LIMITATIONS, DELIMITATIONS Regardless of whether the proposal is intended to secure funding for research or approval from a doctoral student's

dissertation committee, it is usually expected that at some point the proposal will include a section to make explicit what the researcher does not intend to accomplish (or what the design of the study inherently will not allow). Like other sections of the proposal, such a statement is as much for the benefit of the writer as it is for the benefit of the reader) Doctoral students will invariably seek out completed dissertations in hope of finding models to follow and in so doing may run across a page or two describing "limitations and delimitations" of the study, but with inconsistent usage of the two terms. On occasion, colleagues who advise doctoral students have asked me for clarification of these terms and I have generally made the distinction in this way: The delimitations of a study are those characteristics that limit the scope (define the boundaries) of the inquiry as determined by the conscious exclusionary and inclusionary decisions that were made throughout the development of the proposal. Among these are the choice of objectives and questions, variables of interest, alternative theoretical perspectives that could have been adopted, etc. The first limiting step was the choice of problem itself; implicit are other, related problems that could have been chosen but were rejected or screened off from view. Go back and review each of these decisions. You will want to prepare a statement of purpose or intent that clearly sets out what is meant to be accomplished by the study but that also includes a declaration of what the study does notintend to cover. In the latter case, your decisions for excluding certain territory should have been based on such criteria as "not interesting"; "not directly relevant"; too problematic because..."; "not feasible" and the like. Make this reasoning explicit. Consider the example of an important study conducted during the 1980s:(2) Imagine a cross-case comparison study of state-level education policy systems that broke entirely new conceptual ground in the field of policy studies by exploring for the first time the role of political cultures and prevailing public values in policy making. This study generated detailed profiles of political cultures and public values vis a vis how they differentially shaped education policy choices in each of the states included in the study. There were a number of interesting research questions that could have been asked but were not

pursued, such as, "how are the public schools affected by different policy choices on the same educational issues?", or "do these differential policy choices evidence themselves in different educational outcomes among public school students?" These questions were not pursued in this particular study because (a) the focus of the inquiry was on developing a new theory of how policy systems work, not on their outcomes, and (b) the inclusion of these questions, while interesting, would have been beyond the reach of the research team, given limited time and money for conducting the study. The limitations of the study are those characteristics of design or methodology that set parameters on the application or interpretation of the results of the study; that is, the constraints on generalizability and utility of findings that are the result of the devices of design or method that establish internal and external validity. The most obvious limitation would relate to the ability to draw descriptive or inferential conclusions from sample data about a larger group. For example, a study of alcohol consumption among native French, Italian, Russian and European Jewish males, based on data from a truly representative sample of these groups, would allow the researcher to make generalizations about the consumption behavior of all other native French, Italian, Russian and European Jewish males that were not included in the study, assuming the sample is large enough and randomly selected. If the study included a finding that differences in consumption across groups were strongly predicted by specific cultural values and beliefs, it might be legitimate for the researcher to speculate that similar findings would accrue from a study of other ethnic groups with similar cultural characteristics, such as Germans or Bulgarians, but such an inference would be purely speculative. The researcher, however, could not generalize the findings to next generation American Jews, French, Italians, or Russians of the male gender. Certainly, the researcher would be foolish to draw conclusions from the data about the drinking behavior of females of any nationality, or of native Japanese or Japanese-American males. Once a statement of limitations and delimitations has been prepared, the question about where in the proposal to place it arises. A logical place is near the end of the problem statment section, somewhere after the statement of purpose. Elsewhere in the proposal, the researcher may have repeated a general statement of purpose, "the purpose of this project is...", which presents another opportunity for including the

limitations and delimitations of the study. Again, that may have been at the end of the problem statement, preceding a justification for selecting the problem in the first place. Another juncture may have occurred somewhere in the proximity of the section devoted to the conceptual framework (design of the study) or earlier in the procedures section as part of the outlining step suggested elsewhere in this guide (see procedures). 1. 1 It is a continual source of frustration to persons active in the field of R&D that funding sources (governmental and private) frequently use a proposal review process that involves scrutiny of proposals by a panel of peers and/or agency staff who seem (to the proposer) unable to read, or incredibly ignorant of the area of proposed study. There is a chance that a doctoral student's committee will be viewed by the student as falling in the same category. To be sure, I have served on numerous peer review panels at the federal level where some members of a panel were hard pressed to find the time for careful reading and that also happens occasionally with dissertation committee members. In both cases, however, the problem is most often with the writer's writing and less frequently with the reader's reading. A small amount of redundancy in proposals can be helpful. In any case, nothing should be left at the implicit level.

LOGICAL STRUCTURE, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Problems do not exist in nature but in the minds of people. This can be seen from an examination of the definition of problem: problems stem from the juxtaposition of factors which results in a perplexing or enigmatic state of mind (a cognitive problem), an undesirable consequence (a psychological or value problem), or a conflict which

obscures the appropriate course of action (a practical problem). Cognitions, values and practices are attributes of persons, not the objective world (whatever that is) Problems cannot be articulated except within a conceptual system. No inquirer can investigate a problem from all perspectives simultaneously. And that is what a logical structure or theoretical framework is all about. It establishes a vantage point, a perspective, a set of lenses through which the researcher views the problem. In this sense, the selection of a logical framework is both a clarifying and exclusionary step in the research process. While it sharpens focus and consequently increases clarity brought to the problem area, it excludes from the view of the inquirer other perspectives that might be brought to bear on the problem, but does so in explicit recognition of those perspective and the rationale for their rejection. In fact, it is the choice of frameworks chosen by the researcher that has contributed to new understandings or problem solutions by some researchers, or to inadequate inquiry or false conclusions by others. For example, decades of research on organizational management and behavior viewed organizations from the classic, rational model of hierarchical bureaucracy with tightly coupled substructures and linked and linear organizational processes (as posited by the German sociologist Max Weber in the early part of this century)(2). But that perspective never led to adequate understandings of how organizations, such as corporations and universities, actually work. Recent researchers, working from the vantage point of alternative perspectives, using metaphors derived from long-term observation of life in universities and other organizations, have broken away from the image of organizations as bureaucracies to study them as "organized anarchies"(3) and "loosely coupled systems."(4) They have created a powerful new line of inquiry that has greatly enhanced our understanding of the structures and processes of work life in public institutions. The point is, there are usually multiple frameworks from which to view the same problem, the more viable often being obscured by the dominance of a worn-out paradigm that blinds the observer to alternative views of the world. The framework used by the researcher is not always explicit (as in the example of "organized anarchy" when first used as a perspective for studying organizations); but the burden of the argument here is that to the extent possible the framework should be explicated for several reasons:

1. Since the problem is a function of its framework, the problem can be better articulated and understood if its basic system is well understood and articulated. Additional facets of the problem may be generated as a result, and the known facets will take on greater clarity and form. 2. When the framework is well articulated, it is possible to conceive and consider alternative frameworks. The explication of behaviorist theory in early psychology made it possible to see what its strengths and weaknesses were and to develop alternative theories that ultimately had high payoff (e.g., the advent of cognitive psychology and one of its offspring, Rational Emotive Therapy). Given several possible frameworks, the researcher chooses from among them on the basis of criteria such as heuristic value, inclusiveness, efficiency, and the like. The power of a proposed solution to the problem may thus be considerably enhanced. 3. The explication of a theoretical framework or logical structure provides focus to all the subsequent steps in planning and carrying out the proposed inquiry, e.g., charting variables and their relationships. It makes it possible to generate a relatively complex set of objectives and questions; it provides a basis for including and excluding literature and research that is actually related to the inquiry by identifying the variables of greatest interest and concern; and it provides focus to the inquirer's procedural planning and choices from initial design selection, through instrument development or adoption, to the organization, analysis and interpretation of data, e.g., research design, statistical tests, making sense of empirical findings. 4. Perhaps most important is the impact of the explicit theoretical structure on subsequent inquiry in the same area. The investigation no longer hangs loose but becomes part of a line or tradition of inquiry which other researchers can check, replicate or build upon. Knowledge growth in a field becomes an additive phenomenon of increasingly useful structures or concepts with which inquirers can work. 5. Without a clear explication of the problem and a workable perspective with which to view it, it is likely that the research project will be flawed by uncontrolled extraneous variables, overlooked variables, faulty instruments, haphazard procedures and the like. "You can't get there from here" without taking this step. A failure in this regard is why so

many graduate students end up with a procedural plan that runs them in circles.

Defining a Logical Structure or Theoretical Framework A logical structure or theoretical framework is the set of terms and relationships within which the problem is formulated and solved. Such frameworks may vary greatly in format and sophistication. In its simplest form a conceptual framework may be no more than a set of descriptive categories. For example, one may decide to investigate teacher behavior by noting whether a teacher's verbal statements are questions, informational comments, supportive comments, or disciplinary comments. Such a set of terms would be quite useful in categorizing behavior even though there is no pretense that all behavior could be categorized this way, or that the terms were preselected to conform to some particular point of view. Maslow's(5) Hierarchy of Need is another example of a conceptual framework that has been heavily used in social science research, including efforts to refute its utility as a classification scheme for human behavior. When such a set of categories meets the additional criteria that all categories are independent of each other and are (together) necessary and sufficient to encompass all relevant phenomenon, they may be said to comprise a taxonomy, as for example, the biological taxonomy of life forms. A theory interconnects the categories (whether or not they form a taxonomy) through a set of relationships. Both the categories and/or relationships may be derived from a basic set of postulates. Hypotheses may be derived by deduction from the theory for testing. In short, a conceptual framework is a concise description (often accompanied by a graphic or visual depiction) of the major variables operating within the arena of the problem to be pursued together with the researcher's overarching view of how the variables interact (or could be made to interact under manipulable conditions) to produce a more powerful or comprehensive "model" of relevant phenomena than has heretofore been available for shedding light on the problem. Think of it as a MAP with conceptual

directions. The framework, in fact, either anticipates or directly presents the basic design of the study (more about that below). The figures at the end of this section attempt to depict example structures for two hypothetical studies. Figure 2 is a "lick the world" structure examining the effectiveness of an inservice training program for teachers that would take a well funded staff of researchers to complete if left as it is. Figure 3 is a model for investigating the factors that shed light on the problem of antisocial behavior among youth, and is considerably less complicated than Figure 2, although it poses some formidable measurement challenges. I have put a little narrative with those figures to aid comprehension. It might be helpful to examine these figures and then re-read this section a few times. Rudestam & Newton (1992), by the way, have good visual models in chapter two. Examples of logical structures from student proposals can be found here.

Functions of a Logical Structure or Theoretical Framework 1. Expounding - To expound the structure or framework within which the situation will be investigated, that is: (1) in the case of the logical structure, to provide a rationale for the perspective from which the investigator will examine the problem; or (2) in the case of the theoretical framework, to conceptualize or state the theory in which terms the investigator will examine the problem. 2. Validating - to validate the application of the particular logical structure or theoretical framework in the investigation of the problem in terms of its anticipated advantages and consequences. The process of structure building is the researcher's creative step in research design that minimizes irrelevancies, tightens focus on constructs that comprise the relevant substance of the inquiry, and maximizes the "real world" utility of the inquiry; that is, it is the means by which validity in its various forms is achieved. The structure or framework, therefore, embodies the ontological and epistemological character of the study and anchors the methodological phases of inquiry (sampling procedures, choice of research questions, statistical design for each question or hypothesis, ect.).

Common Deficiencies in Proposal Structures or Frameworks

-- Failure to offer any framework - raw empiricism -- The inappropriate framework -- The overly complex framework -- The framework unrelated to other competing structures -- The imprecise framework

Generating a Framework or Structure Many researchers, most neophytes, find themselves perplexed by the notion that they are responsible for positing a theoretical structure on which their inquiry is to be based, or they are just perplexed. Consequently, no framework is offered at all, or they end up as overly complex, sophisticated structures and statements which the researcher finds dysfunctional to the conduct of the inquiry; the framework, in effect, becomes an independent step in the inquiry process carried to a successful conclusion as an academic exercise. But it misses the central point of the activity. The theoretical or conceptual grounding of a study is designed to help the inquirer -- not boggle his/her mind. It is undertaken not simply for the advantage of the reader of a proposal, but for the researcher as a conceptual map to the investigation. As was noted, a conceptual framework is the necessary concomitant of any problem, for the problem could not be stated except within at least an implicit framework. Thus the task is simply to make explicit what is already there at the implicit level in the statement of the problem. The researcher may begin by simply noting key terms and basic assumptions underlying the inquiry (variables and their interactions). Several structures, classification systems, taxonomies, and theories may already have been explicated precisely in the field in which the researcher is working; or, in other cases, in fields that could be applied, e.g., the use of the social psychological structure of interaction analysis in observation of classroom teacher behavior (i.e., Flanders'

interaction analysis); or the notion of political cultures(6) borrowed from political science, applied to a study of state level social service policy development (i.e., the legislative or regulatory decision process). The sources to support the inquirer in theory development are no different from those that will be turned to for support in other areas of planning the research, i.e.: -- Extant structures of varying levels of sophistication in the literature of the field. -- Structures from related fields that could be adopted for, or adapted to, the inquiry. -- Previous research studies that have employed either implicit or explicit structures pertinent to the inquiry. -- De Novo explication of structures -- these usually occur at simple rather than complex levels of structure building or the research itself must be geared first to a theory development project. Investigations frequently employ not one but several structures to clarify dimensions of the inquiry. For example, a "futures" study may posit one structure to support the substance of the inquiry, a second to organize the futures view, and perhaps a third to clarify a methodological orientation toward data gathering (probably detailed in the procedures section). The critical point is that multiple structures should be truly complementary and exclusive in their orientation. If they overlap, an effort should be made to synthesize the structures and postulate a new, more comprehensive structure It is virtually always beneficial to create a drawing or figure at early stages of conceptualization that depicts the major variables and categories, connected by lines and arrows to show relationships and interactions, in much the same way that an architect or designer might make preliminary sketches of a building or landscape. This activity is similar to a "semantic web" exercise I use with my students in organization theory called, "How can I know what I think until I see what I say?" The narrative for the conceptual framework describes and justifies the elements of the figure. The figure serves two important purposes. First, it helps the researcher think about his/her own thinking but also aides in the preparation of the narrative for the conceptual framework. Second,

when included in the proposal, it can be helpful, even essential, to the reader who seeks to understand what the researcher is trying to do. Although I have said that structures sometimes get needlessly complicated or overly sophisticated (thus obligating the researcher to an unrealistic project), an essential step in structure building is to PURPOSELY complicate and make more comprehensive the initial structure so that the scope of the inquiry can be examined for missing categories or inappropriate causal constructs; that is, to make sure the bases are covered with regard to issues of validity and utility. The researcher is then in a better position to make appropriate limiting and delimiting choices that shrink the endeavor back down to manageable perameters and at the same time ensure his/her efforts will be fruitful. Once a framework has been prepared, it is important to ask what advantages and disadvantages may accrue as a result of using it. In the event that there seems to be available only a single alternative framework, its use is mandated even though it may have some obvious drawbacks. In other cases where multiple frameworks may be available, as for example in learning research (behaviorism vs constructivism), the choice of the particular framework should certainly be made to maximize those advantages that are most salient for the investigation or development project and to minimize those disadvantages that are most inimical to it. In general, when the proposer is able to demonstrate that (1) the proposed framework does have relevance to the study, and (2) the particular framework has more advantages and/or fewer disadvantages than some other framework that might have been used, then the validating function of this section of the proposal has been met.

HYPOTHESES AND QUESTIONS

The statement of hypotheses and questions to be pursued in the investigation completes the four steps that might collectively be described as the inquirer's procedural guide: 1. The problem statement identified the interacting factors that gave rise to the anomaly, contradictory facts, exception, knowledge void being investigated, and signaled the strategy to be employed by the investigator for attacking the problem. 2. The conceptual framework sharpened the focus of the study by positing a perspective, vantage point, or set of glasses for viewing the phenomenon under investigation; in the process, of course, screening out other views. 3. The objectives narrowed the investigation further by selecting the ultimate aims or purposes of the R&D activity and, consequently, eliminated others that might have been chosen. 4. The statement of hypotheses and questions is a two-step process;

a. selecting the key questions to be pursued from among several questions appropriate to the objectives;

b. operationalizing the definitions that will be employed for the major variables in the study in preparation for describing the design, instrumentation, and analysis appropriate to the study. Defining Hypotheses and Questions Hypotheses and questions are linked to the speculative proposition of the problem statement, can be inferred from the overall conceptual framework of a study, and are of critical importance to data analysis and interpretation. In research studies, the term hypotheses implies a derivation, within a hypothetic-deductive theoretical system, of a particular assertion or prediction. The hypothesis is subject to test, i.e., to confirmation or rejection on empirical grounds. The term question implies an interrogative statement that can be answered by data, which is logically related to the same conceptual framework, but which does not necessarily stem from that framework through logical deduction. In the behavioral research tradition, hypotheses are developed when the degree of sophistication of the conceptual framework is high, approximating that of a hypotheticdeductive theory, and the objectives of the study call for the application of higher order inferential statistical analysis.(1) In behavioral research, questions are appropriate when the degree of sophistication is low and rigorous deductions are therefore not possible. In conventional inquiry, the data to be sought are defined a priori by the hypotheses to be tested (or questions to be answered), deduced from them as the hypotheses themselves were deduced from prior theory. Naturalistic inquiry, on the other hand, does not employ hypotheses in the classic sense (although it may eventually lead to their development) because the approach to data analysis isinductive. Inductive analysis begins not with theories or empirical hypotheses but with the data themselves, from which theoretical categories and relational propositions may be arrived at by inductive reasoning processes. By the same token, naturalistic inquiry does not start with questions (except in the most global sense) but questions will emerge along the way.(2) In the case of development, the hypotheses or questions are usually more appropriately called design specifications. Some problem solution is to be developed. If the development functions properly, it will alleviate or eliminate the problem or produce some new desired outcome. The specifications of the mode of operation of the new development, and the outcomes expected from it, are in every sense design

specifications, just as are, for example, statements indicating the form to be taken by a new prototype carburetor and the ways in which it should function. Hypothesis deserves further clarification. A hypothesis is a conjectural statement in the form of a relational proposition. The conjectural nature of the statement derives from the researchers best "sense" (informed judgment) of the relationships between variables which, when subjected to analysis, will yield new understandings about those particular relationships in the discrete terms that bound the hypothesis itself and, when taken together with the research questions or other hypotheses, will fill in the blanks inherent in the theoretical framework of the entire study.

Functions of the Statement of Hypotheses or Questions

Selecting - To select and propose the specific questions to be answered or hypotheses to be tested (in the case of research) or the particular design specifications to be met (in the case of development). Operationalizing - To operationalize the definitions that will be employed for the major variables in the study. Validating - To validate the fact that the questions or hypotheses can be inferred from the theory or conceptual framework in a straightforward, deductive way; or the fact that the design specifications can be shown to have a logical relationship to the problem that is to be resolved by the development.

Common Deficiencies in Statements of Hypotheses or Questions -- The independent hypothesis or question (coming from nowhere, not a clue in previous sections of the proposal) -- Weak hypotheses

-- The lost question or hypothesis (implied by previous material but, surprise! does not appear) -- The incredible operational definition -- The non-operational hypothesis or question Generating Hypotheses and Questions Questions or hypotheses flow from the conceptual framework, as noted earlier. They represent a further narrowing of the objectives, and a further step toward Operationalizing what is to be done (a preview of the procedures). Whether one asks a question or tests hypotheses depends upon which stage of the research process is involved; thus, depicting or relating are typically concerned with answering questions (although they may be involved as a step in testing) while testing is usually concerned with hypotheses. In either case, the questions or hypotheses do not just arise by chance; they are the definite consequences of the conceptual framework and other decisions that have been brought to bear on the problem. Design specifications flow from the problem to be solved. If the carburetor is passing too much gasoline for the amount of air, the carburetor may need to be redesigned with a smaller fuel passage. By analogy, the design specifications for any innovation or intervention ought to have a demonstrable relationship to the problem to be resolved. If children are being blocked in their reading because of class-value or sex stereotype problems in relating to instructional materials, the materials should be redesigned so that they reflect a value structure more nearly compatible with that of the pupils involved. The table below is designed to relate the questions or hypotheses directly to the statement of objectives. In column one, you should record the objectives just as they were stated in the proposal. Column two asks you to consider whether the objectives suggest multiple questions that could be pursued. If the answer to the question is "yes," as is usually the case, you should record the several questions or hypotheses suggested by the objectives in column 3. It is from among this population of questions that you will choose those you intend to pursue. Column 4 queries whether alternative operational

definitions are possible for the key terms of the question. The answer is almost always "yes" and the questions need to be re-framed so that the operational definition of the key variables are made explicit. Finally, column 5 suggests that the rationale for choosing a particular sub-set of questions and/or particular operational definitions may not be selfevident to either the reader or, on reflection, to the inquirer. The decisions arrived at should be tested against the criteria noted in the last section for choosing objectives; i.e., heuristic value, programmatic value, social utility, scientific interest, and personal preference and feasibility.

THE PROBLEM STATEMENT Research and development proposals, whether designed for master's theses, doctoral dissertations, internal agency projects, or applications to external funding sources, may be considered as responses to a problem. Despite the obvious and integral link between the statement of the problem and the raison d'tre of the entire proposal, the nature of problems remains largely unexplicated and the processes for generating problem statements are ignored altogether or charged off as an intuitive activity that will become evident to the neophyte inquirer as he gains experience and expertise in his craft. Research texts devote sections to the methodology associated with carrying out the inquiry, i.e., procedures, but will dispense with the problem with such peculiar statements as: "It is not always possible for the researcher to formulate his problem simply, clearly, and completely. He often may only have a rather general, diffuse, even confused, notion of the problem...a problem, then is an interrogative sentence or statement that asks: What relation exists between two or more variables?" (Kerlinger, 1986, pp. 16-17). I would like to suggest that a problem statement is not general, diffuse, confused, or simplistic; they get that way because the writer fails to grapple with the essential elements. Neither is a coherent and functional problem statement an interrogative sentence as Kerlinger(1) suggests (and many university professors believe); that is, a problem statement is not a question, although of necessity it becomes the springboard for generating and presenting research questions in an R&D proposal. A problem statement is a logical argument with structure, sequence, substance and rationale It is a constant complaint among those who evaluate proposals that the most frequent deficiency noted by them is the lack of a clear problem statement to define and guide the inquiry. And the most frequent dilemna among graduate students is their seemingly aimless search for a problem significant enough to pursue and discrete enough to handle. More often than not, "problem statements" take on the characteristics described by Kerlinger and proposals end up looking like solutions in search of a problem to which they might become attached. A well articulated statement of the problem

establishes the foundation for everything to follow in the proposal and will render less problematic most of the conceptual, rhetorical and methodological obstacles typically encountered during the process of proposal development. This means that, in subsequent sections of the proposal, there should be no surprises, such as categories, questions, varialbes or data sources that come out of nowhere: if it can't be found in the problem section, at least at the implicit level, then it either does not belong in the study or the problem statement needs to be re-written. Defining a Problem A problem is a situation resulting from the interaction or juxtaposition of two or more factors (e.g., givens, constraints, conditions, desires, etc.) which yields (1) a perplexing or enigmatic state, (2) an undesirable consequence, or (3) a conflict which renders the choice from among alternative courses of action moot. A problem solution is an action which clarifies the perplexing or enigmatic state, which alleviates or eliminates an undesirable consequence, or which resolves the conflict or delineates the course of action to be taken. The nature of the relationship between or among the factors generating the problem may take any of several forms, e.g.: 1. provocative exception 2. contradictory evidence 3. moot alternatives, i.e., knowledge void 4. action-knowledge conflict 5. knowledge-action conflict 6. other Functions of a Problem Statement 1. Establishing - to establish the existence of two or more juxtaposed factors which, by their interaction produce an enigmatic or perplexing state, yield an undesirable consequence, or result in a conflict which renders the choice from among alternatives moot.

2. Relating - to relate the problem to its antecedents (i.e., educational, scientific, social). 3. Justifying - to justify the utility, significance, or interest inherent in the pursuit of the problem. Common Deficiencies of Problem Statements - Failure to establish the existence of a problem, e.g., raw statements like: "The purpose of this project is to..." "The question(s) to be investigated is..." "The Acme Inventory of Dissertation Dementia will be used to..." - Statement of a condition - "The number one problem in the country today is inflation." - The Boiler Plate problem - The problem that has no history - Parochialism - personal, institutional, disciplinary - The "lick the world" statement - The solution that makes no difference - The justification without a problem A Format for Generating Problems Principle Proposition Ordinarily stated in the form of a given; a generalization; a generally accepted proposition; a description of a condition; and less frequently, but possibly, a goal. One example of a principal proposition in the category of a description of a condition might be a brief literature based narrative review of models of instruction that concludes with "so it can be seen that a wide variety of models of instruction are available to teachers, some theoretical, some empirically grounded...". Another might be a brief summary of the scientific evidence that under girds Darwin's law of natural selection that ends with a

statement such as, "Therefore, all known species of flower either reproduce through cross pollination, have evolved into self reproducing organisms, or they become extinct." Interacting Proposition The interacting proposition is juxtaposed with the principle proposition to form the second link in the argument establishing the existence of the problem by contradicting, contravening, noting exceptions to, challenging, or casting doubt upon the principal proposition. The interacting proposition frequently assumes the form of: 1. provocative exception 2. conflicting evidence 3. knowledge void, incomplete knowledge 4. action-knowledge conflict or knowledge-action conflict 5. action-action conflict 6. theoretical conflict 7. theoretical-action conflict or knowledge conflict In the category of action-knowledge conflict, using the example of the study of models of instruction implied by the principal proposition given above, the researcher might assert that,, "However, in spite of this vast array of possibilities for more effectively organizing and delivering instruction available to teachers, the dominant mode of instruction continues to be lecture/demonstration/discussion...". This situation poses a perplexing state of affairs, to wit; professional educators behave contrary to substantial evidence that there are better courses of action. Why? In the study of flowers implied by the principal proposition (above) about flowers unerringly complying with Darwin's law, the researcher might note that, after two decades of carefully labeling and observing 3,500 individual flowers in plots of Pink Lady's Slipper orchids commonly found in New England, "this orchid is entirely hostile to bees, only 23 instances of pollination have ever been observed, none have become nectar producers

to attract bees. and they have no discernible means of self reproduction common to other plants with that capability. Yet they continue to thrive far beyond the life expectancy of any known variety when in fact all but 23 should be extinct." This orchid is an enigma, a provocative exception to Darwin's law, and the researcher is well on his way to a multimillion dollar National Science Foundation grant to resolve the enigma of how it is that this particular plant can thrive in spite of the laws of nature. But that grant will not be forthcoming until he/she identifies the most fruitful focus for the investigation and the payoff that stands to be gained as a result. Click here for elaboration on this example and for other illustrations of forms that problems may take. Some examples of actual problem statments are here. Speculative Proposition Examines or speculates about the most likely causes of the apparent anomaly or conflict; sets the direction for the inquiry; completes the sentence, "The principle and interacting proposition co-exist in my best judgment because..." These speculations present to the reader and writer a menu of choices from which to select a focus for the inquiry with the help of the completion of a statement beginning like, "The most likely..." or "The most promising..." or, "One plausible explanation is..." This element sets up the opportunity to make a clear statement of the purpose of the project, but also is suggestive of the major variables and categories to be more clearly articulated in the overarching conceptual framework of the study (the basic design). For example, in the study of teachers' instructional behavior, the researcher might list out the variety of plausible explanations for the failure of teachers to incorporate a variety of strategies into their repertoire of professional practices (assuming the researcher has established that fact beyond raw assertion in the first place). Plausible explanations could include; "it is likely that many just simply don't know any better because their training did not provide them with the knowledge and skill needed to maximize their performance;" or "there likely are several factors inherent in the culture of school organization (such as...) that mitigate against certain behaviors;" or "some teachers may be adept at evaluating (and rejecting) certain innovative practices for response costs in relation to payoffs in student outcomes." Given this menu, the researcher could choose to focus on the nature of inservice and preservice professional

education programs for teachers, a study of factors in school culture and climate on the job that control professional behavior, the concerns-based motivation of teachers when faced with innovative choice adoption decisions, or some combination of all of these. It is here that a statement like, "Therefore, the purpose of this study is to..." would round out the logical argument that constitutes the statement of the problem. That section ("Purpose of the Study") might start with a statement of general purpose, augmented by a central objective and one or two major research questions that provide sharper focus. (A more detailed delineation of objectives, questions and/or hypotheses would ordinarily be included in the section on methodology). The example above of teacher instructional behavior discussed above is available here in an annotated form to demonstrate the division of a problem statement into its component parts. The format noted above generates the substantive dimensions of the problem but leaves open the question of how the inquirer intends to grapple with the established conflict. Figure 1, at the end of this section, picks up with the substantive orientation of the problem and classifies the various response modes available to the inquirer in responding to the problem, whether it be research, development, program evaluation, etceteras. Click for a window to Figure 1. Relating and Justifying Functions During the course of problem statement development and identification of the primary mode of response, the inquirer is responsible for relating the problem to its antecedents. Problems do not exist in vacua, but stem from particular circumstances. The juxtaposed factors constituting the problem have histories; these may be of a scientific, social, educational, economic, etc., origin. It is not the purpose here to thoroughly describe the context of the proposal: That is accomplished through a treatment of the related research. What is necessary is a sufficient description of antecedents to put the statement in perspective so that the researcher and the reader will be able to appreciate the problem in the tradition of inquiry of which it is a part. This was accomplished in part by a brief introductiory discussion with enough key citations to establish "which forest we are in" followed by the core elements of the problem statement itself which identifies "some of the major trees."

A final function of the problem section of the proposal is to justify the utility, significance, or interest of the problem. Resources and time are always scarce. It is of great importance from the point of view of a potential funding agency or a graduate student's advisor (or committee) and from the researcher's own point of view, that priority be given to problems of urgency or utility. Obviously, if problems are to be assessed for their significance, some criteria must be brought to bear. These criteria include, among others, heuristic value, improved programmatic sequencing, social utility, scientific interest, and the convenience and concern of the researcher or developer. These criteria will later be defined in a discussion of proposal objectives. In any case, a statement or paragraph describing what stands to be gained by investigating the problem is a vital ingredient for the reader in further understanding the problem and its applicability to professional practice, or empirical knowledge, and for the writer in making decisions about whether, how, and to what extent to proceed. The justification or statement of significance can easily be generated if the writer remembers that his/her study is a proposed solution to the problem: that is, it alleviates consequences posed by the existence of the problem, such as a conflict between knowledge and practice. Problem consequences are cognitive, psychological, valuational and practical and they are experienced by people (administrators, teachers, scientists, minorities...) and programs (planning, curriculum, policy, clinical interventions...). List them out, then write a paragraph or two based on the list describing to what and for whom undesirable consequences accrue. The natural next step is the inverse; an assertion of what stands to be gained, by who, and how, as a result of successful completion and dissemination of the study. In dissertations, this is a section typically labeled Significance of the Study. The capstone feature of a proposal's problem section is a statement of limitations and delimitations coming at the end or very near to it. Such a statement naturally springs from the statement of purpose because it spells out...among other things... what the study will not accomplish. Speicifcs on that section are here. The problem statement, in its entirety, is an internally consistent logical argument having structure, sequence and rationale. Although I have said that a problem statement

is not a question, a problem statement necessarily leads into at least one central research question or objective from which numerous research questions and/or hypotheses could be generated. Like other sections of the proposal, it will in all likelihood, be rewritten a number of times as the development of each subsequent section provides the writer with a more informed, sharper vantage point from which to critically view the proposal as a coherent, internally consistent creation in its entirety, incrementally and retrospectively. This is one fact of academic life that makes writing both a challenge and painful endeavor for most of us. Another point to underscore is the need to avoid the temptation to overwrite: Most problem statements, particularly those written for dissertation proposals, are best limited to three to five or six pages. To be sure, other elements that should or could be included in the same section with the problem statement, such as definition of terms, a listing of variables, limitations and delimitations, may expand the length of the section beyond five pages or so, but the problem statement itself should be fairly compact and succinct. While I'm at it, one of the things mentioned in the previous paragraph --definition of terms-- is a feature of dissertation culture that won't die but probably should. If you use terminology in the problem statement narrative with which readers (and you) are likely to have difficulty nailing down with regard to the precise meaning, make every effort to weave the meaning into the narrative where it occurs naturally or deal with it in locations where operational definitions are required (e.g., procedures). Typically, doctoral dissertation committee members will receive a proposal with a "Definition of Terms" section tacked on at the end of the section where it is too late and out of context from the reader's point of view, and they are forced to flip pages in pursuit of that enlightenment. See Gall, Borg & Gall, p. 96 (1996) on this issue. A suggestion is made to consult a catalog from Sage Publications. Sage markets the most comprehensive collection of references in the field of social science research available anywhere in the world -- and some of the best!! 1. This having been said, Kerlinger was none the less a pioneer and giant among behavioral scientists. Note also that the authors of an otherwise useful text (Ruderstam & Newton, 1992), are just as unclear on this issue. They, however, have some excellent suggestions for doctoral students seeking a topic worthy of study.

Figure 1. Response Taxonomy for Problem Statements