See 'Real Housewives' star Joanna Krupa's $30000 wedding ...
Los Angeles Times-Jun. 15, 2013
The wedding finally took place about five years after the couple got engaged -- they briefly called off their nuptials in 2012. The lavish event is said to have been ...
The wedding industrial complex
The Week Magazine-Jun. 17, 2013
Last year the average American wedding, including the requisite reception, cost $28,427. In affluent ... Then in 1981, the lavish wedding came roaring back.
Kim Kardashian says stepdad Bruce Jenner will walk her ...
CTV News-Oct. 26, 2013
... 63, will walk her down the aisle, much like he did during her 2011 wedding to ... to her in a lavish proposal - complete with an orchestra and fireworks display ...
Crisis forces Greeks to skimp on weddings, funerals
Reuters-Feb. 21, 2013
ATHENS (Reuters) - Fewer Greeks are walking down the aisle as their country's deep economic crisis takes a toll on their famously lavish weddings, an age-old ...
1 comment:
This is an example of how the alternatives in question are not on a single logical basis, and two. The first logical basis - whether it is permanent or temporary work, which means the content of the question. The second reason is lack of jobs.
At first glance, nothing special in that mix various logical grounds in a single question. The Respondent picks one alternative, i.e. it has a permanent job or temporary or does not work at all. And depending on the selection we get the data for each of the alternatives and we conclude how many people are employed, among them permanent or temporary, and how much is not working. If such a study goes in the system of simple distributions and absolute data, in principle, such a construction of alternatives possible.
But as soon as we move to a system of logical distribution of the data, such form of construction of the alternatives is unacceptable. Why? What happens when you mix different logical reason?
When we ask the question how many people have permanent or temporary work, these data concern only a certain category of people, namely those who have a job, and quite naturally, on this basis falls a group of people without a job. Similarly, in this case we will be interested in, married or not, whether have children, what are their living conditions, etc., And if the sociologist, when deciding on determination of nature of employment, introduces alternatives in the presence of children or individual flats, it will blame the inability to build a question. But no one would have claims if in question about the nature of the employment it will introduce an alternative to the "not working"; in the question about the number of children will introduce an alternative to their presence or absence; the question of where currently the Respondent is a student will put the alternative to "not studying". A mixture of bases is quite frequently, if not constantly. Almost any profile to meet the question, which alternative is constructed on two or more grounds.
But what this means? When computing the responses of the respondents percentage distribution for each alternative is of the total number of respondents to the question, regardless of the substantive values of the alternatives. So, the question on the nature of employment distribution of answers to alternatives depends on the total number of respondents to this question, i.e. those who have temporary or permanent job, and those who do not have work. Because the total number of respondents increases because of the latter, so far data on the nature of employment we obtain a not group of people having work, and for all respondents. It is clear that these data are not entirely correct (they are understated), and the distortion will be greater, the more these groups differ in number.
Here is another example. "How often do You read fiction?" (often, seldom, rarely, never read). As in the previous example, the question is built on two bases: whether the intensity of reading fiction including among those who do not read literature at all. Calculate what happens if you build a set of alternatives not one, but two reasons. Let's say that half of the respondents read the literature, and the other half reads. Then the distribution of responses for alternatives in the first and second cases will be as follows:
Post a Comment