research methods in anthropology

Alternative energy research in universities or with university and corporate partnerships has been very effective. Decades of biomass and tree research conducted together by Florida State University and Shell Energy corporation have resulted in the planting of the vastest "Energy Crop Plantation" in all of the US. Through alternative energy research on the university level, a plantation has been created that spans about 130 acres while being home to more than 250,000 planted trees including eucalyptus (which are non-invasive) and cottonwoods (native to the area) along with various row crops such as soybeans. This bringing together of "super trees" happened as a result of the University's alternative energy research with other parties including Shell, the Common Purpose Institute, US Department of Energy, and groups of sundry individuals who are interested in alternative energy research into energy sources that are not dependent on fossil fuels for our civilization's future. Alternative energy research undertaken by the University is focused on the creation of of biomass energy supplies from rapid-growth crops which is called "closed loop biomass" or just "energy crops". The research looks for ways to develop "power plants" like wood-fiber or wood-pulp providing plants; clean biogas for industries to use; plants like surgarcane that can be used for the development of ethanol; and crops like soybeans for use in biodiesel fuel production.

University involvement in alternative energy research also has a place at Penn State University. The alternative energy research here is focused on the development of hydrogen power, which is envisioned by many as one of the most practical alternative energy sources. Those who are doing this research at Penn State University believe that civilization is moving toward an economy that will be based on hydrogen fuel because of the need to reduce air polluting emissions while finding alternative sources of energy to that of petroleum to drive the engine of the United States. Hydrogen energy is clean burning and it can be endlessly renewed due to the fac that it can be taken up from water and crop plants. Hydrogen power is looked to as a sustainable energy resource and one that can be uncovered within the United States' infrastructure as the world's supply of affordable oil reaches its peak and then declines, driving up its cost. The University through its alternative energy research desire to further the commercial development of hydrogen powered fuel cells. These would be usable in conjunction with or in place of combustion engines to power our vehicles.

Not too long ago, President Bush announced his alternative energy initiative. He determined that the federal government would create five "Sun Grant" centers for concentrated alternative energy research. Oregon State University was honored by being made one of these centers. OSU has been allocated government grants of $2 million for each of the next four years so that it can pursue its alternative energy research. The Univeristy will be the leading center for researching alternative energy while it symbolizes the energy interests of the Pacific Islands, the United States' Pacific Territories, and nine western states. University President Edward Ray says, "The research being conducted through OSU's Sun Grant center will contribute directly to our meeting President Bush's challenge for energy independence." Those projects concerning alternative energy that the University's various teams of scientists are pursuing include figuring out how to efficiently convert organic materials like straw into sources for renewable biomass fuels and the study of how to efficiently get liquid fuel from wood fibers.




Reference research: beauty research and computer research and sport research and my bookmark page




Web Directory Submission

research medical center

Today's educators are bombarded with information from all sides about the latest and greatest research-based instructional techniques in teaching. With all these crazes about instructional methods and the confusion about which one really works and which one is a dud, no wonder our teachers are so exhausted! As charming and inspirational as all these latest claims and success stories seem to be, educators need to be careful when choosing and implementing a new or old "miracle" instruction method. There are things a teacher needs to do before making any big changes to their curriculum and instruction.

First things first, what supporting evidence is there? Educators need to use their resources wisely and take all initial information with skepticism. Before actually outright backing the "amazing" new research supporting a particular method, whether it be Indirect Instruction, Cooperative learning, etc..., educators must do their research. Talk to colleagues, look the strategy up online, check out education magazines and journals, and any other resource material available. Find out what evidence there is out there to support the research-based strategy. Furthermore, make sure the sources you are calling upon for information are reliable. Reliable sources offer reliable evidence, so seek out unbiased, professional resources. Weigh pros and cons, consistencies and inconsistencies, before making a decision on the strategy at hand.

After thorough research has been done, the next important question is: "How should the research-based program be implemented?" And "What methods does the research show to be most advantageous?" These questions' answers would most probably appear in your research since it was suppose to be incredibly thorough. If not, you'll want to look it up. Many teachers forget this step, and as Grassen states in the article "What Does It Mean To Be a Research-Based Profession" teachers simply aren't properly implementing research-based strategies are thus losing out on potential benefits of the programs. "Cooperative learning was designed to complement teacher-directed instruction by providing further opportunity for students to work together using what they have learned. In most schools today, cooperative learning is used to replace teacher-directed instruction and students are expected to construct their own knowledge working in groups." (N.d). Clearly, teachers need to put a great deal of thought into this step as improper implementation of the program can have catastrophic consequences on learners.

Read up on each research-based method, decide what sorts of lessons would benefit from their use, and which wouldn't. Talk to colleagues about what methods they use in the classroom, why, and how they implement them. Most of all, be aware of comparisons being drawn between different research-based strategies. Look for comparative studies as opposed to non-comparative studies. Comparative studies are more likely to give you accuracy in research. Educators need to look at the whole picture. How is class A using strategy A performing compared to class B using strategy B? How do these same classes perform after trading strategies? How is school A using strategy A performing compared to school B using strategy B? And so on...

Lastly, before implementing any research-based strategy, an educator should ask themselves "Am I biased?" Be sure to be honest with yourself. Try to go into deliberation with an open and unbiased mind. Take into account all reliable sources whether they are in-line with your initial beliefs or opinions on the strategy or not. Remain unbiased until the end. Your openness and willingness to learn can determine the accuracy of your research.

There are a great many research-based programs out there and being implemented everyday. Many of them just don't have the proper supporting research for an educator, especially a new and inexperienced one, to simply throw their weight behind. Don't ask your students to do homework without doing your own. Research your methods before putting them into practice. Find out what's behind them, what's supporting them, and how they should be used to the biggest advantage in the classroom. Without such information your newest instructional plan could be a huge failure. Don't follow fads and trends, look for rock solid evidence and implementation methods before making that big leap of bringing it into your classroom.

Reference:

Grossen, B. (n.d). What Does It Mean To Be a Research-Based Profession? Retrieved March 8, 2007, from University of Oregon, Eugene Website: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu

Northwest Regional Education Laboratory. (2005). Research-Based Strategies. Retrieved March 5, 2007 from, Focus on Effectiveness Web site: http://www.netc.org/focus/strategies/




Reference research: finance research and computer research and travel research and my social page




Social Networking for Business

research methods in education 9th edition

Almost every fellow teacher I know holds a part-time job to help make ends meet. They work at corporate retail giants, or tending bar (yes, a first-grade teacher I know told me she makes more in two nights of tending bar than in one week of teaching), or working the register at the supermarket. Little Miss Bartender is the exception to the low-paid, slightly-embarrassing, part-time work rule for most teachers.

It's a problem, especially considering the brutal work schedule most teachers are faced with on a daily basis. (If you doubt it, ask a teacher you know; the profession is not what it looked like from your desk in the 3rd Grade.)

One solution is online income for teachers. The market force trend lines are unmistakable: the internet is becoming the preferred first stop for information, especially of the "how-to" variety. Money spent online increases about 25% a year, according to bizreport.com, which predicts Europeans alone will spend more than $407 Billion in 2011.

A demand for "how-to" information coupled with a supply of how-to lessons written and produced by teachers equals opportunity. Teachers should naturally own the how-to online market.

They don't, right now.

One obstacle is a lack of ecommerce marketing knowledge among teachers.

They often need some "how-to" on taking advantage of the opportunity. This article is the first in a series of articles designed to serve as a source of helpful information for teachers who would like to earn money in a more creative, interesting and profitable way than working for a big box store, or delivering pizza, or even tending bar. Because those late nights at the bar can get really old.

Teachers who want an online income should learn basic marketing research first of all -- it takes ten minutes

Teachers who have some ideas for online how-to articles, ebooks or videos should first of all divine whether there is a searching, paying market for the product. Suppose I wondered if origami video lessons had any interest on the internet. How would I determine whether there really were an interest?

Using a simple, online keyword research tool, teachers who want an online income can discover about how many searches per day are made for a particular keyword. That tool is at http://tools.seobook.com/keyword-tools/seobook/

Open the keyword generator tool linked above in a separate browser window.

In the search field, type "origami." Or use your own search term. Perhaps "crayon resist art," or "how to draw anything," or any other potential topic for which you may consider creating and marketing an online, downloadable, how-to product (ebook, audio, video, etc.) for a mid-sized (or larger) online income.

The results will return a lot of information. I want you to focus on only one piece right now: the overall daily estimate. That number shows you, obviously, a (good) estimate of the total number of searches (at the main search engines) performed with that keyword in one day. For "origami," my research today (it will vary over time of course) showed about 2,418 "origami" searches are performed every day.

That tells me there's a high level of interest in origami.

It's an indication there could be a paying market for good, downloadable, online origami instruction at the right price.

This isn't the end of your market research, necessarily. But it does tell you whether the topic for which you are considering producing an ebook, audio or video for online income has any "buzz" online.

Try other keywords associated with the topic for which you are considering making a downloadable product. "Origami" has few related terms. But let's try "paper crane." I just ran it through the seobook tool. The number of daily searches is estimated at about 26. Not as good at 2,418. But, over time, it's not a bad number of searches. Twenty-six multiplied by 365 equals more than 9,400 searches per year.

Clearly, trying to market an ebook or video on "origami" in general is far preferable to "paper crane." That's a fact we couldn't have known without the valuable tool at seobook.com.

So teachers: here's your homework. Come up with a list of five to 10 how-to topics on which you could write or produce an ebook or video. Then run related keywords through the seobook keyword research tool. Choose two or three topics which are shown by the tool to have a high degree of interest. Then come back to this article and follow up with more information on how to market them.

Some of the lessons will include:
-How to make a .pdf book.
-How to choose a website host
-How to design a simple, one-page website to sell your product.
-How to keep your expectations realistic. You won't get rich quick. But you'll do better than working at a big box store. And maybe even better than tending bar.
-And much, much more.





Reference research: finance research and law research and shopping research and my bookmark page




Online Discuss

research paper

Patricia L. Sullivan, an assistant professor at the University of Georgia's School of Public and International Affairs recently completed a study advancing a new model which predicts a nation's probability of accomplishing military objectives. Sullivan's research, reported in the June issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution and by the UGA Office of Public Affairs News Service, found that since WWII major countries, including the United States, the Soviet Union, Russia, China, Britain or France, have failed in 39% of 122 military objectives against smaller, weaker nations.

Under a grant funded by the National Science Foundation and institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation Sullivan conducted research to explain the "circumstances under which more powerful nations are likely to fail and creates a model that allows policymakers to calculate the probability of success in current and future conflicts, "according to the UGA News Service.

Factors which Sullivan found important are the objective, the nature of the target, whether or not the target cooperates with the objective, whether the target or country initiating the action has allies, whether allies will intervene on either side, and the military strength or weakness of allies.

The factor most easily defined is the objective. The objective is the reason for military intervention. Objective, in Sullivan's model, is based on a continuum from "brute force" to "coercion." According to UGA News Service, the nature of the target is defined by the type of group which composes the target: guerilla, formal nation states, or terrorists. Examining these factors allows you to draw some conclusions about the odds of winning a military conflict.

Of the factors Sullivan identified the most important as whether the objective can be reached by military strength alone, or if target cooperation is essential in the military objective.

Sullivan explains that in the 1991 Gulf War Kuwait was a cooperative target. The citizens and government of Kuwait wanted the assistance of the United States. Driving out Hussein's forces was accomplished quickly and efficiently with the compliance of the nation of Kuwait.

Iraq has proven to be a different war story. Iraq did not invite the United States to enter their country. Although the United States entered on the stated premise of humanitarianism and a quest to end Hussein's reign of terror, that doesn't mean the U.S. was invited, and it doesn't mean the target is cooperative. The United States' objective to free the people of Iraq from the iron rule of Saddam Hussein and his Republican Guard was based on the plausible assumption that no human being wants to live in a state of suffering, euthanasia, and general brutality from a dictator. The United States government presumed the people of Iraq preferred freedom and democracy to the dictatorial, totalitarian government under which they lived. However, as a nation, Iraq has not proven cooperative to that objective.

Sectarian violence has kept the United States from meeting their military objective. Rather than welcoming international assistance in building a free nation, divided allegiances in the country have prolonged the military action. Many Muslim extremists view the United States as the face of the enemy, literally and spiritually. They continue to fight hard against governmental and social changes.

The lack of cooperation in Iraq is a huge indicator, according to Sullivan's model of the future of the war. It illuminates the need for target cooperation in military objectives. It does not, however, satisfy the question as to whether the probability of victory affirms or denies the call for military force to implement changes in the interest of humanitarianism.

Military force and humanitarianism, philosophically, should be mutually exclusive terms. However, often, in the face of brutality and oppression force is necessary to break the bonds of oppression. This creates a paradox which the United States government and citizens continue to grapple. It is, however, the same paradox that prompted the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolutionary War.

Sullivan reported to the UGA news service, "We can try to use brute force to kill insurgents and terrorists, but what we really need is for the population to be supportive of the government and to stop supporting the insurgents. Otherwise, every time we kill an insurgent or a terrorist, they're going to be replaced by others."

Once Sullivan developed her model, she tested it and found that her paradigm was accurate in 80% of the conflicts she examined, according to the UGA news service. Her model was used to examine the current war between the U.S. and its allies, and Iraq. Extrapolating an end to the war in Iraq based on Sullivan's model, theUGA news service estimates that there is a 26% chance of victory, in a war that could endure approximately ten years. Sullivan points out that factions, insurgents, and covert allies, such as Iran and Syria, seriously undermine the U.S. objective in Iraq.

Sullivan's conclusions regarding the war with Iraq were reported by the UGA news service as follows:

"No one could have predicted exactly what would happen after we overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein," Sullivan said. "But what my model could say was that if the population was not supportive of whatever new regime we put in power and the American strategic objective shifted from regime removal to maintaining the authority of a new government, the likelihood of a successful outcome would drop from almost 70 percent to just under 26 percent."

Sullivan's research and reporting prove timely as the fierce debate over whether to pull our troops out of Iraq rages in the United States. According to Sullivan, the chances for the successful establishment of a new government in a free and independent Iraq are slim, without the cooperation of the Iraqis and surrounding nations. The research, however, does nothing to discourage those who believe in the fight in the name of higher moral law and justice.

Sullivan's paradigm is helpful, but must be weighed against the one's acceptance of age old adage, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how (or why) you play the game." One factor that Sullivan's research did not address includes an equation which may never be quantified: How much is one life worth in the pursuit of freedom and justice for all?

Sources:

Fahmy, Sam. "UGA study finds that weaker nations prevail in 39 percent of military conflicts, UGA Office of Public Affairs News Service, June 11, 2007.

http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/070611_Sullivan.shtml

http://www.uga.edu/intl/sullivan.htm

http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/51/3/496





Reference research: beauty research and computer research and general research and my bookmark page




Bleach Livejournal Backgrounds