Urgent responses to the COVID-19 pandemic depend on increased collaboration and sharing of data, models, and resources among scientists and researchers. In many scientific fields and disciplines, institutional norms treat data, models, and resources as proprietary, emphasizing competition among scientists and researchers locally and internationally. Concurrently, long-standing norms of open data and collaboration exist in some scientific fields and have accelerated within the last two decades. In both cases-where the institutional arrangements are ready to accelerate for the needed collaboration in a pandemic and where they run counter to what is needed-the rules of the game are "on the table" for institutional-level renegotiation. These challenges to the negotiated order in science are important, difficult to study, and highly consequential. The COVID-19 pandemic offers something of a natural experiment to study these dynamics. Preliminary findings highlight: the chilling effect of politics where open sharing could be expected to accelerate; the surprisingly conservative nature of contests and prizes; open questions around whether collaboration will persist following an inflection point in the pandemic; and the strong potential for launching and sustaining pre-competitive initiatives.

Teachers of conflict, negotiation, and alternative dispute resolution who have transitioned their in-person courses to synchronous video conferencing are posed with significant pedagogical challenges. How will they stoke their students' curiosity and maintain their students' interest? How will students find the motivation and energy necessary to engage in nonstop videoconferences, day in and day out? How are they to maintain the high cognitive function required for our courses in the face of Zoom fatigue and reduced social interaction? In light of these challenges, we explored another activity that students (and their teachers) not only engage in, but can't pull themselves away from. Drawing on the literature examining psychological and neuroscientific aspects of binge-watching television shows, we propose an innovative approach to designing courses our students will want to binge-learn.

This article lays out an argument for relocating worldview analysis from the margins of conflict analysis to its center. While we may understand worldviews as an integral part of most escalated conflicts-which may seem to be about something else as well (e.g., energy, borders, economic grievances)-worldviews conflict can also be described as a particular form of conflict. This duality is important to recognize for the further development of the field of conflict analysis. The article also lays out the relevance of worldview analysis to conflict analysis, and how it can enhance our understanding of escalatory conflict dynamics.