1. Research Framework Development
Dr. Bakhtiar Ali SZABIST, Islamabad Campus
Week-5
SZABIST

2. Problem Definition
The indication of a specific decision area that will be clarified by answering some research questions.
SZABIST
SZABIST

3. Example: Theory and Research
The case of development
According to Michael Todaro (1994:18) development is both a physical reality and a state of mind in which society has, through some combination of social, economic, and institutional processes, secure the means for obtaining a better life, development in all societies must have a least the following three objectives:
To increase the availability and widen the distribution of basic life sustaining goods
To rise levels of living
To expand the range of economic and social choices
SZABIST

4. Example: Theory and Research
Quality of Public Institutions
Civil Liberties
GDP Per Capita
Theory
(Target)
Development
Income
Distribution
Theory
Theory
Theory
SZABIST

5. Stay Focused !
SZABIST

6. Use of Theory in Research
Creswell presents quantitative research as being more driven by theory (an entire section of a research proposal may be devoted to presenting the theory for the study.
By contrast, a qualitative study may conclude with the development of a theory. Qualitative studies research may also use theory as a lens that shapes what is looked at and the questions asked.
SZABIST

7. The Abstraction Ladder
Theory
Abstract Level
Propositions
Levels of
Abstraction
Concepts / Constructs
Observations of Objects,
Events and Occurrences (Reality)
Empirical Level
SZABIST

8. Defining Problem Results in Clear Cut Research Objectives
Symptom Detection
Analysis of
the Situation
Exploratory
Research
(Optional)
Problem Definition
Statement of
Research Objectives
SZABIST
SZABIST

9. Problems do not exist in nature but in the minds of people
This can be seen from an examination of the definition of problem: problems stem
from the juxtaposition of factors which results in a perplexing or enigmatic state of mind (a cognitive problem),
an undesirable consequence (a psychological or value problem),
or a conflict which obscures the appropriate course of action (a practical problem).
These three (Cognitions, Values and Practices) are attributes of persons, not the objective world
(Dan Cline, 2011)
SZABIST

10. Here comes in Research Frameworks and Models
Problems cannot be articulated except within a conceptual system.
No inquirer can investigate a problem from all perspectives simultaneously.
And that is what a logical structure or theoretical framework is all about.
It establishes a vantage point, a perspective, a set of lenses through which the researcher views the problem. 
(Dan Cline, 2011)
SZABIST

11. Enters Perspective Paradigms, Theory and Your own Epistemology
Choice of frameworks chosen by the researcher may lead to
new understandings or problem solutions . or
to inadequate inquiry or false conclusions
For example,
Decades of research on organizational management and behavior viewed organizations from the classic, rational model of hierarchical bureaucracy – X theory (perspective never led to adequate understandings, such as corporations and universities)
Recent researchers, working from the vantage point of alternative perspectives, using metaphors derived from long-term observation of life in universities and other organizations, developed Y theory 
(Dan Cline, 2011)
SZABIST

12. Your Position Your ontological Position Your Epistemological Position
Positivist
Interpretivisim
SZABIST

13. Three Types Frameworks
Philosophical Framework (Monti & Tingen, 1999)
Determines how reality is explained, the source of knowledge, and the perspective taken in research and practice.
Theoretical Framework (Alderson, 1998).
Influences how research questions are generated, studies are conducted, data are analysed, findings are understood, and results are used.
Conceptual Framework (Warelow, (1997).
Brings theory into practice by organizing themes to form models, and operationalizing findings of synthesis.
Enables experience, reflection and wisdom as praxis, allowing practice to drive theory.
SZABIST

14. The Difference - TWF
A theoretical framework is much broader. Our epistemology and ontology greatly shape the way our framework is perceived and how it is used within our research.
Patton’s remark (1990), “How you study the world determines what you learn about the world” (p. 67)
The theoretical framework dwells on time tested theories that embody the findings of numerous investigations on how phenomena occur.
The theoretical framework provides a general representation of relationships between things in a given phenomenon
SZABIST

15. The Difference - CFW
A conceptual framework is the researcher’s idea on how the research problem will have to be explored.
This is founded on the theoretical framework, which lies on a much broader scale of resolution.
The conceptual framework embodies the specific direction by which the research will have to be undertaken.
Statistically speaking, the conceptual framework describes the relationship between specific variables identified in the study.
The conceptual framework is also called the research paradigm.
SZABIST

16. Conceptual Framework Definition
Concise description (often accompanied by a graphic or visual depiction)
of the major variables
operating within the arena of the problem
to be pursued together with the researcher's overarching view
of how the variables interact
to produce a more powerful or comprehensive "model"
of relevant phenomena than has heretofore been available
for shedding light on the problem
(Dan Cline, 2011)
SZABIST

17. Devising a Conceptual framework
What are concepts?
General representations of the phenomena to be studied – ‘building blocks’
What is a conceptual framework?
Verbal and/or diagrammatic representation of the possible relationships between concepts
In academic contexts may be ‘theoretical framework’ or a ‘model’
SZABIST
SZABIST

18. The process of devising a conceptual framework
SZABIST
SZABIST

19. Conceptualization and Concepts
Conceptualization is a process of defining the agreed meaning of the terms used in a study.
Indicators are identified to mark the presence or absence of a concept.
Some concepts have more than one aspect or facet, called dimensions.
The interchangeability of indicators means that if several indicators represent the same concept, they should behave in the same way as the concept.
SZABIST
SZABIST

20. From Conceptualization to Operationalization
From conceptualization the researcher creates a nominal definition to identify the focus of the study.
An operational definition is created to defined the procedures or steps used in measuring a concept.
An operational definition must be specific (mutually exclusive) and unambiguous
Operational decisions are made based on the purposes of the study..
SZABIST
SZABIST

21. From Concepts to Variable
From Concepts to Variable
SZABIST
SZABIST

22. From Concepts to Variable
SZABIST
SZABIST

23. Concept Mapping
SZABIST
SZABIST

24. Variables
A variable is anything that can take on differing or varying values. The values can differ at various times for the same object or person or at the same time for different objects or persons.
Dependent Variable:
The variable of primary interest.
Independent Variable
A variable that influences the Dependent variable (+/-)
The variance in the DV is accounted for by the IV
Moderating Variable
That has strong contingent effect on the IV-DV relationship.. MV can modify this relationship of IV-DV
Intervening/Mediating Variable
That surfaces the time the IV start operating to influence the DV and the time their impact is felt on.
SZABIST
SZABIST

25. Schematic Diagrams Illustrating Moderation & Intervening Variables
SZABIST
SZABIST

26. Example of Moderated Effect
SZABIST
SZABIST

27. Example of Mediated Effect
SZABIST
SZABIST

28. Moderating & Mediating Variables
SZABIST
SZABIST

29. Research Framework
SZABIST

30. Conceptual Framework with Intervening Variable
SZABIST
SZABIST

31. Conceptual Framework with Moderating Variable
SZABIST

32. Proposition and Hypothesis
A proposition is a statement concerned with the relationship between concepts. It asserts a universal connection and logical linkage between concepts. Propositions are at a higher level of abstraction than concepts
Example: Smoking is injurious to health
Hypotheses are propositions which are empirically testable. They are usually concerned with the relationships between variables
Example: Increasing salary by 10% will double the production
SZABIST
SZABIST

33. Hypotheses Development
After Literature Review, Theoretical Framework (logical relationship between variables)
A Logically conjectured relationship between two or more variables expressed in the form of testable statement
This relationships are conjectured on the basis of the network of associations established in the TF formulated for the research study
Several Testable statement or hypotheses can be drawn from TF
SZABIST

34. Statement of Hypotheses Formats
IF-Then Statement
Employees who are more healthy will take sick leave less frequently
IF employees are more healthy, Then they will take sick leave less frequently
Directional Hypotheses
The greater the stress experienced in the job, the lower the job satisfaction of employees
Satisfied workers are more motivated than un-satisfied
Non-Directional Hypotheses
There is a relationship between age and job satisfaction
There is difference between the work ethic values of American and Asian employees
SZABIST

35. Statement of Hypotheses Formats
Null and Alternate Hypotheses
Null: A proposition which states a definitive, exact relationship between two variables
Statement is expressed as NO (significant) relationship between two variables NO (significant) difference between two group.
WE state that there is no difference between what we might find in the population characteristics and sample we are studying
H0: There is no relationship between stress experienced on the job and the job satisfaction of employee
Alternate: The opposite of Null hypotheses, is statement expressing a relationship between two variables or indicating differences between groups
SZABIST

36. Operationalization of Variable for Instrument Development

37. Dimensions (D) and Elements (E) of the Concept (C) ‘Achievement Motivation’
SZABIST

38. Examples of Questions to Tap the level of ‘Achievement Motivation’
To what extent would you say you push yourself to get the job done on time?
How frequently do you think of your work when you are at home?
How much do you concentrate on achieving your goals?
How annoyed do you get when you make mistakes?
SZABIST

39. Common Mistakes with Operational Definitions
Excluding some of the important dimensions and elements
Arising from failure to recognise or conceptualise them
Including certain irrelevant features mistakenly thought to be relevant.
SZABIST

40. Dimensions (D) and Elements (E) of the Concept (C) ‘Learning’
SZABIST

41. The Remainng Topics:
Methdology
Analysis
In Next Class
SZABIST