The theoretical framework, also known as the foundation of reference, is the part that supports the research work. In any research project or thesis, it is essential to search for books in libraries or the Internet for information that will help us solve the problem. From this moment, we are building the foundations of our research, presented to the reader as a theoretical framework. It must be written from the beginning of the project; thus, it begins to build what will be the bases of the research.
In this article, we will look at what this concept means and tips to develop a theoretical framework for your research work.
What is a Theoretical Framework?
One of the major aspects of academic research is the theoretical framework. This is because it involves the development of the theory that will give credence to the research being undertaken based on the research problem that has been identified.
There are numerous possibilities for preparing it, which depends on the creativity of the researcher. Once the topic under study has been selected, and the questions that guide the research have been formulated, the next move is to review the literature on the topic. This consists of searching the documentary sources that allow us to detect, extract, and compile the information of interest to build the theoretical framework pertinent to the research problem posed.
Before we continue, what is the importance of this framework for research?
The Importance of a theoretical framework:
It provides the necessary conceptual frame of reference to delimit the problem, formulate definitions, support the hypotheses or statements that will later have to be verified, and interpret the study results.
The theoretical framework is the understanding guide that will lead the reader of our thesis or research work to know everything necessary to approach our work.
Furthermore, a good theoretical framework provides a secure base of knowledge that will help address research work questions. It also shows that the work did not come out of “nothing” and has a scientific basis.
In fact, it is from the search for a research problem and ways to solve it that we start the construction of the theoretical framework.
What is the theoretical framework for?
The major purpose of employing a theoretical framework is to prevent our work from being labelled a plagiarised work.
Functions of the theoretical framework:
Theoretical framework plays a fundamental role in the production of new knowledge.
It allows us to guide both the research and the epistemological approach supported and the formulation of questions and points out the significant facts that must be investigated.
It is fundamental because it provides a frame of reference to interpret the research results since, without theory, it is impossible to develop an investigation.
It allows the researcher to be guided to maintain his focus, that is, to be perfectly focused on his problem and prevent deviation from the original approach.
Theoretical framework makes it easier to establish statements that will later have to be tested for reality in the fieldwork, which helps inspire new lines and research areas.
Aside from the above, there other functions of theoretical framework which must be known:
It helps prevent mistakes that have been made in other studies.
Document the need for the study.
Characteristics of the theoretical framework
Structure
The theoretical framework must follow a logical structure. A chapter can be made for each aspect to be treated, with titles or subtitles. It will always be convenient if they have a coherent sequence.
Length
The length of a theoretical framework will depend on many factors. As a general rule, it must be long enough to present what is essential, that is, all the necessary or fundamental information to understand the subject and approach the research work.
How to make a good theoretical framework?
Write as if you are explaining the subject to yourself before knowing everything you learned during the research project.
Write defensively, that is, be aware of any concept that can lead to confusion to explain it better, so that there are no doubts.
Show the revision made on the methods and techniques that can be used to solve the problem posed.
Only include material that is relevant for the thesis.
Facilitate reading fluency by avoiding long lists or extensive information tables. This information can be perfectly placed in the appendix section.
Assume that the jury or thesis examiner does not know the subject of the research work in depth. The person who carried out all the research work and the search for information is the one who best knows the topic.
What should not be in the theoretical framework
That material or information that, in the end, was not necessary for the realization of the project.
Ideas or personal contributions: these should be reserved for the stage of discussion or conclusions.
Hints of how the research will be done
How to create the theoretical framework
Review relevant theories, works, and models: When posing the problem, it was surely necessary to do a bibliographic review in which we found models or works related to our research. You can build your theoretical framework by reviewing related literature, this in fact, is the first step to build a theoretical framework. Make use of primary, secondary and tertiary sources to determine what has been covered on the research idea.
Context: Establish the context of study or research in time, place, and culture. This means delimiting or framing all the information you collected to a specific space.
Conceptual framework: Another next step is to engage in conceptual clarification of terms to avoid misinterpretation. Every theoretical framework must define the key concepts or terms to be used in the research to avoid interpretation errors.
Concepts must also be used to organize the data and determine the relationships between them.
Show what your research will contribute
Aside from showing what has been done about your research problem by other researchers, a theoretical framework can be used to exhibit what your research problem will be bringing on board to that field of knowledge.
It is worthy to note that depending on the field or discipline in which the research is carried out, the framework of a research idea depends on the type of research that is carried out, be it descriptive, explanatory or predictive. This will help the readers to put themselves in the context of the work.
Things to note when developing a theoretical perspective
When we are developing our theoretical framework, we can be presented with various scenarios: we can find a fully developed theoretical perspective for our problem, or we can find several theories to interpret, we can also find parts of theories with little empirical support or guides not yet studied and vague ideas related to our research problem.
The scenarios mentioned above refer to different levels of knowledge and existing theoretical development on the subject and the problem we are investigating. They imply different possibilities regarding the scope or depth of our research.
In this way, the elaboration of the theoretical framework is the last opportunity we have as researchers to review and refine the research objectives and adjust them to the possibilities of theoretical development that we have.
It is important to develop a concise theoretical perspective that establishes, in a clear way, the relationships that allow adequate theoretical support to our study.
This paper seeks to explain the organizational environment theory specifically elaborating on the contingency theory structures, and its application to management of organizations in respect to the environment. It also focuses on open systems view, including the aspects affecting open systems, the stages that an open system goes through in relation to the environment, in order to survive and grow.
Contingency theory is a class of behavioral theory that claims that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company or to make decision, instead, the optimal course of action is contingent (dependent) upon the internal and external situation.
The open systems reflected the newfound belief that all organizations are unique in part because of the unique environment in which they operate and that they should be structured to accommodate unique problems and opportunities. An open system is a system that regularly exchanges feedback with its external environment. Open systems are systems, of course, so inputs, processes, outputs, goals, assessment and evaluation, and learning are all important.
Definition of Organizational Theory
Organizational theory studies organizations to identify the patterns and structures they use to solve problems, maximize efficiency and productivity, and meet the expectations of stakeholders. Organizational theory then uses these patterns to formulatenormative theories of how organizations function best. Therefore, organizational theory can be used in order to learn the best ways to run an organization or identify organizations that are managed in such a way that they are likely to be successful.
An organization is asocial unit of people that are structure and managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals. Organizational environment is a set of forces that surrounding an organization that have the potential to affect the way it operates and access to scarce resources. Management is the function that coordinates the efforts of people to accomplish goals and objectives using available recourses efficiently and effectively.
CONTINGENCY THEORY
Contingency theory is a class of behavioral theory that claims that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company or to make decision, instead, the optimal course of action is contingent (dependent) upon the internal and external situation.
Contingency theory posits that there is no one best way of structure and manage organizations. Instead, structure and management are contingent on the nature of the environment in which the organization is situated. According to contingent theory, the characteristics of the environment affect an organization’s ability to obtain resourcesand to maximize the likelihood of gaining access to resources.Managers must allow an organization’s department to organize and control their activities in ways most likely to allow them to obtain resources, given the constraints of the particular environment they face.
An important characteristic of the external environment that affects an organization’s ability to obtain resources is the degree to which the environment is changing. Changes in the organizational environment include changes in technology, which can lead to creation of new products such as compact discs, and result in the obsolescence of existing productsuch as eight track tapes, the entry of new competitive such as foreign organizations that compete for available resources and unstable economic conditions. The more the organization is changing, the greater are the problem associated with gaining access to resources, and the greater is the managers’ need to find ways to coordinate the activities of people in different departments to respond to the environment quickly and effectively.
Burn and Stalker, Management of Innovation 1965, provided a contingency theory based on environmental stability. They described how they set out to study workers in the factory but that was never realized, because it soon become evident that the social structure of the factory interlocked with and often mirrored that of the small isolated town in which it is situated.
Burn and stalkers noticed that there were two types of management theory that the manager can use to organize and control an organization’s activities to respond to characteristics of the external environment. That is,mechanistic structure which rest on theory X and organic structure which rest on theory Y.
Mechanistic Structure
Mechanistic systems or structureswhich are appropriate for the stable environment, where there is little change or the change is predictable. They are characterized by specialization, centralization, clearly defined roles and vertical communication particularly downward communication. Tasks and roles are clearly specified, subordinates are closely supervised, and the emphasis is on strict discipline and orders. Mechanistic structure provides the most efficient ways to operate in a stable environment because it allows managers to obtain inputs at the lower cost, giving an organization the most control over its conversion processes and enabling the most efficient production of goods and services with smaller expenditure of resources.
Organic Structure
Organic systems or structures which arerequired in changing environments with unstable conditions. It is difficult to obtain access to resources and managers need to organize their activities in a way that allows them to cooperate, act quickly to acquire resources (such as new type of inputs to produce new kind of product), and to respond effectively to the unexpected.
They have several characteristics which include;
Specialized tasks that are performed in light of interdependence with other specialized tasks. Jobs and tasks are continually redefined through interaction among organization members. Communication is both horizontal and vertical and tends to be in the formof consultation rather than orders. The information is a commodity used in decision making where the limits of feasible actions are set more widely.
Authority is decentralized to middle and first line managers to encourage them to take responsibility and act quickly to pursue scarce resources. Departments are encourage to take a cross-departmental functional perspective, and a cross-functional teams composed of people from different departments are formed. Managers in organic structure can react quickly to a changing environment than managers in a mechanistic structure. However organic structure is generally more expensive to operate because it requires a lot of managerial time, money and effort to spend on coordination.
In developing organizations; Diagnosis and action (1969) Lawrence and Lorchoffered another contingency theory similar to Burn and Stalker. Whereas Burn and Stalker focus on the stability of the environment, Lawrence and Lorsch pointed on the environmental uncertainty as the key issues. They began with premises where more attention had been paid to improving internal relations in organization than to exploring and improving the organization’s relationship with the environment.
Lawrence and Lorsch theorized that the organization would have to match certain characteristics with demand and nature of the environment. Environments that were fairly stable or certain would require less and less complex information for the organization than would environment that was more uncertain that is, changing.
The organization that have stable environment can operate more easily from predetermined rules and any change in the environment can be handled through the hierarchy because time is not a critical factor. Organization in a more uncertain, changing environment must have more complex systems for adapting to the information gathered from that environment. To increase the contact with the environment, they should use a decentralized structure. Rules would be too constricting, so free flow of communication is necessary. Contingencytheory posit a direct relationship between the internal structure of the organization and the type of environment in which it is situated.
Implications of contingency theory
Contingency theory rejects the idea that there is one way to manage a company. It suggests managers must evaluate each situation and make decisions unique to those situations. This approach requires managers to stay alert and avoid relying on rules, policies and tradition as their only guides for their choices. All their faculties.
Managers using contingency theory respond to the causes of individual problems, rather than to the problem itself. Such a manager seeks to understand all of the influences that lead to the difficulty. For example, decreasing production might seem at first glance to be the result of negligent employees. A deeper look could reveal that poor lighting and insufficient cooling are causing sleepiness among employees. Had the manager simply relied on motivational theories as an automatic response to productivity problems, he might have missed the true cause of the drop in production.
Contingency theory encourages managers to think about the consequences of a decision as it relates to the whole company. A manager’s actions must reflect the culture, commitment to employee safety and well-being, profit orientation, branding positioning and customer service attitudes of the entire organization. At the same time, the manager must respond to the problem at hand, according to the immediate causes of the issue. This double focus on the overall organization and the specifics of a problem requires a manager to see the big and small pictures at the same time.
Managers operating under the principles of contingency theory have to do more than just identify the one or two influences on an issue. They have to be prepared to evaluate multiple inputs that may all be contributing to a problem. Using the example of a drop in productivity, the manager may discover that not only lighting and air conditioning contribute to the problem, but the company’s revised production bonus program, the move from individual recognition to team recognition, a loss of some benefits and outdated equipment all contribute to the single problem. Contingency managers have to learn to integrate all of the threads that intertwine to make for effective decisions and problem-solving.
Companies issue policies to reduce the amount of time spent making routine decisions. However, a company that embraces contingency theory requires managers who can bend policy or even override it if circumstances demand a new type of decision. This puts a burden on managers to interpret policies loosely, yet maintain the company’s values and vision in all decisions. Contingencies arise that may be unforeseen, and managers need the flexibility to adjust to new circumstances.
Definition of Environment:
An organization’s environment is defined as all the elements existing outside the boundary of the organization that have the potential to affect all or part of the organization (Daft, 1997).
Organizational domain:
This is the range of goods and services that the organization produces, and the customers and other stakeholders whom it serves.
Contingency theorists argue that organizations are organized in ways that best fit the environment in which they are embedded.
Institutional theorists see organizations as a means by which the societal values and beliefs are embedded in organizational structure and expressed in organizational change.
Resource dependency theorists
see the organization as adapting to the environment as dictated by its resource providers. Although there is a great variety in the perspectives provided by open systems theories, they share the perspective that an organization’s survival is dependent upon its relationship with the environment.
THE OPEN-SYSTEMS VIEW THEORY:
The open systems reflected the newfound belief that all organizations are unique in part because of the unique environment in which they operate and that they should be structured to accommodate unique problems and opportunities. An open system is a system that regularly exchangesfeedback with its external environment. Open systems are systems, of course, so inputs, processes, outputs, goals, assessment and evaluation, and learning are all important.
In open systems, it follows that any change to one part of the system will have an impact to one another,and in return on itsover performance. The open systems school approach to change is based on these sub systems,inorder to determine how they can change to improve the overall functioning of organization.
These does not just see organizations as systems in isolation, however they are seen as open in two aspects. Firstly they are open to interactwith, their external environment. And vice versa (Buckley, 1968).
These theorists viewed the organization as an open system, a system that take in resources from its external environment and converts or transfer them into goods and services that are sent back to the environment where they are bought by customers. The system is said to be open because the organization draws from and interact with external environment in order to survive and the organization is open to its environment. A closed system in contrast, is a self-contained system that is not affected by changes in its external environment. Entropy is the tendency of a closed system to lose to its ability to control itself and thus to dissolve and disintegrate.
Open system representation:
Input stage where an organization acquires resources such as raw materials, money, and skilled workers to product goods and services.
Conversion stage where the organization’s workforce using appropriate tools, technique and machinery transforms the inputs into outputs of finished goods and services such as cars, hamburgers, or flights.
Output stage where the organization releases finished goods and services to its external environment, where customers purchase and use them to satisfy their needs. The money the organization obtains from its sales output allows the organization to acquire more resources so the cycle can begin again.
Systems theorists argue that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; this mean that organizations performs at higher level when its department works together rather than separately. Synergy the performance gains that result from combined actions of individuals and department, is possible only in an organized system.
Aspects that are critically important to open systems include the boundaries, external environment and equifinality.
External Environment:
The external environment includes a wide variety of needs and influences that can affect the organization, but which the organization cannot directly control. Influences can be political, economic, ecological, societal and technological in nature.
A highly effective organization is regularly exchanging feedback with its external environment – it is an open system. Healthy organizations regularly try to understand their environments through use of environmental scanning, market research and evaluations.
These organizations often try to influence their external environment, as well, for example, through use of public relations, advertising and promotions, lobbying and advocacy, and educating industry and local leaders.Environmental influences that affect open systems can be described as either specific or general. The specific environment refers to the network of suppliers, distributors, government agencies, and competitors with which organization interacts. The general environment encompasses four influences that emanate from the geographic area in which the organization operates. These are;Cultural values, which shape views about ethics and determine the relative importance of various issues.
Economic conditions, which include economic upswings, recessions, regional unemployment, and many other regional factors that affect anorganization’s ability to grow and prosper. Economic influences may also partially dictate an organization’s role in the economy.
Legal and political environment, which effectively helps to allocate power within a society and to enforce laws. The legal and political systems in which an open system operates can play a key role in determining the long-term stability and security of the organization’s future. These systems are responsible for creating a fertile environment for the business community, but they are also responsible for ensuring regulations pertaining to operation and taxationneeds of the larger community are addressed.
Quality of education, which is an important factor in high technology and other industries that require an educated work force. Businesses will be better able to fill such positions if they operate in geographic regions that feature a strong education system.
Boundaries:
All systems have boundaries, although the boundaries can be difficult to identify because systems can be very dynamic. Open systems have porous boundaries through which useful feedback can readily be exchanged and understood. Closed systems, unlike open systems, have hard boundaries through which little information is exchanged. Organizations that have closed boundaries often are unhealthy. Examples include bureaucracies,monopolies and stagnating systems.
Outcomes (Results Among Customers):
Outcomes are critically important to the success of an organization. Outcomes are in regard to the changes, or benefits, that customers accomplish as a result of using a particular product or service.Outcomes are usually specified in terms of changed:Knowledge (usually short-term outcomes).Behaviors, notably those that comprise useful skills (often intermediate outcomes).Attitudes, values and conditions, such as increased security, stability or pride (usually long-term outcomes).
CONCLUSION
The contingency approach is an effort to determine through research which management practices and techniques are appropriate in specific situations. It is a situational appropriateness management; this is because different situations require different managerial responses. Managers need contingency plans, plans that are flexible and that can adapt quickly to changes in today’s unstable environment. The contingency approach has grown in popularity because it recognizes that there is no magical formula for managerial effectiveness. As far as the organization need stable environment to operate effectively, the circumstances of the surrounding are still unpredictable if there comes an open system view which are not favorable to the organization operations. Open systems thinking does not permit the manager to become pre-occupied with one aspect or organizational management while ignoring other internal and external factors. These factors include resources availability, technological developments, market trends and service provision. Companies providing services to the public will normally consider the environment they are operating in.
The objective of the open systems approach is to structure the functions of a business in such a manner that, throughclearly defined lines of coordination and interdependence. The emphasis is on achieving overall synergy, rather than on optimizing the performance of any one individual part (Mullins, 1989).
The implication to communication of open system theory
Is that it recognize and Change Patterns of Communication for Effective Relational Maintenance.
Become Aware of Patterns of Communication That Contribute to Stability and Well-Being
Maintaining the stability and well-being of a relationship requires that you develop a kind of mindfulness. With that, you gain an awareness of how you communicate with a partner and what impact each of your behavior has on the overall climate of communication. Sometimes, having that mindfulness is a matter of stepping back from the relationship to see the patterns and how they recur. But keep in mind that patterns of communication are not actions performed unilaterally by one of the people in a relationship. Patterns of communication are created and performed in tandem by both partners in a relationship. Over time, the patterns are repeated with great frequency. The Human Behavior School
The Human Behavior School shifts the emphasis from the structure of organizations, work design, and measurement to the interactions of individuals, their motivations, and their influence on organizational events.
The Human Behavior Perspective assumes that work is accomplished through people and emphasizes cooperation, participation, satisfaction, and interpersonal skills.
REFERENCE
Buckley, W.A.(1968).Modern systems Research for behavioural scientists. Chigago:Aldine
Burns, T& Stalker, G.M (1965) The management of Innovation.London:Tavistock
Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development. (2006). Retrieved February 19th, 2015 from http://www.authenticityconsulting.com
Mullins ,L. (1989). Management and OrganisationalBehaviour . London: Pitman.
Modaff, D. P., DeWine, S., & Butler, J. A. (2008). Organizational communication: Foundations, challenges, and misunderstandings. Pearson/Allyn& Bacon.
Historically, American education served both political and economic needs, which dictated the function of education. Today, sociologists and educators debate the function of education. Three main theories represent their views: the functionalist theory, the conflict theory, and the symbolic interactionist theory.
The functionalist theory
The functionalist theory focuses on the ways that universal education serves the needs of society. Functionalists first see education in its manifest role: conveying basic knowledge and skills to the next generation. Durkheim (the founder of functionalist theory) identified the latent role of education as one of socializing people into society’s mainstream. This “moral education,” as he called it, helped form a more‐cohesive social structure by bringing together people from diverse backgrounds, which echoes the historical concern of “Americanizing” immigrants.
Functionalists point to other latent roles of education such as transmission of core values and social control. The core values in American education reflect those characteristics that support the political and economic systems that originally fueled education. Therefore, children in America receive rewards for following schedules, following directions, meeting deadlines, and obeying authority.
The most important value permeating the American classroom is individualism—the ideology that advocates the liberty rights, or independent action, of the individual. American students learn early, unlike their Japanese or Chinese counterparts, that society seeks out and reveres the best individual, whether that person achieves the best score on a test or the most points on the basketball court. Even collaborative activities focus on the leader, and team sports single out the one most valuable player of the year. The carefully constructed curriculum helps students develop their identities and self‐esteem. Conversely, Japanese students, in a culture that values community in place of individuality, learn to be ashamed if someone singles them out, and learn social esteem—how to bring honor to the group, rather than to themselves.
Going to school in a capitalist nation, American students also quickly learn the importance of competition, through both competitive learning games in the classroom, and through activities and athletics outside the classroom. Some kind of prize or reward usually motivates them to play, so students learn early to associate winning with possessing. Likewise, schools overtly teach patriotism, a preserver of political structure. Students must learn the Pledge of Allegiance and the stories of the nation’s heroes and exploits. The need to instill patriotic values is so great that mythology often takes over, and teachers repeat stories of George Washington’s honesty or Abraham Lincoln’s virtue even though the stories themselves (such as Washington confessing to chopping down the cherry tree) may be untrue.
Another benefit that functionalists see in education is sorting—separating students on the basis of merit. Society’s needs demand that the most capable people get channeled into the most important occupations. Schools identify the most capable students early. Those who score highest on classroom and standardized tests enter accelerated programs and college‐preparation courses. Sociologists Talcott Parsons, Kingsley Davis, and Wilbert Moore referred to this as social placement. They saw this process as a beneficial function in society.
After sorting has taken place, the next function of education, networking (making interpersonal connections), is inevitable. People in high school and college network with those in similar classes and majors. This networking may become professional or remain personal. The most significant role of education in this regard is matchmaking. Sociologists primarily interest themselves in how sorting and networking lead couples together of similar backgrounds, interests, education, and income potential. People place so much importance on this function of education that some parents limit their children’s options for college to insure that they attend schools where they can meet the “right” person to marry.
Functionalists point to the ironic dual role of education in both preserving and changing culture. Studies show that, as students progress through college and beyond, they usually become increasingly liberal as they encounter a variety of perspectives. Thus, more educated individuals are generally more liberal, while less educated people tend toward conservatism. Moreover, the heavy emphasis on research at most institutions of higher education puts them on the cutting edge of changes in knowledge, and, in many cases, changes in values as well. Therefore, while the primary role of education is to preserve and pass on knowledge and skills, education is also in the business of transforming them.
A final and controversial function assumed by education in the latter half of the twentieth century is replacement of the family. Many issues of career development, discipline, and human sexuality—once the domain of the family—now play a routine part in school curriculum. Parents who reject this function of education often choose to home‐school their children or place them in private schools that support their values.
The conflict theory
Conflict theory sees the purpose of education as maintaining social inequality and preserving the power of those who dominate society. Conflict theorists examine the same functions of education as functionalists. Functionalists see education as a beneficial contribution to an ordered society; however, conflict theorists see the educational system as perpetuating the status quo by dulling the lower classes into being obedient workers.
Both functionalists and conflict theorists agree that the educational system practices sorting, but they disagree about how it enacts that sorting. Functionalists claim that schools sort based upon merit; conflict theorists argue that schools sort along distinct class and ethnic lines. According to conflict theorists, schools train those in the working classes to accept their position as a lower‐class member of society. Conflict theorists call this role of education the “hidden curriculum.”
Conflict theorists point to several key factors in defending their position. First, property taxes fund most schools; therefore, schools in affluent districts have more money. Such areas are predominantly white. They can afford to pay higher salaries, attract better teachers, and purchase newer texts and more technology. Students who attend these schools gain substantial advantages in getting into the best colleges and being tracked into higher‐paying professions. Students in less affluent neighborhoods that do not enjoy these advantages are less likely to go to college and are more likely to be tracked into vocational or technical training. They also represent far higher numbers of minority students.
Conflict theorists contend that not only do the economics favor the white affluent, but so does school testing—particularly IQ testing, which schools can use to sort students. They argue that the tests, which claim to test intelligence, actually test cultural knowledge and therefore exhibit a cultural bias. For example, a question may ask: “Which one of these items belongs in an orchestra? A. accordion B. guitar C. violin D. banjo.” This question assumes considerable cultural knowledge, including what an orchestra is, how it differs from a band, and what instruments comprise an orchestra. The question itself assumes exposure to a particular kind of music favored by white upper classes. Testing experts claim they have rid modern exams of such culturally biased questioning, but conflict theorists respond that cultural neutrality is impossible. All tests contain a knowledge base, and that knowledge base is always culturally sensitive.
Conflict theorists see education not as a social benefit or opportunity, but as a powerful means of maintaining power structures and creating a docile work force for capitalism.
The symbolic interactionist theory
Symbolic interactionists limit their analysis of education to what they directly observe happening in the classroom. They focus on how teacher expectations influence student performance, perceptions, and attitudes.
Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson conducted the landmark study for this approach in 1968. First, they examined a group of students with standard IQ tests. The researchers then identified a number of students who they said would likely show a sharp increase in abilities over the coming year. They informed the teachers of the results, and asked them to watch and see if this increase did occur. When the researchers repeated the IQ tests at the end of the year, the students identified by the researchers did indeed show higher IQ scores. The significance of this study lies in the fact that the researchers had randomly selected a number of average students. The researchers found that when the teachers expected a particular performance or growth, it occurred. This phenomenon, where a false assumption actually occurs because someone predicted it, is called a self‐fulfilling prophesy. For example, the stock market may be stable with rising values. If investors become afraid that the market will crash, however, they may suddenly sell their stocks, which causes the market to crash. The crash occurred simply because investors feared it would do so.
Ray Rist conducted research similar to the Rosenthal‐Jacobson study in 1970. In a kindergarten classroom where both students and teacher were African American, the teacher assigned students to tables based on ability; the “better” students sat at a table closer to her, the “average” students sat at the next table, and the “weakest” students sat at the farthest table. Rist discovered that the teacher assigned the students to a table based on the teacher’s perception of the students’ skill levels on the eighth day of class, without any form of testing to verify the placement. Rist also found that the students the teacher perceived as “better” learners came from higher social classes, while the “weak” students were from lower social classes.
Monitoring the students through the year, Rist found that the students closer to the teacher received the most attention and performed better. The farther from the teacher a student sat, the weaker that student performed. Rist continued the study through the next several years and found that the labels assigned to the students on the eighth day of kindergarten followed them throughout their schooling.
While symbolic‐interactionist sociologists can document this process, they have yet to define the exact process of how teachers form their expectations or how students may communicate subtle messages to teachers about intelligence, skill, and so forth.
Organizational behavior theory is the study of human behavior within an organizational environment. This means that organizational behavior asks questions about why humans behave the way they do in working environments.
Searches related to Application of Organizational Behavior Theory to Education
