How to increase citizen coproduction: replication and extension of existing research

ABSTRACT

The value of coproduction—the joint productive efforts by regular producers, such as teachers, and consumer producers, such as parents, in helping children to learn—has been recognized for some time. However, strong empirical evidence of how these benefits can be achieved is scarce, and recent research has found mixed results. A new randomized field trial replicates elements of previous studies and extends them by using an additional age-appropriate outcome measure. Methodologically, the results illustrate the challenges of carrying out replication studies because when target groups change, outcome measures also often change. Substantially, the findings suggest that a government initiative providing parents with materials and information to enhance parents’ coproduction efforts can be extended to a broader target group of parents. Together, the findings illustrate how findings from single studies should be generalized with caution and the value of working systematically with replications and extensions.     

The role of imprinting on the adoption of diversity management in German universities

This study questions the universal effect of organizational imprinting and argues that the relevance of the imprint differs across organizations' administrative levels. Specifically, this study analyses how institutional founding conditions affect the adoption of diversity management, as a method of responding to increasing institutional pressure to conform to a logic of inclusion and equality in institutions of higher education. Focusing on 112 universities in Germany, results show that the imprint does not affect the adoption of diversity management in general but does so at higher administrative levels. Through a discussion of these findings, this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of how imprinting affects organizations. Further, it contributes to a better understanding of factors that influence the diffusion of diversity management in universities.     

Empirical testing of estimated DNA frequencies

Direct empirical testing of forensic DNA micro-probabilities has proved difficult. Substantial support for the population genetic models on which these micro-probabilities are based has come from powerful but indirect means. However for many people empirical testing rather than models remains the ideal.Following the example set by Weir and Evett we report here a large-scale empirical test of a population genetic model incorporating substructure and relatedness. Given that all models represent simplifications of reality the fit of observed and prediction is remarkable and gives substantial support to the reliability of current methods.     

Biotechnology and law: biotechnology patents. Special considerations on the inventions with human material.

The EC and the US differ considerably in their ruling on the patentability of biotechnological inventions apart from some exceptions. The most extreme positions in either direction with regard to the individual biotechnological inventions mark the margins of the scope which the WTO members may use for the ratification of Art. 27 TRIPS. Rulings which are not in accordance with Art. 27 TRIPS remain without consideration. In the most important point both WTO member agree: Human beings are not patentable. Other regulations could be considered, but one may assume that no member of the WTO intends to make use thereof. Thus the scope involving this option is only a theoretical one. The situation is different when it comes to the components of the human body. These may, provided they are produced artificially or are separated from the human body, be patented. According to the regulations in the US, this applies to all components with the exception of totipotent stem cells. They may be exempted from patenting entirely or their patenting is linked to far reaching conditions. As an example should be named here the regulation of the EPA for patenting gene sequences. The scope of this area is, thus, very great and allows for many options of applying the regulations of Art. 27 TRIPS. With regard to patenting procedures for cloning human beings, the scope is unlimited. These procedures may either be completely excluded from patenting as in the EC or may be considered patentable independent of their purpose as in the US. The same applies to procedures for gathering human stem cells in the US. Exempting procedures with regard to human genes or DNA sequences are, however, only possible in special cases, as for example in the EC with regard to procedures for altering the genetic identity of the germline of human beings. However, the interpretation of general patentability preconditions allows to influence the patenting of such procedures. This means, though, that the scope for interpretation is only a small one in this area.