  I am very lucky to have authored and guide theses for both fields. The thing that often caught many by surprised would be the depth for social science literature which more often are concise and denser when it comes to the overall structure when developing methodology for sampling and framework. Engineering scholars have the tendencies to emphasize on their methodology with latest approach trying to close certain gaps. Some will try to conduct test with more samples with simple random sampling method. This is exhausting and synthesizing such data is actually futile when it is too general. When engineering scholars have proper literature, their methodology can be designed accordingly and their sampling works can now be expanded and stratified. Stratified sampling will return effective sub-categories result, and less bias general summary and outcomes. Say Case study, vulnerability of structures exposed to seismic force. It is never about the amount of structures sampled. When we stratified our samples or specimens, it will be very effective. Which part of the literature that is important to stratified sampling? The best would be the evolution of reinforced concrete structure design code; pre CP110, CP110, BS 8110:1985, BS8110:1997 and Eurocode 2. Apart from that, highrise structure should not include those fits BS8103. Detailed stratification can be enhanced by testing sample using UBC 1994, UBC 1997, etc. until the use of Malaysia Annex for EN1998. Based on recommendations above, it would be great if engineering scholars take into account information that can be use for stratification rather than just techniques or approaches when conducting scholarly studies and research. Remember when i said GiGoLo. Garbage in, garbage out; laugh out-loud. |
 | |
|
|