Description : This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
Description : During much of the nineteenth century, physicians and pharmacists alike considered medical patenting and the use of trademarks by drug manufacturers unethical forms of monopoly; physicians who prescribed patented drugs could be, and were, ostracized from the medical community. In the decades following the Civil War, however, complex changes in patent and trademark law intersected with the changing sensibilities of both physicians and pharmacists to make intellectual property rights in drug manufacturing scientifically and ethically legitimate. By World War I, patented and trademarked drugs had become essential to the practice of good medicine, aiding in the rise of the American pharmaceutical industry and forever altering the course of medicine. Drawing on a wealth of previously unused archival material, Medical Monopoly combines legal, medical, and business history to offer a sweeping new interpretation of the origins of the complex and often troubling relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and medical practice today. Joseph M. Gabriel provides the first detailed history of patent and trademark law as it relates to the nineteenth-century pharmaceutical industry as well as a unique interpretation of medical ethics, therapeutic reform, and the efforts to regulate the market in pharmaceuticals before World War I. His book will be of interest not only to historians of medicine and science and intellectual property scholars but also to anyone following contemporary debates about the pharmaceutical industry, the patenting of scientific discoveries, and the role of advertising in the marketplace.
Description : This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
Description : From the earliest days of oral history to the present, the vampire myth persists among mankind’s deeply-rooted fears. This encyclopedia, with entries ranging from “Abchanchu” to “Zmeus,” includes nearly 600 different species of historical and mythological vampires, fully described and detailed.
Description : Preface Methodology . . . [has] developed as a bent of mind rather than as a system of organized principles and procedures. The methodologist is a scholar who is above all analytical in his approach to his subject matter. He tells other scholars what they have done, or might do, rather than what they should do. He tells them what order of finding has emerged from their research, not what kind of result is or is not preferable. This kind of analytical approach requires self-awareness on the one hand, and tolerance, on the other. The methodologist knows that the same goal can be reached by alternative roads. (Lazarsfeld and Rosenberg, 1955, p. 4) In the social sciences we use methodology to try to answer questions about how and why people behave as they do. Some types of behavior are very common or routine, while others happen rarely or only in certain situations. When you realize that every conceivable type of behavior is within the realm of possible subjects for us to study, you can begin to appreciate the scope of social science. Beyond identifying human activities and the boundaries in which they occur, social scientists also want to explain why behaviors happen. In looking for causes, social scientists pursue all dimensions of the social world. We look at personal traits of individuals, characteristics of interactions between people, and contextual features of the communities and cultures in which they live. We study people who lived in the past, try to improve the quality of life today, and anticipate what the future will hold. It is difficult to think of a topic that involves people for which a social scientist could not investigate. Given all we do, it is good that there are so many of us. You will find social scientists in university departments as professors of sociology, psychology, anthropology, political science, and economics. You will also find professors of geography, history, philosophy, math, management, planning, finance, journalism, architecture, humanities, and art who are social scientists. Even this multidisciplinary list is not exhaustive. There are important and prevalent social science investigations that influence decisionmaking in the world outside of universities too. Social scientists are world-wide and work in all branches of government, large and small organizations, and many types of businesses. Daily life for most people is influenced by social science research in marketing, insurance, and government. However, not everyone in these positions is a social scientist; the distinction involves scientific inquiry, or the approach used to try to answer questions about behavior. As the definition cited above conveys, good science includes tolerance and appreciation for many methodological paths. This encyclopedia of social science methodology provides 356 entries written by social scientists about what they do. The entries in this encyclopedia cover many forms of measurement used by social scientists to study behavior. Eleven substantive sections delineate social sciences and the research processes they follow to measure and provide knowledge on a wide range of topics. The encyclopedia has an extensive index too, because many topics include issues that are relevant in more than one section. From many perspectives and strategies, these volumes describe the research questions social scientists ask, the sources and methods they use to collect information, and the techniques they use to analyze these data and provide answers to the important questions. Each section includes entries that address important components of quantitative and qualitative research methods, which are dissected and illustrated with examples from diverse fields of study. The articles convey research basics in sufficient detail to explain even the most complicated statistical technique, and references for additional information are noted for each topic. Most entries describe actual research experiences to illustrate both the realm of possibilities and the potential challenges that might be encountered. Some entries describe major contributions and the social scientists who made them. The authors are accomplished methodologists in their fields of study. They explain the steps necessary to accomplish the measurement goals, as well as provide their practical advice for ways in which to overcome the likely obstacles. Collectively, the entries in this encyclopedia also convey thatno singleapproach, type of data, or technique of analysis reigns supreme. Indeed, plenty of disagreements exist among social scientists about what constitutes the ‘‘best’’ measurement strategy. Often distinctions are made between quantitative and qualitative methodologies, or are xli discipline-specific. Some preferences can be linked to a specific field of study or research topic; others, related to time and location, coincide with how new ideas and advances in technology are shared. Sometimes we don’t even agree on what is the appropriate question we should try to answer! Although our views differ on what is ideal, and even on what are the appropriate standards for assessing measurement quality, social scientists generally do agree that the following five issues should be considered: 1. We agree on the need to be clear about the scope and purpose of our pursuits. The benchmarks for evaluating success differ depending on whether our intent is to describe, explain, or predict and whether we focus extensively on a single subject or case (e.g., person, family, organization, or culture) or more generally on patterns among many cases. 2. We agree on the need to make assurances for the ethical treatment of the people we study. 3. We agree on the need to be aware of potential sources of measurement error associated with our study design, data collection, and techniques of analysis. 4. We agree it is important to understand the extent to which our research is a reliable and valid measure of what we contend. Our measures are reliable if they are consistent with what others would have found in the same circumstances. If our measures also are consistent with those from different research circumstances, for example in studies of other behaviors or with alternate measurement strategies, then such replication helps us to be confident about the quality of our efforts. Sometimes we’d like the results of our study to extend beyond the people and behavior we observed. This focus on a wider applicability for our measures involves the issue of generalizability. When we’re concerned about an accurate portrayal of reality, we use tools to assess validity. When we don’t agree about the adequacy of the tools we use to assess validity, sometimes the source of our disagreements is different views on scientific objectivity. 5. We also agree that objectivity merits consideration, although we don’t agree on the role of objectivity or our capabilities to be objective in our research. Some social scientists contend that our inquiries must be objective to have credibility. In a contrasting view of social science, or epistemology, objectivity is not possible and, according to some, not preferable. Given that we study people and are human ourselves, it is important that we recognize that life experiences necessarily shape the lens through which people see reality. Besides a lack of consensus within the social sciences, other skeptics challenge our measures and methods. In what some recently have labeled ‘‘the science wars,’’ external critics contend that social scientists suffer ‘‘physics envy’’ and that human behavior is not amenable to scientific investigation. Social scientists have responded to ‘‘antiscience’’ sentiments from the very beginning, such as Emile Durkhiem’s efforts in the 19th century to identify ‘‘social facts.’’ As entertaining as some of the debates and mudslinging can be, they are unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, if ever. One reason that Lazarsfeld and Rosenberg contend that tolerance and appreciation for different methodological pathways make for better science is that no individual scientist can have expertise in all the available options.Werecognize this now more than ever, as multidisciplinary teams and collaborations between scientists with diverse methodological expertise are commonplace, and even required by some sources of research funding. Meanwhile, people who can be our research subjects continue to behave in ways that intrigue, new strategies are proffered to reduce social problems and make life better, and the tool kits or arsenals available to social scientists continue to grow. The entries in these volumes provide useful information about how to accomplish social measurement and standards or ‘‘rules of thumb.’’ As you learn these standards, keep in mind the following advice from one of my favorite methodologists: ‘‘Avoid the fallacy fallacy. When a theorist or methodologist tells you you cannot do something, do it anyway. Breaking rules can be fun!’’ Hirschi (1973, pp. 1712). In my view nothing could be more fun than contemporary social science, and I hope this encyclopedia will inspire even more social science inquiry! In preparing this encyclopedia the goal has been to compile entries that cover the entire spectrum of measurement approaches, methods of data collection, and techniques of analysis used by social scientists in their efforts to understand all sorts of behaviors. The goal of this project was ambitious, and to the extent that the encyclopedia is successful there are many to people to thank. Myfirst thank you goes to the members of the Executive Advisory Board and theEditorial Advisory Board who helpedmeto identify my own biased views about social science and hopefully to achieve greater tolerance and appreciation. These scientists helped identify the ideal measurement topics, locate the experts and convince them to be authors, review drafts of the articles, and make the difficult recommendations required by time and space considerations as the project came to a close. My second thank you goes to the many authors of these 356 entries. Collectively, these scholars represent well the methodological status of social science today. Third, I thank the many reviewers whose generous recommendations improved the final product. In particular I extend my personal thanks to colleagues at the University of Texas at Dallas, many of whom participated in large and small roles in this project, and all of whomhave helpedme to broaden my appreciation of social xlii Preface measurement. Finally, I thank Scott Bentley, Kirsten Funk, Kristi Anderson, and their colleagues at Elsevier for the opportunity and their encouragement when the tasks seemed overwhelming. Scott’s insights to the possibilities of a project such as this and the administrative prowess of both Kirsten and Kristi helped make this a reality. Good science is a cumulative process, and we hope this project will be ongoing and always improving. Despite our best efforts to identify topics and authors, sometimes we failed. If you have suggestions, criticisms, or information worth considering, I hope you will let me know. Hirschi, Travis (1973). Procedural rules and the study of deviant behavior. Social Problems 21(2), 159173. Lazarsfeld, Paul and Morris Rosenberg (1955). The Language of Social Research. The Free Press, New York. KIMBERLY KEMPF-LEONARD
Description : Issues in Biological and Life Sciences Research: 2011 Edition is a ScholarlyEditions™ eBook that delivers timely, authoritative, and comprehensive information about Biological and Life Sciences Research. The editors have built Issues in Biological and Life Sciences Research: 2011 Edition on the vast information databases of ScholarlyNews.™ You can expect the information about Biological and Life Sciences Research in this eBook to be deeper than what you can access anywhere else, as well as consistently reliable, authoritative, informed, and relevant. The content of Issues in Biological and Life Sciences Research: 2011 Edition has been produced by the world’s leading scientists, engineers, analysts, research institutions, and companies. All of the content is from peer-reviewed sources, and all of it is written, assembled, and edited by the editors at ScholarlyEditions™ and available exclusively from us. You now have a source you can cite with authority, confidence, and credibility. More information is available at http://www.ScholarlyEditions.com/.