Old man in young age
By Prof
Dr Sohail Ansari ““Mankind was one
single nation, and Allah sent Messengers with glad tidings and warnings; and
with them He sent the Book in truth, to judge between people in matters wherein
they differed; but the People of the Book, after the clear Signs came to them,
did not differ among themselves, except through selfish contumacy. Allah by His
Grace guided the believers to the Truth, concerning that wherein they differed.
For Allah guided whom He wills to a path that is straight.”
(Quran 2:213)
Never old in any age
· Wise man beyond age is either
an old man in young age or never old in any age.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Researcher Robert K. Yin defines
the case study research method as an empirical inquiry that
investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the
boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which
multiple sources of evidence are used
A case study is a report about a person, group,
or situation that has been studied.[1] If the case study, for instance, is
about a group, it describes the behavior of the group as a whole, not the
behavior of each individual in the group.
Case studies can be
produced by following a formal research method. These case studies are
likely to appear in formal research venues, as journals and professional
conferences, rather than popular works. The resulting body of 'case study
research' has long had a prominent place in many disciplines and professions,
ranging from psychology, anthropology, sociology, and political science to
education, clinical science, social work, and administrative science.[2][3]
In doing case study
research, the "case" being studied may be an individual,
organization, event, or action, existing in a specific time and place. For
instance, clinical science has produced both well-known case studies of
individuals and also case studies of clinical practices.[4][5][6] However, when "case" is used
in an abstract sense, as in a claim, a proposition, or an argument, such a case
can be the subject of many research methods, not just case study research. Case
studies may involve both qualitative and quantitative research methods.
Research comprises
"creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the
stock of knowledge,
including knowledge of humans, culture and society, and the use of this stock
of knowledge to devise new applications."[1] It is used to establish or confirm
facts, reaffirm the results of previous work, solve new or existing problems,
support theorems, or
develop new theories. A
research project may also be an expansion on past work in the field. Research
projects can be used to develop further knowledge on a topic, or in the example
of a school research project, they can be used to further a student's research
prowess to prepare them for future jobs or reports. To test the validity of
instruments, procedures, or experiments, research may replicate elements of
prior projects or the project as a whole. The primary purposes of basic research (as
opposed to applied
research) are documentation, discovery, interpretation, or
the research
and development (R&D)
of methods and systems for the advancement of human knowledge. Approaches to
research depend on epistemologies,
which vary considerably both within and between humanities and sciences. There
are several forms of research: scientific, humanities, artistic, economic, social, business, marketing, practitioner
research, life, technological,etc.
Definition of case
method. 1 : case system. 2 : a method of instruction used especially in
colleges and universities that presents for observation and analysis actual
recorded or current instances of the problem under study and often calls upon
the student to render practical help.
The Media of Diaspora examines how diasporic communities have used new communications media to maintain and develop community ties on a local and transnational level.
Abstract
Diasporic media are a platform for self-expression, the
representation of cultural artefacts and the contestation of negative
stereotypes by migrant people in the public sphere. In the context of this
anthology, diasporic media are perceived ‘as the media that are produced by and
for migrants and deal with issues that are of specific interest for the members
of diasporic communities’ (Bozdag et al., 2012, p. 97). Their functions have
been articulated in previous literature, including the production of ‘culturally
relevant and locally vital information to immigrants in the host society’ (Yin,
2013, p. 3); ‘orientation and connective roles’ (Ogunyemi, 2012b); ‘open space
for a self-reflective discourse among migrants’ (Bozdag et al., 2012);
‘reinforce identities and sense of belonging’ (Georgiou, 2006); ‘the
(re-)creation of alternative imaginative space alongside existing mappings’
(Karim, 2003); and contribution ‘to the ethnic diversity of a multi-ethnic
public sphere’ (Husband, 2000, p. 206). However, we know very little about
their production practices because they are hardly used in empirical studies.
This hiatus in the literature is evident in the observation made by
Wahl-Jorgensen and Hanitzsch that ‘the work of US news organizations is
extremely well charted, whereas we know excruciatingly little about what goes
on in newsrooms and media content in Africa, Asia and Latin America’
(Wahl-Jorgensen and Hanitzsch, 2009, p. 8).
Abstract
This thesis is a contribution
to the debate on the role of diasporic media in effecting political change in
Zimbabwe in the current period. Using a constructivist paradigm whose point of
departure is that the world is changeable, the thesis uses three case studies
to explore how a conscious engagement with these media helps understand how
people using minimum resources can engage in an activity that has a potential
to create change in a restricted political environment. The case studies are: a
radio station Short Wave Radio Africa (SWRA), a news website NewZimbabwe.com,
and the newspaper The Zimbabwean. These media are located outside Zimbabwe
owing to the thinning of media democratic space in the country. In what ways do
media created by nationals in the diaspora manage to use affordable
communication technologies to link with the population, providing an
alternative public sphere? Despite the Zimbabwean government’s control of the
media, in particular, radio broadcasting, evidence shows the rise of an
oppositional communicative space conducted by a small number of poorly resourced
social players. Civilians are therefore able to respond to disenfranchisement
using a few resources as part of democratic ideation in a hostile environment.
This constructivist argument states that the social world is not a given, but
is part of a marked discursive and communicative process. This thesis further
argues that diasporic media play a pivotal role in the social world in
influencing notions of human consciousness; as forms of social, political and
economic interactions that project thoughts, world-views, beliefs, ideas and
concepts that underpin their relationships.
a typical example or
pattern of something; a pattern or model.
"society's
paradigm of the ‘ideal woman’"
Paradigms in research; or, how your worldview shapes
your methodology
Posted on April 21, 2009 by Alison
In
the introductory lectures for my master’s in organisational behaviour, we heard
a great deal about paradigms. Indeed, we heard so much about paradigms that
several of my classmates were quite keen to go back and get a refund on the
course.
We
– researchers, embryonic management consultants, careers counsellors and human
resources managers – wished to get on with the simple business of learning all
about human behaviour so that we could manipulate it for profit. But
first, we had to pass this module.
So.
Paradigms are, roughly speaking, coherent belief structures. Some people
describe them as a lens through which to view the world. A paradigm is a
bundle of assumptions about the nature of reality, the status of human
knowledge, and the kinds of methods that can be used to answer research
questions. The piece that follows is adapted from Guba and
Lincoln’s seminal chapter in the massive tome, Handbook
of Qualitative Research – a
book which would be extremely useful in hand-to-hand combat.
Anyway.
In social science, there are at least three competing paradigms: positivism,
constructivism, and critical theory.
Do
not panic. You have been working with these all your life, without
knowing it. Let’s take them one by one.
Positivism is
where many of us live most of the time. The world is real, that chair is solid,
my findings are statistically significant. Positivism is the world of science
and testing hypotheses.
In
the positivist world, researchers are objective and strive to minimise sources
of bias wherever they can. Research is true, researchers exist apart from their
data, and the best research (because you can use rigour) is quantitative.
Market
research mostly exists in a rather positivist world. Significance, return
on investment, purchase decisions. These are solid things. When
positivists do qualitative research, they worry about representativeness of
findings, and how many people in Birmingham actually said they disliked the
concept. (There is of course post-positivism, but I’ll skip over that lightly).
Constructivism. Constructivists wear corduroy trousers and
like bright colours. Constructivists argue that human beings construct
their own social realities in relation to one another. Reality is
subjective and experiential : that thing over there that looks like a table is
actually being used as a chair. My particular construction of reality might be
shared with many other people, but other people could construct the same
reality in quite different ways.
Political
stances and religious beliefs are examples of large-scale competing
explanations of similar realities. Knowledge is not absolute, and (the killer
in terms of methodology) the researcher is no longer outside the system, but
part of it. Findings may be idiosyncratic, rather than generalisable;
approaches are holistic. The goal is of constructivist research is
understanding and structuring, as opposed to prediction.
Qualitative
research leans towards constructivism, as I think you would guess.
However, it also tends to be batted back towards positivism, because full-blown
constructivism can be a little too relative for all concerned, especially as
lots of market research is done in order to find out what large organisations
can actually sell to lots of people.
I
am a social constructivist in outlook, so I believe that qualitative
researchers are inescapably subjective and research findings are co-created
between the researcher and the respondents. I also subscribe to social
constructivism’s Achilles heel, the interpretation problem, AKA ‘Why should I
believe your version of events over anyone else’s’, although fortunately social
constructivism has a handy get-out-of-jail-free card for that one.*
Which
brings us to critical
theory.
An
observant reader who hasn’t run away screaming might have noticed that
positivism and constructivism have slightly different implicit values.
Positivism doesn’t really mention values, but its value centre is really data
and rigour. Constructivism, all fluffy and relative, is very concerned about
the participant, and explaining the participant’s point of view.
In
contract, critical theory is all about value, or more precisely, all about
power and politics. Critical theory is concerned with power relations and
patterns of dominance. You’ll also see it described as neo-Marxist theory
and indeed a good way of getting into the spirit of critical theory is to
analyse any given situation in the manner of Rick from the Young Ones.
Critical
theory looks at the world through a political lens, in which certain groups –
rich people, politicians, men, capitalism in general – exert power and
influence over other groups. If you like, critical theory takes a historical
perspective. The goal of critical theory is emancipation of the oppressed.
It
was more or less at this point that my fellow Organisational Behaviour students
got very, very angry indeed. This was rubbish, one person said. He wasn’t here
to learn about stupid critical theory; he was here to learn all about how
people worked so he could go back to his company and learn how to manage people
better.
The
lecturer smiled.
Someone
else said: this is total gobbledygook and anyway, it’s all just useless theory
– how on earth could anyone take it seriously; and more importantly, how could
anyone make a living being a consultant who depended on critical theory??
The
lecturer smiled a great shark-like smile.
I love Critical Theory.
Critical
theory helps you look at assumptions, and at power relations. In organisational
research, you can look at the ways in which management organises and represents
certain kinds of meanings. You can look at career progression and the
definition of high-flying careers. You can create new concepts, such as the
role of emotional labour in customer service jobs. In science
communication, you can look at the problematic issue of public engagement, and
whether it is meaningful to assume it is value-free.
In
market research, you can look at corporate attempts to structure the meaning of
a brand, and consumer resistance to such meanings. You can look at
Twitter, or Facebook, or OpenID with your Critical Theorist hat on. Who profits
from certain meanings? What actions does the system permit or forbidden? How do
users react?
In
terms of method, critical theorists use analysis (historical, situational,
textual) and qualitative interviewing. Qual interviews are quite
interesting, although most critical theorists will come over all critical while
writing it up, rather than when wielding a tape recorder.
Positivism
wears a white coat, constructivism accepts a cup of tea, and critical theory is
SUSPICIOUS.
I
think there’s a kind of paradigmatic mash-up, too: large corporations act in
their positivist way, expecting thanks from the masses, and instead of being
complicit, the masses are suspicious. They distrust your motives. They rebel.
At other times, they carry your message quite happily to the ends of the earth.
Personally,
I move between these three paradigms. I spend most of my time being a
constructivist with post-positivist leanings: understanding responses and
creating persuasive accounts. I will often flick into a critical
perspective, at least in analysing a brief, because critical theory shakes
everything up in ways that can be very helpful. It is perhaps not cricket
to use critical theory as a tool for maintaining power relationships, but,
well, needs must.
Anyway,
that’s it for now.
The starting point of a line of thought or course of action; an
initial assumption.
‘Keynes
took these current events as his point of departure’
an example serving as a model; pattern.
3.
a. a framework containing the basic assumptions,ways of thinking, and methodology that arecommonly accepted by members of a scientificcommunity.
b. such a cognitive framework shared by membersof any discipline or group:
Cultural homogenization
From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cultural
homogenisation is an
aspect of cultural globalisation,[1] listed
as one of its main characteristics,[2] and
refers to the reduction in cultural diversity[3] through
the popularisation and diffusion of a wide array of cultural symbols — not only
physical objects but customs, ideas and values.[2] O'Connor
defines it as "the process by which local cultures are transformed or
absorbed by a dominant outside culture."[4] Cultural
homogenization has been called "perhaps the most widely discussed hallmark
of global culture.[2] In
theory, homogenization could result in the breakdown of cultural barriers and
the global assimilation of a single culture.[2]
Cultural homogenization can impact national
identity and culture, which would be "eroded by the impact of global
cultural industries and multinational media."[5] The
term is usually used in the context of Western culture dominating
and destroying other cultures.[6] The
process of cultural homogenization in the context of the domination of the
Western (American), capitalist culture is also known as McDonaldization,[2] coca-colonization,[7]Americanization[8]or Westernization[9] and
criticized as a form of cultural imperialism[3] and neo-colonialism.[10][11] This
process has been resented by many indigenous cultures.[12] However,
while some scholars, critical of this process, stress the dominance of American
culture and corporate capitalism in modern cultural homogenization,
others note that the process of cultural homogenization is not one-way, and in
fact involves a number of cultures exchanging various elements.[2][3] Critics
of cultural homogenization theory point out that as different cultures mix,
homogenization is less about the spread of a single culture as about the
mixture of different cultures, as people become aware of other cultures and
adopt their elements.[2][3][10][11] Examples
of non-Western culture affecting the West include world music and
the popularization of non-Western television (Latin American telenovelas, Japanese anime,
Indian Bollywood), religion (Islam, Buddhism), food, and clothing in the West, though in
most cases insignificant in comparison to the Western influence in other
countries.[3][11][13] The
process of adoption of elements of global culture to local cultures is known as glocalization[3][5] or cultural
heterogenization.[14]
Some scholars like Arjun Appadurai note
that "the central problem of today's global interaction [is] the tension
between cultural homogenization and cultural heterogenization."[7]
Perspectives[edit]
The debate regarding the concept of
cultural homogenization consists of two separate questions:
·
whether
homogenization is occurring or not
·
whether it
is good or not.
John Tomlinson says, "It is one thing
to say that cultural diversity is being destroyed, quite another to lament the
fact."[15]
Tomlinson argues that globalization leads
to homogenization.[15] He
comments on Cees Hamelink, "Hamelink is right to identify cultural
synchronization as an unprecedented feature of global modernity."[15] However,
unlike Hamelink, he believes in the idea that homogenization is not a bad thing
in itself and that benefits of homogenization may outweigh the goods of
cultural diversity.[15]
Appadurai, acknowledging the concept of
homogenization, still provides an alternative argument of indigenization. He says that " the
homogenization argument subspeciates into either an argument about
Americanization or an argument about commoditization.... What these arguments
fail to consider is that at least as rapidly as forces from various
metropolises are brought into new societies, they tend to become
indigenized."
Although there is more to be explored on
the dynamics of indigenization, examples such as Indonesianization in Irian
Jaya and Indianization in Sri Lanka show the possibility of alternatives to
Americanization.[16]
Generally homogenization is viewed
negatively, as it leads to the "reduction in cultural diversity."[3] However,
some scholars have a positive view on homogenization, especially in the area of
education.[17] They
say that it "produces consistent norms of behavior across a set of modern
institutions, thus tying institutions such as the modern nation state and
formal education together in a tight political sphere."[17]
Teaching universal values such as
rationality by mass schooling is a part of the positive benefits that can be
generated from homogenization.[17]
Comments
Post a Comment