This is due to the fact that the cases are analysed as a sequence where A leads to B (Sekhon, 2004: 288). On the other hand is a disadvantage of comparative case studies that the entire focus is on a single cause only, which doesn't provide answers if there are possibly more explaining variables (Mahoney, 2007: 135). Furthermore is it less transparent and formalized than the other two methods I will discuss; qualitative comparative and statistical analysis. Comparative case studies are harder to replicate due to their very nature of being unique cases (Blatter & Haverland, 2012: 67; Benoît Rihoux & Ragin, 2009: 14). Which is also the cause for the last disadvantages; uniqueness of the cases leads to a lower degree of generalization of any conclusions drawn in comparison to statistical analysis (Blatter & Haverland, 2012:
In particular they are inclined to see their interest as clashing, incompatible. This supports the idea of the ‘Fixed-Pie Belief’. The negotiations results will depend on whether parties have or do not have similar interests and whether or not the issues are or are not compatible with each other. Another implication which was found as a result from the experiments shows that biased conflict perceptions are quite strongly swayed by interests which relate to oneself. It was proven also that issues can be misconstrued to be ones of too great importance and one may then overestimate the amount of conflict.
More specifically, a posterior theory (probability) derives from a prior theory (probability) in the light of new evidence. There is the objective and the subjective Bayesianism. The objective Bayesianism is not widely accepted, since all of the prior probabilities are objective, so they have the same odds. On the contrary, in subjective Bayesianism, the prior probabilities are known, so automatically some of them have different odds compare to others. When falsificationism rejects the ad hoc hypotheses, since the evidence and the hypothesis cannot be tested separately, the Bayesianisms accept them.
1.Multicollinearity The classical linear regression model assumes the explanatory variables are not correlated with one another. However, this assumption is hard to hold in practice. Multicollinearity, is used to describe the problem that the explanatory variables are very highly correlated with each other. When applying Econometrics, the main purpose is to separate each explanatory’s biased influence on the explained variable. The exist of multicollinearity would destroy the system, so that we must test it.
Firstly, my evidence specifies that there is a definite connotation between accounting conservatism and cultural conservatism. For example, culturally conservative bosses tend to make more current accountingselections. That will not be clear, and we cannot determine the reasons. My consequences are educational in that they document a relationship between the two types of conservatism.But they do not tell us which factor of cultural conservatism such as public image, security, or religion is mainly participating in the documented connotation. The research believes that this concept of this study opens an important avenue for future research.
According to Stenbacka, (2001) was stated that the concept of reliability is even misleading in qualitative research. If a qualitative study is discussed with reliability as a criterion, the impact is rather that the study is no good. In addition, validity and reliability are two factors which any qualitative researcher should be concerned about while designing a study, analyzing results and judging the quality of the study (Patton, 2001). Next, in order to ensure reliability in qualitative research, examination of trustworthiness is important. According to Seale, (1999) was stated that the trustworthiness of a research report lies at the heart of issues conventionally discussed as validity and reliability.
The areas in which we are going to focus on in this essay are natural and human sciences. Natural science relies greatly on observation which creates biases, it creates doubt in our minds and human sciences even though rely on logic and reason sometimes due to restricted knowledge may create biases. The key operation in my essay is to find does increased knowledge of a certain topic increase doubt in one’s mind while limited knowledge allude our confidence? For my investigation, I will use these areas of knowledge stated above. The knowledge question is : To what extent does memory impair logical reasoning to make judgements in the fields of human sciences?
In our cutting edge world, the pursuit of knowledge is the intentional progression of disclosure of new data. Disagreement, be that as it may, can be characterized as the inconsistency over the rationale of contentions or legitimacy/estimation of proof, which in this way connects the idea of disagreement to two methods for knowing, which are both reason and perception. However disagreement might likewise allude to debates and conflicts among researchers or discussion emerging from distinctive ideal models or suspicions, of which an illustration would be the Bohr-Einstein debate. Disagreement is an urgent viewpoint in natural sciences, without which there would be no progressions. It is Karl Popper's idea of falsification that makes disagreement
Due to their different historical development of the respective governmental institutions (Fields, Lys and Vincent, 2001, p.263), there are discrepancies in regulations and acceptance of inventory accounting methods, specifically for the case of LIFO. Since those differences go beyond the scope of this paper, as well as for simplicity reasons, it is henceforward going to generalize their differences and mainly consider the regulations of
A scientist commenting on the results of an experiment and a historian explaining connections between historical events both use reason and since reason is subjective, they find different results or produce different explanations on the same facts. The same applies to imagination. Imagination contributes to formation of different explanations on the same facts because in both areas of knowledge, when enough information is not provided for the production of knowledge experts use their imagination to produce knowledge. The disagreements caused by the usage of the ways of knowing emotion, imagination, sense perception and reason may be destructive or beneficial for the progress of the