In order to gain a better understanding and explanation of the issue of RESEARCH, the quantitative and qualitative data can be mixed. Mixed RESEARCH strategy is based on mixing these two groups of data. In this article, after reviewing the philosophical basis of mixed RESEARCH, and quantitative and qualitative strategies, three mixed RESEARCH PROPOSALs: pluralism, explanatory, and discovery are proposed and the main steps in performing mixed RESEARCH are explicitly provided.

Climate virtue ethics points to the subjective/personal dimensions of climate ethics, which have been largely neglected by previous RESEARCH. There is a lot of RESEARCH from diverse fields that pertains to the cultural and the individual dimensions that come along with climate virtue ethics, but, as of yet, these dimensions have hardly been examined together. Future RESEARCH on climate virtue ethics should draw from religions, as religious traditions contain “ thick” ideas that may inspire our thinking about how we can envision a life of personal moral integrity and what sustainable life styles may look like in the future. In order to unearth the potentials (Habermas) of these “ thick” ideas that are contained in religions, we need to perform close readings of our traditions and ask those traditions which visions of human life they may offer in light of current moral challenges. Future climate virtue ethics is an endeavour that asks for the cooperation of theological ethics, comparative theology, moral psychology/behavioural business ethics, environmental psychology, social theory, and so forth.

Background & Objectives: RESEARCH has always been considered as a powerful tool in creating change and development and like any other process it demands careful planning, providing facilities and special resources. Investigating RESEARCH trends can pave the way for systematic thinking in this regard. This study was conducted to examine trends in RESEARCH methodology in order to promote the RESEARCH quality in Ardabil University of Medical Sciences.Methods: In this cross-sectional descriptive study, data regarding RESEARCH methodology and its administration was evaluated by a questionnaire during six years from 1997 to 2003. The data regarding the author of the RESEARCH were collected through the interview. These data were then analyzed by SPSS software (release 12) using descriptive statistics. Results: Between 1997 and 2003, 196 RESEARCH PROPOSALs were approved. The number of RESEARCH designs increased from 3 to 45 during this period. Most of these studies (58.2%) had cross-sectional design. The experimental RESEARCHes came second with 43 cases (21.9%). During this period the number of trials and analytic studies increased, but descriptive studies were still in the highest rank. Only 32% of the PROPOSALs were completed properly and in most of the cases they were not completed in the proper way and some subsections of the forms such as design, variable table, methods of data analysis, data collection procedures and administration problems were incomplete or missing in most of the designs. These problems were more evident before the establishment of RESEARCH consultation office in 2001. 75% of the RESEARCHers had attended RESEARCH workshop before conducting any RESEARCH.Conclusion: The findings indicated a remarkable increase in the number of RESEARCHes compared to the preceding years. Moreover, they have been more analytically-oriented. However, descriptive RESEARCHes are in the top rank. Some necessary measures have to be taken in order to improve the present condition.

This study plans a framework for public policy PROPOSAL. Target Population of this survey includes policy RESEARCH experts, who work in policy RESEARCH institutions (Secretariat of the Expediency Council, Parliamentary Commissions and ministries). Survey sampling has been selected through convenience sampling (Snowball Sampling). In order to answer these questions, what are the main elements for the appropriate public policy PROPOSALs? And which of them are more important? The paper is followed: after data gathering, some of the elements are identified and then the initial interview with sixteen experts were conducted. Other elements were extracted by using theme analysis. Finally, 21 cases were used of a total of elements were extracted and interviews, as the main elements of policy that these elements were given to thirty experts to confirm and determine the importance. Finally after the analysis of data, elements; purpose, problem identification and the executive essentials were identified as the most important elements of the proposed policy.

Introduction: Due to the variety of health fields and the limited resources available, it is inevitable to prioritize RESEARCH in all these areas and meet all the RESEARCH needs of society. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the conformity of the plans with the RESEARCH priorities of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, data of approved PROPOSALs by vice chancellor of RESEARCH at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences during 2006 to 2016, and in the contract, ongoing or finished phases were extracted. The university RESEARCH priorities code was extracted and the degree of compliance with the RESEARCH topic was assessed. Results: The RESEARCH projects were increased more than four times from 2006 to 2016. The self-reported RESEARCH priority for 7433 projects was stated by the lead RESEARCHer according to which 44. 8% of the projects (3332) were in accordance with the RESEARCH priorities. On the other hand, compliance with RESEARCH priorities for 3889 projects was not announced. After reviewing and matching with RESEARCH priorities, it was found that out of 11322 projects, 47. 5% were in line with RESEARCH priorities. Both rates had a declining trend. Compliance status of the projects with university RESEARCH priorities was significantly different in terms of main provider unit, thesis, and academic rank. Conclusion: About half of the projects corresponded to the RESEARCH priority and its’,trend was decreasing in the study period.

Background: Human behavior is influenced by what we know or believe. In RESEARCH projects, when the RESEARCHer expected a particular finding then explaining the results would be biased. Thus, blinding is a fundamental aspect of all RESEARCH projects. Materials and methods: A retrospective descriptive study was performed. During a 4-year period (2001- 2004) all approved RESEARCH projects in deputy of RESEARCH affaires of Kerman University of Medical Sciences that had been referred to pathology laboratories were evaluated. The mechanism used for blinding is questioned by interview with RESEARCHers or reviewing the PROPOSALs.Results: Only 31% of RESEARCH PROPOSALs had observed blinding policies correctly. Mistakes occurred most often in blinding process were as follow: single pathologist who was aware of RESEARCH design, inappropriate group labeling by alphabetic abbreviations rather than case labeling by randomized numbers, remaining of interventions such as orthopedic devices in the test group, step by step remittance of specimens to pathology laboratory in multiphase studies, etc.Conclusion: Our results revealed that the pathologist should be blinded to group assignment. The blinding process and evaluating techniques should be supervised by statisticians and the monitoring committee (RESEARCH center).