Since 1998, five Texas State University students’ capstone papers have won the Pi Alpha Alpha master’s student paper award. This success rate is attributed to students’ mastery of the the art of building and using intermediate theory or conceptual frameworks in the early stages of the Applied Research Project. This article introduces the notion of micro-conceptual frameworks and explains how students use them to connect all aspects of empirical inquiry—problem definition, purpose, literature review, methodology, data collection, and analysis. These conceptual frameworks act like maps that give coherence to the enterprise, and they are a critical missing link in successful student empirical research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonRebecca. 2003. “A Description of Domestic Partner Benefits Policies of State, County and City Governments.” Applied Research Project, Texas State University. Available online at http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/43/.
2.
BabbieEarl. 2004. The Practice of Social Research, 10th ed. Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
3.
BardMaryMooreElaine. 2000. “Mentoring and Self-managed Learning: Professional Development for the Market Industry.” International Journal of Market Research, 42(4):255–275.
4.
BarkerRichard A.1997. How Can We Train Leaders If We Do Not Know What Leadership Is?Human Relations, 50(4):343–363.
5.
BaumKevin. 1997. “Group Dynamics and Power Structures: Toward a Greater Understanding of the Line-Staff Relationship within the Austin Fire Department.” Applied Research Project, Texas State University. Available online at http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/96/.
6.
BehnRobert. 2003. “Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures.” Public Administration Review, 63(5):586–606.
7.
BouckaertGeert. 1993. “Measurement and Meaningful Management.” Public Productivity and Management, 17(1):31–43.
8.
CaidenNamoi. 2000. “Public Service Professionalism for Performance Measurement Evaluation.” Public Budgeting and Finance, 18(2):3–17.
9.
DelahoussayeMartin. 2001. “Leadership in the 21st Century.” Training, 38(8):50–60.
10.
DeweyJohn. 1938. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
11.
DeweyJohn. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan Co.
FlowerElizabethMurphyM. G.. 1977. A History of Philosophy in America. New York: Capricorn Books.
14.
FosterRick. 2000. “Leadership in the 21st Century: Working to Build Civil Society.” National Civic Review, 89(1):87–94.
15.
FrancoisValerie. 2004. “An Assessment of Grievance Procedures in Austin and Large Texas City Governments.” Applied Research Project. Texas State University. Available online at http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/17/
16.
GettyCheryl. 1993. “Planning Successfully for Succession Planning.” Training and Development, Nov.: 31–34.
17.
GrattonLyndaSyrettMichael. 1990. “Heirs Apparent: Succession Strategies for the Future.” Personnel Management, January:35–38.
18.
GrizzleGloria A.PettijohnCarole D.. 2002. “Implementing Performance-Based Program Budgeting: A System Perspective.” Public Administration Review, 62(1):51–62.
19.
HickmanLarry J.1990. Dewey’s Pragmatic Technology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
20.
HoltonElwood F.BatesReid A.NaquinSharon. 2000. “Large-Scale Performance Driven Training Needs Assessment: A Case Study.” Public Personnel Management, 29(2):349–267.
21.
JeffersRachael. 2003. “Development Sprawl in Texas.” Applied Research Project, Texas State University. Available online at http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/46/.
22.
Patria De LancerJulnesHolzerMarc. 2001. “Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation.” Public Administration Review, 61(6):693–708.
23.
KaplanAbraham. 1964. The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. Scranton, PA: Chandler Publishing Co.
24.
KravchukRobert S.SchackRonald W.. 1996. “Designing Effective Performance Measurement Systems under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.” Public Administration Review, 56(4):348–358.
25.
LeySharon. 2002. “An Assessment of Succession Planning at the State Bar of Texas.” Applied Research Project. Texas State University. Available at http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/53/.
26.
LimbachBarbaraWaughWendy. 2005. “Questioning the Lecture Format.” Thought and Action, Fall:47–56.
27.
LongEdwardFranklinAimee L.. 2004. “The Paradox of Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act: Top-Down Direction for Bottom-Up Implementation.” Public Administration Review, 64(3):309–319.
28.
McKinnerneyErin. 2004. “Reality Bytes: A Formative Technology Implementation Plan for Public Schools.” Applied Research Project. Texas State University. Available at http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/25/.
29.
MelkersJuliaWilloughbyKatherine. 1998. “The State of the States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 of 50 States.” Public Administration Review, 58(1):66–73.
30.
MooreGeorge C.HeneganPhilip M.. 1996. “Defining and Prioritizing Public Performance Requirements.” Public Productivity & Management Review, 20(2):158–173.
31.
NowackKenneth M.1994. “The Secrets of Succession.” Training and Development, 48(11):49–55.
32.
PearsonDavid. 2002. “An Exploratory Study of Rural Hospital Closures and Their Links to the Economic Health of Local Communities.” Applied Research Project. Texas State University. Available online at http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/55/.
33.
PerezShivaun. 2000. “Assessing Service Learning Using Pragmatic Principles of Education.” A Texas Charter School Case Study. Pi Alpha Alpha Journal and Applied Research Project, Texas State University. Available online at http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/76/.
34.
RadinBeryl. 1998. “The Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA): Hydra-Head Monster or Flexible Management Tool?” Public Administration Review, 58(4):307–316.
35.
RomeroMichelle. 2004. “A Utilization Assessment of the Texas Performance Measurement System.” Applied Research Project. Texas State University. Available online at http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/26/.
36.
RothwellWilliam J.2001. Effective Succession Planning. New York: American Management Association.
37.
SchallEllen. 1997. “Public Sector Succession: A Strategic Approach to Sustaining Innovation.” Public Administration Review, Jan./Feb.:4–10.
38.
ShahAmitShesserCharlesWillmoreJessica. 2001. “Meeting the Need for Employee Development in the 21st Century.” SAM Advanced Management Journal, Spring 22–28.
39.
ShieldsPatricia M.1998. “Pragmatism as a Philosophy of Science: A Tool for Public Administration.” In WhiteJay, Research in Public Administration, Vol. 4. JAI Press: Stamford, CT, 195–225.
40.
ShieldsPatricia M.1999. “Getting Organized: A Pragmatic Tool for Writing Graduate Papers.” Journal of Graduate Assistant Development. 7(1):5–17.
41.
ShieldsPatricia M.2003. “A Pragmatic Teaching Philosophy.” Journal of Public Affairs Education, 9(1): 7–12.
42.
ShieldsPatricia M.2003.a. “The Community of Inquiry: Classical Pragmatism and Public Administration.” Administration & Society, 35(5):510–538.
43.
ShieldsPatricia M.2006. Step By Step: Building a Research Paper, 3rd ed. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
44.
ShirotaKeeiji. 2003. “Government Accounting Standards Board Statement 34: Perceptions of Texas Finance Officers.” Applied Research Project. Texas State University. Available online at http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/47/.
45.
SogunroOlusegun. 1997. “Impact of Training on Leadership Development.” Evaluation Review, 21(6): 713–738.
46.
WalkerJames. 1998. “Do We Need Succession Planning Any More?” Human Resource Planning, September 9-12.
47.
WilsonTimothy. 2001. “Pragmatism and Performance Measurement: An Exploration of Pragmatic Principles in Texas State Government.” Applied Research Project, Texas State University. Available online at http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/71/.
