Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Authors
  • Keywords
  • Date
  • Type

Search results

Number of results: 6
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This paper studies the long-run relationship between consumption, labour income and asset wealth in Poland. Within cointegrated VAR model dynamic responses of the variables in the system to shocks are studied. In addition, series are decomposed into permanent and transitory components on the basis of the cointegrating relation found in the system.

Main conclusion of this paper is that deviations of the three variables from their estimated long-run relationship are better explained with uctuations of labour income than assets. A tentative explanation of this nding is presented. Additionally, the magnitude of the asset wealth eect in Poland is calculated and compared with other studies for European countries and for the U.S.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Magdalena Zachłod-Jelec
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Niniejszy artykuł jest próbą refleksji nad metodologicznymi wyzwaniami, jakie pojawiły się w czasie pandemii COVID-19 podczas realizacji jakościowej części projektu badawczego poświęconego feminizacji pandemii. W ramach badań prowadziłyśmy indywidualne wywiady online z kobietami pracującymi na uczelni wyższej. W niniejszym tekście bazując na doświadczeniach własnych z badania przeprowadzonego online oraz odwołując się do dyskusji w kręgu polskich badaczek i badaczy jakościowych aktualizujemy popularne mity z obszaru metodologii badań jakościowych dotyczące wywiadów zdalnych. Ponadto, w związku z tym, że zespół badawczy pracował tylko i wyłącznie w formie zdalnej, podejmujemy także refleksję nad wpływem pracy online na prowadzenie badań i naszą postawę badawczą.
Go to article

Bibliography

1. Andrejuk, Katarzyna. 2020. Online qualitative research in immigrant communities: Opportunities and challenges during the pandemic. Ask: Research and Methods, 29, 1: 55–73. DOI: 10.18061/ask.v29i1.0004.
2. Acker, Sandra. 2000. In/out/side: Positioning the researcher in feminist qualitative research. Resources for Feminist Research, 28, 1–2: 172–189.
3. Adams-Hutcheson, Gail, Robin Longhurst. 2017. ‘At least in person there would have been a cup of tea’: Interviewing via Skype. Area, 49, 2: 148–155. DOI: 10.1111/area.12306.
4. Archibald, Mandy M., Rachel C. Ambagtsheer, G. Casey Mavourneen, Michael Lawless. 2019. Using Zoom Videoconferencing for Qualitative Data Collection: Perceptions and Experiences of Researchers and Participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. DOI: 10.1177/1609406919874596.
5. Australian National University (2020) Guide to Fieldwork Strategies in Response to COVID-19. https://www.anu.edu.au/files/guidance/ANU%20Guide%20to%20Fieldwork%20Strategies%20in%20Response%20to%20COVID-19%2C%20v1.0.pdf. Dostęp 11.03.2023.
6. Bampton, Robert, Christopher Cowton, Yvonne Downs. 2013. The E-Interview in Qualitative Research. In: N. Sappleton, ed. Advancing Research Methods with New Technologies. Portland: International Science Reference, 329–343.
7. Barclay, Kate, Sonia Garcia. 2020. Adapting Research Methodologies in the COVID-19 Pandemic. https://earthlab.uw.edu/2020/07/adapting-research-methodologies-inthe-covid-19-pandemic/. Dostęp 11.03.2023.
8. Basch, Johannes M., Klaus G. Melchers, Anja Kurz, Maya Krieger, Linda Miller. 2021. It Takes More Than a Good Camera: Which Factors Contribute to Differences Between Face-to-Face Interviews and Videoconference Interviews Regarding Performance Ratings and Interviewee Perceptions?. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36: 921–940. DOI: 10.1007/s10869-020-09714-3.
9. Batorski, Dominik, Marta Olcoń-Kubicka. 2006. Prowadzenie badań przez Internet-podstawowe zagadnienia metodologiczne. Studia Socjologiczne, 3: 99–132. https://www.studiasocjologiczne.pl/img_upl/studia_socjologiczne_2006_nr3_s.99_132.pdf Dostęp: 10.02.2023.
10. Binder, Piotr. 2021. The Social Experiment of Remote Work Forced by the Pandemic from a Qualitative Research Perspective. Kultura i Społeczeństwo, 65(1): 65-86. DOI: 10.35757/KiS.2021.65.1.2.
11. Binder, Piotr. 2022. Praca zdalna w czasie pandemii i jej implikacje dla rodzin z dziećmi–badanie jakościowe. Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej, 18(1): 82-110. DOI: 10.18778/1733-8069.18.1.05.
12. Brown, Nicole. 2018. Video-Conference Interviews: Ethical and Methodological Concerns in the Context of Health Research. SAGE Research Methods Cases. DOI: 10.4135/9781526441812.
13. Bryman, Alan. 2012. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Day, Suzanne. 2012. A Reflexive Lens: Exploring Dilemmas of Qualitative Methodology through the Concept of Reflexivity. Qualitative Sociology Review, 8, 1: 60–85. DOI: 10.18778/1733-8077.8.1.04.
15. Deakin, Hannah, Kelly Wakefield. 2014. Skype interviewing: reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research,14, 5: 603–616. DOI: 10.1177/1468794113488126.
16. Dolińska, Anna, Kamil Łuczaj, Olga Kurek-Ochmańska. 2022. Metoda biograficzna w kontekście badań jakościowych realizowanych zdalnie – możliwości, ograniczenia i aspekty etyczne. Przegląd Socjologiczny, 71, 1: 61–84. DOI: 10.26485/PS/2022/71.1/3.
17. Dwyer, Sonia C., Jennifer L. Buckle. 2009. The Space Between: On Being an Insider-Outsider in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8, 1: 54–63. DOI: 10.1177/160940690900800105.
18. England, Kim. 1994. Getting Personal: Reflexivity, Positionality, and Feminist Research. The Professional Geographer, 46, 1: 80–89.
19. Elwood, Sarah A., Deborah G. Martin. 2000. “Placing” Interviews: Location and Scales of Power in Qualitative Research. The Professional Geographer, 52, 4: 649–657. DOI: 10.1111/0033-0124.00253.
20. Federacja Konsumentów. 2021. Wykluczenie cyfrowe podczas pandemii. Dostęp oraz korzystanie z internetu i komputera w wybranych grupach społecznych, http://www.federacja-konsumentow.org.pl/p,1689,dad1c,raport-fk-wykluczenie-cyfrowe.pdf. Dostęp 09.03.2023.
21. Finch, Janet. 1993. ‘It’s great to have someone to talk to’: Ethics and politics of interviewing women. Open University Press.
22. Goffman, Erving. 2000. Człowiek w teatrze życia codziennego. Przekład Helena Datner-Śpiewak, Paweł Śpiewak. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
23. Górak-Sosnowska, Katarzyna, Lidia Tomaszewska. 2022. Administracja uczelni w dobie pandemii. Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH.
24. Hałas, Elżbieta. 2016. Refleksyjny podmiot w świecie społecznym. O paradygmacie i założeniach socjologii interpretacyjnej. Roczniki Nauk Społecznych, 8, 44, 4: 35–50. DOI: 10.18290/rns.2016.44.4-2.
25. Haraway, Donna. 1988. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14: 575–599.
26. Harvey, Orlanda, Edwin van Teijlingen, Margarete Parrish. 2023. Using a Range of Communication Tools to Interview a Hard-to-Reach Population. Sociological Research Online, 1–12. DOI: 10.1177/13607804221142212.
27. Herzog, Hanna. 2012. Interview location and its social meaning. The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft, 207–218.
28. Hesse-Biber, Sharlene N., ed. 2014. Feminist Research Practice: A Primer. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
29. Hesse-Biber, Sharlene N. 2007. ‘The Practice of Feminist In-Depth Interviewing’. In: S.N. Hesse-Biber, P.L. Leavy, eds. Feminist Research Practice: A Primer. London: Sage, 111–148.
30. Howlett, Marnie. 2022. Looking at the ‘field’ through a Zoom lens: Methodological reflections on conducting online research during a global pandemic. Qualitative Research, 22, 3: 387–402. DOI: 10.1177/1468794120985691.
31. Irgil, Ezgi. 2021. Broadening the positionality in migration studies: Assigned insider category. Migration Studies, 993: 1215–1229. DOI: 10.1093/migration/mnaa016.
32. James, Nalita, Hugh Busher. 2006. Credibility, authenticity and voice: dilemmas in online interviewing. Qualitative Research, 6, 3: 403–420. DOI: 10.1177/1468794106065010.
33. Jemielniak, Dariusz. 2019. Socjologia Internetu. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
34. Jenner, Brandy M., Kit C. Myers. 2019. Intimacy, rapport, and exceptional disclosure: a comparison of in-person and mediated interview contexts. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22, 2: 165–177. DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2018.1512694.
35. Johnson, John M., Timothy Rowlands. 2012. The interpersonal dynamics of in-depth interviewing. In: J.F. Gubrium et al., eds. The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research. The Complexity of the Craft. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 99–114.
36. Kalinowska, Katarzyna, Beata Bielska, Sylwia Męcfal, Adrianna Surmiak. 2022. Czy badać? Co badać? Jak badać? Strategie badawcze w naukach społecznych i humanistycznych w pierwszej fali pandemii COVID-19. Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej, XVIII, 4: 34–59. DOI: 10.18778/1733-8069.18.4.02.
37. Keen, Sam, Martha Lomeli-Rodriguez, Helene Joffe. 2022. From Challenge to Opportunity: Virtual Qualitative Research During COVID-19 and Beyond. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21. DOI: 10.1177/16094069221105075.
38. Kim, Bryan, Bradley Brenner, Christopther Liang, Penelope Asay. 2003. A qualitative study of adaptation experiences of 1.5-generation Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 2: 156–170.
39. Kirk, Jerome, Mark L. Miller. 1986. Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
40. Krouwel, Matthew, Kate Jolly, Sheila Greenfield. 2019. Comparing Skype (video calling) and in-person qualitative interview modes in a study of people with irritable bowel syndrome – an exploratory comparative analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19, 219. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-019-0867-9.
41. Krueger, Richard. 1994. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
42. Kvale, Steainar. 2010. Prowadzenie wywiadów. Przekład Agata Dziuban. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
43. Letherby, Gayle. 2003. Feminist Research in Theory and Practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
44. Lewandowska, Izabela. 2004. Wywiad jako technika zdobywania informacji źródłowych w badaniu historii najnowszej. Echa Przeszłości, 5: 279–299. https://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media//files/Echa_Przeszlosci/Echa_Przeszlosci-r2004-t5/Echa_Przeszlosci-r2004-t5-s279-299/Echa_Przeszlosci-r2004-t5-s279-299.pdf. Dostęp: 11.03.2023.
45. Linabary, Jasmine R., Stephanie A. Hamel. 2017. Feminist online interviewing: engaging issues of power, resistance and reflexivity in practice. Feminist review, 115, 1: 97–113. DOI: 10.1057/s41305-017-0041-3.
46. Lo Iacono, Valeria, Paul Symonds, David H.K. Brown. 2016. Skype as a Tool for Qualitative Research Interviews. Sociological Research Online, 21, 2: 103–117. DOI: 10.5153/sro.3952.
47. Lobe, Bojana, David Morgan, Kim A. Hoffman. 2020. Qualitative data collection in an era of social distancing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19: 1–8.
48. Lupton, Deborah. 2021. Doing fieldwork in a pandemic (crowd-sourced document), revised version. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1clGjGABB2h2qbduTgfqribHmog9B6P0NvMgVuiHZCl8/edit. Dostęp 02.03.2023.
49. Mason-Bish, Hannah. 2019. The elite delusion: reflexivity, identity and positionality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 19, 3: 263–276. DOI: 10.1177/1468794118770078.
50. McMaster University. 2020. Guidelines for Fieldwork During the COVID-19 Pandemic. https://hr.mcmaster.ca/app/uploads/2020/05/Fieldwork-Research-GuidelinesCOVID-19-FINAL.pdf. Dostęp: 11.03.2023.
51. Naples, Nancy A. 1996. A feminist revisiting of the insider/outsider debate: The “outsider phenomenon” in rural Iowa. Qualitative sociology, 19: 83–106. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02393249.
52. Narodowe Centrum Nauki. 2020. Komunikat w sprawie realizacji projektów badawczych w czasie pandemii COVID-19. https://www.ncn.gov.pl/aktualnosci/2020-07-13-komunikat-w-sprawie-realizacji-projektow-badawczych-w-czasie-pandemiicovid-19. Dostęp 13.03.2023.
53. Nguyen, Minh Hao, Jonathan Gruber, Jaelle Fuchs, Will Marler, Amanda Hunsaker, Eszter Hargittai. 2020. Changes in Digital Communication During the COVID-19 Global Pandemic: Implications for Digital Inequality and Future Research. Social Media + Society, 1–6. DOI: 10.1177/2056305120948255.
54. Niżnik, Józef. 1972. Wokół formalno-strukturalnej koncepcji mitu. E. Cassirer i C. Lévi-Strauss. Człowiek i Światopogląd, 5: 113–115.
55. O’Connor, Henrietta, Claire Madge. 2017. Online Interviewing. In: N.G. Fielding, R.M. Lee, G. Blank, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 416–434.
56. Oakley, Anne. 2016. Interviewing Women Again: Power, Time and the Gift. Sociology, 50, 1: 195–213. DOI: 10.1177/0038038515580253.
57. Oakley, Anne. 1981. Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In: H. Roberts, ed. Doing Feminist Research. London: Routledge, 30–61.
58. Olser, Lucy, Dan Zahavi. 2022. Sociality and Embodiment: Online Communication During and After Covid-19. Found Sci. DOI: 10.1007/s10699-022-09861-1.
59. Pike, Kenneth L. 1954. Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. Summer Institute of Linguistics.
60. Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej. 2012. VIII(1). Socjologia Jakościowa – innowacyjne metody w badaniach jakościowych. http://www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/PL/Volume18/PSJ_8_1.pdf.
61. Ramazanoglu, Caroline, Janet Holland. 2002 . Feminist Methodology: Challenges and Choices. London: Sage Publications.
62. Reay, Diane. 1996. Dealing with Difficult Differences: Reflexivity and Social Class in Feminist Research. Feminism & Psychology, 6, 3: 443–456. DOI: 10.1177/0959353596063007.
63. Reinharz, Shulamit, Susan E. Chase. 2002. Interviewing women. In: F. Jaber Gubrium, J.A. Holstein, eds. Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 221–238.
64. Ricoeur, Paul. 1986. Symbolika zła. Przekład Maryna Ochab, Stansław Cichowicz. Warszawa: Aletheia.
65. Ricoeur, Paul. 1991. “Myth as the Bearer of Possible Worlds”. A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 482–490.
66. Rosenthal, Gabriele 2018. Interpretative Social Research. Göttingen: University Press.
67. Salmons, Janet. 2014. Qualitative online interviews. Thousand Oaks: Sage. DOI: 10.4135/9781071878880.
68. Seitz, Sally. 2016. Pixilated partnerships, overcoming obstacles in qualitative interviews via Skype: a research note. Qualitative Research, 16, 2: 229–235. DOI: 10.1177/1468794115577011.
69. Siuda, Piotr, red. 2016. Metody badań online. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Katedra.
70. Ślęzak, Izabela. 2021. Zło konieczne, substytut, szansa – wykorzystanie komunikatora Skype w badaniach jakościowych. Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej, 17, 4: 88–113. DOI: 10.18778/1733-8069.17.4.05.
71. Ślęzak, Izabela. 2019. Praca nad zaufaniem. Etyczne, praktyczne i metodologiczne wyzwania w relacjach badacz–badani na przykładzie etnografii agencji towarzyskich. Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej, 14, 1: 138–162. DOI: 10.18778/1733-8069.14.1.07.
72. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. Can the subaltern speak?. In: C. Nelson, L. Grossberg, eds. Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 271–313.
73. Stacey, Judith. 1991. Can there be a feminist ethnography? In: S.B. Gluck, D. Patai, eds. Women’s Words: The Feminist Practice of Oral History. London: Routledge, 111–120.
74. Thunberg, Sara, Linda Arnell. 2021. Pioneering the use of technologies in qualitative research – A research review of the use of digital interviews. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 25, 6: 757–768. DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2021.1935565.
75. Toldi, Nicole L. 2021. Job applicants favor video interviewing in the candidate-selection process. Employment Relations Today, 38: 19–27. DOI: 10.1002/ert.20351.
76. Tristram, Hoole, Hooley Marriott, Jane Wellens. 2012. “Introduction.” What is Online Research?: Using the Internet for Social Science Research. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 1–6. The ‚What is?’ Research Methods Series. Bloomsbury Collections. DOI: 10.1002/ert.20351.
77. Walentynowicz-Moryl, Katarzyna. 2017. Indywidualny wywiad online – technika asynchroniczna. Relacje. Studia z nauk społecznych, 3: 55–65. http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-512db671-6292-4d81-b375-4d400ee50b87.
78. Weller, Susie. 2015. The potentials and pitfalls of using Skype for qualitative (longitudinal) interviews. NCRM Working Paper, Southampton, England: National Centre for Research Methods. https://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/id/eprint/3757. Dostęp: 12.10.2022.
79. Wolf, Diane L. 1996. Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. Oxford: Westview Press.
80. Wyka, Anna. 1993. Badacz społeczny wobec doświadczenia. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Aneta Ostaszewska
1
ORCID: ORCID
Marta Pietrusińska
2
ORCID: ORCID

  1. WSNSiR, Uniwersytet Warszawski
  2. Wydział Pedagogiczny, Wydział Socjologii, Uniwersytet Warszawski
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The holdings of the Kórnik Library include a book of abstracts of lawsuits concerning the boundaries of estates in Greater Poland in the 15th–17th century, written in Latin. Its presumed author, the otherwise unknown Piotr Biernacki, had the ability to write in both the Latin and the Cyrillic alphabet. This article focuses on the reading and the palaeographic and linguistic analysis of several Latin sentences, one heading and more than 20 margin notes written in the Cyrillic alphabet. The Cyrillic handwriting found in the book is a Russian skoropis used in Ukrainian areas of Poland in the 17th century. When writing the Latin text with the Cyrillic alphabet, the author utilised the Polish language of the time in the reading of Latin. The cryptograms found in the book have a technical/informative nature and do not contribute any significant information to the text. In combination with the fact that the Cyrillic alphabet was not at all used in Greater Poland, the above suggests that the author was playing with the reader, who was thus forced to look for the meaning of the incomprehensible text.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Krzysztof Pietkiewicz
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Wydział Historii UAM, Poznań
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

In February 2022, Russian troops invaded Ukraine, continuing a war that lasted since 2014. This turn of events led to massive migration of Ukrainian refugees to Poland, during which the country received approx. 2 million new inhabitants. The rapid migrational process led to attitudinal changes in the host country's population. This article reviews survey studies conducted at the Center for Research on Prejudice at the University of Warsaw (cross-sectional and longitudinal) assessing the attitudes of Poles toward Ukrainians. According to our data, the attitudes of Poles toward Ukraine improved after the 2022 Russian invasion (compared to 2021), and our longitudinal studies confirmed that this change was relatively long-lasting – the attitudes did not deteriorate substantially. A study looking at attitudes toward war refugees from Ukraine and refugees from other countries found that Poles showed significantly higher acceptance of Ukrainian refugees than those from other countries, which could be largely attributed to greater contact with Ukrainians. Furthermore, Poles expressed relatively high acceptance of state support for healthcare and education of Ukrainian refugees, whereas the acceptance of direct financial support and housing was relatively lower.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Maria Babińska
1
Michał Bilewicz
1
Paulina Górska
1
Sabina Toruńczyk-Ruiz
1
Michał Wypych
1

  1. Wydział Psychologii, Uniwersytet Warszawski
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

During the geological prospecting works conducted in 2013 on Bangka Island (Indonesia), high monazite content was identified in the wastes produced during processing of cassiterite deposits. Monazite, among 250 known minerals containing REE , is one of the most important minerals as primary source of REE .The monazite content in this waste is up to 90.60%. The phase composition of the investigated tailing proves that the sources of minerals accompanying the placer sediments tin mineralization are granitoids. The tailing is composed of numerous ore minerals, including monazite, xenotime, zircon, cassiterite, malayaite, struverite, aeschynite-(Y), ilmenite, rutile, pseudorutile and anatase. Monazite grains belong to the group of cerium monazite. Its grains are characterized by high content of Ce2O3 27.12–33.50 w t.%, La2O3 up to 15.46 w t.%, Nd2O3 up to 12.87%. The total REE 2O3 + Y content ranges from 58.18 to 65.90 wt.%. Monazite grains observations (SEM -BSE) revealed the presence of porous zones filled with fine phases of minerals with U and Th content. The radiation intensity of 232Th is ATh = 340 ± 10 Bq and 238AU = 114 ± 2 Bq. High content of monazite and other REE minerals indicates that tailing is a very rich, potential source of REE s, although the presence of radioactive elements at the moment is a technological obstacle in their processing and use. The utilization of monazite bearing waste in the Indonesian Islands can be an important factor for development and economic activation of this region and an example of the good practice of circular economy rules.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Karol Zglinicki
ORCID: ORCID
Krzysztof Szamałek
ORCID: ORCID
Gustaw Konopka

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more