Adil Bilal - A keen researcher of Information Systems, trainer, consultant, and data analyst with over 15 years of experience, including academia, NGOs, public policy organizations and other groups working in the areas of Economic and Human Development. My work has facilitated organizations in building accurate and robust systems for monitoring and evaluation of trends in socio-economic, political and commercial spheres.
My vision to make the best use of my technical research expertise in logic development & data analysis in a research-based career; commitment to promote economic and social development through academia, industry, government, civil society, media, and natural environment collaboration; hence to acquire and apply advanced knowledge in a particular field, “ Research Commercialization & Industry Collaboration, Information Systems, Entrepreneurship, Management, Business Innovation, Organization Behavior, and Social Sciences Research.”
Based on my experience, you set the abstract heading at level 1, which caused this issue. Break the page and choose Start a new numbering from the first chapter.
Chapter 1 sy numbering theek aa rhi h phr chapter 3 sy phr sy numbering 0 sy start ho jati h phr chapter 4 sy phr 0 sy numbering aa rhi h mera prblm solve nh ho rha
Thanks a lot to Adil Sir. Explain soooo nicely. This must be known by every researcher. Unfortunately, no any guide or supervisor tell to his/her student.
Dear Dr. ,when we test the measurement model, are we considered to have done the first two steps according to the mediation method of baron and kenny? So is it appropriate to test the measurement model and move on to the direct mediation effect model?
I extend my apologies for the delay. It is recommended to exercise caution in proceeding hastily. The initial two steps are instrumental in ascertaining the presence of a mediation opportunity. Bypassing these preliminary measures may result in an unproductive outcome, leading to a potential squandering of time.
Sir, is it necessary that the number of ranks should be equal in both driving and dependence power? I am getting 7 ranks in driving and 5 ranks in dependence power.
I extend my apologies for the delay. In interpretative structural modeling (ISM), the number of levels or ranks in the driving power and dependence power need not be equal. However, it's important to understand the significance of the ranks in each category. In ISM, the driving power represents the elements that influence or drive other elements, while dependence power represents the elements that are influenced or dependent on other elements. The ranking process helps establish the hierarchical relationship between these elements. If you have seven ranks in driving power and five ranks in dependence power, it indicates that there are more levels of influence or driving forces identified in your model compared to levels of dependence. This is not inherently problematic, and it could reflect the nature of your system or the relationships among the elements. The key is to interpret the results in the context of your specific model and the relationships between the elements. It might be worth revisiting the model and the relationships between the elements to ensure that the rankings accurately represent the relationships among the elements in your system. If the rankings make sense in the context of your problem or domain, then having different numbers of ranks in driving and dependence power may be acceptable.
