Suchergebnisse

"This article investigates the impact of several sources of method bias on the cross-cultural comparison of attitudes towards gender roles and family ties among non-Western minority ethnic groups. In particular, it investigates how interviewer effects, the use of an interviewer with a shared ethnic background, interview language, interviewer gender, gender matching, the presence of others during the interview and differences in socio-demographic sample composition of non-Western minority ethnic groups affect the cross-cultural comparison of attitudes towards gender roles and family ties between these groups. The data used in this study come from a large scale face-to face survey conducted among the four largest non-Western minority ethnic groups in The Netherlands for which Statistics Netherlands drew a random sample of named individuals from each of the four largest non-Western minority populations living in The Netherlands. Furthermore, methods are introduced to estimate the potential impact of method bias on cross cultural comparisons. The results show that measurement of both gender roles and family ties constructs are full scalar invariant across the different ethnic groups, but that observed differences in attitudes between ethnic groups especially towards gender roles are influenced by method bias. This in turn leads to biased comparisons between ethnic groups because of differences in the size of the various sources of method bias, the differential impact of the same method bias between ethnic groups and the combination thereof." (author's abstract)

The relevance of this article is due to a change in the socio–economic and political situation in modern society. These changes lead to the expansion of the boundaries of the information space and increase the risk of irrational installations as a result of the active work of state propaganda. The article reveals various aspects of psychological impact as a phenomenon of social psychology, analyzes its history, structure, types, methods, analyzes the mechanisms of socio–psychological impact on the individual.

The Handbook aims to provide decision-makers with a comprehensive NBS impact assessment framework, and a robust set of indicators and methodologies to assess impacts of nature-based solutions across 12 societal challenge areas: Climate Resilience; Water Management; Natural and Climate Hazards; Green Space Management; Biodiversity; Air Quality; Place Regeneration; Knowledge and Social Capacity Building for Sustainable Urban Transformation; Participatory Planning and Governance; Social Justice and Social Cohesion; Health and Well-being; New Economic Opportunities and Green Jobs. Indicators have been developed collaboratively by representatives of 17 individual EU-funded NBS projects and collaborating institutions such as the EEA and JRC, as part of the European Taskforce for NBS Impact Assessment, with the four-fold objective of: serving as a reference for relevant EU policies and activities; orient urban practitioners in developing robust impact evaluation frameworks for nature-based solutions at different scales; expand upon the pioneering work of the EKLIPSE framework by providing a comprehensive set of indicators and methodologies; and build the European evidence base regarding NBS impacts. They reflect the state of the art in current scientific research on impacts of nature-based solutions and valid and standardized methods of assessment, as well as the state of play in urban implementation of evaluation frameworks.

Nowadays the realization that certain economic units, universities or other objects have impact on the economy of their region comes more and more into prominence. The economic impact study has become a standard tool to persuade state legislatures of the importance of expenditures on higher education. The most general definition is as "the difference between existing economic activity in a region given the presence of the institution and the level that would have been present if the institution did not exist". In the practice we face a series of problems: separation of net and gross impact, identification of universities' missions, territorial level choice, statistical model choice, estimation of induced and catalytic impacts, etc. Different methods used in literature make results hardly comparable, thereby our focus is to recommend a method to investigate universities in different countries: in the lack of regional input-output matrices a multiplier based approach for first and second missions (education and research), while an application of a set of indicators for third mission (knowledge transfer related) activities. After a methodological review, we demonstrate our experiences based on example of the University of Lorraine (France), University of Szeged (Hungary), and 2 other small colleges in Hungary.

Three types of semiquantitative methods used by the federal government in research impact assessment are presented. These include the classic retrospective method (Project Hindsight), another retrospective approach (Project TRACES andfollow-ons), and accomplishments books used by selected research-sponsoring organizations (Office of Naval Research, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Department of Energy Office of Health and Environmental Research, Department of Energy High Energy Physics Program, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). The strengths and weaknesses of each approach are discussed. One goal of all the studies presented was to identify the products of research and some of their impacts. In addition, the Hindsight, the technology in retrospect and critical events in science (TRACES), and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) studies tried to identify factors that influenced the productivity and impact of research. The following general conclusions about the role and impact of basic research were reached: (1) the majority of basic research events that directly affected technologies or systems were nonmission oriented and occurred many decades before the technology or the system emerged; (2) the cumulative indirect impacts of basic research were not accounted for by any of the retrospective approaches published; (3) an advanced pool of knowledge must be developed in many fields before synthesis leading to an innovation can occur; and (4) allocation of benefits among researchers, organizations, and funding agencies to determine economic returns from basic research is very difficult and arbitrary, especially at the microlevel.

This paper integrates two methodologies of risk and impact analysis—the partitioned multiobjective risk method (PMRM) and the multiobjective, multistage impact analysis method (MMIAM). The PMRM, in an effort to overcome the difficulties created by commensurating extreme events that have catastrophic impacts with those that have more frequent but less harmful consequences, introduces the use of conditional expectations for different regimes of probabilities and damages. The MMIAM is a multiobjective decisionmaking method for impact analysis which explicitly develops trade‐offs among different objectives at different stages or periods. Decision makers who must act under conditions of extreme risk and uncertainty often find that they are more interested in knowing "what not to do" than they are in optimizing their current objectives (the more traditional aim of decision‐making methodologies). This paper focuses on a way to answer their needs, in which major elements of both the PMRM and the MMIAM are combined in a new, integrated methodology, termed here the multiobjective risk‐impact analysis method (MRIAM). The new methodology incorporates risk and impact analysis within a dynamic multiobjective decision‐making framework. To demonstrate the usefulness of the integrated methodology, an example problem concerning the environmental effects of pollutant emissions over a number of years is formulated, solved, and analyzed.