This conception

was also observed to be very general and inclusive. The researchers intended to consciously beware of indicating a concrete vision of regional landscape management. No specified conception on project level Some researchers stressed that their project was not based on any specified conception of sustainable development. In these cases, it was indicated that a conception was thought to exist on a higher-ranking level of the research program a project was part of (e.g., FOR). Or sustainability models, positions and worldviews of different actors and actor groups built the actual object of research, which implied that, for reasons of scientific standards, the project did not take or advance a position itself (e.g., BFUEL). Consideration of relevant actors’ and stakeholders’ Talazoparib perspectives The sustainability goals advanced in the projects featured differing formative perspectives, i.e., were based on—or had taken up—different actors’ views and positions. These formative perspectives were identified and evaluated on the basis of the following questions: (1) Whose perspectives are taken up by the sustainability conception?   (2) Are the respective actors and stakeholders the relevant ones with respect to sustainable development? Who else could have been relevant?   The sustainability conceptions were found to either

dominantly reflect the researchers’ own perspective (corresponding to their personal position), to O-methylated flavonoid take up

a particular societal actor’s perspective, or to consider the perspectives of various societal actors. Note that the number of considered actors does not necessarily correlate Selleckchem AUY-922 with the relevance of their perspectives. Thus, a fourth type—not found among the investigated sample—would comprise notions that entail the views of a large number of actors that are not necessarily or only partly relevant. Researcher(s)’ own perspective In some cases, the sustainability conceptions corresponded largely to the researchers’ personal appraisal of the Tideglusib situation. Only very few of the researchers involved in these projects made a distinction between personal judgment and the projects’ underlying conception, leaving the difference rather unnoticed. There was little or no indication of any considered actor or stakeholder perspective. The reasoning tended towards assuming that notions of what would be sustainable were largely obvious and widely shared. Consequently, whose perspectives to consider for identifying the sustainability notion to advance was not an issue. Particular societal actor’s perspective A particular societal actor’s perspective taken up in a sustainability ideal covers either a single societal actor or an actor group, i.e., a collective actor. The question of whether other actors or stakeholders would have been important does not seem to arise, while the relevance of the selected actor is depicted as being very obvious.