Lesson No 4 - Theoretical Framework &amp Hypothesis Development

THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
&
HYPOTHESIS
DEVELOPMENT
1
THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK
OBSERVATION
(IDENTIFICATION
(BROAD AREA OF
OFRESEARCH
BROAD AREA
OFINTEREST
RESEARCH
IDENTIFIED)
INTEREST)
FORMULATION DATA
OF THEORATICAL COLLECTION,
GENERATION SCIENTIFIC
PROBLEM FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS
OF RESEARCH
DEFINITION &
HYPOTHESIS DESIGN
IDENTIFICATION INTERPRET-
OF VARIABLES ATION
PRELIMINARY
DATA GATHERING DEDUCTIONS:
(INTERVIEWS, HYPOTHESIS
LITERATURE SUBSTANTIATED?
SURVEY) NO
RESEARCH QUESTION
ANSWERED?
MANAGERIAL
YES REPORT REPORT
DECISION
WRITING PRESENTATION
MAKING 2
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK & HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
ASPECTS TO BE COVERED
 NEED FOR A THEORATICAL
FRAMEWORK
 TYPES OF VARIABLES
 THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK & ITS
FIVE BASIC FEATURES
 HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS 3
WHAT IS THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ?
A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK IS A
CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF HOW ONE
THEORIZES OR MAKES LOGICAL
SENSE OF THE RELATIONSHIPS
AMONG SEVERAL FACTORS THAT
HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS
IMPORTANT TO THE PROBLEM
4
NEED FOR A THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK

 ENTIRE RESEARCH RESTS ON THE BASIS OF THE THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
 INTEGRATES ONE’S LOGICAL BELIEFS WITH PUBLISHED
RESEARCH TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE BOUNDARIES AND
CONSTRAINTS GOVERNING THE SITUATION
 DISCUSSES INTER-RELATIONSHIP AMONG THE VARIABLES THAT
ARE DEEMED TO BE INTEGRAL TO THE DYNAMICS OF THE
SITUATION BEING INVESTIGATED
 HELPS POSTULATE OR HYPOTHESIZE AND TEST CERTAIN
RELATIONSHIPS AND IMPROVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE
DYNAMICS OF A SITUATION
 LEADS TO EVOLUTION OF TESTABLE HYPOTHESES TO EXAMINE
WHETHER THE THEORY THAT HAS BEEN FORMULATED IS VALID
OR NOT
 LEADS TO TESTING OF HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH
APPROPRIATE STATISTICAL ANALYSES 5
VARIABLE
A VARIABLE IS ANYTHING (ie ANY FACTOR)
THAT CAN TAKE ON DIFFERING OR
VARYING VALUES. THESE VALUES CAN
DIFFER AT VARIOUS TIMES FOR THE SAME
OBJECT OR PERSON OR AT THE SAME
TIME FOR DIFFERENT OBJECTS AND
PERSONS
(Examples: Production Units, Absenteeism,
Motivation, etc) 6
TYPES OF VARIABLES
 DEPENDENT VARIABLE (CRITERION VARIABLE)
 INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (PREDICTOR
VARIABLE)
 MODERATING VARIABLE
 INTERVENING VARIABLE
 Others:
 EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES
 DICHOTOMOUS VARIABLES
 DISCRETE VARIABLES
7
TYPES OF VARIABLES
 DEPENDENT VARIABLE (CRITERION VARIABLE)
 A VARIABLE OF PRIMARY INTEREST TO THE
RESEARCHER
 RESEARCHER AIMS TO UNDERSTAND AND DESCRIBE
THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE OR TO EXPLAIN ITS
VARIABILITY OR PREDICT IT
 IS THE MAIN VARIABLE THAT IS BEING INVESTIGATED
AS A VARIABLE FACTOR
 IS QUANTIFIABLE AND MEASURABLE AS ARE THE
VARIABLES THAT INFLUENCE IT
8
TYPES OF VARIABLES
 EXAMPLES OF DEPENDENT VARIABLE
 IN THE SALE OF A NEW PRODUCT, THE
DEPENDENT VARIABLE WILL BE THE VOLUME
OF SALE
 IN INVESTIGATION OF THE “DEBT TO EQUITY
RATIO OF MANUFACTURING COMPANIES”,
THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE IS THE RATIO
BETWEEN THE TWO
9
TYPES OF VARIABLES
 INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (PREDICTOR VARIABLE)
 A VARIABLE THAT INFLUENCES THE DEPENDENT
VARIABLE IN EITHER A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE
MANNER
 WHEREVER AN INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IS

PRESENT, THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE IS ALSO
PRESENT
 WITH EACH UNIT CHANGE IN VALUE OF

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE, THERE IS A
PROPORTIONATE INCREASE OR DECREASE IN THE
10
VALUE OF THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
TYPES OF VARIABLES
 EXAMPLE OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLE - 1
 IN THE RELATIONSHIP OF STOCK MARKET PRICE
TO SUCCESS OF A PRODUCT, THE VARIABLES
ARE:
 SUCCESS OF PRODUCT: INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
 STOCK MARKET PRICE: DEPENDENT VARIABLE
STOCK MARKET
SUCCESS OF
PRICE OF
NEW PRODUCT
COMPANY
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
11
TYPES OF VARIABLES
 EXAMPLE OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLE - 2
 IF GOOD SUPERVISION & TRAINING INCREASE
PRODUCTION LEVEL OF WORKERS, THEN:
 GOOD SUPERVISION & TRAINING: INDEPENDENT
VARIABLE
 PRODUCTION LEVEL OF WORKERS: DEPENDENT
VARIABLE
GOOD SUPERVISION PRODUCTION

& TRAINING LEVEL
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE 12

TYPES OF VARIABLES
 MODERATING VARIABLE
A VARIABLE FACTOR WHICH HAS
STRONG CONTINGENT EFFECT ON THE
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE – DEPENDENT
VARIABLE RELATIONSHIP
ie IT MODIFIES THE ORIGINAL
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO
13
TYPES OF VARIABLES
 EXAMPLE OF MODERATING VARIABLE – 1
INTER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AVAILABILITY OF
REFERENCE MANUALS & SUCCESS OF TRAINING
AVAILABILITY
SUCCESS OF
OF REFERENCE
MANUALS TRAINING
IV DV
WITH THE ADDITION OF FACTOR OF “OPPORTUNITY OF
PRACTICAL WORK” THE RELATIONSHIP MODIFIES TO:
AVAILABILITY
SUCCESS OF
OF REFERENCE
MANUALS TRAINING
IV DV
PRACTICAL WORK 14
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK & HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT #
OF REJECTS
TYPES OF VARIABLES
 EXAMPLE OF MODERATING VARIABLE – 2
INTER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER TRAINING &
STUDENT ASSIMILATION
TEACHER STUDENT
TRAINING ASSIMILATION
IV DV
WITH THE ADDITION OF FACTOR OF “AVAILABILITY OF
TRAINING AIDS” THE RELATIONSHIP MODIFIES TO:
TEACHER STUDENT
TRAINING ASSIMILATION
IV DV
AVAILABILITY 15
OF AIDS
OF REJECTS
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INDEPENDENT
VARIABLE & MODERATING VARIABLE
SITUATION 1: WILLINGNESS TO LEARN NEW WAYS IS GREATER WITH
BETTER QUALITY OF TRAINING PROGRAMS & GREATER GROWTH
NEEDS OF EMPLOYEES
SITUATION 2: WILLINGNESS TO LEARN NEW WAYS IS NOT
INFLUENCED BY QUALITY OF TRAINING PROGRAMS OFFERED TO
ALL PEOPLE WITHOUT DISTINCTION BUT ONLY TO THOSE WHO
HAVE HIGH GROWTH NEEDS (WHO DISPLAY A DESIRE TO DO NEW
THINGS THROUGH SPECIALIZATION)
VARIABLES (IN BOTH SITUATIONS):
 EMPLOYEES’ WILLINGNESS TO LEARN : DV
 TRAINING PROGRAMS : IV
 STRENGTH OF GROWTH NEED : IV
16
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
& MODERATING VARIABLE
SITUATION 2: WILLINGNESS TO LEARN NEW WAYS IS NOT INFLUENCED BY QUALITY OF
TRAINING PROGRAMS OFFERED TO ALL PEOPLE WITHOUT DISTINCTION BUT ONLY TO
THOSE WHO HAVE HIGH GROWTH NEEDS (WHO DISPLAY A DESIRE TO DO NEW
THINGS THROUGH SPECIALIZATION)
VARIABLES IN SITUATION 2:
 EMPLOYEES’ WILLINGNESS TO LEARN: DV (SAME)
 QUALITY OF TRAINING PROGRAM: IV (SAME)
 STRENGTH OF GROWTH NEED: MODERATING VARIABLE
 CONCLUSION: ONLY THOSE WITH HIGH GROWTH NEEDS
SHOW A GREATER WILLINGNESS AND ADAPTABILITY TO LEARN
TO DO NEW THINGS WHEN THE QUALITY OF TRAINING
PROGRAM IS IMPROVED
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IV AND DV HAS NOW BECOME
CONTINGENT ON A MODERATING VARIABLE 17
WITH NO MODERATING VARIABLE OPERATING WITH MODERATING VARIABLE OPERATING
EFFECTS FOR THOSE

IN HIGH GROWTH NEEDS
WILLINGNESS TO LEARN
WILLINGNESS TO LEARN EFFECTS FOR THOSE

IN LOW GROWTH NEEDS
TRAINING PROGRAM GROWTH NEEDS TRAINING PROGRAM GROWTH NEEDS
18
OF REJECTS
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INDEPENDENT
VARIABLE & MODERATING
VARIABLE
DECISION TO LABEL A VARIABLE AS
DEPENDENT, INDEPENDENT OR
MODERATING DEPENDS ON HOW
THEY AFFECT EACH OTHER IN A
PARTICULAR SITUATION
19
TYPES OF VARIABLES
 INTERVENING VARIABLE
 A VARIABLE THAT SURFACES BETWEEN THE TIME THE
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES START OPERATING TO
INFLUENCE THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE AND THE TIME
THEIR IMPACT IS FELT ON IT
 HAS A TIME DIMENSION TO IT
 SURFACES AS A FUNCTION OF THE INDEPENDENT
VARIABLE OPERATING IN ANY SITUATION AND HELPS
TO CONCEPTUALIZE AND EXPLAIN THE INFLUENCE OF
THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE ON THE DEPENDENT
VARIABLE
20
TYPES OF VARIABLES
EXAMPLE OF INTERVENING VARIABLE
“WORKFORCE SATISFACTION INFLUENCES ORGANIZATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS”
HERE: WORKFORCE SATISFACTION : IV

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: DV
IF CREATIVE SYNERGY IS GENERATED BY BETTER MOTIVATION,
THEN: CREATIVE SYNERGY BECOMES THE INTERVENING
VARIABLE FOR THE TIME IT IS IN EFFECT
21
DYNAMICS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IV,

DV & INTERVENING VARIABLES
TIME t1 t2 t3
WORKFORCE CREATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL

SATISFACTION SYNERGY EFFECTIVENESS
IV INTERVENING DV
VARIABLE
22
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IV, DV, INTERVENING

VARIABLE & A MODERATING VARIABLE
TIME t1 t2 t3
WORKFORCE CREATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL

SATISFACTION SYNERGY EFFECTIVENESS
IV INTERVENING DV
VARIABLE
MANAGERIAL
EXPERTISE
23
MODERATING VARIABLE
THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK … AND WHAT IT IS
 IT IS A LOGICALLY DEVELOPED, DESCRIBED, AND
ELABORATED NETWORK OF ASSOCIATIONS AMONG THE
VARIABLES CONSIDERED RELAVANT TO THE PROBLEM
SITUATION AND IDENTIFIED THROUGH SUCH PROCESSES AS
INTERVIEWS, OBSERVATIONS AND LITERATURE SURVEY.
 IT:
 ELABORATES RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE VARIABLES,
 EXPLAINS THE THEORY UNDERLYING THESE RELATIONS AND
 DESCRIBES THE NATURE & DIRECTION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS
 IT PROVIDES THE LOGICAL BASE FOR DEVELOPING

TESTABLE HYPOTHESES
 IT SERVES AS THE FOUNDATION ON WHICH THE ENTIRE

RESEARCH PROJECT IS BASED
24
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LITERATURE SURVEY &

THE FORMER PROVIDES A SOLID

FOUNDATION FOR DEVELOPING THE
LATER
because
LITERATURE SURVEY IDENTIFIES THE
VARIABLES THAT MAY BE IMPORTANT AS
DETERMINED BY PREVIOUS RESEARCH
FINDINGS 25
COMPONENTS OF THE THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK

 IDENTIFIES AND LABELS THE IMPORTANT VARIABLES IN THE
SITUATION THAT ARE RELAVANT TO THE DEFINED PROBLEM
 LOGICALLY DESCRIBES INTERCONNECTIONS AMONG THESE

VARIABLES
 IF ANY MODERATING VARIABLE(S) ARE IDENTIFIED, IT EXPLAINS

HOW AND WHAT SPECIFIC RELATIONSHIPS THEY WOULD
MODERATE
 IF THERE ARE ANY INTERVENING VARIABLES, A DISCUSSION ON

HOW & WHY THEY ARE TREATED AS INTERVENING VARIABLES
WOULD BE NECESSARY
 SHOULD PREFERABLY BE SUPPORTED BY A SCHEMATIC

DIAGRAM
26
ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF A THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK

1. IDENTIFICATION OF VARIABLES CONSIDERED RELAVANT TO THE
STUDY
2. HOW TWO OR MORE VARIABLES ARE RELATED TO ONE

ANOTHER
3. IF THE NATURE & DIRECTION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS CAN BE

THEORIZED ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS OF PREVIOUS
RESEARCH, IT SHOULD BE INDICATED WHETHER THE
RELATIONSHIPS WOULD BE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE
4. A CLEAR EXPLANATION OF WHY WE WOULD EXPECT THESE

RELATIONSHIPS TO EXIST
5. A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK

FOR COMPREHENSION OF THEORIZED RELATIONSHIPS
27
EXAMPLE OF DELTA AIRLINES
SITUATION
AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SEVERAL OPERATIONAL INCIDENTS ON GROUND & IN THE
AIR, DELTA AIRLINES FACED CHARGES OF AIR SAFETY VIOLATIONS.
FOUR IMPORTANT FACTORS WERE ATTRIBUTED TO HAVE INFLUENCED THIS STATE ie

• POOR COMMUNICATIONS AMONG THE COCKPIT CREW MEMBERS
• POOR COORDINATION BETWEEN GROUND STAFF & COCKPIT CREW,
• INADEQUATE TRAINING GIVEN TO THE COCKPIT CREW
• MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY THAT ENCOURAGED A DECENTRALIZED STRUCTURE
PROBLEM
TO ESTABLISH IF THESE FACTORS DID INDEED CONTRIBUTE TO THE SAFETY
VIOLATIONS, AND, IF SO, TO WHAT EXTENT
28

HERE:
DV: SAFETY VIOLATIONS
IVs: 1. COMMUNICATION AMONG CREW MEMBERS
2. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GROUND CONTROL & COCKPIT
CREW
3. TRAINING RECEIVED BY THE COCKPIT CREW
4. DECENTRALIZATION
COMM: COCKPIT MEMBERS
COMM: GRD CONTROL & COCKPIT

AIR SAFETY
VIOLATIONS
DECENTRALIZATION
TRAINING OF COCKPIT CREW

29

INJECTION OF AN INTERVENING VARIABLE ( ie LACK OF
ADEQUATE TRAINING MAKES THE PILOT NERVOUS & DIFFIDENT):
COMM: COCKPIT MEMBERS DV
COMM: GRD CONTROL & COCKPIT AIR SAFETY

VIOLATIONS
DECENTRALIZATION
TRAINING OF COCKPIT CREW NERVOUSNESS

& DIFFIDENCE
IVs INTERVENING VARIABLE
30

FURTHER INJECTION OF A MODERATING VARIABLE ( ie
USING INADEQUATE TRAINING AS A MODERATING VARIABLE):
COMM: COCKPIT MEMBERS
COMM: GRD CONTROL & COCKPIT AIR SAFETY

VIOLATIONS
DECENTRALIZATION
DV
IVs
TRAINING
MODERATING VARIABLE
31
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
FOLLOWS THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK

AIM
TO TEST WHETHER THE RELATIONSHIPS THAT HAVE
BEEN THEORIZED DO IN FACT HOLD TRUE
DEFINITION OF HYPOTHESIS
IT IS A LOGICALLY CONJECTURED RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN TWO OR MORE VARIABLES EXPRESSED IN THE
FORM OF A TESTABLE STATEMENT
eg
“IF PILOTS ARE GIVEN ADEQUATE TRAINING TO HANDLE CROWDED
MIDAIR SITUATIONS, AIR SAFETY VIOLATIONS WILL BE REDUCED” 32
STATEMENTS OF HYPOTHESES
FORMATS
PROPOSITIONS
EMPLOYEES WHO ARE MORE HEALTHY WILL TAKE SICK LEAVE LESS
FREQUENTLY
IF – THEN STATEMENTS
IF EMPLOYEES ARE MORE HEALTHY, THEN THEY WILL TAKE SICK
LEAVE LESS FREQUENTLY
DIRECTIONAL & NON DIRECTIONAL HYPOTHESES

DIRECTIONAL: USING “POSITIVE”, “NEGATIVE”, “MORE THAN”, etc
eg: THE GREATER THE STRESS EXPERIENCED IN THE JOB, THE LOWER
THE JOB SATISFACTION OF THE EMPLOYEES
NON DIRECTIONAL: OFFER NO INDICATION OF THE DIRECTION OF A
RELATIONSHIP
33
eg: THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THEORATICAL AGE AND JOB SATISFACTION
FRAMEWORK
NULL & ALTERNATE HYPOTHESES

NULL HYPOTHESIS:
• A PROPOSITION THAT STATES A DEFINITIVE, EXACT RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN TWO VARIABLES
• IT IS A STATEMENT THAT NO DIFFERENCE EXISTS BETWEEN THE
PARAMETER ( POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS ) AND THE STATISTIC
( A LIMITED NUMBER REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TOTAL POPULATION)
BEING COMPARED TO IT.
• SELECTED FOR POSSIBLE REJECTION / ACCEPTANCE DURING THE
TESTING PHASE
• USUALLY REPRESENTED BY THE SYMBOL: HO
EXAMPLE
HYPOTHESIS: MOTIVATIONAL LEVEL OF MEN AND WOMEN IS THE
SAME
AS: H0: µm = µw 34
COULD BE REPRESENTED
NULL & ALTERNATE HYPOTHESES

ALTERNATE HYPOTHESIS
• OPPOSITE OF THE NULL HYPOTHESIS ie INDICATES A DEFINITE
DIFFERENCE IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VARIABLES
• MAY TAKE SEVERAL FORMS, DEPENDING ON THE OBJECTIVE OF THE
RESEARCHER eg NON – DIRECTIONAL & DIRECTIONAL
• REPRESENTED BY THE SYMBOL: HA
• IF HYPOTHESIS IS:
“WOMEN ARE MORE MOTIVATED THAN MEN”
IT COULD BE REPRESENTED BY:
HA : µm < µW 35
FORMULATION OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS
NEED
• SERVES AS A GUIDELINE FOR TESTING OF ALL ASPECTS OF THE
HYPOTHESIS
• FACILITATE FORMULATION OF QUESTIONAIRRES
• IF HYPOTHESIS IS DISPROVED, ANSWERS TO RESEARCH
QUESTIONS PROVIDE ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS TO THE ISSUES
BEING RESEARCHED
ESSENTIALS
• SHOULD FLOW FROM THE PROBLEM STATEMENT AND HYPOTHESIS

• MUST COVER ALL PERCEIVABLE ASPECTS OF PROBING A
HYPOTHESIS AND PROBLEM STATEMENT
36
• MUST TAKE INTO RECKONING THE
THEORATICAL SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH
FRAMEWORK
IMPORTANT CONCLUSIONS
 NEED FOR UNDERTAKING COMPREHENSIVE
LITERATURE SURVEY
 FORMULATION OF CORRECT THEORATICAL
FRAMEWORK COVERING ALL RELAVANT
VARIABLES AND IDENTIFICATION OF INTER-
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THEM
 FORMULATION OF TESTABLE HYPOTHESES
 FORMULATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE SET OF
RESEARCH QUESTIONS COVERING ALL ASPECTS
OF THE ISSUE
 SERVES AS THE BACKBONE OF SUBSEQUENT
WORKING ON THE RESEARCH PROJECT
37

Lesson No 4 - Theoretical Framework &amp Hypothesis Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesson No 4 - Theoretical Framework &amp Hypothesis Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THEORETICAL

WHAT IS THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ?

NEED FOR A THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK

 WHEREVER AN INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IS

 WITH EACH UNIT CHANGE IN VALUE OF

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

GOOD SUPERVISION PRODUCTION

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE 12

EFFECTS FOR THOSE

WILLINGNESS TO LEARN EFFECTS FOR THOSE

TRAINING PROGRAM GROWTH NEEDS TRAINING PROGRAM GROWTH NEEDS

HERE: WORKFORCE SATISFACTION : IV

THEN: CREATIVE SYNERGY BECOMES THE INTERVENING

VARIABLE FOR THE TIME IT IS IN EFFECT

DYNAMICS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IV,

WORKFORCE CREATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IV, DV, INTERVENING

WORKFORCE CREATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL

 ELABORATES RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE VARIABLES,

 EXPLAINS THE THEORY UNDERLYING THESE RELATIONS AND

 DESCRIBES THE NATURE & DIRECTION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS

 IT PROVIDES THE LOGICAL BASE FOR DEVELOPING

 IT SERVES AS THE FOUNDATION ON WHICH THE ENTIRE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LITERATURE SURVEY &

THE FORMER PROVIDES A SOLID

COMPONENTS OF THE THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK

 LOGICALLY DESCRIBES INTERCONNECTIONS AMONG THESE

 IF ANY MODERATING VARIABLE(S) ARE IDENTIFIED, IT EXPLAINS

 IF THERE ARE ANY INTERVENING VARIABLES, A DISCUSSION ON

 SHOULD PREFERABLY BE SUPPORTED BY A SCHEMATIC

ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF A THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK

2. HOW TWO OR MORE VARIABLES ARE RELATED TO ONE

3. IF THE NATURE & DIRECTION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS CAN BE

4. A CLEAR EXPLANATION OF WHY WE WOULD EXPECT THESE

5. A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK

AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SEVERAL OPERATIONAL INCIDENTS ON GROUND & IN THE

AIR, DELTA AIRLINES FACED CHARGES OF AIR SAFETY VIOLATIONS.

FOUR IMPORTANT FACTORS WERE ATTRIBUTED TO HAVE INFLUENCED THIS STATE ie

EXAMPLE OF DELTA AIRLINES

COMM: COCKPIT MEMBERS

COMM: GRD CONTROL & COCKPIT

TRAINING OF COCKPIT CREW

EXAMPLE OF DELTA AIRLINES

COMM: COCKPIT MEMBERS DV

COMM: GRD CONTROL & COCKPIT AIR SAFETY

TRAINING OF COCKPIT CREW NERVOUSNESS

IVs INTERVENING VARIABLE

EXAMPLE OF DELTA AIRLINES

COMM: COCKPIT MEMBERS

COMM: GRD CONTROL & COCKPIT AIR SAFETY

FOLLOWS THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK

DIRECTIONAL & NON DIRECTIONAL HYPOTHESES

NULL & ALTERNATE HYPOTHESES

NULL & ALTERNATE HYPOTHESES

• REPRESENTED BY THE SYMBOL: HA

IT COULD BE REPRESENTED BY:

FORMULATION OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• SHOULD FLOW FROM THE PROBLEM STATEMENT AND HYPOTHESIS

You might also like