<span>Why do reviewers research the original purpose and historical background of a work? Reviewers research the original purpose and historical background of work to better understand why things have happened. Without knowing background information, it is hard to make a clear decision or conclusion from findings. Most reviewers and researchers do extensive research before reviewing a product, artifact and much more. </span>
Ethnography is the most common form of qualitative <span>research, which relies on what is seen in the field and in naturalistic settings more than it does on statistical data. In qualitative research, the researcher would give more focus on what is really seen on the seen based on his observations. He does not necessarily rely on the statistics of the occurrence of that certain event though it may be vital for some part.</span>
1751 i jus posted it on your other one you posted
Answer:
True
Explanation:
Dominican philosopher Thomas Aquinas was a teacher at the University of Paris.
Thomas Aquinas was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, Catholic priest, and Doctor of the Church. He studied at the university of Paris and was known as an influential philosopher, theologian, and jurist in the tradition of scholasticism. He was ordained in Cologne Germany in 1250 after which he became a teacher at the university of Paris. He is the the father of the Thomistic school of theology.
Barbour and Wright maintain that when the Supreme Court issues a ruling on the constitutionality of a particular bureaucratic regulation, they are "piecemeal".
<u>Explanation:</u>
It is a piecemeal approach accompanied by unsystematic, partial actions taken over periods. A piecemeal judgment is a document provided by an external auditor expressing a view confined to particular line elements within the financial statements of a corporation. In a situation where complete information is not accessible, an auditor can offer a piecemeal opinion.
For an instance, the defendants pursued a piecemeal investigation strategy in the patent infringement case, examining only the records of selected corporate employees. The district court stated that the method was contradictory to the Federal regulations of Civil Procedure and repeated court orders.
