Skip to main content
Login | Suomeksi | På svenska | In English

Browsing by Subject "questionnaire survey"

Sort by: Order: Results:

  • Jalkinekorjauksen työturvallisuustekijät ja riskien tunnistaminen : Jalkinekorjaukseen liittyvien riskien tunnistaminen työtehtävissä ja -vaiheissa sekä työkoneiden, että työssä läsnäolevien tekijöiden arviointi suutareiden kokemana 
    Oranne, Panu (2022)
    The range of tasks in shoe repair is wide and there is little researched or published information on the subject. The purpose of the study is to respond to the lack of teaching and training material for occupational safety by identifying the risks associated with work tasks and phases according to the experience of the shoe repairers. The study also takes into account the machinery and functions related to the machinery used for work tasks and phases. In addition, the aim of the research is to identify the factors present at a shoe repairers’s work from the perspective of the safe execution of the work. Based on the research results, the sections that should be researched and addressed in the implementation of the teaching and training material to be compiled in the future will be identified. The study was conducted as a quantitative questionnaire survey in the spring of 2022. A web-based questionnaire was developed for the study and distributed to shoe repairers with the assistance of collaborators. A total of 47 respondents participated in the survey, most of whom had long work experience in the field. The research results were processed by quantitative methods using statistical analysis methods. The results of the study show that the shoe repairers didn`t experience more than moderate risks associated with work tasks and phases. The research results highlighted the risks of operations related to the machinery and machine-related functions. Based on the results, distinct work phases and machines or machine-related functions required for implementation were identified, which should be taken into account when developing material suitable for training. In addition, teaching and training materials should draw particular attention to the maintenance and operation of working equipment and machinery.
  • Species misidentification in ecological studies : incidence and importance from the ecologists’ point of view 
    Wang, Shengyu (2021)
    Natural scientists study a wide variety of species, but whether they have identified all studied samples correctly to species is rarely evaluated. Species misidentification in empirical research can cause significant losses of money, information, and time, and contribute to false results. Thus, I study the abundance of species misidentification and ecologists’ perceptions of such mistakes through a web survey targeting researchers from scientific institutes around the globe (including universities, research societies and museums) who completed their doctoral degree in any ecology-related field of science. I received 117 responses with either work or educational background from 30 countries. I found that species misidentification widely existed in respondents’ research: almost 70% of the respondents noticed species misidentification in their own research, while the estimated proportion of existing studies with species misidentification was 34% (95% CI: 28% - 40%). Although misidentification was mainly found during specimen collection, specimen handling and data analysis, misidentifications in reporting stages (writing, revision and after publishing) could persist until publication. Moreover, according to respondents, reviewers seldom comment about species identification methods or their accuracy, which may affect respondents’ (both leading and not leading a research team) low reporting frequency about the possibility of misidentification. Expert checking, training students, and DNA barcoding are the most prevalent approaches to ensure identification accuracy among respondents. My results imply that species misidentification might be widespread in existing ecological research. Although the problem of species misidentification is widely recognized, such an issue seldom be appropriately handled by respondents. To increase the accuracy of species identification and maintain academic integrity, I suggest that researchers need to focus more on the study species (e.g., sampling process, identification method, and accuracy) when writing and reviewing papers. Furthermore, I appeal for guidelines about reporting species identification methods and their accuracy in papers, as well as research on education about identification skills in universities, as these two topics may constrain the precision of species identification.

Yhteystiedot

HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO