Exercise 5.9
List and label the variables in the following situation. Explain the relation- ships among the variables and diagram them. What might be the problem statement or problem definition for the situation?
The manager of Haines Company observes that the morale of employ- ees in her company is low. She thinks that if their working conditions are improved, pay scales raised, and the vacation benefits made attractive, the morale will be boosted. She doubts, however, if an increase of pay scales would raise the morale of all employees. Her conjecture is that those that have supplemental incomes will just not be ―turned on‖ by higher pay, and only those without side incomes will be happy with increased pay with resultant boost of morale.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Having examined the different kinds of variables that could operate in a situ- ation and how the relationships among these can be established, it is now possible to see how we can develop the conceptual model or the theoretical framework for our research.
The theoretical framework is the foundation on which the entire research project is based. It is a logically developed, described, and elaborated network of associa- tions among the variables deemed relevant to the problem situation and identified through such processes as interviews, observations, and literature survey. Experi- ence and intuition also guide in developing the theoretical framework.
It becomes evident at this stage that to arrive at good solutions to the prob- lem, one should correctly identify the problem first, and then the variables that contribute to it. The importance of conducting purposeful interviews and doing a thorough literature review now becomes clear. After identifying the appropri- ate variables, the next step is to elaborate the network of associations among the variables, so that relevant hypotheses can be developed and subsequently tested.
Based on the results of hypotheses testing (which would indicate whether or not the hypotheses have been supported), the extent to which the problem can be solved would become evident. The theoretical framework is thus an important step in the research process.
The relationship between the literature survey and the theoretical frame- work is that the former provides a solid foundation for developing the latter.
That is, the literature survey identifies the variables that might be important, as determined by previous research findings. This, in addition to other logical connections that can be conceptualized, forms the basis for the theoretical model. The theoretical framework elaborates the relationships among the vari- ables, explains the theory underlying these relations, and describes the nature and direction of the relationships. Just as the literature survey sets the stage
98 THE RESEARCH PROCESS
for a good theoretical framework, this in turn provides the logical base for developing testable hypotheses.
The Components of the Theoretical Framework
A good theoretical framework identifies and labels the important variables in the situation that are relevant to the problem defined. It logically describes the inter- connections among these variables. The relationships among the independent variables, the dependent variable(s), and if applicable, the moderating and inter- vening variables are elaborated. Should there be any moderating variable(s), it is important to explain how and what specific relationships they would moderate.
An explanation of why they operate as moderators should also be offered. If there are any intervening variables, a discussion on how or why they are treated as intervening variables would be necessary. Any interrelationships among the independent variables themselves, or among the dependent variables themselves (in case there are two or more dependent variables), if any, should also be clearly spelled out and adequately explained.
The elaboration of the variables in the theoretical framework thus addresses the issues of why or how we expect certain relationships to exist, and the nature and direction of the relationships among the variables of interest. A schematic diagram of the conceptual model described in the theoretical framework will also help the reader to visualize the theorized relationships.
It may be noted that we have used the terms theoretical framework and model interchangeably. There are differences of opinion as to what a model actually represents. Some describe models as simulations; others view a model as a rep- resentation of relationships between and among concepts. We use the term model here in the latter sense as a conceptual scheme connecting concepts.
In sum, there are five basic features that should be incorporated in any theo- retical framework.
1. The variables considered relevant to the study should be clearly identified and labeled in the discussions.
2. The discussions should state how two or more variables are related to one another. This should be done for the important relationships that are theorized to exist among the variables.
3. If the nature and direction of the relationships can be theorized on the basis of the findings of previous research, then there should be an indication in the discussions as to whether the relationships would be positive or negative.
4. There should be a clear explanation of why we would expect these relationships to exist. The arguments could be drawn from the previous research findings.
5. A schematic diagram of the theoretical framework should be given so that the reader can see and easily comprehend the theorized relationships.
Let us illustrate how these five features are incorporated in the following example of Delta Airlines.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 99 Example 5.13 DELTA AIRLINES
With airline deregulation, there were price wars among the various airlines that cut costs in different ways. According to reports, Delta Airlines faced charges of air-safety violations when there were several near collisions in midair, and one accident that resulted in 137 deaths in 1987. Four important factors that seem to have influenced these are poor communication among the cockpit crew mem- bers themselves, poor coordination between ground staff and cockpit crew, min- imal training given to the cockpit crew, and management philosophy that encouraged a decentralized structure. It would be nice to know if these factors did indeed contribute to the safety violations, and if so, to what extent.
Theoretical Framework for Example 5.13
The dependent variable is safety violation, which is the variable of primary inter- est, in which the variance is attempted to be explained by the four independent variables of (1) communication among crew members, (2) communication between ground control and the cockpit crew, (3) training received by the cock- pit crew, and (4) decentralization.
The less the communication among the crew members themselves, the greater is the probability of air-safety violations since very little information is shared among them. For example, whenever safety is threatened, timely com- munication between the navigator and pilot is most unlikely. Each member will be preoccupied with his or her work and lose sight of the larger picture. When ground crew fail to give the right information at the right time, mishaps are bound to occur with aborted flights and collisions. Coordination between ground and cockpit crew is at the very heart of air safety. Thus, the less the coordination between ground control and cockpit crew, the greater the possi- bility of air-safety violations taking place. Both of the above factors are exacer- bated by the management philosophy of Delta Airlines, which emphasizes decentralization. This philosophy might have worked before the deregulation of the airlines when the number of flights was manageable. But with deregulation and increased flights overall in midair, and with all airlines operating many more flights, centralized coordination and control assume great importance. Thus, the greater the degree of decentralization, the greater is the scope for lower levels of communication both among in-flight staff and between ground staff and cockpit crew, and the greater the scope for air-safety violations. Also, when cockpit crew members are not adequately trained, they may not have the req- uisite knowledge of safety standards or may suffer from an inability to handle emergency situations and avoid collisions. Thus, poor training also adds to the probability of increased safety violations. These relationships are diagrammed in Figure 5.8.
Note how the five basic features of the theoretical framework have been incor- porated in the example.
1. Identification and labeling of the dependent and independent variables have been done in the theoretical framework.
100 THE RESEARCH PROCESS Figure 5.8
Schematic diagram for the theoretical framework in Example 5.13.
Communication among cockpit members
Communication between ground control and cockpit
Air-safety violations Decentralization
Training of cockpit crew
Independent variable Dependent variable
2. The relationships among the variables were discussed, establishing that the four independent variables are related to the dependent variable, and that the independent variable, decentralization, is related to the other two indepen- dent variables, namely, communication among the cockpit members and between ground control and the cockpit crew. The nature and direction of the relationship of each independent variable with the dependent variable and the relationship of decentralization to the two independent variables were clearly stated.
For example, it was indicated that the lower the training level of the cock- pit crew, the greater the chances of air-safety violations. Thus, as the training is lowered, the hazard is increased, or conversely, the higher the training, the less likely the air-safety violations, indicating a negative relationship between the two variables. Such a negative relationship exists between each of the independent variables excepting decentralization, and the dependent variable.
There is also a negative relationship between decentralization and communi- cation among cockpit members (the more the decentralization, the less the communication) and between decentralization and coordination (the more the decentralization, the less the coordination).
3. Why these relationships can be expected was explained through several log- ical statements, as for example describing why decentralization, which worked before deregulation, would not now work. More specifically, it was argued that:
a. lower levels of communication among cockpit crew would fail to alert the pilot to the impending hazards;
b. poor coordination between ground control and cockpit crew would be detrimental because such coordination is the very essence of safety;
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 101
Figure 5.9
Schematic diagram for the theoretical framework including the intervening variable.
Communication among cockpit members
Communication between ground control and cockpit
Decentralization
Training of cockpit crew
Independent variables
Nervousness and diffidence
Intervening variable
Air-safety violations
Dependent variable
c. encouragement of decentralization would only reinforce poorer communi- cation and coordination efforts;
d. inadequate training of cockpit crew would fail to build survival skills.
4. The relationships among the variables have been schematically diagrammed (see Figure 5.8).
It would now be interesting to see if we can interject an intervening variable in the model. For example, we may say that lack of adequate training makes the pilots nervous and diffident, and this in turn explains why they are not able to confidently handle situations in midair when many aircraft share the skies.
Nervousness and diffidence are a function of lack of training, and help to explain why inadequate training would result in air-safety hazard. This scenario can be depicted as in Figure 5.9.
We may also substantially change the model by using (poor) training as a mod- erating variable as shown in Figure 5.10. Here, we are theorizing that poor com- munication, poor coordination, and decentralization are likely to result in air-safety violations only in such cases where the pilot in charge has had inade- quate training. In other words, those who have had adequate training in deftly handling hazardous situations through simulated training sessions, and so forth, would not be handicapped by poor communication and coordination, and in cases where the aircraft is operated by well-trained pilots, poor communication and coordination will not result in hazards to safety.
These examples, again illustrate that the same variable could be independent, intervening, or moderating, depending on how we conceptualize our theoreti- cal model.
102 THE RESEARCH PROCESS
Figure 5.10
Schematic diagram for the theoretical framework including a moderating variable.
Communication among cockpit members
Communication between Air-safety
ground control and cockpit violations
Decentralization
Training
Independent variables Moderating variable Dependent variable
Now Do Exercises 5.10 and 5.11
Exercise 5.10
Develop a theoretical framework for the following situation after stating what the problem definition of the researcher would be in this case.
A family counselor, engaged in counseling married couples who are both professionals, is caught in a dilemma. He realizes that the focus of the counseling sessions should be on both family satisfaction and job satisfaction; however, he is not sure how they can be integrated in the dual-career family. Husbands, who are the traditional breadwin- ners, seem to derive more job satisfaction as they get more involved in their jobs and also spend more discretionary time on job-related activities. This, however, does not seem to be true in the case of the wives, who perform the dual role of career person and homemaker.
However, both husbands and wives seem to enjoy high levels of fam- ily satisfaction when they spend more time together at home and help each other in planning family-oriented activities.
Exercise 5.11
Define the problem and develop the theoretical framework for the following situation.
The probability of cancer victims successfully recovering under treat- ment was studied by a medical researcher in a hospital. She found three variables to be important for recovery.