In this article I examine how contemporary humanities and social sciences mobilize the language of crisis and critique in academic conference discourse. Drawing on an analysis of conference abstracts from selected Polish disciplinary congresses (sociology, cultural studies, media/film studies, and game studies), my study explores how “crisis” functions not merely as a descriptive category but as a discursive operator that legitimizes critical inquiry. I argue that crisis operates simultaneously as an epistemic frame, a rhetorical device and a mechanism for justifying the urgency and relevance of research. At the same time, critique itself becomes an object of reflection. Influenced by debates on post-critique and reflexivity, conference discourse reveals a shift from an interventionist model of critical agency toward a more reflexive one, in which disciplines interrogate not only social realities but also their own analytical tools, institutional conditions, and limitations. By situating crisis and critique within the institutional practice of conferencing, my study highlights how academic gatherings function as sites where disciplines negotiate their legitimacy, redefine their methodological commitments, and rearticulate the role of critical scholarship under conditions of epistemic and political uncertainty.
This paper argues that the autonomy and opacity of artificial-intelligence systems open no gap in pre-contractual liability, since the Roman tradition behind culpa in contrahendo already supplies the answer: fault in contracting attaches to the party who enters negotiations and disappoints another’s reliance, and the algorithm, as an instrument, is attributed to its deployer rather than endowed with legal standing of its own. Tracing the doctrine from Jhering’s reconstruction of the Roman texts on void sales and the reliance (negative) interest to article 72 § 2 of the Polish Civil Code, and testing it against the medical duty to inform under the 2025 Code of Medical Ethics, the study shows that the deployer answers, in the reliance measure, for the representations the system makes. The age of artificial intelligence calls not for a new bearer of pre-contractual fault, but for the tradition to be read with care.
Pozostałe osiągnięcia naukoweMonografia (zamknięty dostęp)Monograph Chapter (Conference proceedings)
Volume II [...] introduces a clear internal structure, distinguishing between contributions by holders of doctoral degrees, doctoral students and students. This approach serves a clear educational purpose – it makes the monograph accessible to the younger generation of researchers.
The value of this monograph lies in its consistent demonstration that the categories developed by Roman jurists – consensus, bona fides, culpa in contrahendo, dominium, imputatio, auctoritas, res omnium communes — are not merely the subject of historical-legal reconstruction, but retain their vitality as interpretative tools and axiological points of reference for the contemporary legislator grappling with the challenges of artificial intelligence.
This monograph is a valuable and original contribution to the literature on European Roman law and comparative law. Both volumes convincingly fulfil the project’s main objective: they demonstrate the vitality of the Roman law tradition as an interpretative tool and an axiological foundation for the contemporary legislator facing the challenges of artificial intelligence, whilst combining the perspectives of established scholars (Volume I) with the voices of the younger generation of legal scholars (Volume II).
Pozostałe osiągnięcia naukoweMonografia (zamknięty dostęp)Monograph Edition (Conference proceedings)
Co-design, as a component of broader co-production processes, has gained attention in public policy as a means of addressing complex policy challenges. Yet comparative research remains limited on what occurs under participatory and design-led approaches labelled co-design, what policy solutions these processes produce, and how they are expected to generate change. We address this gap through a PRISMA-guided systematic literature review of 38 studies on food loss and waste (FLW). Findings indicate that co-design labels inconsistently reflect participatory and iterative design practices; creative engagement methods remain underutilized. Co-designed outputs remain at ideation and prototyping stages, while interventions often lack a clear theory of change. We introduce a coding scheme to document co-design implementation and propose CIMO (Context, Intervention, Mechanism, Outcome) as an ex ante evaluation heuristic to articulate the theory of change of co-designed interventions. We conclude with a research agenda emphasizing enhanced reporting practice, theory-building, and implementation-focused research.
