This chapter explores the multifaceted role of gender within extremist ideologies and examines manifestations of masculinity, femininity, and misogyny in various extremist contexts. It shows how different scholarly approaches explain the ways in which gendered narratives shape recruitment, radicalization, and participation in extremist activities. Different explanations of male violence emphasizing the sociocultural construction of masculinity within extremist milieus is discussed and the notion of the “manosphere” and its subcultures like incels is introduced thereby showing how online spaces foster misogynistic ideologies that can escalate into violence. Furthermore, the roles women play within extremist groups, from active participation in violence to providing crucial support functions, are also highlighted. Finally, the implications of gender dynamics for prevention efforts are discussed. Ultimately, the chapter advocates for a nuanced understanding of gender dynamics to inform more effective prevention strategies and policymaking in the fight against violent extremism.

We consider why people use political violence from the perspective of whether they wish to enforce group dominance or equality and whether they perceive the current intergroup power structure to be legitimate or illegitimate. The intersection of these desires for group dominance vs. equality and perceived system legitimacy vs. illegitimacy captures the possibility of four different goals of political violence: to maintain the current social hierarchy, to reduce inequality among groups, to maintain the structure of group-based dominance but with a new group in the hegemonic or subordinate position, or to keep an otherwise oppressed group in a dominant position to protect it from further harm. We contend that using violence to attempt to accomplish any of these power motives is political violence, and that differentiating political violence according to these four underlying motives is essential for developing informed intervention strategies. Furthermore, rather than defining certain forms of political violence as “extremist” in reference to “norms” that may not be shared, or with respect to whether violence is performed by governmental actors or their agents (vs. against them), we define extremist violence as being outside specified principles, such as human rights and international humanitarian law, regardless of the actor

The advent and momentum gained by Generative AI erupted into the EU regulatory scene signalling a significant paradigm shift in the AI landscape. The AI Act has struggled to embrace the eruption and extraordinary popularity of Generative AI and managed to provide for specific solutions designed for these models. Nonetheless, there are legal and regulatory implications of Generative AI that may exceed the proposed solutions. Understanding the paradigm shift that Generative AI is likely to bring will allow us to assess the sufficiency and adequacy of the measures adopted and to identify possible shortcomings and gaps in the current EU framework. Generative AI raises specific problems in the compliance of AI Act obligations and in the application of liability rules that have to be acknowledged and properly addressed. Multimodality, emergence factor, scalability or generality of tasks may mismatch the assumption underlying the obligations and requirements laid down for AI systems. The chapter explores whether the current ecosystem of existing and still-to-be adopted rules on AI systems does fully and adequately address the distinctive features of Generative AI, with special consideration to the interaction between the AI Act and the liability rules as provided for the draft AILD and the revPLD.

School principals play a critical role in developing and nurturing effective school–university partnerships (SUP). This is especially true in community school contexts, a type of SUP where public schools benefit from partnerships with community resources. To provide a more nuanced understanding of the leadership skills required for principals to do partnership work, the purpose of this chapter was twofold: (1) to describe what is known about the role of principals engaged in partnership work, and (2) to provide examples from the authors’ own research on how school principals can advance partnerships, especially with universities, to foster an effective SUP. Implications for school principals and university partners are discussed, as are challenges school principals encounter when attempting to advance sustainable SUPs. The chapter concludes with policy and practice considerations for school and university leaders.

Teacher residencies are an important component of university-district partnerships and often grow out of a desire to ensure students have equitable access to quality teachers. However, it is critical to consider how problematic roots and rationales for teacher residencies alongside questionable implementation practices may position these programs to perpetuate the very inequities they claim to push against. This chapter reviews the evolution of teacher residency programs in the context of educational equity and outline how guiding documents and associated research position teacher residencies in relation to notions of educational equity and where these aims diverge. We end with our freedom dreams (Kelley, 2020) for ways forward as a love letter to teacher residency program providers and to residents themselves, as we encourage readers to locate themselves and their work in these histories and contemporary implementation practices so that we may dream up more just ways forward in teacher residency work.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the role of leadership in designing school–university partnerships (SUPs). Four fundamental concepts of design science are discussed: (1) wicked problems, (2) design principles, (3) design thinking, and (4) pilot testing. These concepts can be applied to three different types of SUP design opportunities: governance, professional development, and clinical experiences. Successfully leading the design process requires an understanding of the value of design, the skills needed to lead the process, and a vision for the power of design. Design leadership is illustrated through a hypothetical example.

Generative artificial intelligence has a long history but surged into global prominence with the introduction in 2017 of the transformer architecture for large language models. Based on deep learning with artificial neural networks, transformers revolutionised the field of generative AI for production of natural language outputs. Today’s large language models, and other forms of generative artificial intelligence, now have unprecedented capability and versatility. This emergence of these forms of highly capable generative AI poses many legal issues and questions, including consequences for intellectual property, contracts and licences, liability, data protection, use in specific sectors, potential harms, and of course ethics, policy, and regulation of the technology. To support the discussion of these topics in this Handbook, this chapter gives a relatively non-technical introduction to the technology of modern artificial intelligence and generative AI.

In this part, authors review the historical development of school–university partnerships (SUPs) with an emphasis on key researchers and organizations that not only created visions for partnerships but also provided guidelines and parameters for doing the work. In keeping with the mission of the handbook, the authors in this part also reflect on the role of diversity, equity, and social justice as portrayed in the origins of SUPs and set forth recommendations to preserve, enhance, and sustain SUPs as an innovative approach to teacher preparation and school reform. Authors’ reflections on the origins of SUPs and their potential for moving the effort forward represent the array of approaches that come under the general heading of “SUPs.” Despite variances in philosophies and methods for doing the work, SUPs remain a major vehicle for improving schools and teaching.

The current chapter focuses on the relationships of stable, nonpathological individual differences to violent extremism. Traditionally, strong contextual forces have been viewed as overriding personal traits in determining group behavior generally and violent extremism specifically. This chapter challenges such conventional wisdom by emphasizing the role of individual differences. We argue and provide evidence that supports and highlights the interplay and complementary roles of individual psychology and social environments in shaping violent extremism. We review recent research exploring the relationship between violent extremism and individual psychological variables such as mental disorders, cognitive styles, motivational imbalances, group identity needs, ideological orientations, sensation-seeking behaviors, and group-based emotions, as well as the Big Five and HEXACO models of personality. We further discuss common criticisms against individual differences in approaches to violent extremism. Here, we distinguish between historical disputes, often based on researchers speaking past each other, and challenges in contemporary individual difference research. Having highlighted the significance of individual differences in violent extremism, we focus on how these insights can aid practitioners and shape policies that counteract violent extremism.

According to the research, white teacher candidates may have negative attitudes towards urban students and schools (Bazemore-Bertrand & Porcher, 2020; Hampton et al., 2008). However, research also finds that carefully designed experiences outside of university classrooms can heighten learning and have a significant impact on preparing teacher candidates to teach in urban school settings (Bazemore-Bertrand & Handsfield, 2019; Porcher et al., 2020; Porcher, 2021). Partnerships between universities and urban schools offer chances to expose teacher candidates to teaching practices that are rooted in diversity, equity, and antiracism which in return prepares them to effectively teach not just in urban schools, but in all schools. In this chapter, the author shares the results of a School–University partnership (SUP) that centered around preparing teacher candidates to teach in urban schools. Specifically, the author described the benefits and challenges regarding designing a SUP with urban schools that center equity and antiracism.

In this chapter, we discuss the psychological foundations of violent extremism. We consider violent extremism as a specific form of extreme behavior resulting from a radicalization process that involves inflicting a high-severity aggression or violence against people or properties as a means to achieve a political, ideological, or religious goal. Throughout our discussion, we focus on the role of the need for significance (Kruglanski et al., 2022) as a core psychological driver that prompts violent extremism. We review those factors that activate the need for significance, propelling individuals toward violent extremism. Specifically, we posit that when the quest for significance is activated, whether by personal or group-level experiences of significance loss or opportunities for gain, individuals seek avenues to fulfill this need through extreme actions that demonstrate their allegiance to socially esteemed values. In such scenarios, violent extremism emerges as a viable outlet, especially when bolstered by a narrative that promotes it and a supportive social network that endorses the narrative, offering validation and significance to individuals who express their commitment through their actions. Finally, we outline how the theoretical framework centered on the need for significance can inform the development and implementation of deradicalization programs by practitioners.