Case Study Selection Methodology Sample Clauses

Case Study Selection Methodology. The case study investigation in WP3 is designed “To identify key barriers and incentives for societal engagement under the terms of RRI across three domains – nanotechnology; food & health; bio-economy – and from the point of view of Third sector actors and other stakeholders/actors contributing to RRI, including science/technology policy makers, research funders, academics, industry.” Our investigation and subsequent analysis of the interviews connected with these nine case studies will explore the similarities and differences in the perspectives of the various stakeholders contributing to RRI. The case study selection process was developed iteratively and collaboratively with the relevant PROSO project partners. Regular (bi-monthly) meetings were instigated during which the search, recording, and selection criteria were sequentially discussed and timelines for each phase of selection determined. This ensured a transparent, timely and harmonised approach to selection of cases across the three domains. During these meetings, core concepts were being defined and agreed upon (such as the definition of the ‘case’, ‘societal engagement’). These concepts, as agreed by the WP3 consortium partners, are reviewed in this document. The starting points and resources for the case study search were:  Previous projects on societal engagement and RRI (and its conceptual predecessors, like ‘science in society’), including Engage2020 and PE2020  Funding agencies o RRI-focused programmes and funding (such as the Netherlands’ NWO “Responsible Innovation” programme) o Programmes supporting engagement strategies, including BBSRC o CORDIS (EU projects)  Organisations dedicated to societal engagement o Collaborations between researchers and Civil Society Organisations (e.g., ‘SynBioWatch’, funded by SYNENERGENE) o Public engagement initiatives (such as the ‘Science Shop’ at Queen’s University Belfast)  Citizen science platforms (initiatives such as ‘Observatree’)  Research within the respective PROSO domain (Bioeconomy, Nanotechnology, Food & Health), including informal interviews with key figures doing societal engagement in science  Exploratory informal interviews with prominent CSOs  Major research and innovation activities o Funding programmes (e.g. 7th Framework Programme) o Major research networks across a range of European countries (e.g. Northern Periphery Programme)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Case Study Selection Methodology

  • Selection Criteria Each Contract is secured by a new or used Motorcycle. No Contract has a Contract Rate less than 1.00%. Each Contract amortizes the amount financed over an original term no greater than 84 months (excluding periods of deferral of first payment). Each Contract has a Principal Balance of at least $500.00 as of the Cutoff Date.

  • Treatment Program Testing The Employer may request or require an employee to undergo drug and alcohol testing if the employee has been referred by the employer for chemical dependency treatment or evaluation or is participating in a chemical dependency treatment program under an employee benefit plan, in which case the employee may be requested or required to undergo drug or alcohol testing without prior notice during the evaluation or treatment period and for a period of up to two years following completion of any prescribed chemical dependency treatment program.

  • Claims Review Methodology a. C laims Review Population. A description of the Population subject to the Quarterly Claims Review.‌

  • Review and Selection Process The Project Narratives of SAMHSA applications are peer-reviewed according to the evaluation criteria listed above. Decisions to fund a grant are based on the strengths and weaknesses of the application as identified by peer reviewers. The results of the peer review are advisory in nature. The program office and approving official make the final determination for funding based on the following: • Individual awards over $250,000 are approved by the Center for Mental Health Services National Advisory Council; • Availability of funds; • Equitable distribution of awards in terms of geography (including urban, rural, and remote settings) and balance among populations of focus and program size; • Submission of any required documentation that must be submitted prior to making an award; and • SAMHSA is required to review and consider any information about your organization that is in the Federal Award Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). In accordance with 45 CFR 75.212, SAMHSA reserves the right not to make an award to an entity if that entity does not meet the minimum qualification standards as described in section 75.205(a)(2). If SAMHSA chooses not to award a fundable application in accordance with 45 CFR 75.205(a)(2), SAMHSA must report that determination to the designated integrity and performance system accessible through the System for Award Management (XXX) [currently, FAPIIS]. You may review and comment on any information about your organization that a federal awarding agency previously entered. XXXXXX will consider your comments, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about your organization’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed as described in 45 CFR 75.205 HHS Awarding Agency Review of Risk by Applicants.

  • Drug Testing Procedures a. The testing procedures and safeguards provided in this policy shall be adhered to by any laboratory personnel administering departmental drug tests.

  • Selection Criteria for Awarding Task Order The Government will award to the offeror whose proposal is deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment using the evaluation criteria. The Government will evaluate proposals against established selection criteria specified in the task order RFP. Generally, the Government's award decision will be based on selection criteria which addresses past performance, technical acceptability, proposal risk and cost. Among other sources, evaluation of past performance may be based on past performance assessments provided by TO Program Managers on individual task orders performed throughout the life of the contract. The order of importance for the factors will be identified in the RFP for the specified task order.

  • Single Source Selection Services for tasks in circumstances which meet the requirements of paragraph 3.10 of the Consultant Guidelines for Single Source Selection, may, with the Association's prior agreement, be procured in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3.9 through 3.13 of the Consultant Guidelines.

  • Selection Procedure 10.2.4.1 Internal applicants shall be defined as all applicants with seniority in accordance with Article 12.5.

  • Loop Testing/Trouble Reporting 2.1.6.1 Think 12 will be responsible for testing and isolating troubles on the Loops. Think 12 must test and isolate trouble to the BellSouth portion of a designed/non- designed unbundled Loop (e.g., UVL-SL2, UCL-D, UVL-SL1, UCL-ND, etc.) before reporting repair to the UNE Customer Wholesale Interconnection Network Services (CWINS) Center. Upon request from BellSouth at the time of the trouble report, Think 12 will be required to provide the results of the Think 12 test which indicate a problem on the BellSouth provided Loop.

  • Annual Production Program document describing the forecasts for Production and handling of Oil, Gas, water, special fluids, and waste arising from the Production process of each Development Area or Field.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.