Presenting dynamics of social phenomena: should we use absolute, relative or time differences?
Abstract Empirical studies within social sciences face an important decision about how to express key findings to the target audience. Simplicity is an important selection criterion here, because the findings need to be conveyed in an efficient manner (i.e., briefly and concisely), but also because...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Prevodnik, Katja [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2012 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Quality & quantity - Springer Netherlands, 1967, 48(2012), 2 vom: 07. Nov., Seite 799-816 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:48 ; year:2012 ; number:2 ; day:07 ; month:11 ; pages:799-816 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC206349455X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC206349455X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230504020035.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200820s2012 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC206349455X | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s11135-012-9803-3-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 050 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 3,4 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Prevodnik, Katja |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Presenting dynamics of social phenomena: should we use absolute, relative or time differences? |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2012 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Empirical studies within social sciences face an important decision about how to express key findings to the target audience. Simplicity is an important selection criterion here, because the findings need to be conveyed in an efficient manner (i.e., briefly and concisely), but also because stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, the media, general public) are heterogeneous in their methodological backgrounds. The corresponding ways of measuring thus need to be not only exhaustive and message-delivering but also simple and intuitively understandable. This is particularly important when dynamics in time are discussed. There, most typically, either absolute or relative differences are used. This review paper critically elaborates these two popular measures and, in addition, discusses the alternatives of time distance and time step. The paper demonstrates that even in simple linear examples, the results of these four types of measures may sharply contradict. The empirical example of the digital divide is also elaborated, which illustrates many tempting possibilities for biased, one-sided interpretations that match the needs of certain stakeholders. Finally, the paper alerts users about possible misleading conclusions and suggests comprehensive treatments, using several measures simultaneously. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Basic comparative analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Absolute difference | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Relative difference | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Time distance | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Time step | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Digital divide | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Vehovar, Vasja |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Quality & quantity |d Springer Netherlands, 1967 |g 48(2012), 2 vom: 07. Nov., Seite 799-816 |w (DE-627)129084328 |w (DE-600)4140-3 |w (DE-576)014417715 |x 0033-5177 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:48 |g year:2012 |g number:2 |g day:07 |g month:11 |g pages:799-816 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-SOW | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_754 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2006 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4029 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 48 |j 2012 |e 2 |b 07 |c 11 |h 799-816 | ||
| author_variant |
k p kp v v vv |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:00335177:2012----::rsnigyaisfoilhnmnsolwuebouee |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2012 |
| publishDate |
2012 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3 doi (DE-627)OLC206349455X (DE-He213)s11135-012-9803-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 050 VZ 3,4 ssgn Prevodnik, Katja verfasserin aut Presenting dynamics of social phenomena: should we use absolute, relative or time differences? 2012 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 Abstract Empirical studies within social sciences face an important decision about how to express key findings to the target audience. Simplicity is an important selection criterion here, because the findings need to be conveyed in an efficient manner (i.e., briefly and concisely), but also because stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, the media, general public) are heterogeneous in their methodological backgrounds. The corresponding ways of measuring thus need to be not only exhaustive and message-delivering but also simple and intuitively understandable. This is particularly important when dynamics in time are discussed. There, most typically, either absolute or relative differences are used. This review paper critically elaborates these two popular measures and, in addition, discusses the alternatives of time distance and time step. The paper demonstrates that even in simple linear examples, the results of these four types of measures may sharply contradict. The empirical example of the digital divide is also elaborated, which illustrates many tempting possibilities for biased, one-sided interpretations that match the needs of certain stakeholders. Finally, the paper alerts users about possible misleading conclusions and suggests comprehensive treatments, using several measures simultaneously. Basic comparative analysis Absolute difference Relative difference Time distance Time step Digital divide Vehovar, Vasja aut Enthalten in Quality & quantity Springer Netherlands, 1967 48(2012), 2 vom: 07. Nov., Seite 799-816 (DE-627)129084328 (DE-600)4140-3 (DE-576)014417715 0033-5177 nnns volume:48 year:2012 number:2 day:07 month:11 pages:799-816 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-SOW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_754 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2012 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 48 2012 2 07 11 799-816 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3 doi (DE-627)OLC206349455X (DE-He213)s11135-012-9803-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 050 VZ 3,4 ssgn Prevodnik, Katja verfasserin aut Presenting dynamics of social phenomena: should we use absolute, relative or time differences? 2012 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 Abstract Empirical studies within social sciences face an important decision about how to express key findings to the target audience. Simplicity is an important selection criterion here, because the findings need to be conveyed in an efficient manner (i.e., briefly and concisely), but also because stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, the media, general public) are heterogeneous in their methodological backgrounds. The corresponding ways of measuring thus need to be not only exhaustive and message-delivering but also simple and intuitively understandable. This is particularly important when dynamics in time are discussed. There, most typically, either absolute or relative differences are used. This review paper critically elaborates these two popular measures and, in addition, discusses the alternatives of time distance and time step. The paper demonstrates that even in simple linear examples, the results of these four types of measures may sharply contradict. The empirical example of the digital divide is also elaborated, which illustrates many tempting possibilities for biased, one-sided interpretations that match the needs of certain stakeholders. Finally, the paper alerts users about possible misleading conclusions and suggests comprehensive treatments, using several measures simultaneously. Basic comparative analysis Absolute difference Relative difference Time distance Time step Digital divide Vehovar, Vasja aut Enthalten in Quality & quantity Springer Netherlands, 1967 48(2012), 2 vom: 07. Nov., Seite 799-816 (DE-627)129084328 (DE-600)4140-3 (DE-576)014417715 0033-5177 nnns volume:48 year:2012 number:2 day:07 month:11 pages:799-816 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-SOW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_754 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2012 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 48 2012 2 07 11 799-816 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3 doi (DE-627)OLC206349455X (DE-He213)s11135-012-9803-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 050 VZ 3,4 ssgn Prevodnik, Katja verfasserin aut Presenting dynamics of social phenomena: should we use absolute, relative or time differences? 2012 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 Abstract Empirical studies within social sciences face an important decision about how to express key findings to the target audience. Simplicity is an important selection criterion here, because the findings need to be conveyed in an efficient manner (i.e., briefly and concisely), but also because stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, the media, general public) are heterogeneous in their methodological backgrounds. The corresponding ways of measuring thus need to be not only exhaustive and message-delivering but also simple and intuitively understandable. This is particularly important when dynamics in time are discussed. There, most typically, either absolute or relative differences are used. This review paper critically elaborates these two popular measures and, in addition, discusses the alternatives of time distance and time step. The paper demonstrates that even in simple linear examples, the results of these four types of measures may sharply contradict. The empirical example of the digital divide is also elaborated, which illustrates many tempting possibilities for biased, one-sided interpretations that match the needs of certain stakeholders. Finally, the paper alerts users about possible misleading conclusions and suggests comprehensive treatments, using several measures simultaneously. Basic comparative analysis Absolute difference Relative difference Time distance Time step Digital divide Vehovar, Vasja aut Enthalten in Quality & quantity Springer Netherlands, 1967 48(2012), 2 vom: 07. Nov., Seite 799-816 (DE-627)129084328 (DE-600)4140-3 (DE-576)014417715 0033-5177 nnns volume:48 year:2012 number:2 day:07 month:11 pages:799-816 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-SOW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_754 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2012 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 48 2012 2 07 11 799-816 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3 doi (DE-627)OLC206349455X (DE-He213)s11135-012-9803-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 050 VZ 3,4 ssgn Prevodnik, Katja verfasserin aut Presenting dynamics of social phenomena: should we use absolute, relative or time differences? 2012 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 Abstract Empirical studies within social sciences face an important decision about how to express key findings to the target audience. Simplicity is an important selection criterion here, because the findings need to be conveyed in an efficient manner (i.e., briefly and concisely), but also because stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, the media, general public) are heterogeneous in their methodological backgrounds. The corresponding ways of measuring thus need to be not only exhaustive and message-delivering but also simple and intuitively understandable. This is particularly important when dynamics in time are discussed. There, most typically, either absolute or relative differences are used. This review paper critically elaborates these two popular measures and, in addition, discusses the alternatives of time distance and time step. The paper demonstrates that even in simple linear examples, the results of these four types of measures may sharply contradict. The empirical example of the digital divide is also elaborated, which illustrates many tempting possibilities for biased, one-sided interpretations that match the needs of certain stakeholders. Finally, the paper alerts users about possible misleading conclusions and suggests comprehensive treatments, using several measures simultaneously. Basic comparative analysis Absolute difference Relative difference Time distance Time step Digital divide Vehovar, Vasja aut Enthalten in Quality & quantity Springer Netherlands, 1967 48(2012), 2 vom: 07. Nov., Seite 799-816 (DE-627)129084328 (DE-600)4140-3 (DE-576)014417715 0033-5177 nnns volume:48 year:2012 number:2 day:07 month:11 pages:799-816 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-SOW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_754 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2012 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 48 2012 2 07 11 799-816 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3 doi (DE-627)OLC206349455X (DE-He213)s11135-012-9803-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 050 VZ 3,4 ssgn Prevodnik, Katja verfasserin aut Presenting dynamics of social phenomena: should we use absolute, relative or time differences? 2012 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 Abstract Empirical studies within social sciences face an important decision about how to express key findings to the target audience. Simplicity is an important selection criterion here, because the findings need to be conveyed in an efficient manner (i.e., briefly and concisely), but also because stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, the media, general public) are heterogeneous in their methodological backgrounds. The corresponding ways of measuring thus need to be not only exhaustive and message-delivering but also simple and intuitively understandable. This is particularly important when dynamics in time are discussed. There, most typically, either absolute or relative differences are used. This review paper critically elaborates these two popular measures and, in addition, discusses the alternatives of time distance and time step. The paper demonstrates that even in simple linear examples, the results of these four types of measures may sharply contradict. The empirical example of the digital divide is also elaborated, which illustrates many tempting possibilities for biased, one-sided interpretations that match the needs of certain stakeholders. Finally, the paper alerts users about possible misleading conclusions and suggests comprehensive treatments, using several measures simultaneously. Basic comparative analysis Absolute difference Relative difference Time distance Time step Digital divide Vehovar, Vasja aut Enthalten in Quality & quantity Springer Netherlands, 1967 48(2012), 2 vom: 07. Nov., Seite 799-816 (DE-627)129084328 (DE-600)4140-3 (DE-576)014417715 0033-5177 nnns volume:48 year:2012 number:2 day:07 month:11 pages:799-816 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-SOW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_754 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2012 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 48 2012 2 07 11 799-816 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Quality & quantity 48(2012), 2 vom: 07. Nov., Seite 799-816 volume:48 year:2012 number:2 day:07 month:11 pages:799-816 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Quality & quantity 48(2012), 2 vom: 07. Nov., Seite 799-816 volume:48 year:2012 number:2 day:07 month:11 pages:799-816 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Basic comparative analysis Absolute difference Relative difference Time distance Time step Digital divide |
| dewey-raw |
050 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Quality & quantity |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Prevodnik, Katja @@aut@@ Vehovar, Vasja @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2012-11-07T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
129084328 |
| dewey-sort |
250 |
| id |
OLC206349455X |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC206349455X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230504020035.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2012 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC206349455X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11135-012-9803-3-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">050</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">3,4</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Prevodnik, Katja</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Presenting dynamics of social phenomena: should we use absolute, relative or time differences?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Empirical studies within social sciences face an important decision about how to express key findings to the target audience. Simplicity is an important selection criterion here, because the findings need to be conveyed in an efficient manner (i.e., briefly and concisely), but also because stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, the media, general public) are heterogeneous in their methodological backgrounds. The corresponding ways of measuring thus need to be not only exhaustive and message-delivering but also simple and intuitively understandable. This is particularly important when dynamics in time are discussed. There, most typically, either absolute or relative differences are used. This review paper critically elaborates these two popular measures and, in addition, discusses the alternatives of time distance and time step. The paper demonstrates that even in simple linear examples, the results of these four types of measures may sharply contradict. The empirical example of the digital divide is also elaborated, which illustrates many tempting possibilities for biased, one-sided interpretations that match the needs of certain stakeholders. Finally, the paper alerts users about possible misleading conclusions and suggests comprehensive treatments, using several measures simultaneously.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Basic comparative analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Absolute difference</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Relative difference</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Time distance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Time step</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Digital divide</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vehovar, Vasja</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Quality & quantity</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 1967</subfield><subfield code="g">48(2012), 2 vom: 07. Nov., Seite 799-816</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)129084328</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)4140-3</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)014417715</subfield><subfield code="x">0033-5177</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:48</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2012</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">day:07</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:799-816</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-SOW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_754</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4029</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">48</subfield><subfield code="j">2012</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="b">07</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield><subfield code="h">799-816</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Prevodnik, Katja |
| spellingShingle |
Prevodnik, Katja ddc 050 ssgn 3,4 misc Basic comparative analysis misc Absolute difference misc Relative difference misc Time distance misc Time step misc Digital divide Presenting dynamics of social phenomena: should we use absolute, relative or time differences? |
| authorStr |
Prevodnik, Katja |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)129084328 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
050 - General serial publications |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0033-5177 |
| topic_title |
050 VZ 3,4 ssgn Presenting dynamics of social phenomena: should we use absolute, relative or time differences? Basic comparative analysis Absolute difference Relative difference Time distance Time step Digital divide |
| topic |
ddc 050 ssgn 3,4 misc Basic comparative analysis misc Absolute difference misc Relative difference misc Time distance misc Time step misc Digital divide |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 050 ssgn 3,4 misc Basic comparative analysis misc Absolute difference misc Relative difference misc Time distance misc Time step misc Digital divide |
| topic_browse |
ddc 050 ssgn 3,4 misc Basic comparative analysis misc Absolute difference misc Relative difference misc Time distance misc Time step misc Digital divide |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Quality & quantity |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
129084328 |
| dewey-tens |
050 - Magazines, journals & serials |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Quality & quantity |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)129084328 (DE-600)4140-3 (DE-576)014417715 |
| title |
Presenting dynamics of social phenomena: should we use absolute, relative or time differences? |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC206349455X (DE-He213)s11135-012-9803-3-p |
| title_full |
Presenting dynamics of social phenomena: should we use absolute, relative or time differences? |
| author_sort |
Prevodnik, Katja |
| journal |
Quality & quantity |
| journalStr |
Quality & quantity |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
000 - Computer science, information & general works |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2012 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
799 |
| author_browse |
Prevodnik, Katja Vehovar, Vasja |
| container_volume |
48 |
| class |
050 VZ 3,4 ssgn |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Prevodnik, Katja |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3 |
| dewey-full |
050 |
| title_sort |
presenting dynamics of social phenomena: should we use absolute, relative or time differences? |
| title_auth |
Presenting dynamics of social phenomena: should we use absolute, relative or time differences? |
| abstract |
Abstract Empirical studies within social sciences face an important decision about how to express key findings to the target audience. Simplicity is an important selection criterion here, because the findings need to be conveyed in an efficient manner (i.e., briefly and concisely), but also because stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, the media, general public) are heterogeneous in their methodological backgrounds. The corresponding ways of measuring thus need to be not only exhaustive and message-delivering but also simple and intuitively understandable. This is particularly important when dynamics in time are discussed. There, most typically, either absolute or relative differences are used. This review paper critically elaborates these two popular measures and, in addition, discusses the alternatives of time distance and time step. The paper demonstrates that even in simple linear examples, the results of these four types of measures may sharply contradict. The empirical example of the digital divide is also elaborated, which illustrates many tempting possibilities for biased, one-sided interpretations that match the needs of certain stakeholders. Finally, the paper alerts users about possible misleading conclusions and suggests comprehensive treatments, using several measures simultaneously. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Empirical studies within social sciences face an important decision about how to express key findings to the target audience. Simplicity is an important selection criterion here, because the findings need to be conveyed in an efficient manner (i.e., briefly and concisely), but also because stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, the media, general public) are heterogeneous in their methodological backgrounds. The corresponding ways of measuring thus need to be not only exhaustive and message-delivering but also simple and intuitively understandable. This is particularly important when dynamics in time are discussed. There, most typically, either absolute or relative differences are used. This review paper critically elaborates these two popular measures and, in addition, discusses the alternatives of time distance and time step. The paper demonstrates that even in simple linear examples, the results of these four types of measures may sharply contradict. The empirical example of the digital divide is also elaborated, which illustrates many tempting possibilities for biased, one-sided interpretations that match the needs of certain stakeholders. Finally, the paper alerts users about possible misleading conclusions and suggests comprehensive treatments, using several measures simultaneously. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Empirical studies within social sciences face an important decision about how to express key findings to the target audience. Simplicity is an important selection criterion here, because the findings need to be conveyed in an efficient manner (i.e., briefly and concisely), but also because stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, the media, general public) are heterogeneous in their methodological backgrounds. The corresponding ways of measuring thus need to be not only exhaustive and message-delivering but also simple and intuitively understandable. This is particularly important when dynamics in time are discussed. There, most typically, either absolute or relative differences are used. This review paper critically elaborates these two popular measures and, in addition, discusses the alternatives of time distance and time step. The paper demonstrates that even in simple linear examples, the results of these four types of measures may sharply contradict. The empirical example of the digital divide is also elaborated, which illustrates many tempting possibilities for biased, one-sided interpretations that match the needs of certain stakeholders. Finally, the paper alerts users about possible misleading conclusions and suggests comprehensive treatments, using several measures simultaneously. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-SOW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_754 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2012 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
2 |
| title_short |
Presenting dynamics of social phenomena: should we use absolute, relative or time differences? |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| author2 |
Vehovar, Vasja |
| author2Str |
Vehovar, Vasja |
| ppnlink |
129084328 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T19:15:04.450Z |
| _version_ |
1803586481113006080 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC206349455X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230504020035.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2012 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC206349455X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11135-012-9803-3-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">050</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">3,4</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Prevodnik, Katja</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Presenting dynamics of social phenomena: should we use absolute, relative or time differences?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Empirical studies within social sciences face an important decision about how to express key findings to the target audience. Simplicity is an important selection criterion here, because the findings need to be conveyed in an efficient manner (i.e., briefly and concisely), but also because stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, the media, general public) are heterogeneous in their methodological backgrounds. The corresponding ways of measuring thus need to be not only exhaustive and message-delivering but also simple and intuitively understandable. This is particularly important when dynamics in time are discussed. There, most typically, either absolute or relative differences are used. This review paper critically elaborates these two popular measures and, in addition, discusses the alternatives of time distance and time step. The paper demonstrates that even in simple linear examples, the results of these four types of measures may sharply contradict. The empirical example of the digital divide is also elaborated, which illustrates many tempting possibilities for biased, one-sided interpretations that match the needs of certain stakeholders. Finally, the paper alerts users about possible misleading conclusions and suggests comprehensive treatments, using several measures simultaneously.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Basic comparative analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Absolute difference</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Relative difference</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Time distance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Time step</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Digital divide</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vehovar, Vasja</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Quality & quantity</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 1967</subfield><subfield code="g">48(2012), 2 vom: 07. Nov., Seite 799-816</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)129084328</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)4140-3</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)014417715</subfield><subfield code="x">0033-5177</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:48</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2012</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">day:07</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:799-816</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9803-3</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-SOW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_754</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4029</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">48</subfield><subfield code="j">2012</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="b">07</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield><subfield code="h">799-816</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4003944 |