inefficiencies. Simplifications based on network science can offer plausible solutions and even offer ways to base universal basic income on merit. Here we will examine a case study based on a universal basic income for researchers. This is an important case because numerous funding agencies currently require costly proposal processes with high administrative costs. These are costly for the proposal writers, their evaluators, and the progress of science itself. Moreover, the outcomes are known to be biased and inefficiently managed. Network science can help us redesign funding allocations in a less costly and potentially more equitable way.

As its name indicates, algorithmic regulation relies on the automation of regulatory processes through algorithms. Examining the impact of algorithmic regulation on the rule of law hence first requires an understanding of how algorithms work. In this chapter, I therefore start by focusing on the technical aspects of algorithmic systems (Section 2.1), and complement this discussion with an overview of their societal impact, emphasising their societal embeddedness and the consequences thereof (Section 2.2). Next, I examine how and why public authorities rely on algorithmic systems to inform and take administrative acts, with special attention to the historical adoption of such systems, and their impact on the role of discretion (Section 2.3). Finally, I draw some conclusions for subsequent chapters (Section 2.4).

Dictionaries are an ancient and ubiquitous genre, flourishing wherever and whenever humans flourish, but it’s important to remember that dictionaries aren’t products of human biology or necessity; they are products of human creativity and community: dictionaries are cultural and therefore political.  This chapter explores what it means to understand that simple fact. Dictionaries are partisan systems of ordering words and meanings.  They may aim to be universal, but they inevitably emerge from, record, and respond to social moments from particular perspectives.  Those perspectives may seek to celebrate or denigrate certain cultural groups, legitimate or suppress certain languages, facilitate social mobility or discrimination.  Dictionaries may highlight their cultural positionality as such for political or commercial profit, or they may cast their subjective styles as objective and universal for the same political or commercial profit.  In all events, dictionaries end up documenting cultural information in their definitions, usage labels and notes, illustrative examples and quotations, inserts and appendices, and beyond.  And, again in all events, dictionaries can have cultural impacts entirely unintended or unanticipated by their makers, running from the positive and life affirming to the dehumanizing and antisocial.

Whatever their private religious convictions, nearly all contemporary psychologists of religion – when they act in professional roles – agree to operate in accordance with scientific rules. Recognition of the imperfections of individual methodologies has led to an emphasis on testing theories and verifying “facts” in multiple studies. Most of this chapter explores the pros and cons associated with various research methods, including experimentation, observation, and survey research. Although the logic of experimentation is undeniable and psychologists in various subfields frequently deem it the method of choice, many questions that we most want to answer in the psychology of religion cannot be addressed through experiments that are feasible, ethical, and convincing. Thus, the psychology of religion has always relied heavily on quantitative and qualitative survey research studies. Good surveys must strive to avoid biases rooted in question wording, question order, mode of data collection, social desirability, attitude-behavior discrepancies, and the tendency to overreport religious behavior. Fortunately, many existing measures of religious attitudes and behaviors have good psychometric qualities.

In order to set the scene for this volume, I begin the chapter with a narrative of my experience on the day when I got promoted to a professor at a Japanese university by combining my professional experience to the ideologies of native-speakerism and trans-speakerism. I also include the overall background of the study through providing the aims of the research, explicating the significance of the current inquiry, and outlining the core ideas of this book: native-speakerism and trans-speakerism. In other words, this chapter delineates how these two influential ideologies in language education come together in this book and makes a case for why the present inquiry is a fertile endeavor to make. The chapter concludes with a brief description of the structure and content of the volume.

This chapter describes the origin, development, and subsequent conceptualization of native-speakerism, as well as profiling relevant research on it. Importantly, it also offers my own understanding and interpretation about the notion. To do this, the chapter presents a selection of previous discussions and empirical research into native-speakerism and documents some of the most deleterious effects that native-speakerism has had on the lives and identities of both NESTs and NNESTs worldwide – specifically the effects on NNES teachers and researchers in Japan, who are the focal points of this book. I commence this chapter with a theoretical overview of the ways in which native-speakerism came to be recognized and defined. I then introduce my own analysis of what native-speakerism entails at this moment in time within the ELT field. Afterward, I provide an overview of germane conceptual and empirical studies on native-speakerism while offering my own critiques of them as I do so. With the key points and positionings of the discussion established, I conclude this chapter by positing my case for the originality and significance of this endeavor and by presenting the focal research questions which the research within this volume attempts to answer.

This final chapter, divided into three major parts, draws together the findings and discussion presented in previous chapters and provides recommendations and implications for stakeholders and researchers. The first part outlines summaries of findings and relevant literature followed by a conceptual framework, which exhibits diagrammatically the findings of this study and their interrelationships. The second part regards recommendations for further research and the limitations of my study. A narrative of my reflection on the journey of the study and the writing of this book concludes the volume.

The chapter begins by probing skeptical criticism, with key contributors like Stegenga (2018) questioning our unwavering trust in contemporary medicine. Next, it delves into the criticism of overmedicalization (see Moynihan and Cassels 2005; Conrad 2007; Le Fanu 2012; Parens 2013), viewed as an inappropriate use of medical resources for sociopolitical issues. The chapter also investigates the criticism of objectification related to the quality of care, drawing from thinkers like Cassell (2004), Haque and Waytz (2012), and Topol (2019). Rounding out the chapter, utilizing insights from Popper (2000) and Haslanger (2018), it identifies these criticisms as both social and internal to the practice of medicine. It concludes that medicine is falling short of its own standards, thereby posing fundamental questions about its nature and purpose to be explored in the succeeding chapters.

The chapter revisits the criticisms and challenges presented at the book’s outset. It highlights how the book’s central theses - the Systematicity, Understanding, and Autonomy Theses - help resolve issues related to skepticism, overmedicalization, and objectification in medicine. The chapter argues that a moderate position, supported by these theses, provides better understanding of these challenges and suggests potential solutions. The criticisms of skepticism are countered by increased systematicity in knowledge-seeking. Concerns of overmedicalization are tackled through the Autonomy Thesis, which argues that medicalization is justifiable if a condition is harmful and adequately understood by medicine. Objectification, as examined through the Autonomy Thesis, can impede medicine’s aim by undermining personal understanding. The chapter emphasizes the necessity of counteracting the potential decrease in personal understanding caused by standardization and technological advances.