Levels of Analysis. The evaluation designs proposed for each research question may include analysis at the beneficiary, provider, and aggregate program level, as appropriate, and include population stratifications to the extent feasible, for further depth and to glean potential non-equivalent effects on different sub-groups. In its review of the draft evaluation plan, CMS reserves the right to request additional levels of analysis.
Levels of Analysis. Evaluation criteria and questions
Levels of Analysis. The level of analysis required will vary depending on the specific site and drainage system conditions. If required by Section 4-10, the applicants shall first submit a qualitative evaluation of the site. Upon review of the qualitative analysis, the City may request additional quantitative analyses as required to determine the required level of mitigation.
Levels of Analysis. Social, personal and practice The analysis carried out in this study is presented in the following three chapters by exploring each research question in turn. Accordingly, the way the data were coded for each question differed. In this section these differences are outlined in more detail. The research questions were designed to relate to different aspects, or levels, of the problem of non-participation in PES, following the work of Xxxxxxxx and others exploring the reproduction of advantage and disadvantage in practices of cultural participation (1993). As argued in Chapter 2, in order to explore non-participation in PES, different levels of analysis are required, which, in this case were identified as a focus on social contexts and social positions (the first research question), on personal views and experiences (the second research question) and on practice (the third research question). A breakdown of the thematic categories identified with each of these lenses can be found in Appendices 4 (social contexts and positions), 5 (personal views and experiences) and 6 (PES in practice). Across all three analytic foci the theoretical tools of Xxxxxxxx, described in Chapter 2 and augmented by intersectional research, were used. This was supplemented in the analysis of practice with a specific theoretical framework drawn from the work of Xxxx and Xxxxxxxx (2000). This museum practice based theory focuses on museum learning. It was used to explore the extent to which learning processes identified through research with existing museum visitors could be applied to participants in this study, and to explore issues of inaccessibility. Chapter 4 presents data concerned with the social contexts informing non-participation in PES, Chapter 5 presents data concerned with the personal views and experiences participants had related to non-participation in PES and Chapter 6 presents data regarding participants’ engagement with PES in practice.
