There is a rich history of using the arts in psychiatric care, e.g. in various forms of arts therapies. A more recent development is the collaboration of the arts in psychiatric research. The arts and psychiatric research have several fundamental differences which can lead to fruitful inspiration and innovative approaches in research. The benefits include a wider engagement of individuals and non-academic groups in research, creativity in designing research approaches, a reach to societal groups that academic research usually cannot access, and the provision of real life meaning to research evidence. Two examples of such collaborations illustrate the potentials.

As assisted dying moves towards legalisation, it is imperative that research be undertaken to inform eligibility and ensure that proper safeguards are instituted. To achieve a meaningful understanding of physician-assisted suicide, such research must draw on professionals with a wide range of expertise and include people with lived experience.

This State-of-the-Art review examines second language (L2) writing assessment research over the past 25 years through a framework of fairness, justice, and criticality. Recognizing the socio-political implications of assessment, the authors argue for a shift toward more equitable and socially conscious approaches. Drawing from a corpus of 869 peer-reviewed articles across leading journals, the review identifies five major themes: (1) features of writing performance, (2) rating and scoring, (3) integrated assessment, (4) teacher and learner perspectives, and (5) feedback. Each theme is reviewed for foundational findings, then critiqued through questions related to fairness and justice using a critical lens. The authors advocate for a multilingual turn in writing assessment, greater attention to teacher and student voices, and questioning dominant norms embedded in assessment practices. The review concludes with a call for future research to engage with fairness, justice, and criticality in both theory and practice, ensuring that writing assessments serve as tools for empowerment rather than exclusion.

The Journal of Management and Organization (JMO) is celebrating its 30th birthday, which is a significant event given how the journal has shaped and influenced global management research and practice. As part of the commemorative activities this perspective article aims to highlight how the journal has contributed to the development of several sub-management themes. Each theme is analysed in terms of articles published in the journal in terms of establishing existing knowledge then explaining future research ideas. This helps to solidify the journal’s reputation and standing in the field in order to foster more management research that contributes to both theory and practice. Novel social and business approaches to future organizational and manager’s needs are addressed. This will inspire more meaningful management engagement in order to further support the evolution of management research.

This essay discusses the contours of what I call a new instrumental turn in Nigerian historical scholarship. It argues that the historical discipline in Nigeria is experiencing a new instrumental turn, which finds expression in several new features of academic history writing, teaching, and programming. Some aspects of this trend hearken back to the original instrumental history of the pioneers of Nigerian and African nationalist history; others represent something new, being responses to novel twenty-first-century anxieties and imperatives of nation-building, development, and the place of humanities knowledge in those aspirations. Unlike old conceptions of instrumentality, this new turn signals a more explicit agenda of problem-solving through historical research. It also entails a rather formulaic embrace of proposals for solutions to problems identified in or through historical research.

UK Biobank (UKB) is a large-scale, prospective resource offering significant opportunities for mental health research. Data include genetic and biological data, healthcare linkage, and mental health enhancements. Challenges arise from incomplete linkage of some sources and the incomplete coverage for enhancements, which also occur at different times post-baseline. We searched for publications using UKB for mental health research from 2016 to 2023 to describe and inspire future use. Papers were classified by mental health topic, ‘additional’ aspects, and the data used to define the mental health topic. We identified 480 papers, with 338 focusing on mental health disorder topics (affective, anxiety, psychotic, multiple, and transdiagnostic). The most commonly studied disorder was depression (41%). The most common single method of ascertaining mental disorder status was the Mental Health Questionnaire (26%), with genetic risk, for example, using polygenic risk scores, also frequent (21%). Common additional aspects included brain imaging, gene–environment interaction, and the relationship with physical health. The review demonstrates the value of UKB to mental health research. We explore the strengths and weaknesses, producing resources informed by the review. A strength is the flexibility: conventional epidemiological studies are present, but also genomics, imaging, and other tools for understanding mental health. A major weakness is selection effects. UKB continues to hold potential, especially with additional data continuing to become available.

The training of Artificial Intelligence (AI) models relies on extensive amounts of “data,” often sourced from content protected by copyright, related and sui generis rights. The discussion of whether and how to strike a balance between licensing and exceptions under copyright law is one of global relevance. While some countries have adopted or considered adopting specific exceptions to allow text and data mining (TDM), others (most) have not introduced any new legislation. In Europe, much of the attention has so far centred on Article 4 of Directive 2019/790 (DSMD), including in the context of a potential UK reform.

The starting point of this contribution is the following four-fold observation. First, TDM may be part of AI training processes, but it is neither synonymous with AI training nor is it all that AI training entails, including in terms of acts restricted by copyright and related rights. Second, from a European (thus including both the EU and the UK) perspective, limiting the attention to Article 4 DSMD is myopic, as national case law demonstrates. Third, calls have recently been made to relax EU copyright rules to facilitate “research,” seemingly including the President of the European Commission herself, who announced forthcoming legislative proposals “to make Europe the home of innovation again.” Fourth, the UK Government’s Copyright and AI consultation has recently ended: should no reform be ultimately undertaken, the application of the existing TDM exception will depend to a large extent on how courts construe the notions of “research” and the “non-commercial” requirement thereof.

Moving from the above, this study investigates whether and to what extent unlicensed AI training activities could be undertaken by relying, not on Article 4 DSMD as transposed into national law or a hypothetical reform of the UK system of exceptions, but rather on what appear to be so far potentially overlooked defences. Reference is made specifically to research and education exceptions, notably Article 3 DSMD and Article 5(3)(a) of Directive 2001/29 (InfoSoc Directive), also read in light of Article 5 DSMD. The discussion of other jurisdictions – including the US and countries, like South Korea and Singapore, which have adopted open-ended fair use-style defences – is also undertaken. This is done to determine whether unlicensed AI training, including training seemingly done for the purpose of research or education/learning, might be considered lawful.

In light of the context summarized above, the study tackles two key questions: (a) whether unlicensed AI training may be classified as “research” or even “learning” in the context of “teaching,” and (b) whether commercial AI developers may take advantage of the provisions above. Ultimately, both questions are answered in the negative, finding that no exception or open-ended defence fully covers unlicensed AI training activities. As a result, a licensing approach (and culture) appears to be the way for AI training to be undertaken lawfully, including when this is done for “research” and “learning.”

Data governance has emerged as a pivotal area of study over the past decade, yet despite its growing importance, a comprehensive analysis of the academic literature on this subject remains notably absent. This paper addresses this gap by presenting a systematic review of all academic publications on data governance from 2007 to 2024. By synthesizing insights from more than 3500 documents authored by more than 9000 researchers across various sources, this study offers a broad yet detailed perspective on the evolution of data governance research.