目前日期文章:201610 (4)

瀏覽方式: 標題列表 簡短摘要

You think they are very helpful, but they are not

 

*Website is not good. It’s very fancy, but you cannot actually submit anything. I tried to submit my referral document,

 

*Every customer service agent tells you different stories.

Douceline 發表在 痞客邦 留言(1) 人氣()

 在美國看病是一個非常花時間的事情

幾乎所有的看診都要先預約,光是等電話接到醫師辦公室的時間就要10-20分鐘了。所以如果已經知道有在美國看病的需求,還是先辦個行動電話的family plan吧!電信公司所提供的無限通話數就是給大家來等候客服的~~這如果真的要用預付卡來計算的話,我應該一個月會超過美金500元電話費吧~~

要如何有效率的看病呢?

首先,先把自己的身高(尺)、體重(磅)、過敏藥物名稱、之前過敏狀況、之前開刀或大手術的情形、每個月經期日期、家庭病史、緊急聯繫人名字電話和地址等全部都寫成英文準備好,因為你會不停的需要重複這些資訊,即便是幫你做超音波檢查的醫師= = 理論上,幫你做超音波檢查的醫師不會開藥,但是他們還是會要你把這些資訊全部跟他說一次。

 

Douceline 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

 

In Lakatos’s description, the theory cannot be refuted by one attempt, there is a protective belt for it. It seems to make the theory more stable but leave other questions unanswered. For example, how to define the hard core from the protection belt? Would people in the same research discipline acknowledge the same hard core? Why hard core cannot be challenged?

What is the hard core of democratic theory? People may have different arguments. Some people claim the hard core is representative of the institutions, like Schumpeter. For others, the democracy is about the protection of freedom, like Miller. For the protection belt, the first group may work on the election system to make a number of votes received equal to the number of seats gained, while the other group would try to refine the judicial system to avoid human rights being violated. The election system and judicial system could also serve as a protection belt for each other’s hard core. It seems like Lakatos’s methodology is not very clear on an operational basis. Like the example, he gave in the book, why Prout’s studies could remain a hard core with so many refutations?

Hard core is different from the paradigm, but they are very similar in practices. To Kuhn, a paradigm is a religious belief, but for Lakatos, hard core is the key element of a research program. The problem is how do we use Lakatos’ idea to determine if the science is in progress or degenerate, which sounds simple in Kuhn’s world since we only talk about whether or not to find a replacement. For Lakatos, every hard core could still survive even if it lost its protective belt. If we want to determine whether or not there is progress in this research domain, we need to pinpoint what the hard core is. Defining hard core is much more difficult than defining paradigm. Though paradigm isn’t clearly defined in Kuhn’s literature, it could be understood as a vague idea by the scholars in their own field. Instead, how do we define the shift of hard core if we couldn’t define the hard core? And if all auxiliary hypotheses are rejected, should we abandon this hard core? Or is it a real hard core?

Douceline 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics 

ch1-2

Geddes’s piece of work spoke to my heart, I do feel the engine of doing research is out of my curiosity rather than data. But as a freshman in academia, I disagree on how the research process starts. Realistically speaking, without proper data, it’s very difficult to prove my perception of how things work. There is a huge gap  between concepts and operational index. For instance, how to indicate a country had transformed from a totalitarian country to a democratic country. There are different types of the index of regime type: freedom house, Polity IV, and etc.. Our current interest is not included in existing database by focusing more on democratic accountability. However, this index exists for a long time, and is established and maintained by prestige research centers. Even if we create our own database, the main obstacle is to convince other why this is much better after sorting out the fund of setting up a database. Therefore, with existing database, the nuanced difference in our theory is not quite obvious.

 

Though "(multiple regression)is not always a good image to have in mind when trying to explain something complicated" sound plausible in content, it does not provide a better way to build the link between causal factors. I believe people usually have an initial theory in mind, but we tend to add on more and more variables ad hoc to explain the uncovered places. This is the hardest task in comparative studies, cause some time we are not sure about the deviation of cases is insignificant to discard, the criteria just too vague and usually case by case. And it's actually quite useful to use multiple regression to think of the situation before you have a clearer image of how the causal factors work. Truly, this would easily lead into a dark corner when we doubting if all the necessary information had to be gathered to avoid a misreading of the phenomena.

Douceline 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

您尚未登入,將以訪客身份留言。亦可以上方服務帳號登入留言

請輸入暱稱 ( 最多顯示 6 個中文字元 )

請輸入標題 ( 最多顯示 9 個中文字元 )

請輸入內容 ( 最多 140 個中文字元 )

請輸入左方認證碼:

看不懂,換張圖

請輸入驗證碼