The existing relationship between c and interview

the existing relationship between c and interview

What's the Difference Between Class & Prototypal Inheritance? . `C` breaks because it depends on the existing behavior, and `D` starts. The relation between researcher(s) and researched has been a . and were based on research material produced through in-depth interviews. Of interest from the researchers' points of view was the current experience of living with .. Goodwin D, Pope C, Mort M, Smith A. Ethics and ethnography: An. The major difference between C and C++ is that C is a procedural programming language and does not support classes and objects, while C++ is a combination .

Drafts of textual presentations were sent to the first author, who wrote a comprehensive preliminary paper that was circulated to the participants. Discussions during the fifth and the sixth group gatherings concerned revision and refinement of the text. The first and the last author had continuous discussions during the writing process.

The research projects—Differences and common ground The projects from which the meta-reflections about experiences were drawn were different with regard to aims, research tradition, and research design. However, as stated above, they were all located within the qualitative research tradition of the health sciences, and were epistemologically grounded in the humanistic or social science traditions, as can be seen in Table I. Two projects empirical example 1 and 2 were anchored in a phenomenological life-world perspective, and were based on research material produced through in-depth interviews.

Two studies produced data through focus group interviews empirical example 3 and 4research material substantially depending on the interaction within the groups.

Both projects aimed to gather knowledge about how to handle challenging cases and ethical dilemmas in professional practice, and they were both anchored in a hermeneutic tradition. In both studies, the researcher was the group moderator. The relationship between researcher and researched in these two studies can be characterized as asymmetrical, such that the asymmetry worked both ways: The researcher lived in a Tanzanian pastoral community for a period of more than 2 years, exploring maternal practices related to pregnancy, childbirth, and infant feeding.

The aim was to generate knowledge on the perceptions and practices related to the reproductive process in a community with substantial cultural emphasis on fertility but in a context of extreme marginality and a high prevalence of infant death.

Shifting between positions in this project is based on experiences with the participant observer role, a role located at the heart of ethnography. The last study empirical example 6 was a pedagogical project anchored in the context of health education.

A model of group-based communication training for medical students was developed with the help of simulated patients SP and theatrical devices.

the existing relationship between c and interview

Theoretical perspectives were grounded in pedagogy and in theatre science. How the students experienced the communication training and what they learnt was evaluated afterwards. The dual role as researcher and SP provides the starting point for reflections on researcher vulnerability from this project. Knowledge positions and researcher vulnerability—Shifts and ambivalence In the following, we will highlight and reflect on shifts related to knowing and not-knowing positions between the researcher and the researched that emerged during discussions.

These shifts were intertwined with the power of defining the relevant body of knowledge. In particular, we discuss transitions in terms of who appears to set the agenda or define the terms, and we discuss the vulnerability inherent in the researcher role during the co-production of research material. Distracted by illness stories A prime example of partly losing control of the research agenda from the in-depth interview studies empirical example 1 and 2 was related to an experience of being diverted by stories of illness.

The emotions were vital in this context and made it difficult to interrupt participants. The context of encounters with health care workers in the actual projects seemed vital.

Both researchers were experienced qualitative researchers. The researchers felt ambivalent because the lengthy illness stories occupied more time than had been initially planned. These stories moved the focus of the interviews beyond the research agenda, but the ambiguity about when and how to interrupt the interviewees was experienced as challenging.

The narrators in these cases talked about what they felt most strongly, including experiences more or less relevant to the study in question.

A need to get the illness story off one's chest, finally to be listened to, might indeed have been a factor motivating the patients to take part in the studies. If the researcher is also a health care worker, this knowledge can further fuel the fire of disclosure.

Genders, Rights and Freedom of Speech

In one of the projects referred to above, the women who participated did not know about the researcher's professional role as a physiotherapist. In the other, the participants did know that the researcher was also a nurse. The researchers considered it important to listen to the illness stories, first and foremost to show respect, but also to gain the trust of the participants, which is essential for a constructive qualitative research encounter.

Besides, illness stories might well bring about contextual insights of importance to the understanding of the phenomena to be explored, in our context to the understanding of living with chronic muscle pain or as long-term survivor after cancer. The balance at play between knowing and non-knowing positions illustrates several points of interest.

It is claimed, for instance by KvaleBrinkmann and Kvale that the empathic, caring, and empowering atmosphere of equality aimed at in qualitative interviews may conceal power differences and hence be ethically questionable. The researcher's dependence on the trust of participants to get their stories can indicate that the dialogue taking place is used as a strategic instrument that works as a cover for the exercise of research-related power.

As such, listening included a strategic element, which we surely acknowledge is a part of qualitative research interviews. According to phenomenological methodology, a genuine interest coupled with an attitude of openness and wonder that puts pre-understandings at risk, is essential in order to explore lived experience in any depth Dahlberg et al.

However, as we have seen in the cases above, genuine interest and attentive listening also risk paving the way for participants to reveal wells of sensitive information, as well as the risk of moving the interview away from the main research agenda. Difficult ethical choices had to be made during the interview situation.

The challenges experienced have some general relevance for the art of in-depth interviewing. The inherent researcher vulnerability in In-depth interviews A common theme in the in-depth interview studies relates to researcher as well as participant vulnerability. Hewittp. In the in-depth interview studies considered here, the researchers were involved in stories of great emotional intensity. In preparation for the interviews, raised awareness of the importance of not being intrusive was practised.

However, had we triggered reactions that could add to the women's burden in the long run? If self-disclosure meant re-opening wounds without the opportunity to work them through, it could potentially cause harm. On the other hand, sharing sensitive experiences might invoke relief, self-acknowledgement, and imply a possibility of looking at experiences anew Hutchinson et al. As stated by Hewittp. We fundamentally acknowledge this complexity, and find that enhanced ethical awareness on the part of the researcher is paramount.

Still, we will argue that there is an unsolvable dilemma implicit in in-depth interview studies, where aiming at rich descriptions is a key concern, often implying disclosure of sensitive topics, while at the same time ensuring that one does no harm to participants.

We agree with RagerLalor et al. We will add that stress, accompanied by feelings of guilt, is underestimated in qualitative research generally. The challenge of hierarchy and status in group interviews with professionals The participants in the group interviews empirical examples 3 and 4 were highly qualified health professionals, indicating expert knowledge within the research topics of interest, and holding a superior social role compared to the patients in the in-depth interview studies.

The researchers and the researched also possessed a shared body of knowledge by virtue of having similar or related professional roles. The very fact of using group interviews might, moreover, have increased this particular methodological challenge. The researchers and moderators of the group discussions did feel that the participants questioned their expertise in the field, which primarily emerged as resistance or lack of responsiveness to some of the questions introduced. Furthermore, a hierarchy based on the classical distinction between objective, fact-related knowledge in contrast to knowledge as subjective and experience-related surfaced in both focus group studies.

However, in the group discussions, the researchers and moderators found it challenging to get the participants to describe and reflect on real-life situations experienced in their own practice. Participants quickly turned to responding formally with generalized replies and fact-based knowledge such as health policy, legislation, and so forth. It should be acknowledged that the topics of discussion in these projects imply medical assessment of substantial complexity, and to present revealing clinical examples may not be easy.

Caution related to the disclosure of patient information may add to the challenge. Notwithstanding these points, the potential danger of being exposed and made vulnerable to peers is inherent in revealing subjective experience from one's own practice, a vulnerability that may be experienced as contradictory to the professional role as a doctor, a geneticist, or a genetic counsellor, and might have been important in our context.

Hesitation to reveal information to colleagues, not just researchers, concerning one's own ways of solving the challenges discussed may also have been a constraint in the group discussions.

In Coar and Sim's studyin which both interviewer and interviewed were professionals GPsseveral participants regarded the interview as a test of their professional knowledge. Other studies have also noted that participants and professionals believe that their interests and professional identities are threatened during research see e. The perceptions of the researcher and the researched of the research agenda might thus not always be in harmony. Group interviews may also be challenging for the researcher because of the inherent strengths of a group of individuals, who can directly oppose the researcher's agenda.

Neither the researcher in the sick-leave decision-making study empirical example 3 nor the researcher in the genetic counselling study empirical example 4 attempted to force the discussions in a preferred direction. Rather, the researchers repeatedly asked for concrete examples in order to gain knowledge beyond the formal, and made continuous attempts to hear participants dwell on the experienced intricacies of actual decision-making processes. We have indicated that the participants in both of the focus group discussion studies might have felt that their professional identities were being scrutinized.

One cannot be entirely sure that the researchers and the participants were in full agreement about what the research agenda actually implied, although the aims of the research were shared before the discussions.

Negotiations and resistance regarding the discussion of problematic clinical cases are, in the research literature, associated with a challenge of revelation.

In the focus group studies considered here, the symmetry as well as the asymmetry in the researched—researcher relationship represented a dimension of power that the researchers experienced as challenging and as somewhat unpredictable during the course of the research encounters. Being at the mercy of the study participants The next case reveals examples of researcher vulnerability experienced within a classical ethnographic study empirical example 5.

A classical metaphor for the ethnographic fieldworker is the child who is to be socialized into a particular culture or subculture. The agenda will be more or less transparent to the study participants, depending on how well a particular research topic can be made sensible in the research setting. An ethnographer's taking on the role of a child has its advantages, especially in the early phases of fieldwork. The attempts at gaining mutual trust and reaching a sense of or some degree of closeness to the informants lies at the heart of the ethnographic approach, and depends on considerable time being spent in the field.

One area that was perceived as a challenge was that of controlled exclusion: Dependent as the ethnographer is on guidance and possible translationthe potential for control of information passed on to the researcher is more or less limitless, potentially jeopardizing the researcher's project.

Despite the fact that the researcher in this project was invited to attend a vast number of relevant events and situations that could provide knowledge about pregnancy and birth-related perceptions and practices, she had, for months, an accompanying feeling of being guided away from core information, and even of being cheated.

Even in such a highly circumscribed culture … referring to his field sitepeople could experiment with styles of interaction and involve the visitor researcher in subtle, yet very revealingly subversive power games, games that inevitably shaped both what the ethnographer observed and how he interpreted what he saw. On the basis of subtle or overt shifts in power relations between the parties, the awareness of the co-construction of knowledge can become more or less acute.

Goodwin, Pope, Mort, and Smith write: The community being researched is not a passive component; it also has a bearing on what the researcher is included in and excluded from. The informants were also agents in the shaping of the data, the data-collecting opportunities, and the course of the fieldwork. The closeness will often, with time, generate an openness and permissiveness, which may imply seemingly endless learning opportunities.

However, the dependence on the close relationships with the informants simultaneously sheds light on the precariousness and vulnerability not only of the informants, who may have difficulties controlling the information ultimately generated from the research, but the vulnerability of ethnography as a research approach, as well as the vulnerability of the ethnographer in the process of learning. In the current study, the researcher gradually gained access to more domains, and later fieldwork revealed the immense impact of her own position for the knowledge gained.

She was provided with extensive access to the women's ritual reproductive sphere after being married, giving birth, breastfeeding etc. The gaining of closeness to the field is thus part of a process of becoming more knowledgeable about culture and context, the handling of language and codes, and of the continuous building of what is often experienced as true friendship.

This point pertains to all qualitative research endeavours, but is particularly pertinent in ethnography with its common demands for long-term interaction. In the study, we considered the experience of being gradually more at ease with the continued outsider role, the learning process made the researcher more of an insider.

In a similar vein, we have indicated that the role of researchers as interviewers in the in-depth interview studies and in the focus group discussion studies were not fixed during the course of the interviews. Shifts took place both in relation to definition of the relevant body of knowledge, and the particular position of the researcher in knowledge production. The vulnerability in designs with especially demanding inherent dual roles In the final example, we shed light on how researcher vulnerability seemed to be part and parcel of the dual role of the researcher.

In the pedagogical study empirical example 6the researcher simultaneously pursued the researcher role and the actor role, portraying a patient during communication training.

Two focus group interviews with medical students were conducted after the communication training. The character of the SP was a young woman.

C interview questions & Answers

She was shy, almost nonverbal, someone who gets very easily hurt and starts crying when challenged on personal matters. To portray this patient was demanding, and the actress had to use most of her proficiency and skills as an actor to create a credible character. This created an ambivalent situation; she felt emotionally drained after the performance, and found it difficult to shift from the role of the actress to the role of the researcher who moderated the group interviews.

Role confusion of both parties could contribute to an unsharpened reflection. As Malacrida statespp. It puts the researcher at risk of becoming emotionally drained Dunn, ; Lalor et al.

the existing relationship between c and interview

To take on the dual role as researcher and SP in the development of this particular pedagogical practice exacerbated the emotional challenge, and made it difficult to find a balance between insider—outsider positions Burns et al. Parallels to the vulnerability inherent in the participant observer role in the ethnographic study are present, particularly the feelings of being at the mercy of the participants.

The manner in which the researchers opened themselves to exposure placed them in a vulnerable position. In an ethnographic context, the researcher will commonly have a long-lasting relationship with the study participants, which implies opportunities to re-evaluate the course of events and modify ways of approaching demanding topics and situations.

This was not the case in the pedagogical project which enhanced the sense of overall vulnerability. Concluding remarks In this article, we have made an attempt to shed light on the researcher—researched relationship in different qualitatively anchored studies carried out within health science. Flyvbjerg, cited in Karnieli-Miller et al. In this article, we have anchored our analysis of shifts and ambivalence in the researcher—researched relationship by drawing upon concrete examples from our own research.

The four main qualitative approaches represented; the phenomenological in-depth interview studies, the focus group discussion studies, the ethnographic study, and the pedagogical study, held a common aim of diminishing the distance between the researcher and the researched, and creating an anti-authoritative researcher—researched relationship.

C++ Interview Questions - Tutorialspoint

The scenarios that emerged challenged the researchers partly to re-think the research agenda, but it also rendered them vulnerable to substantial emotional stress. The dual role as insider and outsider, participant and researcher, added to the challenge. The empirical examples in this article indicate that these are points of relevance for qualitative research projects, across designs and traditions.

In order to handle shifts in positions between research parties, shifts which are intertwined with ethical dilemmas, the practice of continuous reflexive awareness is paramount. The same holds true for the context of knowledge production; scrutinizing critically what can be at stake in the encounters between researcher and researched, and one's own role in knowledge production.

We argue that sharing and discussing these concerns in research teams and groups, where senior researchers as well as novices meet, should be regular practice. The value of reflexive self-awareness among researchers has been contested. However, along with Finleyp. What is a constructor? A constructor is the member function of the class which is having the same as the class name and gets executed automatically as soon as the object for the respective class is created. What is a default constructor?

Can we provide one for our class? A programmer provided constructor with no parameters is called as default constructor. No, we need to use free of C language for the same. What is a friend function? A function which is not a member of the class but still can access all the member of the class is called so.

What is a copy constructor? A copy constructor is the constructor which take same class object reference as the parameter. It gets automatically invoked as soon as the object is initialized with another object of the same class at the time of its creation.

If so what are the keywords involved in achieving the same. Explain the pointer — this. By default the members of struct are public and by default the members of the class are private. Can we implement all the concepts of OOPS using the keyword struct? A variable whose scope is applicable only within a block is said so.

What is the role of the file opening mode ios:: If the file already exists, its content will be truncated before opening the file. What is the scope resolution operator? The scope resolution operator is used to Resolve the scope of global variables. To associate function definition to a class if the function is defined outside the class. What is a namespace? A namespace is the logical division of the code which can be used to resolve the name conflict of the identifiers by placing them under different name space.

What are command line arguments? All the arguments sent are the strings only. What is a class template? A template class is a generic class. The keyword template can be used to define a class template. How can we catch all kind of exceptions in a single catch block?

C++ Interview Questions

By default every local variable of the function is automatic auto. What is a static variable? A static local variables retains its value between the function call and the default value is 0. The following function will print 1 2 3 if called thrice. What is the purpose of extern storage specifier. The starting address of the array is called as the base address of the array. When should we use the register storage specifier? If a variable is used most frequently then it should be declared using register storage specifier, then possibly the compiler gives CPU register for its storage to speed up the look up of the variable.

Can a program be compiled without main function? Yes, it can be but cannot be executed, as the execution requires main function definition. Where an automatic variable is stored? Every local variable by default being an auto variable is stored in stack memory What is a container class?

A class containing at least one member variable of another class type in it is called so. What is a token? What is a preprocessor? Preprocessor is a directive to the compiler to perform certain things before the actual compilation process begins. The arguments which we pass to the main function while executing the program are called as command line arguments. The parameters are always strings held in the second argument below in args of the function which is array of character pointers.

First argument represents the count of arguments below in count and updated automatically by operating system. Which to use when? We choose this if we do not want the actual parameters to be modified with formal parameters but just used. We choose this if we do want the actual parameters to be modified with formal parameters. What is reminder for 5. No, there is no such provision available. We can apply scope resolution operator:: What are valid operations on pointers?

Function calling itself is called as recursion. What is the first string in the argument vector w. What is the maximum length of an identifier? Ideally it is 32 characters and also implementation dependent. What is the default function call method? By default the functions are called by value.

What are available mode of inheritance to inherit one class from another? Delete[] is used to release the array allocated memory which was allocated using new[] and delete is used to release one chunk of memory which was allocated using new. Not necessarily, a class having at least one pure virtual function is abstract class too. Is it legal to assign a base class object to a derived class pointer? No, it will be error as the compiler fails to do conversion. What happens if an exception is thrown outside a try block?

The program shall quit abruptly. Are the exceptions and error same? No, exceptions can be handled whereas program cannot resolve errors. What is function overriding?

C Interview Questions and Answers |

Which function is used to move the stream pointer for the purpose of reading data from stream? No, only the class member variables determines the size of the respective class object. Can we create and empty class?