Science topics: Cognitive ScienceConceptualization
Science topic
Conceptualization - Science topic
Explore the latest questions and answers in Conceptualization, and find Conceptualization experts.
Questions related to Conceptualization
"Delving into the Conceptual Approach and the Essential Factor in Their Application in the Field of Sports Work"
The development of conceptual thinking is associated not only with the ability to analyze concepts. Often, a person, after reading a few words, realizes that they did not fully understand, but overlooks the fact that for understanding, not only their assumption is necessary, but also an analysis of the logic of the presentation.
Even if a person is critical of their first impressions, they may neglect the search for these logical connections in the text, relying only on their guess. This is often because for many people, "understanding" means simply solving a problem, and they try to solve this "problem" intuitively rather than examining the sequential logic of the presentation. However, true understanding requires this additional step - a consistent analysis of the structure and logic of the presentation of the material. Only through the study of the logic, and not just concepts, is the true development of conceptual thinking possible. This approach to the development of conceptual thinking is applicable not only to academic texts, but also to more popular formats such as blogs and social media.
What are your thoughts on this perspective on developing conceptual thinking skills?
V.I. Vernadsky was one of the fathers of the science of geochemistry and the father of biogeochemistry. He modernized conceptualization of the biosphere. His works and ideas were ahead of his time and to a degree, are ahead of our time. I think his works are helpful in our effort toward the goals of sustainability. I will be glad to hear any comment from you, dear colleagues.
This is my comment to my question:
During the time when you attended lectures at your university, have you heard the name of V.I. Vernadsky?
How does this apply to social science studies?
Scientifically, physical objects (such as a clock) can undergo changes due to applied forces or relativistic effects.
However, abstract concepts—such as numbers, addition, dimensions, space, and time—are not physically alterable, as they are conceptual rather than material. This is a well-established scientific fact.
Despite this, the notion of curvature in spacetime has led to the misconception that spacetime itself is physical rather than abstract.
Since neither space nor time possesses physical properties, they cannot be subjects of direct experimentation. Instead, they serve as conceptual dimensions—a framework within which physical objects exist and can be measured.
Measurements in physics are always performed on physical entities, not on dimensions themselves. For example, in a coordinate system, dimensions such as x, y, z, and t are graphical representations—they do not measure space or time itself but rather the physical objects within them. Similarly, space and time, as dimensions, do not physically change—only objects within these dimensions undergo measurable transformations. These transformations are always physical (e.g., changes in material properties or energy states), whereas space and time remain conceptual constructs.
Thus, the idea of spacetime curvature is fundamentally flawed because only physical entities—such as electromagnetic fields, gravitational fields, or massive objects—can bend or curve. Space and time, being dimensions, do not possess length, height, or depth themselves; rather, they define the extent of objects that have these properties.
In mathematics and geometry, space and time are represented abstractly, but this does not imply they are physically capable of curvature.
If curvature exists, it must be a property of physical objects, such as mass-bearing structures or massless fields like electromagnetism or gravity—not of spacetime itself.
Do you acknowledge the key points I have stated above?
To put it in a simple and direct way, I coined the word and the term biomachinery to have a useful contribution to words and terminology to describe some novel functions of organisms within ecosystem, especially aquatic organisms within water bodies and streams, with emphasis on the vital ecosystem function toward maintaining and improving water quality (water self-purification). Below I listed the publications of mine in which this word, biomachinery, is coined and used.
These are 3 key papers in which the new term, biomachinery, was introduced into science.
The three papers:
1. S.A. Ostroumov (2005) Filter-feeders as part of ecological biomachinery to purify water, Internationale Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie: Verhandlungen, 29:2, 1072-1074, DOI: 10.1080/03680770.2005.11902849 ; https://doi.org/10.1080/03680770.2005.11902849. Available online free, full-text: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325514384 ;
2. Biomachinery for maintaining water quality and natural water self-purification in marine and estuarine systems: elements of a qualitative theory. International Journal of Oceans and Oceanography. Vol.1, No.1 (2006), pp. 111-118; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261344473 ;
3.Ostroumov S.A., Water Quality and Conditioning in Natural Ecosystems: Biomachinery Theory of Self-Purification of Water. - Russian Journal of General Chemistry, 2017, Vol. 87, No. 13, pp. 3199–3204. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323122008;
The Philosophy of Health Sciences is essential in higher education as it provides a deeper understanding of medical and health research's ethical, epistemological, and conceptual foundations. Therefore, it should be included in PhD, DM, and MCh courses to enhance critical thinking, ethical decision-making, and the philosophical rigor of future healthcare professionals.
Please suggest the best readings for such a course (3 credits) and share your experiences while taking sessions.
Do Deep learning models really ‘get it,’ or do they make statistical predictions? Is it possible for artificial intelligence to reach the level of conceptual understanding? If it is possible, how do you think it will be?
Currently, I am stuck at the stage of developing/creating conceptual framework in the chapter of my literature review. I struggle to develop conceptual framework as I heard so many definitions and also ways to create conceptual framework plus does the conceptual framework have to be already existed in research field or develop our own conceptual framework which has not existed yet. I often confused conceptual framework with theoretical framework.
Conceptualizing a study on intimate partners violence (IPV) among university student. Kindly share with me IPV questionnaire if you have it
Introduction: Conceptual Remnants and the Challenge of Physical Objectivity
Physics has long been regarded as the science dedicated to uncovering the fundamental laws governing nature. However, in contemporary theoretical physics, there is an increasing reliance on mathematical models as the primary tool for understanding reality. This raises fundamental questions:
- Is physics still unknowingly entangled in issues arising from emergent effects?
- Could these emergent effects create a gap between physical reality and the virtual constructs generated through mathematical modeling?
Throughout the history of science, there have been instances where physicists, without fully grasping fundamental principles, formulated models that later turned out to be mere consequences of emergent effects rather than reflections of objective reality. For instance, in classical thermodynamics, macroscopic quantities such as temperature and pressure emerged as statistical descriptions of microscopic particle behavior rather than fundamental properties of nature.
The crucial question today is: Are we still facing similar emergent illusions in modern theoretical physics? Could it be that many of the sophisticated mathematical models we use are not pointing to an underlying physical reality but are merely the byproducts of our perception and modeling techniques?
Mathematical Models and Conceptual Remnants: Are We Chasing a Mirage?
Mathematics has always been an essential tool in physics, but over time, it has also shaped the way we think about physical reality. In many areas of theoretical physics, mathematical methods have advanced to a point where we may no longer be discovering physical truths but instead fine-tuning mathematical structures to fit our theoretical frameworks.
- Has theoretical physics become a vast computational engine, focusing on adjusting relationships between mathematical variables rather than seeking an independent physical reality?
- Could it be that many of the concepts emerging from our models are mere reflections of mathematical structures rather than objective entities in nature?
Examples of such concerns can be found in theories like string theory, where extra spatial dimensions and complex symmetry groups are introduced as necessary mathematical elements, despite lacking direct experimental verification. This raises the possibility that some of these theoretical constructs exist only because they are mathematically required to make the model internally consistent, rather than because they correspond to something physically real.
Fundamental Critique: Should We Even Be Searching for Physical Objectivity?
One of the most profound implications of this discussion is that the very question of whether physics describes "physical reality" might be fundamentally misguided.
Werner Heisenberg once argued that physics will never lead us to an understanding of an objective physical reality. Instead, what we develop are models that describe relationships between observable phenomena—without necessarily revealing the true nature of reality itself.
- Perhaps physics should not aim to discover a reality independent of our models since every model is ultimately a mathematical structure shaped by human perception.
- If the goal of physics is not to describe "absolute truth" but rather to create predictive models, should we then accept that we will never fully grasp "what actually exists"?
Finally: Between Computational Accuracy and Physical Reality
The final question in this discussion is: Are we still trapped in emergent effects that arise purely from our mathematical approaches rather than reflecting an objective physical reality?
- Should physicists strive to distinguish between mathematical models and physical objectivity, or is such a distinction inherently meaningless?
- Is the search for an independent physical reality a conceptual mistake, as Heisenberg and others have suggested?
Ultimately, this discussion seeks to examine whether physics is merely a computational framework for describing phenomena, or if we are still subconsciously searching for a physical reality that might forever remain out of reach.
These topics Luck conceptual and qualitatitave principles depth necessary for assesing full spectrum physics understanding thus narrowing the criteria and creating false evaluation
This should be conceptualized from the ability to alleviate conflict emergence and enhance productivity.
That's a very pragmatic but also as well theoretical (even philosophy one) question: what is the most fundamental didactics' object? What do we deal with when trying describe, interrogate or improve something in education? For last decads we have been using different conceptualization, including "educational technology", "learning moments", "piece of educational process", or just "educational situation", but there's a feeling, that all these conceptualization are not proper...
Last week i delivered some report at the Conference, devoted to teaching Pedagogy for non-Educators in the Higher Education, and focused at the "onthodidactics experience". May it be correct, or how it would be substituted? (the presentation of that report is available here:
Can you guide me on how we can relate multiple theories to a single concept in the conceptual framework?
How do conceptual frameworks support qualitative research differently than theoretical frameworks?
Construction of a framework requires researchers knowledge of theories,findings of the previous similar research studies, and related field experience,it requires skills of creativity in identifying and establishing the relationship between two or more study concepts.
My supervisor told me there was no need to have both, to include either one in my PhD thesis
Let me briefly introduce it below,details are sent to you as attachments:
First, their paper is about:
1. Denial DSM and statistical methods.
2. Use "process"Unified psychology
3. Propose new methods to replace the DSM and statistical methods, which are as follows:
First use the case to conceptualize the patient's psychological process, and then try to modify it.
4. Conceptualize the psychological process with cases.
5. Using a network flow chart for psychological processes
6. Modify the l psychological process.
The contents of my paper are follows:
1. Use "process" (or "program") to unify psychology to establish a general psychological theory.
2. Denial of mental statistics.(However, I have only denied a few words about psychological statistics, and they write very long.）
3. Mining the patients' psychological programs with psychological analysis.
4. Psychological programs are described in natural language and flow charts.
5. Provide ways to modify the psychological procedures.
Is it the same idea? It's just in different terms. They use the word "process", I use the "program", they use the "case conceptualization" method, I use the "psychological analysis", and they use the "network model", and I use the "program model". However, I will explain in the attached document that these are just different names, they are one thing.The word "program" in my paper is very close to "process". I didn't use the word "psychological process" at that time because it did not include "physiological process", and the word "psychological process" is not as accurate as "psychological program", so I chose this term. This is just a different name, there are many cases in my paper, I use psychological analysis to dig out a lot of psychological programs, from the perspective of these "psychological programs" itself, it is a psychological process.
what are the parts of a conceptual framework in a thesis writing titled Lived experiences among teachers handling multigrade classes
Physics K-12 curricula are very biased against teaching modern theories based on the assumption of learning difficulty, complexity in visualization, conceptual demands and mere controvertiality of its results
However, there are equally discouraging reasons for keeping the focus on non-modern physics: mechanics is wrong, even if by approximation is good it is based on wrong conceptualizations and principles (i.e. Newton 2nd law is based on action at a distance assumptions, velocity def on absolute time -based analysis of motion etc).
What's more, there is no evidence that students don't or won't understand SR postulates and concepts. The argument they ignore is that for learning the motivation plays an important factor and if the material is high status, more revealing and more logical then students can learn.
Also, the focus on "building young scientists" |(Konstantinou, 2010) that is the stated or unstated assumption is physics k-12 curricula and assessments has gone to the extreme and to the detriments of education. If students are taught SR then the focus is on basic and selected undertanding than integral one, encyclopedian level insights and assesment- this can work.
In human psychology, time is a conscious experience—a construct reflecting the sequence of existence and events. In cosmology and physical sciences, time is often defined as the indefinite, continuous progression of existence and events in a uniform and irreversible succession, extending from the past, through the present, and into the future. This progression is conceptualized as a fourth dimension that exists above the three spatial dimensions.
Time is fundamentally a measurement to quantify changes in material reality. The SI unit of time, the second, is defined by measuring the electronic transition frequency of caesium atoms. Time is also recognized as one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in both the International System of Units (SI) and the International System of Quantities.
In physics, time is commonly defined by its measurement—essentially, "what a clock reads."
This description suggests that time, in its conventional understanding across various scientific disciplines and human experience, is an abstract concept, not a real, tangible entity. While time provides a framework for understanding the succession of events, it does not have a direct physical existence as space does in three dimensions. Time is often viewed as a hyper-dimensional abstraction—imperceptible and unreachable beyond the three-dimensional spatial realm.
However, relativity challenges this interpretation by treating time as a real entity—integrated with space to form a four-dimensional space-time continuum where time becomes subject to physical modifications, such as time dilation. This relativistic concept implies that time is not only concrete but also malleable under the influence of velocity and gravity, leading to discrepancies with other scientific interpretations that consider time an abstract or imaginary concept.
One of the main contentions is that time dilation, a cornerstone of relativity, effectively violates the standardization of time by presenting it as something dilatable, thereby questioning the uniformity and constancy of time itself. The traditional time scale based on a 360-degree cycle—representing a consistent progression—is disrupted by the relativistic notion of time dilation, which converts abstract time into something perceived as "real" or "natural." This treatment of time also seems to ignore the conscious human experience, which understands time as a subjective, psychological construct.
Furthermore, if time is not directly reachable—being an abstract hyper-dimensional concept—what then is the "time" that a clock measures? Clocks are designed to provide a standardized approximation of cosmic time through calibrated frequency counts, such as the electronic transitions of caesium atoms. However, the physical manifestation of time in clocks is inherently subject to distortions, primarily due to gravitational effects. Gravity affects mass and energy, altering the oscillation rates of clocks and resulting in time distortions. Consequently, even the most accurate atomic clocks require periodic adjustments to compensate for these external influences.
The discrepancy between the "real time" measured by clocks and the "conceptual time" of cosmic progression raises further questions about the nature of time. Clocks, intended to represent a uniform progression of time, must contend with gravitational influences that disrupt this uniformity, necessitating ongoing corrections. This challenges the idea that time is a tangible, concrete entity and supports the view that it remains fundamentally an abstract concept—a conceptual framework through which we interpret the order of existence and events.
In short, while relativistic physics proposes that time is a real entity susceptible to physical modifications like time dilation, this interpretation remains contentious when viewed through the lens of broader scientific understanding. Time appears more consistent with an abstract or imaginary concept, a near-approximate representation that is susceptible to external influences, yet ultimately remains beyond the realm of tangible existence.
Relativistic space-time is described as a four-dimensional continuum comprising three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. In this framework, space and time are interwoven, forming an integrated space-time fabric. As time dilates due to relativistic effects, does this interconnected nature imply a dilation of space-time as a whole?
For context:
Cosmic Expansion: Describes how the distance between cosmic objects increases over time, which can be represented as:
t₀ < (t₀+Δt) = t₁ → (x₀,y₀,z₀,t₀) < (x₁,y₁,z₁,t₁)
Where (t₁ - t₀) = elapsed time.
Space-Time Dilation: Reflects how time dilation in relativistic contexts affects space-time coordinates:
t < t′ → (x,y,z,t) < (x′,y′,z′,t′)
Where t′ is dilated time
Given these representations, can the concept of space-time dilation be viewed as a form of space-time expansion in terms of their consequences?
Compare and Contrast Body-Part Metaphors in English and Other Languages
Linguistic or conceptual body-part metaphors relate not only to Heads, Shoulders, Knees, and Toes, but also to Eyes, Ears, Mouth and Nose and other human body parts.
Here are a few English metaphors related to “head”: head of lettuce, head of a company, head over heels in love, head Start, headers & footers, and headlights.
Check out the attached PowerPoint about Body Part Metaphors, and then discuss body-part metaphors in English and other languages.
English Animal Metaphors
Linguistic or conceptual animal metaphors in English and other languages fall into three categories:
1. Domestic (Cats, Chickens, Cows, Dogs, Donkeys, Goats, Horses, Mice, Rats, Sheep, etc.),
2. Fish & Water Animals (Crabs, Clams, Fish, Oysters, etc.),
3. Wild Animals (Bears, Buffalo, Foxes, Lions, Monkeys, Shrews, Tigers, etc.).
Compare and contrast the Animal Metaphors that occur in English with Animal Metaphors in other languages.
English Animal Metaphors
Linguistic or conceptual animal metaphors in English and other languages fall into three categories:
1. Domestic (Cats, Chickens, Cows, Dogs, Donkeys, Goats, Horses, Mice, Rats, Sheep, etc.),
2. Fish & Water Animals (Crabs, Clams, Fish, Oysters, etc.),
3. Wild Animals (Bears, Buffalo, Foxes, Lions, Monkeys, Shrews, Tigers, etc.).
Compare and contrast the Animal Metaphors that occur in English with Animal Metaphors in other languages.
I am an undergraduate student with a strong interest in collaborating on research projects across various fields such as psychology, sociology, social work, social media research, and social pathology.
I am particularly interested in contributing to projects that involve:
- Psychological studies and mental health research
- Sociological analyses and societal trends
- Social work practices and interventions
- Social media impacts and digital behavior
- Research on social pathology and related phenomena
Despite being at the undergraduate level, I can contribute to literature review, editing, and manuscript writing.
If you have ongoing or upcoming research projects, I would be thrilled to discuss potential opportunities. I am willing to learn and contribute at various stages of the research process, from conceptualization to publication.
Best Regards,
Michal.
Validating a psychological therapy involves a process similar to validating assessment tools, but with some differences given the dynamic nature of therapy. Here's a general outline of the steps involved:
- Theory and Rationale: Clearly define the theoretical framework underlying the therapy and articulate the rationale for how it is expected to work. This step involves synthesizing existing research and theory to establish the conceptual basis for the therapy.
- Manual Development: Develop a treatment manual that outlines the procedures, techniques, and protocols of the therapy. The manual should provide detailed instructions for therapists on how to deliver the intervention consistently.
- Pilot Testing: Conduct pilot testing of the therapy with a small sample of participants to assess its feasibility, acceptability, and initial efficacy. This step helps identify any logistical or practical issues with delivering the therapy and informs adjustments to the manual or procedures.
- Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs): Conduct well-designed RCTs to evaluate the efficacy of the therapy compared to control conditions (e.g., waitlist, placebo, alternative therapy). Randomization helps ensure that any observed effects are due to the therapy itself rather than other factors.
- Outcome Measures: Select appropriate outcome measures to assess the effects of the therapy on relevant variables (e.g., symptoms, functioning, quality of life). These measures should have established reliability and validity and be sensitive to changes expected from the therapy.
- Assessment Points: Determine the timing of assessments to capture changes in outcomes over the course of therapy and follow-up periods. Multiple assessment points allow for the examination of both short-term and long-term effects.
- Statistical Analysis: Analyze the data using appropriate statistical methods to compare outcomes between the therapy and control groups. This may involve techniques such as analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), mixed-effects modeling, or survival analysis, depending on the study design and outcome variables.
- Clinical Significance: Assess the clinical significance of treatment effects by considering not only statistical significance but also the magnitude of change and its practical relevance for patients' lives.
- Mediation and Moderation Analysis: Explore potential mechanisms of change (mediators) and factors that influence treatment outcomes (moderators) through mediation and moderation analyses. Understanding these processes can inform refinements to the therapy and help personalize treatment approaches.
- Replication and Extension: Replicate findings in independent samples and settings to establish the generalizability of the therapy's effects. Additionally, conduct studies to examine the effectiveness of the therapy when delivered in real-world clinical settings and by community providers.
- Meta-Analysis: Synthesize findings from multiple studies using meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive overview of the therapy's efficacy across diverse populations and contexts.
- Dissemination and Implementation: Disseminate the findings through publication in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at conferences, and outreach to clinicians and policymakers. Provide training and support for clinicians interested in implementing the therapy in their practice.
By following these steps, researchers can rigorously evaluate the efficacy of psychological therapies and contribute to the evidence base supporting their use in clinical practice.
To give reference
Singha, R. (2024).How to validate a psychological therapy? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_validate_a_psychological_therapy
Developing a new psychological therapy involves a systematic process that integrates theory, empirical research, clinical expertise, and client feedback. Here's a general outline of the steps involved:
- Identify a Target Population and Problem: Define the target population for the therapy (e.g., individuals with depression, trauma survivors) and specify the problem or symptoms the therapy aims to address.
- Review Existing Literature: Conduct a thorough review of existing literature on the target population and problem. This includes research on etiology, risk factors, maintenance factors, treatment approaches, and outcomes.
- Conceptualize the Therapy: Develop a theoretical framework that guides the conceptualization of the therapy. This involves integrating relevant theories and empirical findings to inform the formulation of treatment principles and strategies.
- Generate Intervention Techniques: Based on the theoretical framework, generate a pool of intervention techniques and strategies that are hypothesized to target the identified mechanisms underlying the problem. These techniques can be drawn from existing therapies or adapted to fit the conceptual model.
- Create a Treatment Manual: Develop a detailed treatment manual that outlines the structure, procedures, and content of the therapy. The manual should provide guidelines for therapists on how to deliver the intervention consistently and effectively.
- Pilot Testing: Conduct pilot testing of the therapy with a small sample of clients to assess its feasibility, acceptability, and initial efficacy. Solicit feedback from clients and therapists to identify areas for improvement and refinement.
- Refine the Therapy: Based on the feedback from pilot testing, revise and refine the therapy manual, intervention techniques, and procedures as needed. This may involve modifying existing techniques, adding new components, or clarifying instructions.
- Conduct Preliminary Studies: Conduct preliminary studies to evaluate the efficacy of the therapy in controlled settings. This may include single-case experimental designs, feasibility studies, or small-scale randomized controlled trials.
- Assess Treatment Integrity: Monitor treatment integrity to ensure that therapists adhere to the treatment manual and deliver the intervention as intended. This may involve training and supervision procedures to maintain fidelity to the therapy protocol.
- Evaluate Efficacy and Effectiveness: Conduct larger-scale randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of the therapy compared to control conditions or existing treatments. Use standardized outcome measures to assess changes in relevant variables.
- Analyze Data and Interpret Findings: Analyze the data using appropriate statistical methods and interpret the findings in relation to the therapy's theoretical framework and clinical implications. Consider both statistical significance and clinical significance of treatment effects.
- Refine and Disseminate: Based on the results of efficacy and effectiveness studies, refine the therapy further and disseminate the findings through publication in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at conferences, and training workshops for clinicians.
- Monitor Long-Term Outcomes: Follow up with clients to assess long-term outcomes and maintenance of treatment gains. This helps determine the sustainability of treatment effects over time.
By following these steps, researchers and clinicians can develop new psychological therapies that are theoretically grounded, empirically supported, and clinically relevant for addressing the needs of diverse populations.
To give references
Singha, R. (2024).How to Develop a new Psychological Therapy? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_Develop_a_new_Psychological_Therapy
I am working on my dissertation on Analysis of rural transformation in Ethiopia: Extent, effect and challenges. I want to review theoretical and conceptual framework that can guide my study.
Machine Learning (ML)
When data are brought together for a given model,
whether, Machine Learning (ML) will be able
to figure out the areas,
where field measurements are required?
Whether ML could accommodate
the application of physical laws to field data,
which would possibly reveal
additional information
about 'unmeasured' or 'difficult to measure'
field properties?
Whether ML could offer insight
to the system
being modelled?
At least, ML could act
as a Parsimonious model
for any given physical system,
which are based on
the simplest conceptual mechanisms
and employ fewest parameters,
while also providing an acceptable representation
of a given physical system
by providing
the basic insights to the system functioning
and critical processes?
Whether the forecasts from ML
could test hypotheses
about system responses
and allow
quantitative comparisons of
alternative proposed scenarios?
How exactly ML is expected
to improve the model performance,
given the fact that
the complexity of
petroleum reservoir systems and
the uneven spread,
poor quality
or
even absence of
observed data
present
considerable difficulties
for oil/gas drainage modelling?
What is the difference between conceptual framework and working model while writing the dissertation?
GR and SR are very good theories in the sense that all the assumptions behind them are states clearly, ipenly and elaboratively.
Is this a feature of honesty of the author or cleanless of the theory?
Simularly in Newtons. Whats more, he states some subtle assumptions he makes i.e gravitational propagation in Vacuum and admits limitations of his theory.
This is not seen at such a effective way in the rest of theories in physics. Does it imply a lack of honesty of the author or lack of conceptual cleanless of the theory?
To conduct a bibliometric analysis for a review paper in economic or social science, it is crucial to select the appropriate structure to address the research question. Among the available options, determining the more accurate research framework or conceptual framework is essential for achieving the desired results.
In an interventional study, is there a criterion for choosing a secondary outcome or a second dependent variable?
Should these two variables in the study of medical sciences and especially nursing be conceptually related or not?
For example,
examining the effect of family-oriented empowerment on self-management and quality of life of cancer patients?
I am working in the area of digital finance, and i want to develop a scale, but there is no pre existing scale for the concerned variable. All the existing measures are taken from national surveys items. Moreover, there are varied conceptualizations of the concept. I have developed my own conceptual definition using two theoretical models. Now, i am developing my initial pool of items but i facing problems as the concept has not been studied in the digital context. Please suggest some way forward, and any reference. Also, i want to know is it valid if i am developing a scale using theoretical background, and on the basis of those theories i am adding dimensions into my proposed scale. Because usually papers on scale development does not mention any theory. Please guide me.
I have been advocating for a definition of violence that encompasses four dimensions: (1) it is an expression of desires or decisions; (2) it promotes asymmetry; (3) it is a disregard for norms; and (4) it is conducive to potential harm. This conceptualization unveils the intent behind violent acts, highlighting an imbalanced power dynamic where aggressors breach established boundaries to enforce their will, resulting in any kind of damage.
Our endeavor aims to transcend fragmented approaches that categorize violence by types or manifestations, thereby illuminating its complexity and encouraging a critical dialogue on accountability and preventative measures against its various forms. This perspective underscores the necessity of comprehending the motivations and consequences of such actions.
Details can be found in the study below, pages 8 and 9.
What are your thoughts on this approach?
I am writing my research using the GT of Strauss and Corbin. However, typical research templates always have this Conceptual or Theoretical Frameworks.
We hear a lot about the comparability between biological "algorithms" and digital algorithms. But: what are the distinctions between biological "algorithms" and digital algorithms? Are there also causal distinctions between them, or merely conceptual?
Dear colleagues,
Has economics reached a consensus on what a market is? Notwithstanding its theoretical relevance, is the market not conceptually underdeveloped? Aren't economists often conflating half-backed logical conceptions of the market with historical instances of markets?
What philosophical device could we use to study the market as a conceptual entity? A colleague and I are proposing using Wittgenstein's notion of a logical space reinterpreted in light of Max Weber's ideal types and Schumpeter's reflections on the relationship between historical, and logical priority to shed light on how economists conceptualize the market and the role played by models.
Does anyone know of any such development?
Furthermore, we would like to apply this framework to General Equilibrium and Cattalaxy and investigate how sound our intuitions are, if at all. Please let us know if this sounds interesting and share any insight you may have about the relevance of such an endeavour.
I intend to conduct a thematic synthesis (systematic review) on foster carer experiences when engaging in attachment-informed interventions. I am currently developing my inclusion/exclusion criteria. Initially, I was going to exclude kinship/relative carers from the search as I wanted the group to be as homogenous as possible, and I felt that the two groups would present with different experiences.
However, a lot of the empirical research papers I am looking at combine both kinship and foster carers; they treat kinship carers as a subset of foster carers. The findings or results section often do not report whether it is a kinship or foster carer reporting their experience.
Is it sensical to remove my criteria of omitting kinship carers?
Background, Historical, Theoretical, conceptual and contextual perspectives
Recently, I read an article that conceptualize entrepreneurial commitment as third-order factor based on theory of organizational commitment (Tasnim & Singh, 2016). The conceptualization turns out to be more complex in comparison to the original theory of commitment. For theory building, is the complexity a strength or weakness?
Physics Masters exams or "candidacy exams" in some universities, are exclusively numerical problems-based with some explanation sub-Qs at the end. Usuallyn there are 2 or 4 Qs.
Because these are elaborate and may require more than 1 page of mathematical elabiration, it is considered a good and defficient assesment method - nobody considers new style.
But adding a 25% first Q of 4 parts of though conceptual Qs is not a bad idea and usually checks other skills such as
**understanding of issues
** flawed assumptions
**open problems
**
Crucial in scientists development that numerical. Probs can' t discern if a student's mind is able too.
I attach such Qs from Taha Sochi to illustrate my point better.
Dear Scholar, I'm looking for latest research work with 6 or more variables in conceptual framework. If you have any research papers in mind. Please share the link in the comment below.
Thank you all
THE EPISTEMOLOGY PRESUPPOSED BY PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
((This is the second part of the series in THE LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY OF PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES.))
1. The Logic of Physics (See the previous discussion's lead-text)
2. The Epistemology behind Physics
The whole of logic, epistemology, ontology, etc. are not the exclusive property of physics, or of any other particular science, or of all the sciences together. Each of them may apply the various general logical, epistemological, and ontological principles in ways suitable to their disciplines, but cannot claim that theirs is the genuine or the possibly best logic, epistemology, ontology, etc.
There is yet another manner, beyond the sciences, wherein (1) the object range and viewpoint range become the broadest possible in epistemology, and (2) the epistemological manner in which the two are connected becomes satisfactory enough to explain both the aspects and the procedures involved between them. This is a philosophical version of epistemology. Even this manner is not complete without including the various logics, epistemologies, and ontologies of the particular sciences.
Before pointing out the special manner in which physics could use the more general aspects of epistemology in itself, let me mention a general trend in science, especially physics. I have seen many students of physics and mathematics mistaking the logical ways in which they do experiments and theories as the same as the conceptual foundations of physics and mathematics.
They do not even think of the epistemology of physics. The clear reason for this is that their epistemology is a crude correspondence theory of truth, and this is outdated. Take any of the best physicists, and we can see in their works the underlying undefined epistemology being closer to the correspondence theory of truth than anything else. I would like to suggest in the following a clear spine of epistemological rudiments for physics.
The pragmatism and scientism at the foundations of practical physics does not accept anything other than the correspondence theory as prescriptive of all the truths of science. Of course, the amount of finality achieved in truths will be the measure of tenability of their truth-probability. But this is to be reserved to the most general truths derivable from any science or philosophy. Low-level truths are much beyond the purview of correspondence between the objectual and the theoretical. Unaware of these facts, most physicists take the difference lightly.
It is a pity that the students of the sciences and also philosophy students with scientistic orientations even think of their ways of permitting truth correspondence to all their truths as the sole possession of scientists, which they suppose are being usurped from philosophy in the course of the past centuries in such a way that philosophy will have ever less reason to exist, or no more reason to exist. Imaginably, in this pride they are encouraged by their presumption of possession of the scientific temper in an exceptional manner.
More evidently, there were and there are physicists holding that their use of logic, epistemology, ontology, etc. is final and that all other details being done by other sciences, especially by philosophy, are a mere waste of time. If you want me to give an example, I suggest that you watch some of the YouTube interviews with Stephen Hawking, where he declares philosophy as a waste of time, or as an unscientific affair. The same sort of claim is to be seen being made by many mathematicians: that logic is a by-product of mathematics, and that philosophers are falsely proud of having logic as their methodology.
The reason why the whole of logic does not belong to the sciences is that the viewpoint from which sensation, thought, and feeling may be exercised in the broadest possible manner is not exhausted even by totaling all the object ranges of all the sciences. Each of them does logic in a manner limited by its object range. How then can their logic be the best possible? There is one and only one general science of which the viewpoint is the broadest. It is that science in which the viewpoint is that of the direct implications of the To Be of Reality-in-total.
Against this backdrop, although the following definition might seem queer for many physicists, mathematicians, and other scientists, there are reasons why I define here epistemology for use in physics. The following definition itself will clarify the reasons:
The epistemology behind physics is (1) the science of justifications (2) for the systemic fact, the systemic manner of achieving, the enhancement of the systemic manner of achieving, and the foundations of systems (3) of rationally derivable and explicable theoretical consequences of human efforts (4) to grasp the connection between physically existent reality and their pertinent realities of all sorts (5) in an asymptotic approach of truth-correspondence from the procedures of knowing (in terms of the pertinent realities of existent realities) onto the physically existent processes of reality, (6) in a spirally broadening and deepening manner of truth probability, (7) which serves to achieve ever better approximations of the epistemological ideal of knowing, namely, Reality-in-general, (8) starting from reality-in-particular, and (9) by use of the highest theoretical generalities pertaining to Reality-in-total and its parts, namely, reality-in-particular.
The epistemology of physics does not take the viewpoint of the To Be of Reality-in-total. But it must obey the primary implications of To Be and the viewpoint of the To Be of Reality-in-total. What these implications are, will be treated below, under “3. The Ontology of Physics”. Epistemology in philosophy may be slightly more general than the epistemology of physics, in the sense that philosophy takes the viewpoint of all physical processes that exist and attempt to view every reality from that viewpoint alone. If not, philosophy has no justification for existence.
Naturally, the epistemology of the sciences will not be so general as that of philosophy. But obedience to it is better for the epistemology of physics; and the advantages of such obedience will be seen in the results of such physics and such sciences.
The epistemology of physics, therefore, will attempt to theorize, know, and predict all that exist, but from the viewpoint exclusively of experimentally / empirically verifiable methods based on what is directly or indirectly before us, namely, the physical processes at our reach. The epistemology of systematically and systemically (i.e., systematically of systems of systems … ad libitum) moving in the use of logic from the given existent physical processes to the details of the not immediately given but ever more minute or ever more distant physical existents is the epistemology of physics. The above definition would, in my opinion, be sufficient to cover as broad and minute procedures as possible in physics. Time has come to appropriate it in physics, lest much advantage be lost for too long.
Not that philosophy does not trust this approach of physics. But philosophy looks for the Categorial presuppositions of existence behind all that is verifiable or verified empirically and empirical-theoretically. These presuppositions are the starting points and guiding principles of philosophy. There is a stark difference between a methodology of this kind and the methodology of basing everything on the truths derived from empirical and empirical-theoretical research. Now from this viewpoint you may judge the following suggestions and determine whether the epistemology of doing physical science is as broad as that of philosophizing.
Every moment, our body-brain nexus is continuously but finitely in contact with itself and with a finite extent of the environment, more or less simultaneously, but in differing intensities, no matter however elementary. The primary mode of this is through sensation, using all available and necessary aspects of it as the case may be. Thought and feeling are possible only in continuity with sensation, and never without it.
But one special characteristic of the human brain differentiating it from others is that sensation, feeling, and thought can very consciously induct into, and consequently deduce from the presuppositions of, all that exist – no matter whether they are a finite environment or infinite – and all these solely from the finite experience from the finite environment at hand. This seems to be absent in less human living beings.
Moreover, the second, but more forgotten, characteristic of the human brain differentiating it from others is that sensation, thought, and feeling are affective, tending to itself and to others, in the broadest sense of the term ‘affective’. It is the manner in which every human being tends in his/her sensation, feeling, and thought. Hence, all processes of knowing will be coloured by affection.
The manner and then the so-constructed broader background in which sensation, feeling, and thought take place is affection, which we term also love in a very general sense. Sensation, feeling, and thought are the three interconnected modes of tending of the body-brain to itself and to the environment, tend always to connect itself with the environment.
But here too the important differentiating characteristic in human body-brains is their capacity to tend to the environment beyond the immediate environments, and further beyond them, etc. ad libitum. There is nothing wrong in theoretically considering that there is the tendency in humans to converting this sort of ad libitum to ad infinitum, irrespective of whether these environments can really go ever broader at infinity in the content of matter-energy within Reality-in-total. Infinity is another term here for generalizing.
Reality consists of existent reality and realities that pertain to existent realities in their groups. Existent realities are clear enough to understand. Realities pertinent to existent realities are never to be taken as belonging to just one existent reality. They are always those generalities that belong to many existent realities in their respective natural kind. These generalities are what I call ontological universals.
All generalizations tend beyond onto the infinite perfection of the essential aspects of the concepts pertaining to the object-range. Not that the object-range must be infinite. Instead, the tending presumes an infinitization due to the idealization involved in generalizations. This is a kind of infinitization that does not need an infinite Reality-in-total in existence. All the concepts that a human being can use are based in the infinitization of the essential aspects of the concepts in their ideality. But behind these mental ideals there are the ideals, namely, the ontological universals pertaining to the groups (natural kinds) of processual entities in the environment. These are the ideals in the things and are not in us. These too are idealizations at the realm of the natural kinds that form part of Reality-in-total.
Without loving in the sense of tending to, as human do, to the inner and outer environments in their generalities there is no sensation, feeling, and thought. The tending to need not be due to the love of the objects but due to the love of something that pertains to them or to the ontologically universal ideals pertaining to the objects. From this it is clear that the relation between the processual objects and the sensing-feeling-knowing mind is set by the ontological universals in the natural kinds of existent physical processes.
At the part of the mind there should be idealized universals of conceptual quality, because the ontological universals in natural kinds cannot directly enter and form concepts. This shows that the conceptual universals (called connotative universals) are the mental reflections of ontological universals that are in the natural kinds. In short, behind the epistemology of sensation, feeling, and thought there are the ontology and epistemology of loving in the sense of tending to, due to the otherness implied between oneself and the environment.
There may be philosophers and scientists who do not like the idea of love. I say, this is due to the many psychology-related prejudices prevalent in their minds. We need to ask ourselves what the major mode of exercitation of any activity in human beings, and none can doubt the role of love in epistemology. The physical foundations of love too are commonly to be shared with the foundations of other aspects of physical existence.
Such tending by the person is mediated within the person by the connotative universals. Their expression is always in terms of symbols in various languages. These are called denotative universals. Connotative universals get concatenated in the mind in relation to their respective brain elements and form thoughts and feelings. Their expression in language is by the concatenation of denotative universals and get formulated in languages as theories and their parts.
To put in gist the latter part of “2. The Epistemology of Physics”, I suggest that the ontological, connotative, and denotative universals and the love of human agents to these and the very existent processual entities are what facilitate knowledge. The psychological question as to what happens when one has no love does not have any consequence here, because psychology differentiates between love and non-love in terms of certain presumed expressions of love and non-love.
In the case of the natural course of life of humans, the choice is not between love and non-love, but instead, between increasing or decreasing love. We do not speak here of loving other human beings as a matter of ethical action. Instead, the point is that of the natural love that humans have for everything including for sensing, feeling, knowing, etc.
One might wonder here why I did not discuss mathematics as an epistemologically valid tool of physics and other sciences. I have already dealt with this aspect in many other discussion texts in ResearchGate, and hence do not expatiate on it here.
3. The Ontology behind Physics (soon to be given as a separate RG discussion session)
While research into 'gratitude' is proliferating, it often remains unclear exactly what concept is being investigated. Indeed, the various definitions in the literature suggest that authors may in fact be considering somewhat different phenomena. Thus, in aiming to advance this line of research and sharpen its focus, it seems useful to elaborate an informative and comprehensive conceptualization of gratitude. Besides, in order to facilitate better integration of this field of research, it is crucial that researchers endeavor to achieve a broad consensus regarding and adoption of such a conceptualization.
So the question(s) remains: what do we mean by and how can we best conceptualize gratitude? I suggest beginning this discussion with a focus on the meaning of gratitude as an experience before considering it as a disposition, character trait and/or virtue, since the latter seem to build on some notion of the former.
As a starting point, I would like to introduce an attempt of my colleagues and I to conceptualize gratitude, which is based on a conceptual-phenomenological analysis:
"Gratitude is an appreciative response that construes its object as a gratuitous good and as a (metaphorical) gift; it is characterized by a receptive-appreciative attitude, an awareness that we are in some sense dependent on something other than ourselves, and a motivational impetus to promote, celebrate and/or radiate goodness."
Source:
What do you think of this conceptualization? Does it resonate with your own experience? Is something wrong and/or missing? How would you conceptualize gratitude and why?
Looking forward to an inspiring discussion!
With kind regards,
Nick Hebbink
Hi friends,
I am just wondering about the free/ paid software researchers are using for demonstrating their lengthy conceptual models or frameworks. I am doing a lot of literature reviews and desperately looking for any platforms where i can easily create my frameworks. Creating too many tables and arrows on word makes my life hell.
Any help / suggestions in this regard is highly appreciated.
Thanks
Surej John
Theories of Everything or ultimate unified theories have evaded the conceptual grssp of scientists, with string theory and others coming close.
Physics theories, unlike in other fields must abide, besides mainstream epistemological criteria, strictly to these 2: empirical success and unity, simplicity-explanatory character.
Unity refers to a theory not having divergent or ad hoc seeing conditionals like i.e "except in the case of 2 hold spheres 1 mile apart".
But disunified theories work in other fields where conceptual unification is not the holy grail and they provide empirical success. It means that the theory outbrsnches to a subtheory that violates some basic postulates for the same of fittings to extra data while keeping a loose connection yp the theory's bottom line
Given failures to advance in description of some aspects of nature or scientific aims, it is tempting to ask if physics would ever decide to break its "founding manifesto".
My supervisor asked me to include a diagram of a conceptual framework in my dissertation, but I'm unsure about its meaning and how to create such a diagram. Can someone provide guidance on this?
I wrote a book and I have a conceptual approach. I have my own understanding, on this topic and also philosophically and spiritually contained. How may I publish as a research paper and post it on research gate. Thanks.
What is the impact of brain-based learning on students' conceptual understanding in physics?
Some literature/peer suggestions include:
** moving from teacher initiated questions to student initiated about problem solving
** focus on what teacher perceived as challenging areas in each curriculum region
** moving from conceptual instruction to more techinal terms and meaning of scientific terms
** focus on promoting sample exersices that fit to currculum & exam standards basic skills
Where to begin from? Conceptual framework and theoratical frmaework? Tools to collect and analyse data?
Welcome to the ResearchGate discussion dedicated to an academic exploration of my thesis titled "Ontology of the Theory of Relativity. (Ontología de la teoría de la relatividad)" This discussion provides a focused platform for researchers and enthusiasts to engage in a scholarly examination of the foundational topics addressed in the paper.
The objective of this discussion is to facilitate a thorough analysis of the ontological aspects inherent to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Participants are encouraged to contribute their insights, critiques, and inquiries pertaining to the conceptual framework presented in the paper.
Key topics of interest include:
1. Spacetime: Delve into the conceptualization of spacetime and it's ontological nature, exploring its properties, structure, and implications for our understanding of the relativistics phenomena.
2. Movement. Discuss the model of movement proposed in the paper, its significance, and possible clashes with other conceptions.
3. Time. Debate on the conception of time sketched in the paper.
4. Other Philosophical Considerations: Engage in a scholarly discourse regarding the philosophical implications of the theory, including its impact on our conception of reality and the nature of causality.
5. Future Directions: Share thoughts on potential avenues for further research, extensions, or applications of the ontological framework discussed in the paper.
Participants are encouraged to ground their contributions in existing literature and empirical evidence, fostering a rigorous and intellectually stimulating exchange.
A version in English can be found here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.14809v2
*Topic for discussions*
Wouldn't it be more helpful and make research work more concise if we consider merging the literature review section with the background of the study. For instance, is it possible to have a research study structured in the style below?
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction
1.1 statement of the problem
1.2 purpose of the study
1.3 Objectives
1.4 research questions/hypothesis
1.5 significance
1.6 delimitation of the study
CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUND AND EMPIRICAL REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
2.1 conceptual framework
....................
Note*
Pardon my ignorance senior members but I think the best way to increase knowledge is by learning from a wide range of audience. That is why I ask a lot of questions.
Please suggest me a free software to make conceptual and theoretical frameworks
Physics is made of 3 main branches: classical mechanics "point mass" including gravity, electromagnetism (80% of phenomena) & fluid mechanics.
The 1st and 3rd are so far conceptually the most incompatible.
Pressure is the primitive in fluid theory(and force a non prinitive) , force in the other .
So obviously the unified fluid-poin mass theory needs to find new primitives or reject one concept.
Although Hamiltonian formulation does this to a degree, we need a deeper, more physically insightful theorization.
Rationale& problems
The rationale
nature is unified.
The problem
Incompressibility and other properties that succesfully explain
fluids cannot be related to point mass mechanics properties.
This is a didision that is man made and not for nature
Laws
Bernoulli & Newtonian cannot be unified. A new theoretical entity needs to be invented, like when Faraday invented the field, to incorporate one in another.
First a key question must be established that is Meaningful and observational effects based, about the relation of point mass forsive andBernoulli fluid phenomena
I am not computational chemist but I would appreciante if you explain me this in a conceptual way
I am doing DFT calculations in dmol3 and would like to conceptually understand the convergence threshold parameters and how changing them affects my calculations. Thanks
I extended utaut model with some additional factors and examined the conceptual framework through a questionnaire. now I need to evaluate the usability of this model by interview and sus score without using a specific system. how could I do this?
What is a conceptual framework of research in Fisheries Marketing?
My suggestion is: trying to solve it in a conceptual reference frame that is not optimal.
Here is my example. Kleiber’s Law is Max Klieber’s empirical inference that metabolism scales by a 3/4 power of mass. Accordingly, much effort has been invested in trying to deduce a 3/4 exponent from a mathematically based reasoning. An example is the geometric, fracctally based reasoning in A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology , 1997, Science , Vol. 276. The 3/4 power relates to energy use. Energy use is the conceptual reference frame. Instead, it appears that a better conceptual reference frame focuses on how much energy distribution capacity increases with increased animal size. In that case, the 3/4 scaling of the rate of metabolism is how evolution responded to the 4/3 scaling of energy supply, to render energy per cell invariant. This is discussed in:
Preprint Size, scaling, and invariant ratios
Other examples:
The laws of motion without the concept of inertia (Galileo’s marbles experiments).
The nature of heat without connecting energy, motion and heat.
Equating redshift and luminosity distances for SN 1A. I suspect this is a conceptual reference frame problem.
Do you have other examples?
When Introduction, Background Study and Conceptual Framework is written in a Research Paper ?
Can some one suggest me some researches from Project Management Journals which must have variables, conceptual framework and research methodology so that I can replicate in some other demographic area?
What is the difference between conceptual framework and theoretical framework?
Conceptual vs Empirical Types of Research.
The theoretical framework and conceptual framework in educational research are two concepts that may be unclear to novice researchers since they are not explicitly defined in the research literature and occasionally have several meanings. The theoretical framework is based on a theory and explains the broader relationship between concepts that serve as the basis for a particular study. The conceptual framework might be something different.
Could someone explain what a conceptual framework is and how it is different from a theoretical framework?
How to tell a conceptual paper from those research papers? Are there any bullet points that distinguish them?
High school physics does not have the best affective appeal - not reputation among general student population-possibly due to content emphasis. Affective aspects however are important in early to mid stages of education.
Torques, circular motion and coulomb fields are depressing topics to the scientifically inadept; even more modern physics topics and high esteem terms like "constructive superposition" of waves and related phenomena do not faire better.
One however has to keep in mind that the mission of k 12 is to build some conceptual& skillsets/deep understandings that the next generations of scientists should have. Appeal is quarabteed what ever the topic choice for the later.
So the compromise is hard-leading to current win-lose solutions.
Suggestions such as for incorporation of whole year curricula on exciting, high contemporary culture status topics like radioactivity, laser apps, Vacuum conductivity have been raised to be balanced with half year courses on scientific method-a facelifted version of mentioned depressing content with deenpasis on content to teach skills/conceptual areas but keep things attractive to general population are still to gain persuasive power to be adopted.
So, this question pertains to our recent publication 'Towards a conceptual framework for communicating library training to students in South African university libraries'.
I recently asked CHATGPT to tell me about the debate between John Budd, Gary P Radford and Jim Zwadlo on the role of philosophy in library and information science. These were the responses (attached).
Which perspective entices you the most?
Wondering out aloud if there is a specific and universally acceptable format (which can be justified to a panel) wrt the placement of a conceptual framework in a doctoral thesis? I have been hearing various versions.
I am sorry that the talk is in Chinese only here: https://youtu.be/kChpjZgIeeM
I know this is a debatable subject and many researchers have different opinions on this topic, but I want you to put your insights and describe it from various lenses.
I think there is a great relationship between the two. The purpose of case conception is to analyze patients 'psychological activities by collecting information. In fact, the purpose of Freud's psychoanalysis is also to explore the psychological activities of patients. There are also theories of explanation in psychoanalysis, such as Freud's "stage of sexual psychological development", Adler's "inferiority complex" and so on. But "analysis" in psychoanalysis is to explore the psychological activities of patients, and case conceptualization is also the purpose. So, case conceptualization is inspired by psychoanalysis. Because psychoanalysis has not been recognized by the mainstream academic community, but psychotherapy is inseparable from "analysis", so, just like "the repressed desire is expressed in other ways", psychotherapy has invented "case conceptualization", case conceptualization is a psychoanalytical apprentice. What about you? What do you think of the relationship between the two? By the way, my "psychological analysis" is also an apprentice of psychoanalysis. In fact, the case conceptualization is a psychological analysis.
Perception is not the ultimate guide for knowledge but as Gallileo captured the actual and empirical, not necessarily the real, similar concerns arise.
In general, the repercussions of Reduction arise because what is actual, i.e final instantiation of underlining process, is not all the story. Further omissions come from the empirical approach since sense means are not always valid projectors of the actual.
Gallilean approach has yielded a framework that empowered our comprehension & ability to define/describe phenomena in the realm of the actual& empirical. His treatise should not be considered more than this i.e descrining the nature of the real and its dynamics.
The reduction of change to motion has been noted but little has been argued about its shortfalls in epistemic practice. This reduction is part of the reduction of the real to the actual since it omits any need to refer to the real to make its claims functional. It also removes philosophical or anthropocentric notions of growth and ultimate ends which is good in one sense but in a pure "reductionist shortfalls" point of view is still a problem dimain restriction.
The description of motion with mathematics is another point neglected. Motion can be described qualitatively or conceptual but such a framework has not been devised.
Hello
I am developing a hypothesised model based on a theoretical framwork in a conceptual paper, but I only want to use part of the framework and add something new in the model. Does anyone know if this is okay? If so, coudl you show me any journal articles that did this?
I am doing Ph.D research on ( peace-building through development) using 2 theories plus conceptual framework. My data collection method is semi-structured interviews, is interviews are sufficient to gather the needed data or I need to ad another method? Respectfully
conceptual metaphor, analogy, or categorization?
I am working on a paper that focuses on perceptions and I wonder if anyone has found any paper that conceptualizes perceptions as a concept or object of study. In other words, I am looking for references to help me understand how to study perceptions, like definitions, the different angles of perceptions I need to consider
The conceptual framework put forward by Holt et al. (2007) for their scale measuring Readiness for Organizational Change (cf. attached picture) seems promising but I'm not sure how it can be adapted qualitatively to come up with in-depth interview questions. Any help is more than appreciated.
Any idea about packages or application for hypothetical drawing and conceptual framework?
I am trying to conceptualize a topic on radon monitoring in the Philippines and I am still thinking if using CR-39 detector is enough or should I incorporate the usage of the RAD7 real-time monitor for radon? Thank you.
Hello!
I have a question about the discrepancy between conceptualization and operationalization in my study.
I used the concept named 'multicultural teaching competency'(MTC) (Spanierman et al., 2010). In their paper on validating the MTC scale, they conceptualised MTC as awareness, knowledge, and skills.
But when they processed EFA, CFA, and reliability test, the results showed that only knowledge and skills are two sufficient factors to explain MTC.
The authors explained a few reasons why awareness is not one of the factors.
But how can I justify in my dissertation the discrepancy between their original conceptualisation in which they mentioned MTC is composed of awareness, knowledge, and skills, and the outcome of the study which only knowledge and skills are two sufficient factors for MTC?
Hello everyone I am writing a literature review/conceptual paper with an objective of Highlighting the research gap and future agenda. I want to add value in argument and debate with some quantitative information that's why I am seeking for any analysis or methodology to use on previous results and then writing about the trends or gap. Please mention some of the analysis tools and methods for this purpose
Respected Sir/Madam,
Just I wanna a discussion on the topic that how we can use the Conceptual Framework in Pharmacy practice research or Clinical pharmacy research? is there any books, references, articles or any comprehensive discussions on it?
Thanks and kind regards
What is the Conceptual Understanding of Mathematical Concepts? How you can define this Idea?
Glass forming ability and critical cooling rate in bulk metallic glasses
I'm looking to do research utilizing (STOC) as a conceptual framework for a qualitative study. Was wondering if anyone knew of other research that used the same framework that had a sample interview guide that explored the various stages.
Hello everyone!
I have a question regarding the conceptual/theoretical framework for qualitative research.
I know that you have to use the existing literature or theory to make a framework, but I was wondering if you can use only 3 concepts out of four concepts from one research.
For example, a key concept is why organizations form partnerships. Regarding this, one research discussed about four motives of why organizations form partnerships. In this case, can I use only three motives for my framework?
Also, another study suggested two other motivations. can I combine them with the one above?
Thank you in advance, and I will wait for your insights!
Dear colleagues
in contrast to the traditional approaches to validity, the argument-based approach emphasized the claims rather than the constructs. do you think this shift from constructs to claims makes the validation process more practical, and abstract or tangible in conceptualization?
Your ideas are highly appreciated
Sincerely
Hello experts, Seniors, and fellows, kindly help me on this.
Teacher trainees are placed in schools for their professional learning experiences (internship, or practicum experiences). What really do they learn from their teacher mentors and from the school environment? I would like to have a conceptual framework of such learning experiences on the field of teaching.
I am studying child-adult differences in how EMG's mean power frequency (MPF) changes as a function of relative (%) time to exhaustion. The best-fit function for each of these relationships was found to be a 3rd-order polynomial and each relationship comprise ~200 data points.
How do I find whether and to what extent the two functions are ststistically different from each other?
(The problem appears to be conceptually simple, but apparently nobody in my academic institution seems to know how to analyze that)
Thanks in advance!
Raffy Dotan
I am developing a conceptual framework from literature and logical reasoning.
The framework is validated through interviews and then tested through surveys.
I am confused:
1. Do I mention that I developed the conceptual model with interviews BEFORE my methodology chapter, knowing I must provide my research questions at that stage, which is the standard sequencing?
or
2. Do I simply propose the research questions first, followed by the methodology, then the interviews which will feed into the conceptual model after the methodoloy?
My confusion is that the methodology is mentioning the interviews, yet I have conducted those early-on to develop the model.
I hope my answer is clear!
Family Systems Theory by Murray Bowen is a specific approach which takes familial functioning into account. I am interested in how the concepts present in it will translate into a South Asian (or, to be more precise, the collectivistic framework of Pakistan) context? For instance, Bowen's theory is based on an understanding of nuclear family systems but how would it apply in the case of a joint family? In a culture where parents might be dependent on the views of the community in terms of bringing up children, how would Bowen's theories translate exactly (for instance, if they have a disabled child)? For example, what is the difference between Bowen's concepts of relationships between generations and the kinds that might emerge owing to different generations living under the same roof and with their extended family members as well?
Let's say, for instance, that it is not merely parents but also other members of the family such as extended family members or grandparents who either counsel children on "appropriate conduct" or even express disapproval and view it as appropriate behavior culturally. How do Murray's concepts such as "Differentiation" change in a cultural sense in that case just as one example out of many possible ones? In a culture where "adulthood" and transition towards it might exist in a legal sense but might not be necessarily viewed as "important" even for parental figures (for instance, even if children cross the age of 18, parents do not try to treat their children as "adults"), how would Bowen's concepts change? I am not talking in terms of applying these concepts therapeutically, but, in terms of how they might be applicable in a conceptual sense.
