Sociology vs Psychology
There’s been a common conception that sociology and psychology are one and the same. Unfortunately, this shouldn’t be the case. The reason for this confusion is probably because of the fact that both sciences include human beings in their studies, but only looking from differing perspectives.
First, psychology delves into understanding how the human mind works. It seeks to understand why a person behaves, acts, or thinks like he does. Sociology is different as it targets the society or groups of persons, as an entire nation for example. It deals with man’s social behavior and the functioning of organizations, institutions or societies. By doing so, sociology can look into population changes and the relative effect of certain events to a group of people. With this, you can see that psychology is of a smaller scale investigation compared to sociology that focuses on groups.
Psychology aims at helping an individual regain normal psychological functioning so that he or she can live independently in the community and establish healthy interpersonal relationships. Hence, the study deals with innate conflicts that exist within the individual. Sociology, however, focuses on giving support to a group of individuals like the family so that they can live through certain stages of crises.
Being concerned more about groups and how they can be affected by external factors, sociology may be helpful for some professions. It will not come as a surprise if someone who studies sociology also gets to study a little about crimes like crime statistics and patterns among certain groups of people, as this field is an important prerequisite to the field of criminology. For example, sociology may seek to understand where and what crimes are common to a specific demographic group.
Studying psychology gives you the edge of understanding an individual better. As such, this field is more linked to the practice of law since it helps lawyers detect signs, if a witness or an asset is lying. One even learns how to make others follow him or her through the art of persuasion.
1. Sociology is more on the group level like how a person behaves or acts within his society. Psychology is more on the individual level like how a person’s thinking affects his behavior.
2. Psychology is aimed at helping an individual regain his normal psychological functioning so he can live independently, while sociology is more on giving support to groups of people experiencing disruptive external factors.
3. Sociology is helpful for professions (like criminology) that involve the society at large, while psychology is beneficial to people (lawyers as such) who are dealing with individuals
Read more: Difference Between Sociology and Psychology Difference Between Sociology vs Psychology http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-sociology-and-psychology/#ixzz1NFryZkHQ
Sumber:
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-sociology-and-psychology/
Selasa, 24 Mei 2011
Antropologi vs sosiologi
Anthropology vs Sociology
The study of human beings can be the study of a lifetime. Trying to understand human behavior has been a task that has occupied some of the greatest thinkers of our race for thousands of years. Disciplined study of the human race has been taking place since the Renaissance. Today there are many fields and sub-fields of study. While humankind is the subject matter of all these fields the philosophical approach to study varies from discipline to discipline. It may not be apparent at first, but there are some differences between anthropology and sociology.
Definition of Anthropology and Sociology
•Anthropology ‘“ is a social science that is concerned with human culture as well as the physical and social characteristics that create that culture. Often it will compare one group of humans to another or even compare humans with animals.
•Sociology ‘“ is a social science that studies the functionality of human society including origins, development, and organization. It will also look at these attributes inside institutions and organizations.
History of Anthropology and Sociology
•Anthropology ‘“ human beings have been observing and recording the behavior of others since the dawn of civilization. Some credit Herodotus and Tacitus with being the first anthropologists. However, it wasn’t until the late eighteenth century that a codified study of other cultures began. Traditionally, anthropology has been about Westerners studying the culture of less technologically advanced peoples. In some instances the study of anthropology led to racist theories about the overall advancement of difference groups.
•Sociology ‘“ has also been practiced since the Greek period as a study of one’s surrounding society. However, it wasn’t until the late nineteenth century that sociology was recognized as an academic discipline and became part of university curriculum.
Focus of Anthropology and Sociology
•Anthropology ‘“ is interested in the overall culture of a group of people. This includes social institutions, art, history, mythology, and common mores, among other traits. Anthropologies now study societies all over the world, but look for overarching themes that are reinforced through case studies. It also includes archeology, and due to a great amount of substantive speculation is thought to be a softer science than sociology.
•Sociology ‘“ is a quantitative social science. Most theories are based on polls, statistical analysis, sampling, and large collections of life histories. Sociologists strive to be as impartial and scientific as possible as they gather data. The data analyzed by sociologists is often used by government officials and market researchers alike.
Summary:
1. Anthropology and sociology are both fields of social science that study the behavior of humans within their societies.
2. Traditionally anthropology dealt with the study of cultures different from one’s own, especially those less advanced while sociology was used to understand one’s own society.
3. Today anthropology tends to look at the big picture of human culture while sociology spends more time analyzing data from a specific study.
4. Anthropology is considered to be a softer science than sociology as it bases more of its conclusions on case studies than hard data.
Read more: Difference Between Anthropology and Sociology Difference Between Anthropology vs Sociology http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-anthropology-and-sociology/#ixzz1NFrRv2Ll
The study of human beings can be the study of a lifetime. Trying to understand human behavior has been a task that has occupied some of the greatest thinkers of our race for thousands of years. Disciplined study of the human race has been taking place since the Renaissance. Today there are many fields and sub-fields of study. While humankind is the subject matter of all these fields the philosophical approach to study varies from discipline to discipline. It may not be apparent at first, but there are some differences between anthropology and sociology.
Definition of Anthropology and Sociology
•Anthropology ‘“ is a social science that is concerned with human culture as well as the physical and social characteristics that create that culture. Often it will compare one group of humans to another or even compare humans with animals.
•Sociology ‘“ is a social science that studies the functionality of human society including origins, development, and organization. It will also look at these attributes inside institutions and organizations.
History of Anthropology and Sociology
•Anthropology ‘“ human beings have been observing and recording the behavior of others since the dawn of civilization. Some credit Herodotus and Tacitus with being the first anthropologists. However, it wasn’t until the late eighteenth century that a codified study of other cultures began. Traditionally, anthropology has been about Westerners studying the culture of less technologically advanced peoples. In some instances the study of anthropology led to racist theories about the overall advancement of difference groups.
•Sociology ‘“ has also been practiced since the Greek period as a study of one’s surrounding society. However, it wasn’t until the late nineteenth century that sociology was recognized as an academic discipline and became part of university curriculum.
Focus of Anthropology and Sociology
•Anthropology ‘“ is interested in the overall culture of a group of people. This includes social institutions, art, history, mythology, and common mores, among other traits. Anthropologies now study societies all over the world, but look for overarching themes that are reinforced through case studies. It also includes archeology, and due to a great amount of substantive speculation is thought to be a softer science than sociology.
•Sociology ‘“ is a quantitative social science. Most theories are based on polls, statistical analysis, sampling, and large collections of life histories. Sociologists strive to be as impartial and scientific as possible as they gather data. The data analyzed by sociologists is often used by government officials and market researchers alike.
Summary:
1. Anthropology and sociology are both fields of social science that study the behavior of humans within their societies.
2. Traditionally anthropology dealt with the study of cultures different from one’s own, especially those less advanced while sociology was used to understand one’s own society.
3. Today anthropology tends to look at the big picture of human culture while sociology spends more time analyzing data from a specific study.
4. Anthropology is considered to be a softer science than sociology as it bases more of its conclusions on case studies than hard data.
Read more: Difference Between Anthropology and Sociology Difference Between Anthropology vs Sociology http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-anthropology-and-sociology/#ixzz1NFrRv2Ll
Senin, 23 Mei 2011
Output vs outcomes vs impact
Outputs:
What the organisation generates directly through its activities on the short-term – the processes, goods and services that it produces.
For example: Workshops, training manuals, research and assessment reports, guidelines and action plans, strategies, and technical assistance packages, amongst others.
The organisation controls activities and outputs.
Outcomes:
Observable changes in boundary partners – individuals, groups, organisations, institutions – that potentially contribute to the long-term, sustainable improvement in people’s lives or the state of the environment envisioned in the mission of the organisation.
The organisation influences outcomes.
Impact:
Long-term, sustainable changes in the conditions of people and the state of the environment that structurally reduce poverty, improve human well-being and protect and conserve natural resources.
The organisation contributes indirectly to impact.
*****
What the organisation generates directly through its activities on the short-term – the processes, goods and services that it produces.
For example: Workshops, training manuals, research and assessment reports, guidelines and action plans, strategies, and technical assistance packages, amongst others.
The organisation controls activities and outputs.
Outcomes:
Observable changes in boundary partners – individuals, groups, organisations, institutions – that potentially contribute to the long-term, sustainable improvement in people’s lives or the state of the environment envisioned in the mission of the organisation.
The organisation influences outcomes.
Impact:
Long-term, sustainable changes in the conditions of people and the state of the environment that structurally reduce poverty, improve human well-being and protect and conserve natural resources.
The organisation contributes indirectly to impact.
*****
Outcome vs Output
Outcomes vs Outputs: Why it's important to understand the difference?
For the more pedantic among us, the difference between Outputs and Outcomes is significant and important. At Ad Esse, we spend much of our time helping clients to focus on the outcomes they are trying to achieve. We also help them to identify their business processes, which inevitably means clarifying both inputs and outputs.
If you think you know the difference, or just want to remind yourself about why it might be important, read on…
Let’s start with some definitions.
Processes deliver OUTPUTS. In other words, what pops out of the end of a process is an output.
As you can see, Outputs can usually be seen, felt, or moved about. If you can get your hands on it, it’s probably an output from some process. If you were running a Project, you’d probably call it a Deliverable.
Now, the important thing is, Outputs are only produced (or should only be produced) because there is a customer of the process who wants them. In our example processes above, the three customers are: the Line Manager who has a vacancy to fill, the person who wants a new mortgage and the person who wants the meal.
Customers usually have expectations about both the process and the output (how they get what they want, and what they actually get). That’s where Outcomes fit in.
An OUTCOME is a level of performance, or achievement. It may be associated with the process, or the output. Outcomes imply quantification of performance.
Our newly appointed people may be:
- too late for the line manager (Timeliness)
- capable, or incapable of performing their role (Competence vs. Requirements)
- too many, or too few (Quantity)
Our Mortgage Offer Letter may be:
- correct, or full of errors (Accuracy)
- easy to understand by the customer, or full of jargon ( Customer Perception of Clarity)
- what the customer wanted to see, or not (Customer Satisfaction)
Our Meal might be:
- too hot, or too cold (Temperature)
- too much to eat (Quantity)
- tasty, or disgusting (Customer Perception)
Because it’s about performance levels, you can’t get your hands on an Outcome! But, you can draw it on a graph.
You can express Outcomes, quantitatively, on a Line Graph, showing how performance changes, over time. And, if you’re really serious about continuous improvement, you’ll also be showing target performance levels and relevant benchmark comparators on your trend graphs.
Is it that simple?
At one level, it is that simple. Unfortunately, the relationship between processes, outputs and outcomes can be difficult to untangle. Often, there will be a many-to-one relationship between processes and any particular outcome.
Take Staff Satisfaction. A desired organisational objective might be to achieve an improved level of Staff Satisfaction (outcome). There is no single process that causes Staff Satisfaction. It is the result of multiple processes and their associated outputs. These processes would include staff development, appraisal, reward and recognition etc. So their is no single process that delivers an Output called a Satisfied Employee.
Another example. Many Local Authorities have the (very laudable) objective to develop a thriving local economy (Outcome). Again, there are many processes, with their outputs that impact on that outcome and the level of achievement. The processes might include those to attract inward investment, or providing start-up funds to entrepreneurs. A thriving local economy is an Outcome, not an Output. Incidentally, it may not be an easy to measure outcome once you get the economists and statisticians involved!
So What?
Why do you need to know the difference?
Well, if you are trying to improve your organisation’s performance, you need to be able to describe the Outcomes you want to achieve (or have to achieve if a Stakeholder such as the Government is driving you). You need to be able to express these quantitatively, so you can track progress over time. Then, you can decide which of your organisation’s processes will impact on each Outcome. At that point, you will know what the Outputs are, that also impact on the Outcome.
Say, one an organisation makes Widgets. And, one of their desired Outcomes is happy Customers (measured by their Customer Satisfaction Index). They also want to make a profit on the widgets that they sell. Three of their key processes are widget-making, widget-distribution and customer billing. In order to achieve the two Outcomes these processes must:
- produce widgets that are right first time (cost efficiency contributes to profitability)
- produce widgets that meet the customer’s specification (quality contributes to customer satisfaction)
- deliver widgets undamaged and on-time (both contribute to customer satisfaction)
- issue accurate invoices (contributes to customer satisfaction)
- collect cash from customers by the due date (contributes to profitability)
So, by starting with desired organisational outcomes, you can make clear linkages to key processes. For each of those processes, you can then decide what its contribution must be towards the organisational outcomes. Hey presto, high-level business objectives deployed down into real processes, operated by real people.
It works the other way round, too. For those organisations who know that they want to work on improving their processes; the question to ask is what are the Outcomes that the process is trying to achieve. Then, improve the performance of the process and its outputs accordingly.
Ian Seath
Director, Improvement Skills Consulting Ltd.
www.improvement-skills.co.uk
For the more pedantic among us, the difference between Outputs and Outcomes is significant and important. At Ad Esse, we spend much of our time helping clients to focus on the outcomes they are trying to achieve. We also help them to identify their business processes, which inevitably means clarifying both inputs and outputs.
If you think you know the difference, or just want to remind yourself about why it might be important, read on…
Let’s start with some definitions.
Processes deliver OUTPUTS. In other words, what pops out of the end of a process is an output.
As you can see, Outputs can usually be seen, felt, or moved about. If you can get your hands on it, it’s probably an output from some process. If you were running a Project, you’d probably call it a Deliverable.
Now, the important thing is, Outputs are only produced (or should only be produced) because there is a customer of the process who wants them. In our example processes above, the three customers are: the Line Manager who has a vacancy to fill, the person who wants a new mortgage and the person who wants the meal.
Customers usually have expectations about both the process and the output (how they get what they want, and what they actually get). That’s where Outcomes fit in.
An OUTCOME is a level of performance, or achievement. It may be associated with the process, or the output. Outcomes imply quantification of performance.
Our newly appointed people may be:
- too late for the line manager (Timeliness)
- capable, or incapable of performing their role (Competence vs. Requirements)
- too many, or too few (Quantity)
Our Mortgage Offer Letter may be:
- correct, or full of errors (Accuracy)
- easy to understand by the customer, or full of jargon ( Customer Perception of Clarity)
- what the customer wanted to see, or not (Customer Satisfaction)
Our Meal might be:
- too hot, or too cold (Temperature)
- too much to eat (Quantity)
- tasty, or disgusting (Customer Perception)
Because it’s about performance levels, you can’t get your hands on an Outcome! But, you can draw it on a graph.
You can express Outcomes, quantitatively, on a Line Graph, showing how performance changes, over time. And, if you’re really serious about continuous improvement, you’ll also be showing target performance levels and relevant benchmark comparators on your trend graphs.
Is it that simple?
At one level, it is that simple. Unfortunately, the relationship between processes, outputs and outcomes can be difficult to untangle. Often, there will be a many-to-one relationship between processes and any particular outcome.
Take Staff Satisfaction. A desired organisational objective might be to achieve an improved level of Staff Satisfaction (outcome). There is no single process that causes Staff Satisfaction. It is the result of multiple processes and their associated outputs. These processes would include staff development, appraisal, reward and recognition etc. So their is no single process that delivers an Output called a Satisfied Employee.
Another example. Many Local Authorities have the (very laudable) objective to develop a thriving local economy (Outcome). Again, there are many processes, with their outputs that impact on that outcome and the level of achievement. The processes might include those to attract inward investment, or providing start-up funds to entrepreneurs. A thriving local economy is an Outcome, not an Output. Incidentally, it may not be an easy to measure outcome once you get the economists and statisticians involved!
So What?
Why do you need to know the difference?
Well, if you are trying to improve your organisation’s performance, you need to be able to describe the Outcomes you want to achieve (or have to achieve if a Stakeholder such as the Government is driving you). You need to be able to express these quantitatively, so you can track progress over time. Then, you can decide which of your organisation’s processes will impact on each Outcome. At that point, you will know what the Outputs are, that also impact on the Outcome.
Say, one an organisation makes Widgets. And, one of their desired Outcomes is happy Customers (measured by their Customer Satisfaction Index). They also want to make a profit on the widgets that they sell. Three of their key processes are widget-making, widget-distribution and customer billing. In order to achieve the two Outcomes these processes must:
- produce widgets that are right first time (cost efficiency contributes to profitability)
- produce widgets that meet the customer’s specification (quality contributes to customer satisfaction)
- deliver widgets undamaged and on-time (both contribute to customer satisfaction)
- issue accurate invoices (contributes to customer satisfaction)
- collect cash from customers by the due date (contributes to profitability)
So, by starting with desired organisational outcomes, you can make clear linkages to key processes. For each of those processes, you can then decide what its contribution must be towards the organisational outcomes. Hey presto, high-level business objectives deployed down into real processes, operated by real people.
It works the other way round, too. For those organisations who know that they want to work on improving their processes; the question to ask is what are the Outcomes that the process is trying to achieve. Then, improve the performance of the process and its outputs accordingly.
Ian Seath
Director, Improvement Skills Consulting Ltd.
www.improvement-skills.co.uk
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)