Humanities desk
< October 28	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 29

Research paradigms in business research

Is there a common classification of research paradigms typically used in (business) research (e.g., "positivism" + x other paradigms)? As I want to cite them, I am searching for a reliable book/paper containing them that is usually used as a reference. Ideally, this reference should also contain a brief definition of the paradigms. 130.149.169.40 (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly research in Business is primarily inductive Social research, though there is some purely deductive work conducted where strong models allow for work to be conducted in the analysis of models. As a form of social science or sociology, most business research relies on the findings about inductive research from the history of science and philosophy of science, in particular Popper's falsification as a critique of positivism and then Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend's critiques of the possibility of falsification in general, or in the actual social practice of conducting research. Research can be grouped into quantitative research where attempts are made to prove the relationship between theoretical terms with reference to numerical data coded into categories; qualitative research where researchers attempt to uncover categories for further testing; and discursive research where the object of analysis is the meanings produced in cultural records (ie: labour history, discourse analysis in marketing, business history). A variety of theories cover business research: institutionalism Marxism and instrumentalism being the most popular. A wide variety of methods are available, as are methodologies. I also believe that this source here appears to be an uncontrolled copy of a work being issued by a Vietnamese educational institution. It looks like a recent methods text. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, obviously, paradigm is a loaded term from Kuhn's HPS work. I would suggest that there are only three social science "paradigms" in this sense: pre-modern reaction, modern liberalism (including a fair number of Marxisms), and modern historical-materialism. These paradigms are incommensurable to the extent that reactionary attitudes towards research into society deny that it is a caused phenomena, the liberal paradigm is cemented in the exploration of the bourgeois enlightenment individual, whereas historical materialism's idea of praxis views the analysis of the enlightenment subjectivity as fools' errand. Beneath that level most methodologies and methods are commensurable. There are Marxist historians and there are liberal historians, and they both broadly agree on how to do history, but not what historical studies is. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting Fifelfoo, very informative.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sewel and the Synod

Does the General Synod of the Church of England have any mechanisms analogous to a Sewel motion? Marnanel (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To whom do you consider the Synod would pass responsibility? There is no higher legislative authority over them, as there is with the devolved assemblies. Rojomoke (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Church of England article, "Measures have to be approved but cannot be amended by the British Parliament before receiving the Royal Assent and becoming part of the law of England". This is in respect of decisions that alter the Canon law of the Chuurch. However, I can't imagine that the General Synod would ever leave it to Parliament to decide a Church issue, but I suppose it's possible. Alansplodge (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I followed the link, I was wondering who this man called Synod was and how he could possibly have been named a general within a church. --Lgriot (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was one of the Seven Deadly Synods. A cousin of the famous actor Max von Synod. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've obviously never heard of General André Cox, the General of The Salvation Army. The Church of England has its own Church Army, although they don't appear to have the same military hierarchy as the Salvationists. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge is right, but I think there are a couple more issues. First, I'm not sure whether the Church of England (unlike devolved governments) enjoys exclusive competence over any particular issues, thus in relation to those issues making the game rather different. Secondly, since the power to legislate is not granted by Parliament to the Church of England (de jure, and arguably de facto), unlike the devolved governments, if one considers a Sewel motion specifically about not exercising a "devolved power" or on a "devolved issue" then the term may not be apt. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King cobra

At the following link, 29 Photos That Put All Of Our Struggles In Perspective, the caption under Photograph #19 states: "In Ban Khok, Thailand every household is required to live with a Royal Cobra. Being able to tame the venomous snake is considered a highly respected talent. This photo, taken in April 2010, shows Mr. Vukjow Mare and his cobra." Can this (the first sentence, in bold and italic text) possibly be true? Who would require this? The government? And why? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a village called Ban Khok Sa-nga in Nam Phong District (see Nam Phong District#Attractions). This episode of "An Idiot Abroad" should contain footage of the village. There are some hints on this page [1] that if anyone pressures the villagers to keep cobras in (or under) their houses, it could be Wildlife Fund Thailand, and the idea would be that the villagers should keep the snakes at home rather than constantly travelling around with the snakes. Card Zero (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm from personal experience visiting numerous Thai households over many years that there is no requirement to keep a King Cobra in the home, and in fact, there is a keen effort to keep snakes of any kind out of the house. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an old idea in Vietnam that you keep a snake in the rafters to deter rats. This is not the norm in Vietnamese households today. I don't think the snakes were cobras either. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. In the Philippines, we generally try to keep our houses rodent-free for the exact reason that they attract snakes, and snakes in turn attract king cobras. One of my most vivid childhood memories is my dad killing a very large king cobra in the yard with a shotgun, and the subsequent discussions on de-ratting the grain storage building (we own a mill) as well as various superstitions on how to avoid and properly dispose of snakes (e.g. common throughout South and Southeast Asia is the custom of completely crushing the head and eyes of dead snakes to prevent "revenge" by the snakes' partner - as it is believed that the eyes of dead snakes retain the image of the last person who killed them). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Desk pen holders in the Oval Office

All presidents since FDR had a desk pen holder (like on the image) on their Oval Office desk. But as I look around, President Reagan was the last the use it. Why cheased this tradition? --84.160.136.62 (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously prime minister Gordon Brown was upset by the missing pen holder because he gave Barack Obama a new one in 2009.[2] To show his gratitude, Obama thoughtfully presented him in return with a set of DVDs.[3][4] I notice also that Obama has got rid of the flat-screen televisions that Jimmy Carter had been displaying rather ostentatiously. Thincat (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)][reply]

They had flat-screen TV's in the 1970s? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having them & being able to market them with an affordable price are 2 different things. 1987's Wall Street famously featured both a cell phone & portable hand held TV even tho most American's couldn't afford them until the mid-90s. Flat panel display explains that most of what we know as the current technology first appeared in the mid to late 1960s. Westinghouse showcased a blubless "electroluminiscence" as early as 1955.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To OP's question, it looks like pen holders were only used from FDR to Kennedy then Ford to Carter from this link showing the Oval office decor and desk settings for each administration. Like everything in the West Wing what is and is not furnished is up to each President.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Letter for England

Hello. Please excuse my mistakes in English, I'm Frenchspeaking.

The layout of a letter to the English gives, according to teachers and web, first the address of the sender (right or left side?), second the address of the receiver on the left side, then the text.

I want to know why the destination address is on the left?

Do the English not use "American" window envelopes? Is it rude to put the address right? or to use the envelope "American"?

Thank you for your answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Égoïté (talk • contribs) 18:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In England and the UK we use envelopes with the window on the left side, so write the destination on the left to fit. Nanonic (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the OP's first question, the convention is to put the sender's address on the right for a home address, on the left for a business address. The date should also come between the sender's address and the recipient's address. See Letter (message) and Business letter. Tevildo (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it wouldn't be thought rude to do things the other way round. However, if you were writing to apply for a job in the UK and wanted to impress your potential employer you would best do things the British way! Thincat (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ... and only business letters go in window envelopes (in the most formal etiquette). Dbfirs 21:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. It's very different in Belgium: the sender is shown at left and above, the recipient right and then the window of the envelope is right here. I thought there had been a uniform standard by the Postal Union, but there is obviously nothing. This should pose many problems for machines that automatically process mail ... Égoïté (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You write on the left hand side in the UK to avoid horrible crashes with oncoming letters. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WW2 musical themes

Apparently Les preludes by Franz Liszt was chosen by the Germans as the official musical theme of Operation Barbarossa. Were other songs used for other German WW2 campaigns? --151.41.247.8 (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Russland-Fanfare"'s precursor, used in the Wehrmachtbericht during the beginning of WWII, was "Die Wacht am Rhein", also named the "Frankreich Fanfare" (France fanfare). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised not to see Wagner on the list, something like Ride of the Valkyries. StuRat (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A snappy number called Bomben auf Engeland was used by the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain. Google translates the chorus as "Mate! Mate! All the girls have to wait! / Mate! Mate! The command is there, we start! / The solution is well known: Run to the enemy! Bombs on England!" Alansplodge (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]