دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی درباره ویژگی های محدود کننده شاخص های اجتماعی به همراه ترجمه فارسی
عنوان فارسی مقاله: | درباره ویژگی های محدود کننده شاخص های اجتماعی |
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: | On the limiting properties of social indicators |
رشته های مرتبط: | علوم اجتماعی، پژوهشگری اجتاجتمماعی |
فرمت مقالات رایگان | مقالات انگلیسی و ترجمه های فارسی رایگان با فرمت PDF میباشند |
کیفیت ترجمه | کیفیت ترجمه این مقاله متوسط میباشد |
نشریه | الزویر – Elsevier |
کد محصول | F524 |
مقاله انگلیسی رایگان (PDF) |
دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی |
ترجمه فارسی رایگان (PDF) |
دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله |
خرید ترجمه با فرمت ورد |
خرید ترجمه مقاله با فرمت ورد |
جستجوی ترجمه مقالات | جستجوی ترجمه مقالات علوم اجتماعی |
بخشی از ترجمه فارسی مقاله: به طور کلی مورد توافق است که بررسی فرایندهای اجتماعی اطلاعات مورد نیاز را فراهم آورده و گزینه های تصمیم گیری جدیدی را سیاستمداران و مجریان ایجاد میکند.مدیران بخش ارزیابی مزایای انجام بررسی های اجتماعی را بیان می کنند به ویژه به این دلیل که آنها با سطوح تصمیم گیری دولت در اینجا و خارج از کشورارتباط دارند.سخنرانی ها اغلب بر انتخاب استراتژی های مناسب برای ارزیابی اجتماعی تمرکز دارند. |
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی: It is generally agreed that the measurement of social processes will provide needed information and open up new decision-making options for policy makers and administrators. Leaders in the field of measurement have addressed the advantages of doing social assessments (e.g., Riecken & Boruch, 1974; Rivlin, 1971; U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1969), especially as they relate to decision-making levels of government here and abroad (e.g., Biderman, 1966; President’s Commission on Federal Statistics, 1971; Stone, 1975). Presentations often focus on selecting the appropriate strategies for social assessment (e.g., Campbell & Converse, 1972; Gross, 1966, Land & Spilerman, 1975; National Academy of Sciences, 1976; Olson, 19’70; Sheldon & Moore, 1968) and on the information value of quanti~cation (e.g., Gross, 1967; Hauser, 1975;Sheldon & Park, 1975). The existing literature often suggests that social assessments are becoming more objectively correct as well as more technically correct and more common. For instance Flanagan (1978) speaks of “the empirical definition of quality of life” (p. 138) as if there was little doubt about the absolute social appropriateness of his set of measures. Also, the title of his report, “A research approach to improving our quality of life,” suggests that we can expect to achieve social goals primarily through technical means. Most of us in the social sciences are victims of a particular kind of “scientistic” myopia which allows us to treat data as if its usefulness depends entirely on its technical adequacy and its av~lability. In what follows I would like to illustrate why doing so is short sighted. To begin with, it will be helpful to identify three kinds of social indicators. The first, usually called “social statistics,” have been collected since the turn of the century. They include characteristics of the population such as mobility and family patterns, and economic measures such as the Gross National Product and uncn~ploymettt data. Recently there have been efforts to compile esisting economic and geographic data in a fortti that makes their use as social indicators more apparent to d~cisiotlttt:thet-s. FUI instance. the Office of Management and Budget (1974. 1977) of the federal government published Soc~iul frr~li~atot-s. IY73 XICI Social Indicators, 19 7h presenting data from existing sources. mostly Federal sources. in tabulat and graphic form to “depict conditions that at-e likely to be dealt with by national policy” (Office. 1973. ;). xiii). Eight areas of analyses were preserttcd: health, public safety, education. etnployttirtit, ittcoittt~. housing, leisure and recreation, and population. The D (goal of the preseti tation was to reflect a concern for health and long life. freedom from crime and the fear of crime, sufficient education to lake part in society and make the best of ont”s abilities. the oppot– tunity to work at a job that is satisfying and trev,,arding, income sufficient to covet- the neccssitics of life with opportunities for improvin g one’s income. housing that is comfortable within a congenial environment. and time and opportunity for discretionary activity ( 1974. I-,. xiii). Drawing out the implications ot‘eccmomic and geographic data and making them available along with ttte data tltt’lttselves is the second kind of indicator presentation. ‘I he third approach is to move away from economic intliccs and the implications that can be LII-awn from them and to focus directly on subjective indicators, often cdled “CILUIity of life” measut-es. Alcaswi~~,y n~cwh qw/itl~ ,/or- scx~iu/ reporting (Bidetman Kc Drut-y, 1976 ). .Socid i//dicu/~ws c!/ rrvll-h&g (Andrews & Withey. 1976 ). and Thc~ cllulit~~ o,/ Americurz IQ> (Campbell. Converse. & lic)dgcr\. 1970). in addition tu Flanagan‘s work cited above, arc examples of this latter trend. The work ot‘ Campbell and colleagues illustrates the approach. The), mzasu~-ccl “the subjective world of perceptions. c.xpectations. feelings and wlr~cs” (p. 4) by asking individuals to report on cspet-ienccs in their living communities, their family life. 2nd their NY)I-~. and to report on their overall e\pet-iettce of \vt‘ll-heitty. For instance. rattler than presentin, ~1 ctiiploytttet~r statistics from ,lvailable hbm force data. work V,YIS asscsscd 1~). asking trespondents if the physical sut-rou:tdings ot rllw work environment was plcasant. if tltey had t~tt~~u$t time to get tlteir work CIOIK. if thcit- work was itttcrcstittg. ;uttl if they had opportunity to develop ttteil own ahilitiea while working (p. 298). To Campbell and cttllcagucs. t’ntphasis on less tangible values ratltcr than ccon~m~i~ factors is consistent with national concerti5 aiitl thcrcfolc 211 III?- provement over other mctttods (p. I ). capccY;ill) \i ht’tt they are used in conjunction with more familiai L’COI~OI~I~~ indicators (p. 5). |