Foraging Theory and Hypothesis Testing in Archaeology: An Exploration of Methodological Problems and Solutions

2002 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 142-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen J. Gremillion
Author(s):  
Pier Paolo Angelini ◽  
Lucio Biggiero

Do trading countries also collaborate in R&D? This is the question that, facing with a number of methodological problems, here it is dealt with. Studying and comparing the international trade network and the R&D collaboration network of European countries in the aerospace sector, social network analysis offers a wide spectrum of methods and criteria either to make them comparable or to evaluate its similarity. International trade is a 1-mode directed and valued network, while the EU-subsidized R&D collaboration is an affiliation (2-mode) undirected and unvalued network, and the elementary units of this latter are organizations and not countries. Therefore, to the aim to make these two networks comparable, this paper shows and discusses a number of methodological problems and solutions offered to solve them, and provides a multi-faceted comparison in terms of various statistical and topological indicators. A comparative analysis of the two networks structures is made at aggregate and disaggregate level, and it is shown that the common centralization index is definitively inappropriate and misleading when applied to multi-centered networks like these, and especially to the R&D collaboration network. The final conclusion is that the two networks resemble in some important aspects, but differ in some minor traits. In particular, they are both shaped in a core-periphery structure, and in both cases important countries tend to exchange or collaborate more with marginal countries than between themselves.


2016 ◽  
pp. 1023-1051
Author(s):  
Pier Paolo Angelini ◽  
Lucio Biggiero

Do trading countries also collaborate in R&D? This is the question that, facing with a number of methodological problems, here it is dealt with. Studying and comparing the international trade network and the R&D collaboration network of European countries in the aerospace sector, social network analysis offers a wide spectrum of methods and criteria either to make them comparable or to evaluate its similarity. International trade is a 1-mode directed and valued network, while the EU-subsidized R&D collaboration is an affiliation (2-mode) undirected and unvalued network, and the elementary units of this latter are organizations and not countries. Therefore, to the aim to make these two networks comparable, this paper shows and discusses a number of methodological problems and solutions offered to solve them, and provides a multi-faceted comparison in terms of various statistical and topological indicators. A comparative analysis of the two networks structures is made at aggregate and disaggregate level, and it is shown that the common centralization index is definitively inappropriate and misleading when applied to multi-centered networks like these, and especially to the R&D collaboration network. The final conclusion is that the two networks resemble in some important aspects, but differ in some minor traits. In particular, they are both shaped in a core-periphery structure, and in both cases important countries tend to exchange or collaborate more with marginal countries than between themselves.


Target ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Gile

Abstract In conference interpreting research, empirical investigation can be classified as observational or experimental. The former can be used for exploration, analysis and hypothesis-testing, and is either interactive or non-interactive. Besides its conventional role of hypothesis-testing, the latter can be exploratory. The main methodological problems in both are related to validity and representativeness and to quantification. At this stage, the most important contribution to interpreting research can be expected from observational procedures. Simple descriptive statistics and uncomplicated quantitative processing of the data still have much to offer.


1982 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harris K. Goldstein ◽  
Diana Di Nitto

Three methodological problems and solutions used in comparing the effects of five risk reduction projects in Florida are reported. Some findings are also included to show how solutions effect outcome and because they were considered useful to the field of drug education. The question whether the five projects should have different stated objectives because they expected baseline data on similar target groups to be different was resolved by permitting these differences. Baseline data, however, showed no significant difference from project to project for similar target groups. A better design for future projects would be two sets of objectives, one unique to each project and one facilitating inter-project comparisons. A related problem was whether the same instrument could measure changes which were expected to be different because of different baselines, different target groups and different treatment methods from project to project. One instrument with two sections was used: one section to measure changes unique to each project and one for changes expected to be common to all projects. This was a satisfactory solution, but a longer instrument with more common items was suggested for future projects. A third problem was that each project differed in both length of program and type of program. Analysis of findings used content analysis to hold one of these constant while noting changes in effects from variations in the other. Because of the small number of sites, this was only partially successful. Effects of projects in the future would be more comparable if at least two projects had either identical program types while varying program length or vice versa. Changes in knowledge of effects of smoking and drinking appear most likely related to programs of “mixed” type containing educational elements aimed at producing positive self-awareness, and including exposure to a range of enjoyable and rewarding non-drug activities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document