The aim of the article is to provide an overview of the international and EU law framework concerning the relation between the research and teaching. The analysis of internal regulations of selected European states is provided for a broader vision and comparative perspective. Such an overview constitutes the initial ground for further research and evaluation of the applicable law and its implementation. The article constitutes a summary of the initial phase of the research project dedicated to the impact of the legal research on legal education based on the projects funded by the Polish National Science Centre.

The article of a review character undertakes a polemic with the authors of the book edited by M. Nowak entitled The Role of the Law in the Spatial Management System on spatial planning and development presented from the perspective of the law. The authors undertook to present the role of law in the spatial management system, but they did so taking into account the fact that in spatial planning, apart from lawyers, there are also such participants as urban planners, city and landscape architects, officials and the public. In the book there are not only material legal accents embedded in the themes of environment, cultural landscape and monuments, but also procedural threads. There are issues of a general nature, concerning the role and interpretation of the law, interdisciplinary issues, reach ing into other sciences (economics, urban planning), specific issues (fee) and issues of a changing and dynamic nature (COVID-19 and spatial policy). The work strongly emphasises the axiological dimension with references to phrases such as public interest or common good. In good conscience, I recommend reading the book to all those interested in ‘planning law’ in the broadest sense of the term, and to those who prefer the intersection of legal and non-legal sciences. The book will also appeal to the academic community and the legal profession.

The main thesis of the article concerns the pluralism of expert legal language. Such an assumption contradicts the tradition of development of legal dogmatics, which, especially in its conservative approach, assumes monism of legal language. New trends in social sciences introduce post-positivist approaches that suggest a multiplicity of research perspectives. This multiplicity is also translated into modifications of the conceptual grid. The Eurocentric vision of law is one of many parallel narratives, and the reception of European models has nowadays an increasingly conscious and functionally justified character.
The various narratives which condition the understanding of law in many contexts related to who interprets a given norm. This is not strictly related only to the legal family itself, or to the particular system of law in which the interpreted norm is anchored. It is rather about pluralism connected with diversity of perception resulting directly from conditions connected with the researcher-interpreter himself. It may be an expert in law connected with an academic centre, or a judge, whose education, cultural environment he comes from, mother tongue he speaks, or specific professional experience influence his understanding of the world and his understanding of law. In this case, there is a multiplicity of narratives and a plurality of legal language.

The Polish Personal Income Tax Law provides for a relatively extensive group of tax exemptions related to various benefits offered to doctoral students and academics. It also includes an exemption for scholarships and assistance grants referred to in Law 2.0, as well as scholarships received under programmes or projects aimed at implementing the current state scientific policy. The rule adopted is that the exemption applies as long as the rules for granting the scholarships and grants in question them have been approved by the minister in charge of higher education and science. The research objective adopted in the gloss is to verify the jurisprudential practice regarding the issue of the tax exemption in question. The analysis and evaluation have been performed also in the context of the guidelines and ideas behind the reform of higher education and science (regulations of the so-called Law 2.0). This gloss is a critical commentary. It makes use of dogmatic-legal and normative analysis.

Academics and faculty members are entangled in many interests. Selfless science for cognitive purposes is a thing of the past. There is a constant game of the power over knowledge. Apart from scientists, many entities with various interests are participants of the game. They are: politicians, officials, academic administration, research sponsors, accreditation agencies, publishers, resort scientific institutes, industry, business. The scientists themselves sometimes work for the truth and sometimes they work for profit; they create knowledge which is public property, or when they are employed commercially, e.g. by the industry, they create private knowledge. This paper presents five factors which may contribute to restricting the cognitive autonomy of the scientists.

The purpose of the article is to indicate the selected potential and desired consequences of establishing doctoral schools to educate doctoral students in the field of legal sciences, with a special consideration of the interdisciplinary nature of such schools. The paper addresses the Polish legal framework. The article proposes a thesis that doctoral schools have a chance to benefit the education of future doctors of law, especially thanks to their interdisciplinary nature, which involves
educating doctoral students of law together with representatives of other scientific disciplines. Other issues raised include also the opportunities and risks involved in the new form of doctoral education – including those resulting from some higher education institutions adopting only apparently interdisciplinary solutions. The article is an original work, the subject matter has not been covered in other academic papers, and concerns a new legal form of educating doctoral students – meaning
doctoral schools, which have been operating since the 2019/2020 academic year. The theses proposed in the article may be significant to both the theory and practice of educating doctors of law at Polish higher education institutions and research centres.

Academics and faculty members are entangled in many interests. Selfless science for cognitive purposes is a thing of the past. There is a constant game of the power over knowledge. Apart from scientists, many entities with various interests are participants of the game. They are: politicians, officials, academic administration, research sponsors, accreditation agencies, publishers, resort scientific institutes, industry, business. The scientists themselves sometimes work for the truth and sometimes they work for profit; they create knowledge which is public property, or when they are employed commercially, e.g. by the industry, they create private knowledge. This paper presents five factors which may contribute to restricting the cognitive autonomy of the scientists.

The Act on Higher Education and Science of 2018 considerably restricts the internal autonomy of universities. Management is vested in rectors and university boards while neglecting the role of faculties, which, if established in the first place, have been reduced to entities of no significance. The rector, as the exclusive managerial body of an institution, and the university board, representing mainly external stakeholders, as a body supervising its economy, have been vested with such an ex-tensive authority that this may result in hindering the development of multiple academic disciplines, especially those in the area of the humanities, but also in the field of social studies in many cases.