Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the
current reference desk pages.
October 29 Information
Research paradigms in business research
Is there a common classification of research paradigms typically used in (business) research (e.g., "positivism" + x other paradigms)? As I want to cite them, I am searching for a reliable book/paper containing them that is usually used as a reference. Ideally, this reference should also contain a brief definition of the paradigms.
130.149.169.40 (
talk) 09:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Scholarly research in Business is primarily
inductiveSocial research, though there is some purely
deductive work conducted where strong
models allow for work to be conducted in the analysis of models. As a form of
social science or
sociology, most business research relies on the findings about
inductive research from the
history of science and
philosophy of science, in particular
Popper's
falsification as a critique of
positivism and then
Kuhn,
Lakatos and
Feyerabend's critiques of the possibility of falsification in general, or in the actual social practice of conducting research. Research can be grouped into
quantitative research where attempts are made to prove the relationship between theoretical terms with reference to numerical data coded into categories;
qualitative research where researchers attempt to uncover categories for further testing; and
discursive research where the object of analysis is the meanings produced in cultural records (ie:
labour history,
discourse analysis in
marketing,
business history). A variety of theories cover business research:
institutionalismMarxism and
instrumentalism being the most popular. A wide variety of methods are available, as are methodologies. I also believe that this source
here appears to be an uncontrolled copy of a work being issued by a Vietnamese educational institution. It looks like a recent methods text.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 23:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Also, obviously,
paradigm is a loaded term from
Kuhn's
HPS work. I would suggest that there are only three social science "paradigms" in this sense: pre-modern
reaction, modern
liberalism (including a fair number of
Marxisms), and modern
historical-materialism. These
paradigms are
incommensurable to the extent that reactionary attitudes towards research into society deny that it is a caused phenomena, the liberal paradigm is cemented in the exploration of the bourgeois
enlightenment individual, whereas historical materialism's idea of
praxis views the analysis of the enlightenment
subjectivity as fools' errand. Beneath that level most methodologies and methods are
commensurable. There are Marxist historians and there are liberal historians, and they both broadly agree on how to do history, but not what historical studies is.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 00:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)reply
To whom do you consider the Synod would pass responsibility? There is no higher legislative authority over them, as there is with the devolved assemblies.
Rojomoke (
talk) 13:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)reply
According to our
Church of England article, "Measures have to be approved but cannot be amended by the British Parliament before receiving the Royal Assent and becoming part of the law of England". This is in respect of decisions that alter the
Canon law of the Chuurch. However, I can't imagine that the General Synod would ever leave it to Parliament to decide a Church issue, but I suppose it's possible.
Alansplodge (
talk) 08:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Before I followed the link, I was wondering who this man called Synod was and how he could possibly have been named a general within a church. --
Lgriot (
talk) 09:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Alansplodge is right, but I think there are a couple more issues. First, I'm not sure whether the Church of England (unlike devolved governments) enjoys exclusive competence over any particular issues, thus in relation to those issues making the game rather different. Secondly, since the power to legislate is not granted by Parliament to the Church of England (de jure, and arguably de facto), unlike the devolved governments, if one considers a Sewel motion specifically about not exercising a "devolved power" or on a "devolved issue" then the term may not be apt. Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 17:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)reply
At the following link,
29 Photos That Put All Of Our Struggles In Perspective, the caption under Photograph #19 states: "In Ban Khok, Thailand every household is required to live with a Royal Cobra. Being able to tame the venomous snake is considered a highly respected talent. This photo, taken in April 2010, shows Mr. Vukjow Mare and his cobra." Can this (the first sentence, in bold and italic text) possibly be true? Who would require this? The government? And why? Thanks.
Joseph A. Spadaro (
talk) 14:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)reply
This seems to be a village called Ban Khok Sa-nga in Nam Phong District (see
Nam Phong District#Attractions).
This episode of "An Idiot Abroad" should contain footage of the village. There are some hints on this page
[1] that if anyone pressures the villagers to keep cobras in (or under) their houses, it could be Wildlife Fund Thailand, and the idea would be that the villagers should keep the snakes at home rather than constantly travelling around with the snakes. Card Zero (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)reply
I can confirm from personal experience visiting numerous Thai households over many years that there is no requirement to keep a King Cobra in the home, and in fact, there is a keen effort to keep snakes of any kind out of the house.
DOR (HK) (
talk) 04:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)reply
There is an old idea in Vietnam that you keep a snake in the rafters to deter rats. This is not the norm in Vietnamese households today. I don't think the snakes were cobras either.
Itsmejudith (
talk) 21:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Weird. In the Philippines, we generally try to keep our houses rodent-free for the exact reason that they attract snakes, and snakes in turn attract king cobras. One of my most vivid childhood memories is my dad killing a very large king cobra in the yard with a shotgun, and the subsequent discussions on de-ratting the grain storage building (we own a mill) as well as various superstitions on how to avoid and properly dispose of snakes (e.g. common throughout South and Southeast Asia is the custom of completely crushing the head and eyes of dead snakes to prevent "revenge" by the snakes' partner - as it is believed that the eyes of dead snakes retain the image of the last person who killed them). --
OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Desk pen holders in the Oval Office
All presidents since FDR had a desk pen holder (like on the image) on their Oval Office desk. But as I look around, President Reagan was the last the use it. Why cheased this tradition? --
84.160.136.62 (
talk) 14:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Obviously prime minister
Gordon Brown was upset by the missing pen holder because he gave
Barack Obama a new one in 2009.
[2] To show his gratitude, Obama thoughtfully presented him in return with a set of DVDs.
[3][4] I notice also that Obama has got rid of the flat-screen televisions that Jimmy Carter had been displaying rather ostentatiously.
Thincat (
talk) 21:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)]reply
Having them & being able to market them with an affordable price are 2 different things. 1987's Wall Street famously featured both a cell phone & portable hand held TV even tho most American's couldn't afford them until the mid-90s.
Flat panel display explains that most of what we know as the current technology first appeared in the mid to late 1960s.
Westinghouse showcased a
blubless "electroluminiscence" as early as 1955.
Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 07:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Hello. Please excuse my mistakes in English, I'm Frenchspeaking.
The layout of a letter to the English gives, according to teachers and web, first the address of the sender (right or left side?), second the address of the receiver on the left side, then the text.
I want to know why the destination address is on the left?
Do the English not use "American" window envelopes? Is it rude to put the address right? or to use the envelope "American"?
Thank you for your answers. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Égoïté (
talk •
contribs) 18:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)reply
In England and the UK we use envelopes with the window on the left side, so write the destination on the left to fit.
Nanonic (
talk) 18:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)reply
To answer the OP's first question, the convention is to put the sender's address on the right for a home address, on the left for a business address. The date should also come between the sender's address and the recipient's address. See
Letter (message) and
Business letter.
Tevildo (
talk) 19:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)reply
I am sure it wouldn't be thought rude to do things the other way round. However, if you were writing to apply for a job in the UK and wanted to impress your potential employer you would best do things the British way!
Thincat (
talk) 21:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) ... and only business letters go in window envelopes (in the most formal etiquette).
Dbfirs 21:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Thank you very much. It's very different in Belgium: the sender is shown at left and above, the recipient right and then the window of the envelope is right here. I thought there had been a uniform standard by the Postal Union, but there is obviously nothing. This should pose many problems for machines that automatically process mail ...
Égoïté (
talk) 21:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)reply
You write on the left hand side in the UK to avoid horrible crashes with oncoming letters.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 02:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)reply
The "Russland-Fanfare"'s precursor, used in the
Wehrmachtbericht during the beginning of WWII, was "
Die Wacht am Rhein", also named the "Frankreich Fanfare" (France fanfare). ---
Sluzzelintalk 19:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)reply
A snappy number called Bomben auf Engeland was used by the
Luftwaffe during the
Battle of Britain. Google translates the chorus as "Mate! Mate! All the girls have to wait! / Mate! Mate! The command is there, we start! / The solution is well known: Run to the enemy! Bombs on England!"Alansplodge (
talk) 19:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)reply