3 resultados para Design science research methodology
em Bucknell University Digital Commons - Pensilvania - USA
Resumo:
Based on the Ricker/Witmer survey on Library Support for Science Research and Education, a brief statistical analysis of the Bucknell University community and library support for science and engineering research and education is provided. The position and responsibilities of Reference Librarian/Coordinator of Science and Engineering Resources in the Ellen Clarke Bertrand Library are detailed. Throughout the article, I describe the motivation and justification for an integrated university library collection, which serves not only the Science and Engineering faculty and students, but the entire Bucknell University community. The issues of finance and budget, public service, and information access and delivery in relation to a central university library are discussed.
Resumo:
Aims: To determine whether or not a Learning Disability(LD) label leads to stigmatization. Study Design: This research used a 2(sex of participant) x 2(LD label)x 2 (Sex of stimulus person) factorial design. Place and Duration of Study: Bucknell University, between October 2010 and April 2011. Methodology: Sample: We included 200 participants (137 women and 63 men, ranging in age from 18 – 75 years, M = 26.41. Participants rated the stimulus individual on 27 personality traits, 8 Life success measures, and the Big-5 personality dimensions. Also, participants completed a Social Desirability measure. Results: A MANOVA revealed a main effect for the Learning Disability description, F(6, 185) = 6.41 p< .0001, eta2 = .17,for the Big-5 personality dimensions, Emotional Stability, F(1, 185) = 13.39, p < .001, eta2 = .066, and Openness to Experiences F(1,185) = 7.12, p< .008, eta2 = .036.Stimulus individuals described as having a learning disability were perceived as being less emotionally stable and more open to experiences than those described as not having a learning disability. Another MANOVA revealed a main effect for having a disability or not, F(8, 183) = 4.29, p< .0001, eta2 = .158, for the Life Success items, Attractiveness, F(1, 198) = 16.63, p< .0001, eta2 = .080, and Future Success,F(1, 198) = 4.57, p< .034, eta2 = .023. Stimulus individuals described as having a learning disability were perceived as being less attractive and with less potential for success than those described as not having a learning disability. Conclusion: The results of this research provide evidence that a bias exists toward those who have learning disabilities. The mere presence of an LD label had the ability to cause a differential perception of those with LDs and those without LDs.