This chapter examines data-centric collaborations in the natural sciences as organizational experiments that use diverse resources to order their affairs, often in improvisational ways. For a certain period of exclusive proprietary use, the data that such teams obtain and make is their epistemic and social “stuff” which members use to establish connections and collaborations. Diverse in origin and structure, such data-centric collaborations typically lack features of formal organization, such as organizational charts and legally binding contracts. They often emerge from ties of academic genealogy and friendship. Focusing mostly on MUWAGS, the Multiwavelength Galaxy Survey (pseudonym), an international collaboration of around thirty astronomers, this chapter examines its work of organizing and its resources by witnessing practical reasoning and tracing social accountability. These resources include medial formats, epistemic orders, and a team’s joint orientation to produce a consistent dataset. From there, this chapter identifies elements of a continuum of size and formality in organizing research with large and complex datasets.

When the Brexit referendum result came in, Tony Gallagher, editor of the Daily Telegraph, triumphantly texted the Guardian newsroom: ‘Who said the mainstream media was finished?’ Gallagher was apeing Kelvin McKenzie, one of his predecessors as Sun editor, who proclaimed after John Major’s upset election victory in 1992: ‘It was the Sun wot won it!’ Brexit appeared to vindicate his view that the press, in particular the Sun, had tipped the balance in favour of Leave. The mood inside the FT newsroom was funereal. Over at The Sunday Times, Michael Sheridan, a veteran foreign correspondent, arrived early that morning to see Martin Ivens alone in the editor’s office. ‘What have you done?,’ he exclaimed, extending a congratulatory hand. Ivens held out the possibility of a renegotiation based on the Brexit vote followed by a second referendum.

In Re-forging America (1927), Lothrop Stoddard (1883–1950) provides a compelling narrative of the American nation. Stoddard uses language and rhetorical techniques to convince the reader that the story he tells is true because it is based on historical facts and common sense, and because he is a patriot who is deeply concerned about the future of the country he loves. However, if we carefully examine how Stoddard constructs his arguments by analyzing the content of his discourse and the rhetorical devices he employs, we find that he has a particular goal in mind in writing his book, mainly, to characterize an American identity that is inextricably tied to a particular and exclusive ethnic/cultural identity: Anglo-Saxonism. Yet, stark differences existed among the thirteen original colonies in terms of economic interests, social customs, ethnicity, cultural norms, religious affiliations, languages spoken, and class stratification that rendered the colonial world a disparate patchwork of largely unconnected entities. Despite these differences, in the colonial era and well into the nineteenth century, America was widely understood to be a nation founded, ruled, and owned by white, Northwestern European–origin, mostly Christian (if only in name) men. There was little public pushback against this account.

We present historical background, contemporary status, and potential future development of the psychology of religion (PoR) in the United States and Canada, beginning with its origins: the formative people, places, and various intellectual schools of thought. Writing about the current state of the topic, we reflect on influential factors that are either facilitating or inhibiting the study of PoR, including publication options, topical emphases, practitioners, orientations, methodologies, and professional organizations.

We offer opinions concerning future development topics that are emerging as important in the immediate future and/or are perennially important in order to stimulate creative and useful research including Western theoretical relevance, the extent to which Western PoR theories may or may not contain reasonable expectations and concepts for this region, contextual nuances, Indigenous theoretical concerns, collaborative research opportunities, and common faux pas – reflections on what people unfamiliar with this region commonly and incorrectly assume about conducting PoR work in this context.

In this chapter, the writings of two intellectuals are reviewed. Isaac Berkson (1891–1975) and Randolph S. Bourne (1886–1918) viewed the Americanization movement as unnecessary, wrong-headed, and contrary to their understanding of American democracy. For Berkson, Bourne, and many other intellectuals and political activists, the ‘melting pot’ meant forced assimilation into a particular preexisting ‘pot’ into which the immigrant is to be cast, and after a coerced ‘melting’ process, becomes – as much as possible – like the default ‘normal’ Anglo-Saxon/Northern European, white, Christian, English-speaking ‘American.’ For these writers, such a process was incompatible with a future based on a transnational polity of complex diversity that is always evolving and open to change and improvement, and that includes cooperation with other nations in the furtherance of sustainable peace and the improvement of living standards in the United States and across the globe.

As a preliminary to the proof of the Hasse–Arf theorem in the next chapter, the trace mapping of differential forms with log pole is constructed and studied. The construction is based on a logarithmic variant of that in the book Residues and Duality. In the last section, the general construction is applied to inseparable extensions of fields of positive characteristic.

This chapter examines representations of wedding attire in a popular, though now defunct, feminist wedding blog, A Practical Wedding. The analysis compares two genres: posts sponsored by apparel brands and posts contributed by people about their own weddings. I argue that the two genres underline two forms of feminist personhood. On one hand, we find the rhetoric of neoliberal individuation, whereby the role of clothing is to help wearers present their best selves, wholly unfettered by others and their expectations. On the contrary, wedding accounts authored by readers-turned-contributors outline a model of clothing that is networked and connects the wearer to others alive and dead. I argue that the cleavage between these two models of dressed selfhood maps on to divergent impulses – toward individualism and being-in-relation – in contemporary feminism. Ultimately, the model of “haunting” by others that is implied by first-person accounts of dressing for the wedding provides a model for thinking about the ghosting of neoliberal feminism by relational ethics.

Classic studies of English fiction and social life often depict romantic marriage and marriage novels as rising in tandem, with each propelling the other all the way to the moment of Jane Austen or even to the early twentieth-century era of modernist experiment and legal divorce. Capitalizing on this collection’s attention to micro-chronologies, this chapter, however, engages with a set of domestic fictions, by William Godwin, Amelia Opie, Maria Edgeworth, and others, that for a brief interval consciously dispensed with the premise that marriage was crucial for narrative completion. Widening the collection’s geographic focus, I consider this set of English works alongside the novels of the Swiss-French Germaine de Staël, an inclusion that helps underscore how some of the challenges posed in the 1800s to the narrative grammar of the novel originated with the French Revolution and with revolutionary jurists’ liberalization of the laws regarding marriage and its dissolution.

This chapter explores the role and regulation of general meetings within EU companies, focusing on shareholder participation, decision-making processes and procedural requirements. It examines the harmonization efforts through EU directives aimed at ensuring transparency, fairness and effective corporate governance. The chapter analyses the rights and obligations of shareholders during general meetings, including voting mechanisms and minority protections. It also addresses challenges related to cross-border participation and digitalization of meetings. By reviewing case law and national variations, the chapter highlights how general meetings serve as a crucial platform for accountability and stakeholder engagement in the EU corporate framework.

This chapter explores Article III’s enigmatic structure – establishing one Supreme Court, optional inferior courts, and limited original jurisdiction – which is amenable to competing interpretations and lends itself to competing conceptions of the judicial role in a system of separated powers. Despite scholarly disagreements over the details of this structure, judicial review is an inherent feature of judicial power under a written constitution. The chapter argues that judicial review, affirmed in Marbury v. Madison (1803), follows from conflict-of-laws principles, with unanimous Founding-era support from figures like Hamilton and Iredell. The chapter refutes claims that Chief Justice Marshall invented judicial review, emphasizing its roots in the Constitution’s text and the Framers’ expectations. However, it challenges judicial supremacy, suggesting courts were not intended as final arbiters of constitutional meaning, a theme explored further in subsequent chapters on Dred Scott and departmentalism. By comparing Article III with Articles I and II, the chapter clarifies the judiciary’s role within the separation of powers, arguing that its structure supports a balanced, not dominant, judicial branch.

Only one person can answer as to the sincerity of the decision Boris made to back leave. The now infamous two articles allow his enemies to present his decision as an act of calculating duplicity for which they will forever believe him guilty. This perhaps also provides a focus for the real cause of their angst – that he beat them. I can only observe that I saw him use this device often in decision-making. Whatever motivated his decision in February 2016, he certainly owned it from there on. Johnson’s arrival as the public face of leave brought energy and stardust to the campaign. New voters seemed to ‘have permission’ to vote leave because of Johnson’s arrival. He moved the centre of gravity of the campaign away from the purely Faragist proposition. A good test of the effectiveness of the message was in the reaction of some of the arch-Brexiteers. Supreme bores like Bernard Jenkin deeply resented Johnson, whom they regarded as a Johnny-come-lately. Those not stuck in the time warp of 1992–7 rejoiced at it.