[NIFL-FOBASICS:963] Re: The Gold Standard (Tom Woods, brief)

From: AWilder106@aol.com
Date: Tue Feb 10 2004 - 10:34:29 EST


Return-Path: <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i1AFYTI18854; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:34:29 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:34:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <5E3C683D.516299E3.0A349A3F@aol.com>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: AWilder106@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:963] Re: The Gold Standard (Tom Woods, brief)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0
Status: O
Content-Length: 525
Lines: 5

And thank you, too, Ellie.

For  those interested in the structure of social science research, the framework I laid out is a general one, it applies to quantitative studies, also.  I used Shirley Brice Heath as an example because there  is a misconception that the quantitative framework is not the same as the qualitative one;  this is incorrect.  The data collection methods and analyses are different.  The same framework can also cover the use of quantitative and qualitative methodologies within the same study.

Andrea



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:47:13 EST