Biotin- and adenosine triphosphate-dependent activation of propionyl apocarboxylase

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/32277/1/0000339.pd

How to promote public engagement in research

RRI calls for the engagement of civil society organisations, and also of individual citizens in research-related activities. What motivates or hinders members of the broader public to engage in research? This article identifies important barriers to societal engagement and presents policy and practice options to lower these barriers. The work identifying these barriers and possible ways to address them are the result of the EU-funded project PROSO. The project has shown that citizen engagement in research is not just a question of time and opportunity but also of relevance, trust, legitimacy, and impact

Methods of Future and Scenario Analysis: Overview, Assessment, and Selection Criteria

"Angesichts zunehmender Komplexität und Unsicherheit der gesellschaftlichen und natürlichen Rahmenbedingungen, z.B. Globalisierung, Klimawandel, Dynamiken der Energie- und Rohstoffmärkte, sicherheitspolitische Risiken und Konflikte sowie technologische Umbrüche, gilt es mehr denn je, heutige Entscheidungen vorausschauend zu reflektieren und zukunftsfähig auszurichten. Die Arbeit mit Szenarios stellt dabei ein zentrales Werkzeug dar. Die vorliegende Studie gibt einen strukturierten Überblick über die vielfältigen Varianten der Szenario-Methodik einschließlich wichtiger Rand- und Übergangsbereiche zu weiteren Methoden der Zukunftsforschung. Dabei werden anhand dreier idealtypischer Gruppen von Szenariotechniken (Szenarios auf der Basis von Trendextrapolationen, systematisch-formalisierte Szenariotechniken und kreativ-narrative Szenariotechniken) Voraussetzungen und Herkunft, Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede, Stärken und Schwächen erläutert. In Exkursen wird exemplarisch auf hybride Methodenkombinationen und auf Techniken des Szenario-Transfers eingegangen. Auch ein praktischer Kurzleitfaden in Form einer 'Checkliste' ist enthalten, welche es ermöglicht, anhand konkreter Entscheidungsfragen die methodische Ausgestaltung von Vorausschauprojekten zu konkretisieren, d.h. insbesondere zu klären, ob und wie im Rahmen eines solchen Vorhabens Szenario-Arbeit zielführend eingesetzt werden kann." (Autorenreferat)"Facing growing complexity and uncertainty of social and environmental contexts, e.g. globalisation,climate change, dynamics of markets of energy and resources, geopolitical securityrisks and conflicts as well as technological change, it is more important than ever to reflecttodays decisions prospectively and to adjust them in a future-oriented and sustainable way.Therefore the work with scenarios provides a central tool.This study gives a structured overview over the broad range of scenario-methods, includingimportant combinations with other methods of futures-analysis. Three ideal types of scenariotechniques (scenarios based on trend-extrapolation, systematic-formalised scenario-techniquesand creative-narrative scenario-techniques) are discussed regarding their originsand premises, their similarities and differences as well as their strengths and weaknesses.Combinations with other methods and techniques of scenario transfer are presented, too. Furthermore,a practical check-list has been developed, which allows specifying the methodologicaldesign of concrete foresight projects. This check-list focuses on key decisions toclarify if and how scenario-methods can be applied successfully and in a targeted manner." (author's abstract

The best of both worlds? : An exploratory study on forms and effects of new qualitative-quantitative scenario methodologies

This study analyzes new forms of combined and integrated scenario methodologies, which are used to construct exploratory socio-environmental scenarios. It makes conceptual and empirical contributions to futures studies and to inter- and transdisciplinary environmental and sustainability research. For 15 years, scenario approaches for the construction of socio-environmental scenarios have been established, which combine qualitative scenario methods with numerical modeling and simulation. They have become state of the art by replacing scenario approaches based on modeling alone. Combined scenario approaches are used to explore the future of socio-environmental systems scientifically, and to supply society and policy makers with the best possible information on possible alternative future developments in climate, biodiversity, land use, water, resources and energy, etc. Combined scenarios are characterized by a deep methodological and epistemological hybridity, as they combine approaches and perspectives from different realms. This makes their appeal but also raises enormous challenges. At the same time, literature on combined scenarios has thus far provided little conceptual orientation for the comparison, design, assessment and implementation of different forms of combined approaches. In practice, the so-called Story and Simulation (SAS) approach is dominant, coupling intuitive scenarios with simulation, and postulating an iterative refinement of both components. Against this background, this study explores new avenues: Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB), a systematic-formalized yet qualitative form of systems analysis, is combined with numerical modeling and simulation (CIB&S). As yet, this approach was explored neither empirically nor conceptually in a systematic way. Still, in energy and climate research, the expectation is formulated that this approach might balance the difficulties of combined scenario approaches of the SAS type, especially with regard to traceability and consistency. This study asks whether and how CIB can be combined with numerical modeling and simulation to support inter- and transdisciplinary research teams in constructing qualitative and quantitative or integrated exploratory scenarios of socio-environmental systems. It focuses on forms of the combination of CIB&S; on effects on traceability and consistency as well as on further (unintended) effects of the use of CIB within such combinations; and finally on factors influencing these effects. Combined scenario approaches are conceptualized in this study as inter- and transdisciplinary methodologies. Each application is characterized by an individual social, technical and data-related organization. Based on a review of the literature on combined scenario approaches, central dimensions to characterize forms of the combination of qualitative and quantitative scenario methods are developed. In addition, a model of the typical phases of a CIB&S process is designed. To assess effects, working definitions of scenario traceability and scenario consistency are proposed and operationalized. This conceptual framework structures the empirical analysis of two exploratory case studies. The first case studies a method demonstration for the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA). In this case, CIB is used to analyze societal framework assumptions of environmental models and to construct plausible sets of assumptions until the year 2030. The second case studies a full pioneer application of CIB&S in the context of a megacity project for the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF). In the latter case, CIB is combined with a material flow simulator, to construct integrated scenarios on the possible water futures of Lima, Peru, until the year 2040. Both cases are qualitatively analyzed and interpreted, based on participant observation, interviews with process participants as well as process documents. The study shows that in different (ideal typical) forms of its combination with numerical modeling and simulation, CIB takes over different functions. The combined form, in turn, is mainly influenced by the position of both components within the process as well as by their degree of integration. CIB&S methodologies can successfully support scenario traceability, and contribute to both the internal consistency of the qualitative scenario component and the consistency between qualitative and quantitative scenario components. The stronger the degree of integration between CIB and simulation model, the stronger these effects. However, integration requires that the models underlying the scenarios, i.e. the conceptual CIB model as well as the numerical modeling and simulation, are made explicit and accessible, are compared with and, if applicable, adapted to each other. In addition, CIB&S approaches can create new checks and balances within combined scenario methodologies, when the definition of scenarios as well as the selection of scenario samples is assigned to the CIB and to the CIB participants. CIB&S approaches seem to be less suitable for the construction of explicitly normative or participatory scenarios. Instead, CIB&S approaches do support the participating experts in better analyzing, structuring and reflecting their knowledge, their assumptions and their ideas on possible future developments of socio-environmental systems. The external users of CIB&S-based scenarios can benefit from the improved accessibility of assumptions on uncertainty and complexity, which underlie the qualitative and quantitative or integrated scenarios, as these become criticizable in the first place. Overall, this study makes steps toward more conceptually grounded and more reflective research on the diversity of possible variants of combined and integrated scenario methodologies

Public engagement with research: Citizens' views on motivations, barriers and support

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) approaches that have emerged in the past ten years point to the importance of engaging the public in dialogues about research. The different variants of RRI share the notion that societal actors, including citizens, need to work together - that is, engage in two-way communication during the research and innovation process - in order to better align both the process and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of society. Yet, sponsors and organizers of dialogues about research often face difficulties in recruiting sufficient numbers of participants or ensuring a sufficient level of diversity of participants. This paper asks what motivates or hinders individual citizens as members of the broader public to participate in such dialogues. It presents empirical findings of the European Union-funded project Promoting Societal Engagement Under the Terms of RRI (PROSO), which aimed to foster public engagement with research for RRI. PROSO used a quasi-experimental, qualitative approach directly involving citizens to address this question. The core of the innovative methodology were focus group discussions with European citizens about hypothetical opportunities to take part in dialogues about research. Three hypothetical scenarios of different dialogue formats (varied by whether they seek to inform the participants, consult or enable deeper collaboration on a scientific issue) were used as stimuli to explore the participants’ willingness (motivations and perceived barriers) to engage with scientific research. Our findings show a preference towards dialogue formats that give citizens a more active role and a greater say in research policy or research funding. They further suggest that those who seek to broaden citizen participation in dialogues about research should consider the role of relevance, impact, trust, legitimacy, knowledge, and time and resources as factors that can motivate or discourage citizens to take part. Based on our findings, we discuss possibilities to promote citizen participation in dialogues about research as part of putting RRI into practice

Das Konzept der Deutungsmacht: ein Beitrag zur gegenwärtigen Machtdebatte in der Politischen Theorie?

'In diesem Artikel beschäftigten wir uns mit einer potentiellen innertheoretischen Herausforderung für die Politische Theorie. Ausgehend von der Annahme, dass 'Macht und Herrschaft' auch weiterhin einer der grundlegenden Themenkomplexe der Politischen Theorie ist, prüfen wir, inwiefern der jüngste deutsche Konzeptualisierungsversuch zum Thema institutionalisierte Macht - das Konzept der Deutungsmacht - einen Beitrag zu den zentralen Problemstellungen konzeptioneller, normativer und empirischer Art der gegenwärtigen Machtdebatte liefern kann. Dabei vertreten wir die These, dass das zur Analyse des (Bundes)Verfassungsgerichts entwickelte Konzept die gegenwärtige Machtdebatte und Politische Theorie insbesondere in konzeptioneller Hinsicht beleben könnte; unter der Voraussetzung allerdings, dass man das vorliegende Konzept der Deutungsmacht auf ein höheres Abstraktionsniveau hebt.' (Autorenreferat)'This article focuses on a potential challenge for Political Theory on the innertheoretical level. Assuming power to be one of the fundamental issues of present and future Political Theory, we examine the latest German conceptualisation of institutionalised power - 'Deutungsmacht' - which has recently been conceived to analyse the (German) federal constitutional court, in order to identify possible contributions to the core questions of the contemporary power debate which are issues of a conceptual, normative and empirical kind. We state that the concept of 'Deutungsmacht' does bear the potential to vitalise the power debate as well as Political Theory above all in conceptual matters; however only if considered on a more abstract level.' (author's abstract)

Public engagement with research: Citizens’ views on motivations, barriers and support

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) approaches that have emerged in the past ten years point to the importance of engaging the public in dialogues about research. The different variants of RRI share the notion that societal actors, including citizens, need to work together – that is, engage in two-way communication during the research and innovation process – in order to better align both the process and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of society. Yet, sponsors and organizers of dialogues about research often face difficulties in recruiting sufficient numbers of participants or ensuring a sufficient level of diversity of participants. This paper asks what motivates or hinders individual citizens as members of the broader public to participate in such dialogues. It presents empirical findings of the European Union-funded project Promoting Societal Engagement Under the Terms of RRI (PROSO), which aimed to foster public engagement with research for RRI. PROSO used a quasi-experimental, qualitative approach directly involving citizens to address this question. The core of the innovative methodology were focus group discussions with European citizens about hypothetical opportunities to take part in dialogues about research. Three hypothetical scenarios of different dialogue formats (varied by whether they seek to inform the participants, consult or enable deeper collaboration on a scientific issue) were used as stimuli to explore the participants’ willingness (motivations and perceived barriers) to engage with scientific research. Our findings show a preference towards dialogue formats that give citizens a more active role and a greater say in research policy or research funding. They further suggest that those who seek to broaden citizen participation in dialogues about research should consider the role of relevance, impact, trust, legitimacy, knowledge, and time and resources as factors that can motivate or discourage citizens to take part. Based on our findings, we discuss possibilities to promote citizen participation in dialogues about research as part of putting RRI into practice