Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Journals help

  1. 2 Human Affairs

Authors help

  1. 2 Neusar A.

Years help

  1. 1 2015

  2. 1 2014

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

From Burgers to Tenure: Preserving Quality Amid the Choices and Dilemmas Facing Authors of Scientific Articles

100%
Neusar A.
Human Affairs
|
2015
|
vol. 25
|
issue 3
327-341
EN
Writing an article isn’t a straightforward process. It involves difficult decisions, dilemmas and even politics, and these have a substantial effect on article quality and impact. This is even more true now than used to be the case due to the massification of science and pressure to publish. The author explores six common dilemmas and offers guidance on how to deal with them: a) why we should (not) write at all; b) which language to choose-English, the national language or another suitable language; c) how to credit resources in times of resource abundance; d) how to deal with authorship disputes; e) whether to write clearly and concisely or to represent the “messy reality” as closely as possible; and f) which journal to choose.
2

To trust or not to trust? Interpretations in qualitative research

100%
Neusar A.
Human Affairs
|
2014
|
vol. 24
|
issue 2
178-188
EN
Interpretations of data in qualitative research may be biased for many reasons. This paper explores three commonly overlooked problems from a rather positivist point of view and deals with them mainly through the lens of cognitive psychology and survey methodology. The first problem is that researchers and readers of the research tend to trust retrospective data too much even though it is known that our memory is highly reconstructive. The second problem is that we often create interpretations too quickly and do not ground them in data well. The third problem is inappropriately generalising our findings because we underrate the variability of the phenomena studied. The aim is not to employ quantitative criteria in qualitative research but to show that especially in cases where we seek more objectivity (e.g., factual information about events) and less about the subjective phenomenal world (e.g., how people perceive these events from today’s perspective), cognitive psychology or survey methodology can offer valuable insights. Recommendations about what researchers should be careful of and how to increase the objectivity of the interpretations are offered.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.