The article engages with the recent studies on multilevel regulation. The starting point for the argument is that contemporary multilevel regulation—as most other studies of (postnational) rulemaking—is limited in its analysis. The limitation concerns its monocentric approach that, in turn, deepens the social illegitimacy of contemporary multilevel regulation. The monocentric approach means that the study of multilevel regulation originates in the discussions on the foundation of modern States instead of returning to the origins of rules before the nation State was even created, which is where the actual social capital underlying (contemporary) rules can be found, or so I wish to argue. My aim in this article is to reframe the debate. I argue that we have an enormous reservoir of history, practices, and ideas ready to help us think through contemporary (social) legitimacy problems in multilevel regulation: namely all those practices which preceded the capture of law by the modern State system, such as historical alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practices.
DOCUMENT
PCK is seen as the transformation of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge into a different type of knowledge that is used to develop and carry out teaching strategies. To gain more insight into the extent to which PCK is content specific, the PCK about more topics or concepts should be compared. However, researchers have rarely compared teachers’ concrete PCK about more than one topic. To examine the content dependency of PCK, we captured the PCK of sixteen experienced Dutch history teachers about two historical contexts (i.e. topics) using interviews and Content Representation questionnaires. Analysis reveals that all history teachers’ PCK about the two contexts overlaps, although the degree of overlap differs. Teachers with relatively more overlap are driven by their overarching subject related goals and less by the historical context they teach. We discuss the significance of these outcomes for the role of teaching orientation as a part of PCK.
DOCUMENT
This PD project explores alternative approaches to audiovisual technologies in art and creative practices by reimagining and reinventing marginalized and decommodified devices through Media Archaeology, artistic experimentation, and hands-on technical reinvention. This research employs Media Archaeology to uncover “obsolete” yet artistically relevant technologies and hands-on technical reinvention to adapt these tools for contemporary creative practices. It seeks to develop experimental self-built devices that critically engage with media materiality, exploring alternative aesthetic possibilities through practice-based investigations into the cultural and historical dimensions of media technologies. These developments provide artists with new creative possibilities beyond mainstream commercial standardized tools and infrastructures. A key component of this project is collaborative innovation with artist-run analog film communities, such as Filmwerkplaats. By fostering knowledge exchange and artistic experimentation, this research ensures that reinvented tools remain relevant to both analog film communities and contemporary media art practices. The intended outcomes directly benefit two key groups: • Artist-run film labs gain sustainable methods for evolving their practices, reducing dependence on scarce, out-of-production equipment. • Digital-native artists are introduced to alternative methods for engaging with analog processes and media materiality, expanding their creative toolkit. This collaboration also strengthens art and design education by embedding alternative technological perspectives and research methodologies into curricula, providing students and practitioners with resourceful, sustainable approaches to working with technology. It advocates for a more diverse educational paradigm that incorporates media-technological history and critical reflection on the ideologies of linear technological progress. Ultimately, this research fosters critical discourse on media culture, challenges the dominance of corporate proprietary systems, and promotes innovation, redefining the relationship between creativity and technology.
