by W. Lawrence Neuman Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Qualitative research methods for the social sciences - english. What Are the Major Types of Social Research? W. Lawrence Neuman. 3. Theory and Research. W. Lawrence Neuman. 4. The Meanings of Methodology. Seventh Edition. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches by W. Lawrence Neuman. Chapter 6: Strategies of. Research Design.
|Language:||English, Spanish, German|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches W. Lawrence Neuman Seventh Edition Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow. PowerPoint Presentation (Download only) for Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 7th Edition. W. Lawrence Neuman, University. Request PDF on ResearchGate | On Jan 1, , W L Neuman and others published Social Research Methods.
Subscribe to view the full document.
The impact of personal finance education delivered in high school and college courses. Financial Counseling and Planning, 17 2 , Perry, V. Who is in control? The role of self-perception, knowledge, and income in explaining consumer financial behavior.
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39 2 , Pillai, R. Financial prudence among youth. Retrieved from - muenchen. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44, — Saunders, M.
Lewis, P. Thornhill, A. Financial literacy in adult life. National Foundation for Educational Research. Sullivan, T. Financial literacy week launched. The GhanaianTimes.
There are other ways of knowing things, however. In contrast to knowing things through agreement, you can know them through direct experience—through observation.
You have more. Finally, you can contain yourself no longer. What a terrible thing to serve guests! The point of the story is that both of your feelings about the appetizer were quite real. When they pried your mouth open and reached down your throat for the other half of the worm, you learned that worms are not acceptable food in our society.
They are also a delicacy for some people who live in societies that lack our agreement that worms are disgusting. Some people might love the worms but be turned off by the deep-fried breading. People have grappled with this question for thousands of years. One answer that has arisen out of that grappling is science, which offers an approach to both agreement reality and experiential reality. In general, an assertion must have both logical and empirical support: It must make sense, and it must not contradict actual observation.
More to the point of this book, however, science offers a special approach to the discovery of reality through personal experience, that is, to the business of inquiry.
We seem quite willing, moreover, to undertake this task using causal and probabilistic reasoning.
First, we generally recognize that future circumstances are somehow caused or conditioned by present ones. We learn that swimming beyond the reef may bring an unhappy encounter with a shark.
As students we learn that studying hard will result in better grades. Second, we also learn that such patterns of cause and effect are probabilistic in nature: The effects occur more often when the causes occur than when the causes are absent—but not always.
Thus, students learn that studying hard produces good grades in most instances, but not every time. We recognize the danger of swimming beyond the reef, without believing that every such swim will be fatal.
It sharpens the skills we already have by making us more conscious, rigorous, and explicit in our inquiries. In looking at ordinary human inquiry, we need to distinguish between prediction and understanding. Medical science research has generally supported the new technology, but an article in the March 9, , issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association JAMA sent a shock wave through the medical community.
Whatever the primitive drives or instincts that motivate human beings, satisfying them depends heavily on the ability to predict future circumstances.
However, the attempt to predict is often placed in a context of knowledge and understanding. If we can understand why things are related to one another, why certain regular patterns occur, we can predict even better than if we simply observe and remember those patterns. As I suggested earlier, our attempts to learn about the world are only partly linked to direct, personal inquiry or experience. Another, much larger, technology.
Their conclusion: CPOE was not nearly as effective as claimed; it did not prevent errors in medication. As you can imagine, those manufacturing and selling the equipment were not thrilled by the research, and it has generated an ongoing discussion within the health care community.
At last count, the study had been cited over 20, times in other articles, and Koppel has become a sought-after expert in this regard. To see how, consider two important sources of our secondhand knowledge—tradition and authority. We may learn from others that eating too much candy will decay our teeth, that the circumference of a circle is approximately twentytwo—sevenths of its diameter, or that masturbation will blind us. By accepting what everybody knows, we avoid the overwhelming task of starting from scratch in our search for regularities and understanding.
At the same time, tradition may be detrimental to human inquiry. If we seek a fresh understanding of something everybody already understands and has always understood, we may be marked as fools for our efforts. Authority Inaccurate Observations Quite frequently, we make mistakes in our observations. Simply making observation more deliberate can reduce error.
You might also need a hobby.
In many cases, both simple and complex measurement devices help guard against inaccurate observations. Moreover, they add a degree of precision well beyond the capacity of the unassisted human senses.
Suppose, for example, that you had taken color photographs of your instructor that day. See earlier comment about needing a hobby. Despite the power of tradition, new knowledge appears every day. Often, acceptance of these new acquisitions depends on the status of the discoverer. Like tradition, authority can both assist and hinder human inquiry.
We do well to trust in the judgment of the person who has special training, expertise, and credentials in a given matter, especially in the face of controversy. At the same time, inquiry can be greatly hindered by the legitimate authority who errs within his or her own special province. Inquiry is also hindered when we depend on the authority of experts speaking outside their realm of expertise.
For example, consider the political or religious leader with no biochemical expertise who declares that marijuana is a dangerous drug. The advertising industry plays heavily on this misuse of authority by, for example, having popular athletes discuss the nutritional value of breakfast cereals or movie actors evaluate the performance of automobiles.
Both tradition and authority, then, are doubleedged swords in the search for knowledge about the world. Simply put, they provide us with a starting point for our own inquiry, but they can lead us Errors in Inquiry and Some Solutions Quite aside from the potential dangers of tradition and authority, we often stumble and fall when we set out to learn for ourselves. That is, we tend to overgeneralize on the basis of limited observations.