To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In this research agenda, we first review the thematic landscape of task engagement research, providing definitions and elaborating on the core theoretical infrastructure for task engagement. We then summarize consensus perspectives from this body of work and identify important contributions that task engagement research stands to make to second language (L2) learning and teaching research. Following this, we outline five key research tasks that we believe will broaden the field’s understanding of task engagement, sharpen insights from empirical work, and accelerate the contribution of this research. Our goals are, first, to highlight for readers the shared understandings that exist in this important area of language learning research and, second, to draw attention to specific areas where additional L2 task engagement research is needed to push the field forward productively.
This paper draws on two seemingly disparate moments – standing witness to protest in Guatemala and unpacking programme design in New York City – to explore the connections, linkages and methodological insights brought forward by front-line organisers. These individuals, though not typically recognised as policy experts, offer crucial knowledge that challenges dominant approaches to law and policy. Turning to their actions and framing, this paper argues that these organisers share a deep and urgent analysis of institutional and state violence. Their perspectives highlight the inadequacies of conventional institutional lenses, which often exclude or dismiss such grassroots expertise. The paper emphasises the importance of how these voices are heard and responded to, particularly given the historical and ongoing marginalisation of such knowledge holders. Drawing on multiple examples, it critiques institutional investments in spatial and bureaucratic schemes that deflect responsibility for violence, and that distance possibilities for accountability. This raises the question of what orientation or sensibility is necessary to engage with and to listen to these collective voices differently, especially from within administrative and bureaucratic systems. Grappling with the possibilities and limitations of what a category of ‘activist-scholar administrator’ could mean, this paper identifies three key lessons: the need for bureaucratic imagination, an iterative approach and expanded analytical frameworks. I argue that much more thinking and action are needed to navigate bureaucratic systems – whether in universities or state institutions – in ways that centre community knowledge and respond meaningfully to calls for broader accountability.
As cities in the Global South gain visibility in global forums – engaging in climate negotiations, forming alliances and aligning with development goals – their legal and economic status remains structurally ambivalent. This article challenges the idea that these cities are becoming full international legal actors. Instead, we argue that they possess a ‘borderline international legal personality’: conditionally included in global regimes through mechanisms that reinforce long-standing asymmetries. Central to this dynamic is the notion of ‘creditworthiness’, now a key metric of development. Tools like sub-sovereign credit ratings pressure cities to prioritise investor confidence over local needs. These interventions promise international agency but often deepen financial dependency. We call for a re-reading of urban internationalism, attentive to the in-between status of Global South cities – caught between aspiration and discipline. Any emancipatory urban agenda must confront the financialisation of local governance and centre debt justice, autonomy and institutional reform.
Following the 2020 Karabakh War, the emerging geopolitical realities compelled Iran to recalibrate its South Caucasus policy, prompting a shift away from its longstanding posture of neutrality. Despite the potential for Tehran to engage in cooperation through proposed regionalist projects by other actors, a significant shift towards regionalism in Iran’s approach to the South Caucasus remains elusive. This article delves into two primary sets of factors to understand the reasons behind this absence of regionalism in Iran’s foreign policy towards the South Caucasus. The first set encompasses general approaches in Iran’s foreign policy and the impact of domestic political dynamics on their development. It discusses Iran’s perceived impossibility of aligning with the South Caucasus states, the absence of a robust neighborhood policy, and Iran’s strategic isolation in the region, attributed to its unique political system and the ideological stance of its ruling elite. The second set examines external dynamics, including constant international pressure on the Islamic Republic, Iran’s deep-seated ideological and security attachment to the Arab Middle East, and the fluctuating nature of Tehran’s relations with the West. Collectively, these factors significantly limit Iran’s capacity to craft a coherent strategy for regional integration in the South Caucasus.
This special issue, “On Their Own Terms: Experts in Imperial China,” examines various kinds of expertise from Han times into the twentieth century from the angle of practitioners themselves, and sometimes even on their own terms.
In the final decades of its existence, the Qing imperial state sought to unify and standardize policies of frontier management. In this context, mapping and surveying practices developed as socio-technological discourses that transformed how Qing authorities asserted their territorial claims in the Eastern Himalayas. Most scholarship on the history of Qing-era frontier management has tended to focus on Chinese nation-building practices. However, this article foregrounds the deconstruction of the epistemic regime governing the production of geo-knowledge about the Eastern Himalayas by investigating the appropriation and rejection of the interlocutors of local and indigenous knowledge, networks, and actors.
How did military surveyors establish authoritative ideas about their own expertise? This article focuses on the late-Qing surveys of the Dzayul river basin commissioned by Zhao Erfeng and carried out by his subordinate officials Cheng Fengxian, Duan Pengrui, and Xia Hu. Between 1910 and 1911, Zhao Erfeng ordered new surveys of the regions located at the north-easternmost tip of modern-day Arunachal Pradesh, to demarcate the Qing Tibetan dominions and Chinese territory from that of British India. The surveyors Cheng Fengxian, Duan Pengrui, and Xia Hu, mapped the route of the Dzayul River which flowed into British Indian territory through the Mishmi hills into Assam as the Lohit. These surveys largely claimed that natural features marked the “natural” or “traditional” boundaries of the imperial state, against local knowledge productions that framed those same topographical features as connectors rather than dividers. By dissembling the various strands that informed this archive of Qing colonial knowledge, I investigate the processes by which state-produced narratives created new kinds of citational practices to designate who could be recognized as an “expert” of the mountainous geography of Tibet and the trans-Himalayan regions.
This article explores female healthcare at the crossroads of bacteriology and obstetric research. Puerperal fever or childbed fever manifested as an epidemic since the nineteenth century, and in both Europe and America, it charted a distinct course for bacteriological research. With the identification of bacteriological causes, new sets of public health regimes were instituted in both regions. The experience of the colonies, however, differed. This paper focusses on how colonial discourse on obstetric nursing, midwifery, clinical hygiene, and maternal healthcare can be positioned in this global history of female health research. The paper explores why, in India, on one hand, bacteriological research in female health suffered in terms of priority (unlike that of cholera and plague) despite the alarming rate of maternal mortality. On the other hand, medical practitioners trained in Europe worked as the conduit through which the bacteriological research of Europe made its way into India. Contemporary documents reveal how colonial prerogatives were channeled through the race theories linked to Indian cultural practices related to midwifery and obstetric nursing, and how the female health discourse was still marred by the notion of tropicality.