Among the rhetorical pleas that follow most instances of public dissatisfaction is the call for more or better accountability. Accountability is a lauded notion, a “golden concept” that is considered widely as critical to the success of democratic government. Such pleas, I will argue, are misplaced. Rather than starting from the premise of accountability as an idea that no one can be against, I consider the possibility that accountability undermines the very notion it ostensibly promotes: self-government. The concept of accountability in modern political theory is tied more closely to the emergence of an impersonal administrative state than it is to the hopeful horizon of a democratic one. In practice and in theory, it is a concept of irresponsibility, a technological approach to government that provides the comforts of impersonal rationality.

This chapter introduces Spark, a data processing engine that mitigates some of the limitations of Hadoop MapReduce to perform data analytics efficiently. We begin with the motivation of Spark, introducing Spark RDDs as an in-memory distributed data structure that allows for faster processing while maintaining the attractive properties of Hadoop, such as fault tolerance. We then cover, hands-on, how to create and operate with RDDs, distinguishing between transformations and actions. Furthermore, we discuss how to work with key–value RDDs (which is more like MapReduce), how to use caching to perform iterative queries/operations, and how RDD lineage works to ensure fault tolerance. We provide a great range of examples with transformations such as map vs. flatMap and groupByKey vs. reduceByKey, discussing their behavior, adequacy (depending on what we want to achieve), and their performance. More advanced concepts, such as shared variables (broadcast and accumulators) or work by partitions are presented towards the end. Finally, we talk about the anatomy of a Spark application, as well as the different types of dependencies (narrow vs. wide) and the limitations on optimizing their processing.

How do we define creativity? Studies of laypersons’ beliefs tend to find that people focus on malleability, aesthetic taste, insight, and curiosity. Experts, however, propose that for something to be creative it should be both novel or original and task-appropriate or useful. Although other criteria have been proposed, none has been as thoroughly adapted. After discussing why definitions do matter, I shift to theories that categorize creativity. I cover the classic model of the four Ps (Person, Product, Process, and Press) and then highlight a newer model that incorporates a sociocultural influence, the five As (Actor, Artifact, Action, Audience, and Affordances).

This chapter outlines the rationale for the volume as well as its scope and structure. The theoretical and empirical bases for the study of corrective feedback as well as ways to employ corrective feedback in second language instruction are presented first followed by the aims of the book, its target audience, and a description of the book’s structure and content.

A strong role for gendered differences in communication has long been substantiated by sociolinguistic research. It is thus likely that gender also plays a role in how second language feedback is given by teachers and peers and how it is received by language learners. We provide an overview of the limited body of research examining the impact of gender on second language feedback. While several studies have shown differences in how learners receive oral feedback from male and female teachers and peers, conflicting results have been found, and little research has considered the role of gender in written corrective feedback. Further research is needed to clarify the role of gender on feedback, which cannot be understood without consideration of the complex interplay among learner gender, interlocutor gender, culture, task, and context. We call for (1) increased research in diverse educational and cultural contexts, (2) research that considers the role of gender in feedback provided in written as well as oral language use, (3) developmental studies investigating whether descriptive differences impact learning, and (4) consideration of the role of gender that goes beyond binary divisions, adopting qualitative and critical discourse analysis perspectives to understand how gendered language socializations impact second language feedback.