Discover the world's scientific knowledge

I'm doing an initial work on restandardization evaluation trying to explore to what extent the new Catalan spelling and grammar (2016) can be evaluated as terminology planning and language policy and planning are, mainly because this evaluation is needed and it has not been undertaken systematically. It is founded on the basic assumption that terminology planning evaluation (TPE) and language policy and planning evaluation (LPPE) can be applied to the Catalan restandardization evaluation. So the general question addressed is to what extent this restandardization can be evaluated according to the models for TPE (Fathi Terminology Planning Evaluation: The Case of Persian Language. [PhD. thesis UPF 2017]) and LPPE (Gazzola 2014 The Evaluation of Language Regimes: Theory and Application to Multilingual Patent Organisations). After presenting Haugen’s (1983) model of standardization with complementary concepts of Cooper (1989) and Cerruti, Crocco & Marzo (2017a), this model is analiyzed from Fathi’s (2017) and from Gazzola’s (2014) perspectives, with examples of what has been done in the official Catalan standardization. The principal original contributions of my work are this analysis of Haugen’s model from Fathi’s and Gazzola’s evaluation models and the general positive verification of the hypothesis, which makes new research lines to arise for the future.

Hello, I am very new to research and currently in the middle of my dissertation.

I am researching factors that could influence resilience and due to limited time and resources, I have created an online questionnaire with open-ended questions for participants to answer (interviews would have been ideal).

I am getting a little lost with the terminology. Would it still be considered a structured interview? I am asking the same questions, I am just not receiving the answers face-to-face.

And what would the best method to analyze the data be? I was planning on doing a thematic analyses.

Thank you in advance for the help!!!

I started reading the textbook, Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology this week. In Chapter 2: Evaluation; Mertens (2020) asserts that evaluation and research share similarities, however the differences between the two types of systematic inquiry are clearly distinguishable. (p. 86) After learning more about research and evaluation I have come to the conclusion that the two practices do not overlap as much as you may think they do.

Taking into consideration stark differences between the goals, processes and terminology used in research vs. evaluation, I would argue that these two practices are not intertwined with one another. That is not to say that they can never be used together, rather that they can be used independently and with separate goals in mind.

I would love to hear some different perspectives on research vs. evaluation and how you may be applying them in your own work.

References:

Mertens, D. M. (2020). In Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. 5th ed. SAGE

Merriam-Webster singles out non-binary 'They' for Word Of The Year Honors. As linguists, we all have long been familiar with neutral 'hey/them/their' in academic writing, but 'themself' is quite interesting, and the neutral singular possessive 'theirs' is quite challenging as well as confusing. Nevertheless, gender-neutral pronouns are not new in world languages (e.g., third person pronoun in Persian has always been number-and-gender neutral--which testifies to the social fact that Iranian culture/civilization has always considered men and women as equals). Sam Smith (@samsmith) twitted on September 13, 2019: "Today is a good day so here goes. I’ve decided I am changing my pronouns to THEY/THEM ❤ after a lifetime of being at war with my gender I’ve decided to embrace myself for who I am, inside and out... pic.twitter.com/IVoLTYbAWd."

While I do see the motivation behind this instance of 'sociolinguistic lexical engineering' by Merriam-Webster, what keeps me--as a pragmaticist--in awe is the potential that this neutral 'they/them/theirs/their/themself' usage has for language aggression. As eerie as this new usage may be (as you will see in my next sentence), Sam Smith prefers 'they' over 'he' as a self-reference pronoun because they wants to suggest that they does not consider themself as a male or female. However, imagine that someone who strictly prefers he or she as a self-reference pronoun is 'aggressively' and 'intentionally' addressed as 'they' by a third party. I mean, this kind of 'sociolinguistic lexical engineering' (as I would like to refer to it) has a great potential for 'language aggression' when it is used to address someone who prefers 'he' for himself or 'she' for herself. In addition, this kind of 'sociolinguistic lexical engineering' entails drastic changes in literature, general writing, grammar, and even in civil law. Do you agree with me on this point? Your comments will help this forum to evolve.

Thank you very much.

Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan

What is SISP? is it a method, is it a philosophy or maybe a terminology that explain a certain phenomenon ......

I am planning to run a column test in a constant head permeameter setup. I plan on reducing the hydraulic conductivity of the soil and would like to monitor any change in effective porosity. I have read a paper where this methodology is utilized, however they do not explain how or reference the technique they used, except that it was done in Hydrus. They injected a salt tracer and then routinely measured the effluent to plot specific conductance vs time, this somehow was used to calculate porosity

Does anyone perhaps know how they managed to do this or know of a reference I can refer to and read up on?

I have tried some searches, but no luck. I think the terminology I am using is not sufficient to return any decent results.

Any direction or information would be greatly appreciated.

As Corporate entrepreneurship is a terminology commonly used for corporations, i am wondering can we investigate it in educational institutes? I was planning to write a paper on Corporate entrepreneurial intentions in the higher education institutes, but as the term is meant for corporations, is it logical to use educational institutes as sample?

We're working on moving towards using this terminology in protected areas planning but there are some questions about what it actually means when we say we're going to protect bio-cultural diversity (as opposed to just biodiversity, a term which has broader usage right now with Aichi Targets etc).

 newly established Protection Division should be  responsible for the mainstreaming of protection, gender and disability in your programmes in an integrated fashion to strengthen  approach to protection in line with the new Medium Term Strategy (2016-21). As part of the efforts to mainstream disability, guidelines on disability inclusion have been developed, updating the previous Disability Toolkit developed in 2013, to create a consistent  understanding of disability in theory and in practice.

Hello all!

I am planning to use an EZ:faast kit (https://www.phenomenex.com/Products/AminoAcidDetail/EZfaast) to analyze, among other compounds, 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5HIAA) from whole blood on a single quadrupole ESI LC/MS (Shimadzu LCMS-2020). The EZ:faast kit utilizes a propyl chloroformate derivatization.

I expect to get a molecular ion with 319 m/z for the derivatization product of 5HIAA with propyl chloroformate. When I derivatize and run 5HIAA standards of increasing concentration, I do get a linearly increasing peak at 319 m/z, but also get a larger peak with a linear increase at 337 m/z at the same retention time. Given the size of the molecule that I expect to arise from the derivatization of 5HIAA with propyl chloroformate, I cannot figure out how this peak at 337 m/z came to be.

Does anyone have any ideas for how derivatizing 5HIAA with propyl chloroformate could yield a MS peak at 337 m/z? Is this even a reasonable way to analyze 5HIAA?

I am basing my expectations for a 319 m/z for the derivatized 5HIAA molecular ion on Naccarato et al 2014, where they derivatized 5HT with propyl chloroformate to yield a derivative with both the alcohol and amine groups altered, to yield a derivative product molecular ion with 348 m/z:

Because I know that propyl chloroformate will affect carboxyl groups as well, I am therefore expecting that only the carboxyl and alcohol groups will be affected by the propyl chloroformate derivatization, which would mean a molecule with MW of 319 for the derivitized product.

At this point, I have run standards of increasing concentration for 5HIAA, 5HTP, and 5HT (which are two of the other compounds I am analyzing). For 5HTP and 5HT, I get linear increases for the expected 434 m/z and 348 m/z, respectively, both of which are the base peaks.

Note: Please forgive any poor usage of chemistry terminology. I'm not what anyone would call an organic chemist!