Reflexivity Sample Clauses

The Reflexivity clause establishes that the terms and obligations outlined in the agreement apply equally to all parties involved, ensuring mutuality in rights and responsibilities. In practice, this means that if one party is granted a particular right or is subject to a specific obligation, the same right or obligation is reciprocally extended to the other party or parties. For example, if one party has the right to terminate the contract under certain conditions, the other party is afforded the same right under those conditions. This clause is essential for maintaining fairness and balance in contractual relationships, preventing one-sided arrangements and promoting equitable treatment.
Reflexivity. What seems to be a core element in establishing the much needed validity in ethnographic research is applying reflexivity, which is commonly used as a methodological tool in qualitative research in order to legitimize, validate and question research practices and representations. Qualitative researchers use reflexivity as means of addressing the politics or representation related to the research, represent difference better (Wasserfall, 1997) and establish ―ethnographic authority‖ (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1995, p. 229). Pillow (2003, p. 175) calls for a shift from ―comfortable‖ uses of reflexivity and towards what she terms uncomfortable reflexive practices‖. This notion of uncomfortable reflexivity is about ―whether we can be accountable to people‘s struggles for self-representation and self-determination‖ (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1994, p.32) and is viewed as beneficial to the research itself. As Pillow (2003, p.193) stresses: ―the qualitative research arena would benefit from more ‗messy‘ examples, examples that may not always be successful, examples that do not seek a comfortable, transcendent endpoint but leave us in the uncomfortable realities of going engaged qualitative research‖. Consequently, reflexivity draws upon researcher subjectivity in the research process: how does who I am, who I have been, who I think I am, how I feel, affect data collection gathered, presented and interpreted, or, in other words, how knowledge is acquired, organized and interpreted is relevant to what the claims are (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1998). Naturally, to be reflexive ―demands both an ‗other‘ and some self-conscious awareness of the process of self-scrutiny‖ (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1996, p. 130). As Lather (1993, p.685) states, there are ―few guidelines for how one goes about the doing of it, especially in a way that is both reflexive and yet notes the limits of self reflexivity‖. Definitions of reflexivity are varied: ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (1999) defines it as engaging in an ongoing conversation about a subject or experience while simultaneously living it in every moment. Other researchers like Freshwater and ▇▇▇▇▇ (2001) inherit a more post-modernist approach according to which reflexivity implies that scientific research is not an accurate window on external reality; it is but one ―truth‖ among many (being loyal to the postmodernist school declaration that there is no ―objective truth‖ out there). In this case, the function of research is not to present an analysed theory about the world, but is more of an opp...
View Source
Reflexivity. The Bioscope evaluates its own pedagogical activities and its functioning to get closer to the principles set out in its Charter of Values. Source: ▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇/bioscope/bioscope-2/presentation/ She carries out participatory actions where it is the population who detects and identifies the needs they have and they propose and organise actions and solutions. In this case, the role of facilitator is to accompany and facilitate with the resources available to those solutions that the community wishes to carry out. Her purpose is to maximize the strengths that the community has. Interestingly research suggest that the most participatory communities (both in decision-making and in action) are the healthiest. She thinks a good practice is to design projects that put the focus and emphasise the individual and collective capabilities to allow connections among others. A project can start in a very different ways. ▇▇▇▇ is a middle crowd organisation. They look into impact of technology of society. “Can we empower citizens?” By giving access to new technology they can give citizens voice to talk to local governments or by helping them to get data. In the case of DNA or IA, there is a lot of attention in the media, but it is complicated, and it is super important that citizens engage in these discussions with knowledge so they decide to focus on that and develop projects in that area. ▇▇▇▇ looks for social controversial things and issues in society and society problems and they create the program or decide the project to do. They are a project-based organisation, so as soon as they detect there is a topic that is important for society they start developing a project around it. One thing that is important for a long-term engagement with the groups is “expectation management”: what they can expect for you. She says that you have to be very clear and honest about it: even if you have a lot, your expertise is always limited so you can never guarantee that you will succeed. In citizen science projects, you need some mentality in the people that we engage, because outcome is not certain so people need to understand it since it is a collective research.
View Source
Reflexivity. Being of black ethnicity (though from a different background as an African migrant) and being a health professional, I had to apply a lot of reflexivity to allow data speak to me rather than rely on my previous knowledge or similar experiences to draw conclusions for the participants. I had to apply a lot of reflexivity to separate my own beliefs, expectations and interpretations from the information the participants were giving, to accurately report what was being demonstrated in the data by participants and not my own deductions and assumptions
View Source
Reflexivity. “The researcher does not begin empty-handed; his/her mind is not a tabula rasa”
View Source

Related to Reflexivity

  • Demographics Obtain demographic information including age, race, ethnicity, and sex.

  • Population The Population shall be defined as all Paid Claims during the 12-month period covered by the Claims Review.

  • History The two Boards approved a "Proposed Plan to Further Simplify and Facilitate Transfer of Credit Between Institutions" at their meetings in February 1996. This plan was submitted as a preliminary report to the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee in March 1996. Since that time, significant steps have been taken toward implementation of the transfer plan. At their April 1996 meetings, the Boards appointed their respective sector representatives to the Transfer Advisory Committee to direct, coordinate, and monitor the implementation of the proposed transfer plan. The Transfer Advisory Committee membership is listed in Appendix D. Basic to the work of the Transfer Advisory Committee in refining transfer policies and implementing the transfer plan has been the re-engineering project accomplished by the North Carolina Community College System, especially common course names, numbers, credits, and descriptions. The Community College Combined Course Library includes approximately 3,800 semester-credit courses written for the associate degree, diploma, and certificate programs offered in the system. Colleges select courses from the Combined Course Library to design all curriculum programs. Of approximately 700 arts and sciences courses within the Combined Course Library, the faculty and administrators of the community colleges recommended approximately 170 courses as appropriate for the general education transfer core. The Transfer Advisory Committee then convened a meeting on May 28, 1996, at which six University of North Carolina faculty in each of ten general education discipline areas met with six of their professional counterparts from the community colleges. Through a very useful and collegial dialog, these committees were able to reach consensus on which community college courses in each discipline were acceptable for transfer to University of North Carolina institutions as a part of the general education core. This list of courses was distributed to all University of North Carolina and community college institutions for their review and comments. Considering the recommendations of the general education discipline committees and the comments from the campuses, the Transfer Advisory Committee established the list of courses that constitutes the general education transfer core. This general education core, if completed successfully by a community college student, is portable and transferable as a block across the community college system and to all University of North Carolina institutions. With the establishment of the general education core as a foundation, joint academic disciplinary committees were appointed to draw up guidelines for community college curricula that will prepare students for intended majors at University of North Carolina institutions. Each committee consisted of representatives from each UNC institution offering such major programs and eight to ten representatives from community colleges. The Transfer Advisory Committee distributed the pre- majors recommended by the faculty committees to all University of North Carolina and community college institutions for their review and comments. Considering the faculty committee recommendations and the campus comments, the Transfer Advisory Committee established pre-majors which have significant numbers of transfers from the community colleges to the University of North Carolina institutions. The special circumstances surrounding transfer agreements for associate in applied science programs, which are not designed for transfer, require bilateral rather than statewide articulation. Special circumstances include the different accreditation criteria for faculty in transfer and non-transfer programs, the different general education requirements for transfer and non-transfer programs, and the workforce preparedness mission of the technical/community college AAS programs. A major element in the proposed transfer plan adopted by the two boards in February 1996 is the transfer information system. Simultaneously with the work being done on the general education and professional specialization (major) components of the transfer curriculum, the joint committee on the transfer information system laid out a plan, approved by the Boards of The University of North Carolina and the North Carolina Community College System, "to provide students with accurate and understandable information regarding the transfer of credits...[and] to increase the adequacy and availability of academic counseling for students who are considering a college transfer program." In addition to the printed publications currently being distributed to students, transfer counselors, admissions directors, and others, an electronic information network provides (1) electronic access to the articulation database which will include current transfer policies, guidelines, and on-line catalogs for public post-secondary institutions; (2) computerized common application forms, which can be completed and transmitted electronically along with transcripts and other education records; and (3) an electronic mail network for transfer counselors and prospective transfer students. Access to the e-mail network is available in the transfer counselors' offices and other selected sites on campuses. The final element of the transfer information system is the Transfer Student Academic Performance Report. This report, recently refined with suggestions from community college administrators, is sent annually to each community college and to the State Board of Community Colleges. These data permit the rational analysis of transfer issues and are beneficial to students and to educational and governmental decision-makers. This performance report provides the important assessment component necessary for evaluating and improving the transfer process. Articulation between the North Carolina Community College System and The University of North Carolina is a dynamic process. To ensure the currency of the Comprehensive Articulation Agreement (CAA), occasional modifications to the CAA may be necessary. These modifications may include the addition, deletion, and revision of courses on the transfer list, development and/or revision of pre- majors, and changes in course designation (i.e. additions to UGETC list or changing a course from general education to elective). The TAC will receive requests for modification only upon the recommendation of the chief academic officer of the NCCCS or UNC. Additions, deletions, and modifications may be subject to faculty review under the direction of the TAC. Because the modification process involves faculty and administrative review, this process may require up to 12 months for final action. Courses currently included on the approved transfer course list may be considered for inclusion as a Universal General Education Transfer Component (UGETC) course through the following procedures: 1. The Chief Academic Officer (CAO) of any subscribing institution submits a written request for a change in course status to the CAO of the respective system. The request should include the rationale for the revised status. 2. The system CAO then submits the request to the Director of Transfer Articulation at UNC General Administration. 3. The Director of Transfer Articulation will send the request to the Chief Academic Officers of the universities. If all the universities approve of the addition, the recommendation will be sent to the TAC and the CAOs of the two systems. 4. If all universities do not approve the request, the Director of Transfer Articulation may assemble a discipline team comprised of university and community college faculty to see if the course can be revised in a manner that will be acceptable for inclusion in the UGETC. If so, the revised course will be sent to the university CAOs for consideration.

  • Medication 1. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s physician shall prescribe and monitor adequate dosage levels for each Client. 2. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s physician shall not impose and/or limit dosage capitations for any prescribed medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

  • Study Population ‌ Infants who underwent creation of an enterostomy receiving postoperative care and awaiting enterostomy closure: to be assessed for eligibility: n = 201 to be assigned to the study: n = 106 to be analysed: n = 106 Duration of intervention per patient of the intervention group: 6 weeks between enterostomy creation and enterostomy closure Follow-up per patient: 3 months, 6 months and 12 months post enterostomy closure, following enterostomy closure (12-month follow-up only applicable for patients that are recruited early enough to complete this follow-up within the 48 month of overall study duration).