Answer:
The correct answer to fill the blank space is cognitive.
Explanation:
Cognitive perspective means trying to understand and be more comprehensive to what is trying to learn or read. An understanding of knowledge.
From my POV D is the answer
Answer:
In-depth interviews, focus groups, and/or analysis of content sources as the source of its data
Explanation:
<u>Qualitative sociology:</u> The term "qualitative sociology" is determined as one of the different academic journals that deals with sociology. Qualitative sociology tends to publish different research papers based on the "qualitative interpretation" of different social life. Therefore, qualitative sociology mainly includes comparative analysis, photographic studies, ethnography, etc.
Answer:
No, because Linda did not intend for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Entity to see her email.
Explanation:
The act of gathering secret information about a competing government to provide one's own nation military or political advantage. It may include the study of diplomatic paper, documents, data, broadcast, etc. It may involve spying, a covert operation conducted by an individual operating under secret identity to gather sensitive information on behalf of another agency or country. Because Linda has no intention to reveal the information, she should not be charged with espionage.
Answer? 1) Yes, it is a bit ironic. If a company has an Ethics program that's comprehensive enough, executives should not have to be caught in business criminal activities.
2.) First let's talk about Ethics programs. These are basically programs that embody the business philosophies of a company such that every stakeholder understand how business is run in the company. It basically defines to employees, staff, investors, vendors and customers the rules of Business Ethics as defined by the firm, from the maximum amount of tips to collect from customers to how intimate employees get with clients so that there's no confusion. Now, all this is to clarify but the question here is how effective was the program if criminal activity was discovered? It's simple. The most comprehensive Ethics programs can't control human circumstantial behaviour. As clear as rules may be, they are always still broken. And this is because, with humans, there an infinite number of things to put into consideration, most of which won't always follow rules. One may be 100% compliant with said rules but find themselves weak to give in at some point for any possible reason the person deemed more important than upholding the companies ethics. In other words, these rules are held by the people it binds and the delivery will always be subjective. Whenever it is deemed unfavorable to uphold, it most likely will be dropped.
Therefore, it might have been the most effective and comprehensive Ethics program in the world but only as effective as the executives demmed it subjectively.
