The globalization of science, engineering, and medical research is proceeding rapidly. The globalization of research has important implications for the U.S. research enterprise, for the U.S. government agencies, academic institutions, and companies that support and perform research, and for the world at large. As science and technology capabilities grow around the world, U.S.-based organizations are finding that international collaborations and partnerships provide unique opportunities to enhance research and training. At the same time, significant obstacles exist to smooth collaboration across national borders. Enhancing international collaboration requires recognition of differences in culture, legitimate national security needs, and critical needs in education and training. In response to these trends, the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR) launched a Working Group on International Research Collaborations (I-Group) in 2008, following its meeting on New Partnerships on a Global Platform that June. As part of I-Group's continuing effort, a workshop on Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration was held July 26-27, 2010 in Washington, DC. One primary goal of the workshop is to better understand the risks involved in international research collaboration for organizations and individual participants, and the mechanisms that can be used to manage those risks. Issues to be addressed in the workshop include the following: (1) Cultural Differences and Nuances; (2) Legal Issues and Agreements; (3) Differences in Ethical Standards; (4) Research Integrity and the Responsible Conduct of Research; (5) Intellectual Property; (6) Risk Management; (7) Export Controls; and (8) Strategies for Developing Meaningful International Collaborations. The goal for the workshop and the summary, Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration, is to serve as an information resource for participants and others interested in international research collaborations. It will also aid I-Group in setting its future goals and priorities.

'Agreement' is the grammatical phenomenon in which the form of one item, such as the noun 'horses', forces a second item in the sentence, such as the verb 'gallop', to appear in a particular form, i.e. 'gallop' must agree with 'horses' in number. Even though agreement phenomena are some of the most familiar and well-studied aspects of grammar, there are certain basic questions that have rarely been asked, let alone answered. This book develops a theory of the agreement processes found in language, and considers why verbs agree with subjects in person, adjectives agree in number and gender but not person, and nouns do not agree at all. Explaining these differences leads to a theory that can be applied to all parts of speech and to all languages.

On the basis of the meticulous transcription/observation process of ‘Conversation Analysis’, this book observes recurrent patterns in sequences where Japanese speakers negotiate agreement and disagreement. It contributes to the growing body of research on ‘interaction and grammar’ by examining how linguistic recourses are utilized for constructing turns and anticipating the upcoming course of interaction. More specifically, it focuses on the recurrent use of two structurally different types of connective expressions: clause-initial connectives and clause-final connective particles. The study examines the occurrences of these causal and contrastive markers with reference to their sequential environment and the resulting interaction. While the introductory chapters situate this approach in the current literature, the main analytical chapters investigate the ways in which ‘delivery of agreement’, ‘delivery of disagreement’, and ‘pursuit for agreement’ are performed with the use of the different types of connective expressions. As one of the earliest conversation analytic studies of Japanese, this book also addresses methodological issues concerning cross-linguistic, cross-cultural studies of human interaction.

The psychology behind political partisanship: “The kind of research that will change not just how you think about the world but how you think about yourself.” —Ezra Klein, Vox Political polarization in America has moved beyond disagreements about matters of policy. For the first time in decades, research has shown that members of both parties hold strongly unfavorable views of their opponents. This is polarization rooted in social identity, and it is growing. The campaign and election of Donald Trump laid bare this fact of the American electorate, its successful rhetoric of “us versus them” tapping into a powerful current of anger and resentment. With Uncivil Agreement, Lilliana Mason looks at the growing social gulf across racial, religious, and cultural lines, which have recently come to divide neatly between the two major political parties. She argues that group identifications have changed the way we think and feel about ourselves and our opponents. Even when Democrats and Republicans can agree on policy outcomes, they tend to view one other with distrust and to work for party victory over all else. Although the polarizing effects of social divisions have simplified our electoral choices and increased political engagement, they have not been a force that is, on balance, helpful for American democracy. Bringing together theory from political science and social psychology, Uncivil Agreement clearly describes this increasingly “social” type of polarization, and adds much to our understanding of contemporary politics.