This introduction establishes a foundation for the chapters that follow by providing an overview of Vasari’s work at Santa Maria della Pieve in Arezzo and the state of the research on the topic. It also maps out the structure of the book, identifies the methodologies and primary and secondary source material upon which it is based, and establishes its contribution to the literature on Vasari and the history of Italian Renaissance art.

In this chapter, the lives of persons are put in dialogue with the transformation of the Vineyard region, thus highlighting complex transactions. How did changes in policies affect daily interactions in which older persons live, or the possibilities open to them when experiencing ruptures? How could they, in turn, draw on their experience to participate in daily arrangements or social transformations? And finally, what does it mean to be involved, as researchers, in some of these dynamics? This chapter reflects on the dialogical case study perspective chosen to approach ageing in the Vineyard region. It first examines how propositions, voices or perspectives emitted sociogenetically, shape or enter in dialogue at the other levels, and how ontogenetic or microgenetic dynamics are expressing or shaped by other dynamics. It then focuses on dialogues, misunderstandings, blind spots and tensions in such a complex case. Finally, it shows how, as researchers, we participated in this regional dialogue via an art-based method – theatre – that could be seen as a dialogical catalyst.

The exploration proposed here is pursued through a complex, regional case study. Regional case studies enable delineating a portion of the world, with a consistent set of institutions and policies as well as geographical and material conditions that set the frame for people’s lives, and to identify the complex dynamics by which sociogenetic, microgenetic and ontogenetic transformation co-occur. This chapter presents how we approached, conceived and analysed this case study. To start with, I define my approach to ageing as a form of personal engagement, which progressively developed into a collaborative project. After showing the relevance of a regional case study for sociocultural psychology of the lifecourse, I present the fieldwork, the data collection, an overview of the participants and the main line of the analysis.

Appearing at the tail end of this volume, I begin with a brief meditation on the coda. A (musical) ending, the vulgar form of cauda (tail or privy member), figure of our fallen state, the coda may also be a whip or goad to inspiration or even exaltation. Attempting to turn my posterior position to good ends, I have, in the place of an ending, used the chapters here as provocations and inspirations. Recognizing in them a more expansive account of legal performance than my own, I point to how they unbind law and performance from the rigid definitional strictures on which I have relied, how they challenge the boundaries between text and performance, performance and law, law and world, world and fiction (the veritas falsa of theatre and the falsitas verus of law), how they show the methodological Über-Ich (with its rules and dogmas) to be unseated by an ontological Id that scoffs at its laws. That force – like the comedic cauda in the courtroom – answers legal solemnities with impudent laughter and other “minor jurisprudences of refusal,” creating heterotopias, wild zones, rehearsals for alternative futures.

Empirical legal research, better known as empirical legal studies (ELS), has arrived in the EU. It introduces a distinct way of thinking about the law – or epistemology – and distinct ways for transforming this thinking from beliefs and opinions to justified beliefs and opinions – or methodology. As an exploration of ELS in EU law, this volume reflects on both. Its purpose is to map the state of the art, highlight the contribution which empirical legal scholarship has made to EU law, as well as its potential, limitations, and the way forward. In this Introduction, we begin by defining its object and objectives, comparing them to existing legal and social science research concerned with legal aspects of European integration. Second, we briefly revisit the field’s historical and geographical origins. Third, we examine the developing relationships between, on the one hand, ELS and, on the other, EU law and political science. Fourth, we address open questions, unchartered territories, and existing obstacles faced by ELS. Finally, we provide an overview of the volume, outlining the individual chapters and the overarching themes which they address.

EU legal scholarship has a strong tradition of contextual, somewhat theoretical analysis. That tradition has been facilitated by the open nature of EU law, the grand social goals of the EU, and the need to construct legitimating legal stories around these, but also by the interconnected community of EU law scholars and professionals, which have given the field a kind of autonomy from more doctrinal national law. Yet lacking empirical evidence beyond legal texts, EU law’s free-ranging scholarship is suffering a crisis of disillusionment, paralleled by the crisis of the EU itself, which invites scholars to reconsider the nature of their role. In this context, empirical legal studies is enjoying a huge rise in popularity among EU legal scholars, with its promise of answers to important questions, rather than mere commentary. That leads to synergies as well as conflicts – for resources, and about methods – but above all it seems likely to reorientate EU legal scholarship away from its path of the last five decades and towards a new stylistic and methodological mix.

This chapter reviews the principles of evidence-based medicine and evidence-based radiology as they apply to child maltreatment clinical care and research. Common pitfalls and the rise of “predatory publishing” are discussed as important challenges to rigorous medical literature appraisal and its application to clinical care and research. An approach to critical appraisal is given, to help you determine whether a study is of high quality or not. A detailed discussion of the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) report is included as a particular example of the misuse of evidence-based edicine principles.

Chapter 1 (Introduction): In this chapter, I argue that scholars have tended to focus on how ancient Jews judged and criticized pagan worship (i.e. on the normative elements of ancient Jewish views). I suggest that, by turning our attention instead to how Jews constructed and imagined the religious devotion of their pagan neighbors (i.e. the descriptive elements of ancient Jewish views), we can open up an entirely new arena of investigation into ancient Jewish thought.

Scholars engaged in comparative research on democratic regimes are in sharp disagreement over the choice between a dichotomous or graded approach to the distinction between democracy and nondemocracy. This choice is substantively important because it affects the findings of empirical research. It is methodologically important because it raises basic issues, faced by both qualitative and quantitative analysts, concerning appropriate standards for justifying choices about concepts. Generic claims that the concept of democracy should inherently be treated as dichotomous or graded are incomplete. The burden of demonstration should instead rest on more specific arguments linked to the goals of research. This chapter thus takes the pragmatic position that how scholars understand and operationalize a concept can and should depend in part on what they are going to do with it. The chapter considers justifications focused on the conceptualization of democratization as an event, the conceptual requirements for analyzing subtypes of democracy, the empirical distribution of cases, normative evaluation, the idea of regimes as bounded wholes, and the goal of achieving sharper analytic differentiation.

The challenge of finding appropriate tools for measurement validation is an abiding concern in political science. This chapter considers four traditions of validation, using examples from cross-national research on democracy: the levels-of-measurement approach, structural-equation modeling with latent variables, the pragmatic tradition, and the case-based method. Methodologists have sharply disputed the merits of alternative traditions. The chapter encourages scholars – and certainly analysts of democracy – to pay more attention to these disputes and to consider strengths and weaknesses in the validation tools they adopt. An appendix summarizes the evaluation of six democracy data sets from the perspective of alternative approaches to validation.

This chapter introduces the book’s central argument about the parallel development of ideas about context in anthropology and Wittgenstein’s philosophy. It situates both within broader ‘cultures of context’ in twentieth-century thought, while establishing key themes about form and formlessness. The introduction argues that anthropology’s current antiformalist stance represents not progress but a particular historical development that deserves examination. It outlines how the book will trace shifts from logic to language to life as models of context in both Wittgenstein and anthropology.

Transitions research has gained traction in sustainability studies for its systemic approach to environmental challenges. A central tenet is that the persistence of these challenges can be attributed to ‘system failures’, and that system innovation is needed, i.e. a multitude of innovations that co-evolve into system-wide transformations. However, many contrasting views of ‘systems’ and ‘systemic frameworks’ are seemingly always clamouring for attention, whilst it is not always clear what they’re referring to. Taking a reflexive methodology approach, this chapter addresses recurring questions: Transforming ‘systems’: Which? How? Whose? Why? Whither? Whence? For instance, is transitioning the ‘mobility system’ a matter of electrification or of unlearning car dependency? In transitioning the ‘energy system’, is importation of rare minerals a central part or an externality? The chapter presents a methodological overview of systems analysis in transitions research. It brings out how transitions research has developed a fine sense of Critical Systems Thinking. On the other hand, it also shows the need for further methodological reflection on the study of transitioning ‘systems’.

This chapter argues that reflexivity - an introspective process in which researchers turn their engagement into an object of research - is essential to sustainability transitions research (STR). Reflexivity in STR encompasses not only the non-neutrality of its normative categories, such as ‘sustainability’ and ‘radical’, but also its descriptive categories, including ‘regime’ and ‘system’. This inherent social embeddedness, or ‘engagedness’, positions transition researchers with both an inescapable responsibility and a unique opportunity to shape their engagement reflexively. Reflexivity, which is relevant at every stage of STR, is illustrated in terms of research orientation, role and positionality. It highlights that much of reflexivity lies in the question of how - and with what kind of awareness - you are personally doing what you are doing. As a transition researcher, you are in a comparatively powerful societal position. Your choices matter and make a difference in the world.

Chapter 1 surveys the Platonism of Marburg neo-Kantian philosophers to set out the context out of and against which Heidegger’s Destruktion of Plato emerged. I do not argue that Heidegger’s Plato is a direct response to the Plato of Cohen, Natorp, and Cassirer. I contend instead that what Heidegger identifies as unprecedented and extremely influential mistakes in Plato’s philosophy are sometimes found in slightly different and sometimes strikingly similar forms in their laudatory interpretations of Plato. The clearest and most evident case in this regard is their interpretation of Forms as laws governing thinking, particularly logical and propositional thinking. I argue that if Strauss, Gadamer, and Krüger propose new reactivations of Platonism to respond to Heidegger, these reactivations cannot follow the Platonism of Marburg Neo-Kantianism to their ultimate conclusions. At the same time, it is also clear that there are important traces of a neo-Kantian heritage in the ways Strauss, Gadamer, and Krüger understood Plato, most notably the Marburg Neo-Kantian refusal to understand Platonic Forms as beings, things, or substances.