Suchergebnisse

This paper examines how path dependencies in evaluation routines affect a brokerage firm's decision to provide coverage to a company that builds on new knowledge. Companies depend on brokerage firms to gain access to external resources, as a brokerage firm's coverage is a valuable form of recognition that may lower a company's cost of capital and increase its value. Yet path dependencies in a brokerage firm's evaluation routines may make it less likely to cover a company whose inventive activities build on different knowledge than it used in the past. Using data on 183 U.S. publicly traded medical device companies from 1993 to 2006, we examine how a company's use of new knowledge affects a brokerage firm's decision to cover the company. Our results suggest that a company may face a tension between exploration and resource dependence, as after it overcomes internal path dependencies that hinder exploration and successfully uses new knowledge, it may still fail to gain the attention of outside organizations on which it depends to access relevant resources due to externally borne path dependencies in the routines these outside organizations use to evaluate novelty. Also, in contrast with existing literature suggesting that brokerage firms have homogenous expectations for which strategies are appropriate for different types of companies, our results highlight that brokerage firms differ in how they respond to companies' inventive activities based on factors such as their prior exposure to new knowledge, prior evaluation of the companies' downstream product markets, and scope of technological expertise.

Despite calls for evidence-based policies, the process of using evidence in forest conservation policy implementation has remained unclear. In this paper, we focus on voluntary conservation and investigate complex ways to use evidence in implementation of the Forest Biodiversity Programme METSO in Finland. Data were collected via nine focus group discussions involving a total of 59 forest conservation stakeholders. Through interpretative qualitative analysis, we found that forest owners' and forest advisers' awareness of the voluntary instrument and the smooth interplay of knowledge types are important factors in implementing voluntary conservation. Knowledge use should be locally bound for policy implementation to be effective. Social relationships enable integrating local knowledge. Forest owners, advisers, authorities and other actors interpret scientific and other knowledges (and simultaneously co-produce new knowledge) in practical action. We conclude that educating forest advisers, informing forest owners, and increasing collaboration can enhance evidence flows from research to practice. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ; Peer reviewed

The problematic issues of using scientific, technical, natural and other special knowledge in criminal proceedings for the purpose of revealing, disclosure and investigation of crimes for a long time were always paid with considerable attention as from practical employees, and scientific workers. The actuality of this thematic range is conditioned by constant technical progress, updating ofa technical number ofscientific, criminalistic and other means which are used during revealing, formalizing and seizure of crime traces, by appearance of new types of expert researches, change of special knowledge forms use in criminal legal proceedings and by many other factors. There was pointed out to the lacks ofa legal regulation in the applicable legislation regarding participation of knowledgeable persons in operative-search activity. According to the results of the analysis performed, the author ascertains the absence of such regulation at the level of normative-legal acts defining legal bases for the separate law enforcement bodies activity (except for the National anticorruption bureau of Ukraine), and the normative-legal acts regulating separate kinds of activity of their operative units. In its turn, the similar state of matters can callinto question legality of use of the received results ofsuch activity as proofs in the criminal proceedings. The research of scientific works ofprocessionalists established the absence of the uniform approach to the decision of the specified problematic questions. The paper also studies the level of legal regulation of special knowledge use for achievement of the operative activity goals in the post-Soviet territory countries, in particular, in Republic of Kazakhstan, Republic of Turkmenistan, Republic of Belarus, the Kyrghyz Republic and some other, and there is drawn a conclusion about the presence of the corresponding norms in the legislation of these countries. Taking into account stated, the author proves necessity of formalizing similar provisions in the corresponding normative-legal acts of Ukraine. ; Досліджено деякі питання правової регламентації в чинному вітчизняному законодавстві щодо участі обізнаних осіб у оперативно-розшуковій діяльності. Сформульовано авторські пропозиції стосовно усунення виявлених недоліків шляхом унесення змін до чинних нормативно-правових актів.

The attention in the article is drawn to the fact that despite the obvious need to bring special knowledge into civil and economic procedural proof, this process is progressing rather slowly as the modern practice of using special knowledge constantly reveals gaps and collisions in procedural norms. Defining forensic science as a separate form of using special knowledge, the article focuses on the interpretation of the "special knowledge" concept by scientists, and concludes that scientific papers explicitly indicate that special knowledge is used by a limited number of specialists, they are inherent in a particular science; could be obtained in the process of training, special training and are applied according to the requirements of current legislation. It is noted that a separate procedural form of special knowledge application is the results of forensic examinations, i.e. for forensic examination conduct it is necessary to involve a specialist who, according to the current legislation, possesses the required sum of special knowledge, which allows him to competently conduct measures that are his functional responsibilities − to provide a forensic report based on their own special, professional knowledge. It is argued that according to the evidence classification, the forensic opinion belongs to personal sources of evidence and, if there are no grounded reasons for disagreement with it, should be taken for granted and used in evidence as a result of research work of an authoritative specialist. It is also emphasized that the forensic report, as an independent forensic evidence in the case, can only be the result of forensic examination, appointed and conducted in strict accordance with the requirements of economic or civil procedural law, the signs by which the forensic report differs from other means of evidence are described. The features that distinguish forensic examination from examinations carried out in other areas of human activity are outlined. It is established that the means of verifying a forensic report in civil and economic proceedings are forensic expert testimony, other evidence provided by the procedure participants and comparing the report with the latter, as well as stressed that the distinction between verification and evaluation of evidence should be conducted according to individual criteria, their characteristic is given. ; У статті зазначено, що, незважаючи на очевидну необхідність залучення спеціальних знань до цивільного та господарського процесуального доказування, цей процес просувається досить повільно, оскільки сучасна практика застосування спеціальних знань постійно виявляє прогалини та колізії у процесуальних нормах. Визначаючи судову експертизу як окрему форму застосування спеціальних знань, у статті акцентовано на тлумаченні науковців самого поняття «спеціальні знання». Зауважено, що окремою процесуальною формою застосування спеціальних знань є результати судових експертиз, тобто для проведення судової експертизи необхідним є залучення фахівця, якому, згідно з чинним законодавством, обов'язково потрібно мати спеціальні знання. Наведено ознаки, які відрізняють судову експертизу від експертиз, які здійснюють в інших галузях людської діяльності, та визначено, що розмежування між перевіркою й оцінкою доказів слід здійснювати за окремими критеріями, наведено їхню характеристику.