In this handbook, spanning twenty-two thematic chapters over four levels of analyses, our ambition has been to offer a comprehensive overview of the major psychological and adjacent approaches to violent extremism. This collection represents the culmination of a collective effort to create a resource that was previously unavailable – one that we would have greatly valued at the beginning of our careers. By engaging with this handbook, researchers and students across disciplines, practitioners, policymakers, and other interested individuals gain a thorough understanding of the current state of the field.

There is a need for culturally responsive pedagogy in school–university partnerships to prepare teachers for working with Micronesian Islanders in the state of Hawai’i. As United States public schools become more culturally diverse, there is a need for teacher education programs to better prepare candidates for working with demographically diverse students. Situated in the Hawai’i public school context, we explain how teacher preparation programs may better prepare teacher candidates for working effectively with culturally and linguistically diverse students. An empirical study details how the literature informed our efforts as teacher educators to promote teacher candidates’ understandings of culturally responsive pedagogy to work effectively with Micronesian Islanders; a historically marginalized student population in Hawaii’s public schools. The chapter concludes with suggestions for research, practice, and policy surrounding increased the use of culturally responsive pedagogy in school–university partnerships to prepare teacher candidates for working with historically marginalized student populations.

This review of research on school–university partnerships (SUPs) begins by presenting an overview of the relevant literature including scoping reviews, research mapping, systematic reviews and traditional literature reviews published between 1997 and 2023. The review found three questions were typically addressed in the studies; the first focused on the characteristics of successful partnerships, the second on the outcomes of partnership work and the third on the extent to which partnerships focused on issues of equity. In addition, the review noted that since the earliest reviews of research on PDSs there has been a concern with the quality of that research. A number of suggestions are offered to improve the quality of research including attention to the development of appropriate measures for evaluation, an appreciation for complexity, a close investigation of local context, and a stance of patience and humility. The chapter closes with technical and ethical guidelines for future research.

Moral beliefs are often proposed as causes of violent extremism, specifically, and political violence more generally. Yet, few empirical studies focus on the general causal links between morality and violent extremism. We review several strands of scholarship that bear directly or indirectly on the morality-extremism link. Several general psychological frameworks that cover morality can be applied to explain extremism, notably the Moral Foundations Theory, the Theory of Honour Culture, moral universalism, and theories of moral dilemmas (the Trolley problem literature). Other approaches, such as Virtuous Violence and Sacred Values Theory, provide more direct morality-based explanations for extremism. Our main contention is that the causal link between moral beliefs and violent extremism remains woefully unexplored and that this presents a sharp contrast with the central role that extremist movements often attribute to moral narratives in their justifications for violence. We highlight the need to incorporate morality-based appeals (linked to the reviewed frameworks) in studies of interventions to combat violent extremism and that policymakers should recognize the potentially significant role of moral beliefs as a driver of extremism.

School–university partnerships lie at the heart of pre-service teacher education programmes, though there are “disconnect[s] between what students are taught in campus courses and their opportunities for learning to enact these practices” (Zeichner 2010, p.91). At the heart of school–university partnerships is a conception of the type of teacher that the teacher education programme expects. Drawing on the UK context, we explore ways programme integration can be achieved through research-informed clinical practice, enabling programs “to facilitate and deepen the interplay between the different kinds of knowledge that are generated and validated within the different contexts of school and university” (Burn & Mutton, 2015, p.217). Central to this is the process of “practical theorising,” although this approach also presents a number of challenges. We conclude by exploring the potential for enhanced school–university partnerships to extend beyond pre-service teacher education to in-service teachers’ engagement with research and researchers.

By showcasing examples of scholarship about school–university partnerships (SUPs) in contexts other than the continental United States, this part of the handbook aims to expand the frame of our vision and enable us to see a more complete picture of the possibilities that might emerge from SUPs. A broader perspective can bring our own context more clearly into focus, enabling us to see subtleties that might have remained hidden and making some well-known attributes look surprisingly new, for good or for ill. In addition, as we adjust our gaze to take in both the similarities and differences between our own context and others, we may also begin to see that these variations do not exist in a single binary plane (us and others), but that the similarities and differences abound within and among SUPs in “other” places as well. Thus, we hope that these chapters will be viewed holistically, as a small peek at the vast potential of SUPs to improve education in many different ways, in many different places.

The five contributions in this part are varied in three significant ways. First these chapters cover a diverse geographic range. Secondly, the chapters reflect the diversity of types of programs that fall under the wide umbrella of the term school–university partnerships (SUPs). Finally, the chapters are unalike in genre, as one is a literature review, one a report on a study abroad program for pre-service teachers, and three are analyses of teacher-preparation focused SUPs in different national and regional settings. I see these three aspects of diversity of these chapters as a strength, as collectively the chapters help us appreciate the challenges and possibilities of creating a field of research on comparative international perspectives on SUPs.

This chapter characterizes violent extremism as an ideology, and associated communication-based or overt behavior, that protects, promotes, advances, and defines a group’s social identity, and is implicitly or actually violent. It presents a social identity theory and, primarily, an uncertainty-identity theory account of how normal social identity-based group and intergroup behaviors can become violently extreme. Social identity processes are driven by people’s motivation to (a) secure a favorable sense of self though belonging to high status groups, and (b) reduce uncertainty about themselves and who they are through identification with distinctive groups with unambiguously defined identities. In the former case, people strive to protect or improve their group’s status relative to other groups, and when moderate nonviolent strategies are continuously thwarted, they can reconfigure their group’s identity to incorporate and promote violent extremism. In the latter case, people strive to resolve feelings of self-uncertainty by identifying with distinctive groups, and when intergroup distinctiveness is blurred and their group’s social identity becomes fuzzy they are attracted to ethnocentrism, populist ideology, autocratic leaders, and ultimately violent extremism. The chapter ends by identifying warning signs of radicalization and intervention principles.

This chapter provides an outline analysis of the evolving governance framework for Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the island city-state of Singapore. In broad terms, Singapore’s signature approach to AI Governance reflects its governance culture more broadly, which harnesses the productive energy of free-market capitalism contained within clear guardrails, as well as the dual nature (as a regulator and development authority) of Singapore’s lead public agency in AI policy formulation. Singapore’s approach is interesting for other jurisdictions in the region and around the world and it can already be observed to have influenced the recent Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Guide on AI Governance and Ethics which was promulgated in early 2024.

We offer an integration of temporal approaches to the psychology of violent extremism. Focusing on the role of remembering, we draw attention to how memories and perceptions of the past motivate the use of violence in the present. Reminiscing about a glorious past elicits nostalgia, which, in turn, may increase present-day feelings of relative deprivation, collective angst, and threat. Furthermore, remembering historical perpetrators instills threat perceptions and negative intergroup emotions, whereas remembering past victimization elicits moral entitlement, thereby justifying more extreme means. We explore how different imaginings of the future – for the self and community – function as a double-edged sword either fueling or preventing radicalization in the present. Imagining can stimulate utopian or dystopian visions, which, in turn, may encourage mobilization of more extreme means by instilling a sense of legitimacy and hope in terms of utopias and moral obligation and urgency to prevent dystopias. However, imagining can also elicit a realistic, positive future outlook for the self and wider community, functioning as a protective shield against radicalization into violent extremism instead. We conclude by providing primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention recommendations based on our temporal approach aimed at policymakers and key stakeholders and avenues for future research.

This chapter explores the privacy challenges posed by generative AI and argues for a fundamental rethinking of privacy governance frameworks in response. It examines the technical characteristics and capabilities of generative AIs that amplify existing privacy risks and introduce new challenges, including nonconsensual data extraction, data leakage and re-identification, inferential profiling, synthetic media generation, and algorithmic bias. It surveys the current landscape of U.S. privacy law and its shortcomings in addressing these emergent issues, highlighting the limitations of a patchwork approach to privacy regulation, the overreliance on notice and choice, the barriers to transparency and accountability, and the inadequacy of individual rights and recourse. The chapter outlines critical elements of a new paradigm for generative AI privacy governance that recognizes collective and systemic privacy harms, institutes proactive measures, and imposes precautionary safeguards, emphasizing the need to recognize privacy as a public good and collective responsibility. The analysis concludes by discussing the political, legal, and cultural obstacles to regulatory reform in the United States, most notably the polarization that prevents the enactment of comprehensive federal privacy legislation, the strong commitment to free speech under the First Amendment, and the “permissionless” innovation approach that has historically characterized U.S. technology policy.

John Goodlad’s work and life energies have had a profound impact on public and private education in America. His influence has been far reaching. This chapter presents a brief account of his life and major accomplishments for the purpose of helping all of us who work in school and university partnerships to better understand and appreciate his many contributions. It should be clear, after reading this,  how indebted the field is to him and how inspiring his efforts remain for those of us who continue the struggle to provide a quality education for all children and youth.

Through school–university partnerships (SUPs), individuals and organizations collaborate across the long-standing boundaries that exist between preschool through high school (p-12) and postsecondary education. Partnerships between institutions of higher education and schools take many forms and exist for many purposes; SUPs are boundary-spanning collaborative efforts that require individuals and groups to cross systemic divides in the United States educational system (Burns & Baker, 2016; Zeichner, 2010). In the first half of this chapter, we explore a broad definition for SUPs, define types of SUPs and briefly trace their development since the late 1800s. In the second half of this chapter, we apply three aspects of critical race theory (CRT) to SUPs, considering how SUPs might be facilitated to intentionally pursue racial equity.

The chapter examines the legal regulation and governance of ‘generative AI,’ ‘foundation AI,’ ‘large language models’ (LLMs), and the ‘general-purpose’ AI models of the AI Act. Attention is drawn to two potential sorcerer’s apprentices, namely, in the spirit of J. W. Goethe’s poem, people who were unable to control a situation they created. Focus is on developers and producers of such technologies, such as LLMs that bring about risks of discrimination and information hazards, malicious uses and environmental harms; furthermore, the analysis dwells on the normative attempt of EU legislators to govern misuses and overuses of LLMs with the AI Act. Scholars, private companies, and organisations have stressed limits of such normative attempts. In addition to issues of competitiveness and legal certainty, bureaucratic burdens and standard development, the threat is the over-frequent revision of the law to tackle advancements of technology. The chapter illustrates this threat since the inception of the AI Act and recommends some ways in which the law has not to be continuously amended to address the challenges of technological innovation.