Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a thoughtful commentary in this journal a decade ago, Michael Rutter reviewed 25 years of progress in the field before concluding that developmental psychopathology (DP) initiated a paradigm shift in clinical science. This deduction requires that DP itself be a paradigm. According to Thomas Kuhn, canonical paradigms in the physical sciences serve unifying functions by consolidating scientists’ thinking and scholarship around single, closed sets of discipline-defining epistemological assumptions and methods. Paradigm shifts replace these assumptions and methods with a new field-defining framework. In contrast, the social sciences are multiparadigmatic , with thinking and scholarship unified locally around open sets of epistemological assumptions and methods with varying degrees of inter-, intra-, and subdisciplinary reach. DP challenges few if any of these local paradigms. Instead, DP serves an essential pluralizing function, and is therefore better construed as a metaparadigm. Seen in this way, DP holds tremendous untapped potential to move the field from zero-sum thinking and scholarship to positive-sum science and epistemological pluralism . This integrative vision, which furthers Dante Cicchetti’s legacy of interdisciplinarity, requires broad commitment among scientists to reject zero-sum scholarship in which portending theories, useful principles, and effective interventions are jettisoned based on confirmation bias, errors in logic, and ideology.

Advancing the concept of multimodal voicing as a tool for describing user-generated online humour, this paper reports a study on humorous COVID-19 mask memes. The corpus is drawn from four popular social media platforms and examined through a multimodal discourse analytic lens. The dominant memetic trends are elucidated and shown to rely programmatically on nested (multimodal) voices, whether compatible or divergent, as is the case with the dissociative echoing of individuals wearing peculiar masks or the dissociative parodic echoing of their collective voice. The theoretical thrust of this analysis is that, as some memes are (re)posted across social media (sometimes going viral), the previous voice(s) – of the meme subject/author/poster – can be re-purposed (e.g. ridiculed) or unwittingly distorted. Overall, this investigation offers new theoretical and methodological implications for the study of memes: it indicates the usefulness of the notions of multimodal voicing, intertextuality and echoing as research apparatus; and it brings to light the epistemological ambiguity in lay and academic understandings of memes, the voices behind which cannot always be categorically known.

The purpose of this study was to understand graduate and post-graduate EFL teachers’ epistemological beliefs based on the standardized English language and their beliefs on the NEST/NNEST dichotomy. In order to gain a deeper understanding two different group of teachers were formed consisting of graduate and post-graduate level of education. The aim was to understand whether or not the level of education affect EFL teachers’ beliefs based on the knowledge concept of standardized English and native speakerism. As a data collection methodology for this mixed methods research design, metaphors and the epistemological belief questionnaire (adapted from Hofer, 2000) were used. The results show that there was a significant difference between the two groups’ epistemological beliefs. While the post-graduate group was more critical about the issue, the graduate group of teachers seemed to highly accept the standardized language concept. The analysis of the metaphorical conceptions also supported the findings of the questionnaires.

Background Engaging future engineers is a central topic in everyday conversations on engineering education. Considerable investments have been made to make engineering more engaging, recruit and retain aspiring engineers, and to design an education to prepare future engineers. However, the impact of these efforts has been less than intended. It is imperative that the community reflects on progress and sets a more effective path for the future. Purpose The purpose of this article is to map a new innovation landscape for what it means to engage future engineers. This is a theoretically grounded divergent‐thinking effort to enable a broader space of high impact innovations for engaging future engineers. Scope/Method A multiple perspectives methodology drawing from innovation, cross‐disciplinary, and boundary work frameworks was used to make visible multiple facets of engaging future engineers. Scholars from diverse communities of thought and discourse were selected to present interparadigmatic perspectives, act as boundary agents, challenge and transform current ways of thinking, and illustrate new opportunities for engineering education innovation. Conclusions A new innovation landscape for engaging future engineers is needed, one that emphasizes epistemological development and social justice, new configurations on engineering thinking and connecting to the formative years of development, the entwinement of engineering knowing and being, and mutually informing consequences for opening up a broader space for innovation. We also need to adopt strategies and tools for using a multiple perspectives approach to better understand complex engineering education problems.

Transdisciplinary research (TDR) aims to co-produce knowledge to address the complex challenges of unsustainability. Despite progress in articulating principles for successful co-production, Indigenous researchers have pointed out ongoing power imbalances. These disparities, partly stemming from unacknowledged ontological-epistemological inequalities, often perpetuate hidden hierarchies between researchers and participants. At the core of these power imbalances is the dominance in academia of certain ways of knowing (e.g., categorical, experimental, noun-based, substantialist) over others (e.g., relational, experiential, verb-based, idealist). This bias is formalized and reinforced by academic institutions and cultures, passed down and internalized through education and professionalization. Inclusive TDR needs to break this self-reinforcing cycle, but this requires making inner room for multiple perspectives on reality and existence. To explore how inner work may foster ontological pluralism and inclusive TDR, we held a workshop drawing lessons from three case studies of TDR from Malaysia, Botswana, and Ecuador. Participants’ experiences were synthesized into a reflexive cycle of five inner shifts toward inclusive TDR. These shifts enhance the ability of researchers to engage with different ontologies beyond scientific materialism, and recognize their embeddedness in various kinds of relationships, extending their relational awareness to other beings, human and non-human, living and non-living. The proposed reflexive cycle seeks to cultivate capacities for co-production in TDR that are grounded in horizontally inclusive research practices that allow for more contextually relevant and impactful solutions to complex real-world problems.

This study aimed to investigate how female students in grade 10-grade 12 in Saudi secondary schools understand scientific models, while accounting for the broader Islamic context in which science learning occurs. This contribution seeks to deepen the understanding of how social and religious factors shape students’ scientific conceptions. Such a focus aligns with Saudi Vision 2030 (2016), which emphasizes advancing science education while preserving the cultural and religious dimensions that are integral to the local educational environment. A purposive sample of 400 female students from 12 schools in the Southern Province participated in the study. Adopting a descriptive quantitative approach, the students’ understanding of models in science questionnaire was administered between December 2024 and February 2025. Descriptive and inferential analyses revealed naïve and inaccurate conceptions among students in four of the five assessed dimensions: models as exact replicas of reality, multiple representations, the changing nature of models, and the uses of scientific models. In contrast, students demonstrated relatively higher understanding in only one dimension–models as explanatory tools. The findings further showed no statistically significant differences across grade levels, indicating that progression through the secondary stages does not, in itself, enhance students’ modeling knowledge. In light of these results, the study recommends strengthening teacher preparation and professional development programs, integrating explicit guidance within science curricula to support teachers’ use of scientific models, and promoting critical thinking about the relationship between science and religion. Additionally, the study calls for further research on actual classroom practices of scientific modeling and the design and evaluation of modeling-based instructional interventions.

The contrast between third-and first-personal accounts of the experiences of autistic persons has much to teach us about epistemic injustice and epistemic agency. This paper argues that bringing about greater epistemic justice for autistic people requires developing a relational account of epistemic agency. We begin by systematically identifying the many types of epistemic injustices autisstic people face, specifically with regard to general assumptions regarding autistic people’s sociability or lack thereof, and by locating the source of these epistemic injustices in neuronormativity and neurotypical ignorance. We then argue that this systematic identification pushes us to construe epistemic agency as resulting from a fundamentally relational and dynamic process between an individual, others around them, and their social, cultural, or institutional environment, rather than as a fixed and inherent property of individuals. Finally, we show how our relational account of epistemic agency allows us to introduce the novel concepts of epistemic disablement and epistemic enablement. We argue that these two concepts allow us to more accurately track the mechanisms that undermine or facilitate epistemic agency, and thereby to better understand how epistemic injustice arises and to design more effective interventions to foster greater epistemic justice for autistic people.

Meaningful transdisciplinary collaborations that weave diverse ways of knowing, doing, and feeling are increasinglyrecognized as central for enabling just and sustainable transformations. This Special Feature explores the unique contributions of art-science transdisciplinary collaborations in addressing complex social-ecological challenges. Drawing from a series of transdisciplinaryprojects, we examine how co-created processes between scientists, artists, and local knowledge holders foster new relational dynamics,challenge entrenched power structures, and expand the space for transformative action. The collaborations documented here highlightinnovative approaches that emphasize local identities, shared values, emotional and aesthetic engagement, and long-term, caringrelationships. We identify key mechanisms, such as participatory visioning, storytelling, material deliberation, and arts-based boundaryobjects, that facilitate individual and collective agency and deepen connection with place and community. Despite significant challenges,such as time constraints, power imbalances, and institutional inertia, these experiences illustrate the transformative potential of art-science collaborations when designed ethically, reflexively, and with epistemological pluralism. This editorial offers critical insights intothe practices, conditions, and innovations that support meaningful art-science engagement, providing guidance for evaluating theirimpacts. As planetary crises intensify, such collaborations offer hopeful, grounded, and imaginative pathways toward more just andsustainable futures.

This study investigates the relationship between secondary school students’ mathematics-focused epistemological beliefs and their metacognitive awareness. Employing a correlational survey design, the sample comprises 494 students in Türkiye. Data were collected using the Mathematics-Focused Epistemological Belief Scale and the Metacognitive Awareness Scale for Children. The findings indicate that students’ belief that learning depends on effort (BLDE) is at a high level, while the belief that learning depends on ability (BLDA) and the belief in a single truth (BST) are at moderate levels. Metacognitive awareness was also found to be high. A moderate, positive correlation was observed between BLDE and metacognitive awareness, whereas the correlation between BST and metacognitive awareness was negative and weak. No significant relationship was found between BLDA and metacognitive awareness. Regression analysis revealed that the BLDE dimension significantly predicted metacognitive awareness. Additionally, variables such as gender, grade level, parental education level, and average daily study time were analyzed in relation to the sub-dimensions. The results highlighted that increased effort belief was consistently associated with higher metacognitive awareness across subgroups, while belief in a single truth tended to relate negatively. These findings underscore the importance of fostering epistemological beliefs centered on effort to enhance students’ metacognitive skills, which are crucial for effective mathematical learning and problem-solving.

I distinguish between two senses in which feminists have argued that the knower is social: 1. situated or socially positioned and 2. interdependent. I argue that these two aspects of the knower work in cooperation with each other in a way that can produce willful hermeneutical ignorance, a type of epistemic injustice absent from Miranda Fricker's Epistemic Injustice. Analyzing the limitations of Fricker's analysis of the trial of Tom Robinson in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird with attention to the way in which situatedness and interdependence work in tandem, I develop an understanding of willful hermeneutical ignorance, which occurs when dominantly situated knowers refuse to acknowledge epistemic tools developed from the experienced world of those situated marginally. Such refusals allow dominantly situated knowers to misunderstand, misinterpret, and/or ignore whole parts of the world.