At the end of this chapter, students will be able to:

illustrate and explain the conceptual framework;

define terms used in the study;
list research hypothesis (if appropriate); and
present written review of related literature and conceptual
framework.

LESSON 1 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

The theoretical and conceptual framework explains the path of a research and grounds it
firmly in theoretical constructs. The overall aim of the two frameworks is to make research
findings more meaningful, acceptable to the theoretical constructs in the research field and
ensures generalizability. They assist in stimulating
CHAPTER research while
III – LEARNING ensuring
FROM the extension
OTHER STUDIESof
17 knowledge by providing both direction and impetusANDto theREVIEWING
research inquiry.
THE LITERATURE

Theoretical Framework

It is the ‘blueprint’ or guide for a research (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). It is a framework
based on an existing theory in a field of inquiry that is related and/or reflects the hypothesis of a
study. It is a blueprint that is often ‘borrowed’ by the researcher to build his/her own house or
research inquiry. It serves as the foundation upon which a research is constructed. Sinclair (2007)
as well as Fulton and Krainovich-Miller (2010) compare the role of the theoretical framework to
that of a map or travel plan. Thus, when travelling to a particular location, the map guides your
path. Likewise, the theoretical framework guides the researcher so that s/he would not deviate
from the confines of the accepted theories to make his/her final contribution scholarly and
academic. Thus, Brondizio, Leemans, and Solecki (2014) concur that the theoretical framework
is the specific theory or theories about aspects of human endeavor that can be useful to the study
of events. The theoretical framework consists of theoretical principles, constructs, concepts, and
tenants of a theory (Grant & Osanloo, 2014).

The theoretical framework offers several benefits to a research work. It provides the
structure in showing how a researcher defines his/her study philosophically, epistemologically,
methodology and analytically (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). Ravitch and Carl (2016) concur that the
theoretical framework assist researchers in situating and contextualizing formal theories into
their studies as a guide. This positions their studies in scholarly and academic fashion. Moreover,
 the theoretical framework serves as the focus for the research and it is linked to the research
problem under study. Therefore, it guides a researcher’s choice of research design and data
analysis plan. The theoretical framework also guides the kind of data to be accrued for a
particular study (Lester, 2005). The theoretical framework, thus, aids the researcher in finding an
appropriate research approach, analytical tools and procedures for his/her research inquiry. It
makes research findings more meaningful and generalizable (Akintoye, 2015). Imenda (2014)
clearly posits that a research without the theoretical framework lacks accurate direction to the
search of appropriate literature and scholarly discussions of the findings from the research. For
other scholars in the field of inquiry, the theoretical framework provides a common worldview or
lens from which to support one’s thinking about the problem and analysis of data (Grant &
Osanloo, 2014).
Examples include Newton’s laws of motion in physical sciences and Maslow’s hierarchy
of needs in social sciences. Thus, for instance, a physicist could use Newton’s laws of motion, or
one of the laws, to study the appearance of comets, the speed of asteroids, or the gravitational
pull of a black hole. Similarly, a sociologist could use Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to study the
life cycle of social media platforms. Note that you can use multiple theoretical frameworks as
needed for your study.
 
Conceptual Framework

A conceptual framework is a structure which the researcher believes can best explain the
natural progression of the phenomenon to be studied (Camp, 2001). It is linked with the
concepts, empirical research and CHAPTER III – LEARNING FROM OTHER STUDIES
18 important theories used in promoting and systemizing the
AND REVIEWING THE LITERATURE
knowledge espoused by the researcher (Peshkin, 1993). It is the researcher’s explanation of how
the research problem would be explored. The conceptual framework presents an integrated way
of looking at a problem under study (Liehr & Smith, 1999). In a statistical perspective, the
conceptual framework describes the relationship between the main concepts of a study. It is
arranged in a logical structure to aid provide a picture or visual display of how ideas in a study
relate to one another (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). Interestingly, it shows the series of action the
researcher intends carrying out in a research study (Dixon, Gulliver & Gibbon, 2001). The
framework makes it easier for the researcher to easily specify and define the concepts within the
problem of the study (Luse, Mennecke & Townsend, 2012). Miles and Huberman (1994, p.18)
opine that conceptual frameworks can be ‘graphical or in a narrative form showing the key
variables or constructs to be studied and the presumed relationships between them.

The conceptual framework offers many benefits to a research. For instance, it assists the
researcher in identifying and constructing his/her worldview on the phenomenon to be
investigated (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). It is the simplest way through which a researcher presents
his/her asserted remedies to the problem s/he has defined (Liehr & Smith, 1999; Akintoye,
2015). It accentuates the reasons why a research topic is worth studying, the assumptions of a
researcher, the scholars s/he agrees with and disagrees with and how s/he conceptually grounds
his/her approach (Evans, 2007). Akintoye (2015) posits that the conceptual framework is mostly
used by researchers when existing theories are not applicable or sufficient in creating a firm
structure for the study.

NOTE:
 Conceptual framework is a diagram that connects variables of the study with lines (correlations)
or arrows (cause-effect relationships)
Start with text and clearly cite the diagram.
Ensure congruence with research questions. Rule of thumb: number of research questions is at
least equal to the number of lines /arrows in conceptual framework.
Include in the diagram the variables which may have values or sub-variables.
Use the diagram to explain research framework. Justify each variable (and sub-variable) and
each line or arrow using logic and synthesized studies.
SHS Students’ Social Media Usage and Their Attention Span in Class

Example:

The current study aims to investigate association between the level of SHS students’
social media usage and the SHS students’ attention span in class. In the research, this variable is
seen to possess a hypothesized relationship with SHS students’ attention span in class. This
hypothesized relationship is represented by the two-headed arrow connecting both variables.

The IV – DV model in Figure 1 indicates the hypothesized relationship between and

among the variables. The independent variables include forms of social media; frequency of
social media use; and mode of social media use. On the other hand, the dependent variable
includes SHS students’ attention span in class. The arrow between independent and dependent
variables shows that the : forms of social media; frequency of social media use; and mode of
social media use are related to the SHS students’ attention span in class.
CHAPTER III – LEARNING FROM OTHER STUDIES
19
AND REVIEWING
Dependent THE LITERATURE
Variable
Independent Variable

SHS students’ Attention

SH students’ Social Media Usage
a. Forms of social media
SHS students’ Attention Span in
class

Span in class
b. Frequency social media use
c. Mode of social media use

Fig. 1 The Conceptual Framework of the Study

Instruction: Write the theoretical and conceptual framework of your study.

 LESSON 2
DEFINITION OF TERMS

The definition of terms serves two essential functions. First, it establishes the rules and
procedures the investigator will use to measure variables. Second, it provides unambiguous
meaning to terms that otherwise can be interpreted in different ways.

There are two major types of definition of terms used in the study- the conceptual and the
operational. The conceptual definition is the dictionary, which is the reference book of everyday
language. The operational definition is the meaning of the concept or term as used in a particular
study.

The clearer definition includes conceptual and operational or working definition; e.g.,
middle class is conceptually defined as a category of persons within a society. Operationally, it
is a group of persons whose average annual income is P10,000-P24,000, and a minimum
educational attainment of high school level.

NOTE:

Variables and sub-variables or values in conceptual framework are defined, except very
common variables like grade level, gender, school
CHAPTER type where the
III – LEARNING valuesOTHER
FROM are indicated in the
STUDIES
20 framework itself. AND REVIEWING THE LITERATURE

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a prediction of the possible outcomes of a study (Fraenkel & Wallen,

2009). Hypotheses are statements in quantitative research in which the investigator makes a
prediction or a conjecture about the outcome of a relationship among attributes or characteristics
(Creswell, 2012)

The null hypothesis, denoted H0, is a statement that the value of a population parameter
(e.g. population mean, proportion, or standard deviation) is equal to a particular value. For the
purposes of the test, we assume that the null hypothesis is true, and then decide whether there is
enough evidence to reject that assumption.

The alternative hypothesis, denoted H1, is a statement that the parameter has some value
that is different than the one in the null hypothesis.
 Example:

Null Hypothesis

There is no significant relationship between the frequency of social media use and the attention
span of Grade 12 students.

Instructions: Define the terms used in you study. Write the hypothesis of your study.

CHAPTER III – LEARNING FROM OTHER STUDIES

21
AND REVIEWING THE LITERATURE
THE IMPORTANCE OF RELATED THEORIES
LESSON 3
AND CONCEPTS

Review of Related Literature and Studies

This is a written summary of journal articles, books, and other documents that describes
the past and current state of information on the topic of your research study.

Purpose of the Review of Related Literature and Studies

The review of literature and studies involves the critiquing and evaluating of what other
researchers have done in relation to the problem to be studied whether these studies affirmed or
negate the subject under study. These can be from books, conference proceedings, referred
journal (printed or online) and other published article.
Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and
evaluating relevant material to synthesizing information from various sources, from critical
thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills (Budgen & Brereton, 2006). Pautasso
(2013) enumerated ten simple rules for writing a literature review:
 1. Define the topic and audience.
There are so many issues in contemporary science in which you could spend a lifetime of
attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering on what to review. On the
other hand, if the researcher will take several years to choose, several other people may
have had the same idea in the meantime. Topics must be interesting, important and
current.
2. Search and re-search the literature.
After having chosen the topic and the audience, start downloading published articles
related to the topic. Some useful sites are: google scholar, proquest etc. Be sure to
properly acknowledge sources.
3. Take notes while reading.
If you read the paper first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a
very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and
associations were while reading each single paper.
4. Choose the type of review you wish to write.
Some journals are now favoring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the
last few years, with the limit on the number of words and citations.
CHAPTER III – LEARNING FROM OTHER STUDIES
22 5. Keep the review focused, but make it of broadANDinterest.
REVIEWING THE LITERATURE
Arranged readings according to themes. The need to keep a review focused can be
problematic for interdisciplinary reviews where the aim is to bridge the gap between
fields.
6. Be critical and consistent.
Reviewing the literature is not like arranging hollow blocks. It is very important to have
consistency in your review.
7. Find a logical structure.
Pautasso (2013) emphasized that like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of
telling features: it is worth the reader’s time, timely, systematic, well written, focused,
and critical. It also needs a good structure. It must be arranged logically so as not to
destroy its implications.
8. Make use of feedback.
As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft.
Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies,
inconsistencies and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading
the typescript too many times.
9. Include your own relevant research.
 In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the
review they are writing. A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources,
but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis.
10. Be up-to-date in your review of literature and studies.
Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today’s reviews
of literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field
of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have
been published.

Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources the researcher has
explored while researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to the readers how the research
fits within a larger field of study (University of Southern California). The following are the basic
types of literature review:
1. Argumentative Review
This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument,
deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the
literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes opposite
perspective. CHAPTER III – LEARNING FROM OTHER STUDIES
23
2. Integrative Review AND REVIEWING THE LITERATURE

This is considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes

representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks
and perspectives on the topic are generated. A well-done integrative review meets the
same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is
the most common form or review in the social sciences.
3. Historical Review
The purpose of historical review is to systematically examine past events to give an
account of what has happened in the past. It is not a mere accumulation of facts and
dates or even a description of past events. Historical review is a flowing, dynamic
account of past events which involves an interpretation of these events in an attempt
to recapture the nuances, personalities, and ideas that influenced these events. The
main focus of this is to communicate an understanding of past events.
4. Methodological Review
A review does not always focus on what someone said but how they came about
(method of analysis). Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of
understanding at different levels, how researchers draw upon a wide variety of
knowledge ranging from the conceptual; level to practical documents for use in
fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative
and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data, collection, and data analysis.
 This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and
consider as you go through your own study.

5. Systematic Review
The purpose of a systematic review is to attain conclusion regarding the chosen topic.
This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly
formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to
identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report and analyse
data from the studies that are included in the review.
6. Theoretical Review
The purpose of this form is to examine the body of theory and has accumulated in
regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. Often this form is used to help
establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate
for explaining new or emerging research problems.

Functions of Review of Literature and Studies

1. To provide justification of the study
2. To identify gaps, problems and needs of related studies
3. CHAPTER
To provide rationale of the study as wellIII – LEARNING
as the FROM OTHER
reasons of conducting STUDIES
the study
24
4. AND REVIEWING
To have basis that will be used to support findings of the study THE LITERATURE

Citation Style Guide

Reference is an important part of a research paper. It must be consistent and easy to read
across different papers. There are predefined styles stating how to set them out – these are called
citation styles.
APA (American Psychological Association) – is an author/date-based style. This means
emphasis is placed on the author and the date of a piece of work to uniquely identify it.

APA In-text Citation

If you use the name of the author(s) in your writing, place the year of publication of the work
in parentheses after the author ’s name.
Ex. Mullane (2006) conducted research into the effect of…

APA Referencing Style

 If you refer to a work in the text of your paper, place the author's last name and the year of
publication of the work in parentheses at the end of the sentence.
Ex. The research conclusively proved a correlation between the results (Mullane, 2006).

APA Examples of Reference by Type

In a reference list In-text citation
1. Book with one author (King, 2000) or King
King, m. (2000). Wrestling with the angel: A life of Janet (2000) compares
Frame. Auckland, New Zealand: Viking. frame…
2. Book with two authors
(Dancey & Reidy,
Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2004). Statistics without maths for
2004) or Dancey and
psychology: Using SPSS for Windows (3rd ed.). Harlow,
Reidy (2004) said…
England: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
3. Book with three to five authors (Krause, Bochner, &
Krause, K. L., Bochner, S., & Duchesne, S. (2006). Duchesne, 2006)
Educational psychology for learning and teaching (2nd
ed.). South Melbourne, Vic., Australia: Thomson. If used first time then
in subsequent
citations, (Krause et
al., 2006)
4. Book or report by a corporate author (e.g. organization,
CHAPTER III – LEARNING FROM OTHER STUDIES
25 association, government department)
AND REVIEWING THE (University of
LITERATURE
University of Waikato. (1967). First hall of residence
Waikato, 1967)
(Information series No. 3). Hamilton, New Zealand:
Author.
5. Book chapter in edited book
(Helbert, 1995) or
Helbert, L. E. (1995). Redeveloping mature resorts for new
Helbert (1995)
markets. In M. V. Conlin & T. Baum (Eds.), Island
compares luxury
tourism: Management principles and practice (pp.105-
resorts…
113). Chichester, England: John Wiley.
6. Conference paper online
Bochner, S. (1996, November). Mentoring in higher education:
Issues to be addressed in developing a mentoring (Bochner, 1996) or
program. Paper presented at the Australian Association According to Bochner
for Research in Education Conference, Singapore. (1996)…
Retrieved from
http://www.aare.edu.au/96pap/bochs96018.txt
7. Course handout/Lecture notes
Salter, G. (2007). Lecture 3: SPLS205-07A [Powerpoint slides]. (Salter, 2007)
Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato.
8. Film (see Library APA referencing webpage for music and
other media)
(Zhang, 2000)
Zhang, Y. (Producer/Director). (2000). Not one less [Motion
picture]. China: Columbia Pictures.
 9. Journal article – academic/scholarly (electronic version) with (Hohepa, Schofield,
DOI & Kolt, 2006)
Hohepa, M., Schofield, G., & Kolt, g. S. (2006). Physical
activity: What do high school students think? Journal of then subsequently, if
Adolescent Health, 39(3), 328-336. doi: 3-5 authors
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.12.024
(Hohepa et al., 2006)
10. Journal article – academic/scholarly (electronic version) with
no DOI
(Harrison & Papa,
Harrison, B., & Papa, R. (2005). The development of an
2005) or Harrison and
indigenous knowledge program in a New Zealand Maori-
Papa (2005)
language immersion school. Anthropology and Education
recommend…
Quarterly, 36(1), 57-72. Retrieved from ProQuest
Education Journals database.
11. Journal article – academic/scholarly (print version) (Gibbs, 2005) or
Gibbs, M. (2005). The right to development and indigenous gibbs (2005)
people: Lessons from New Zealand. World Development, contradicts…
12.Journal article – academic/scholarly (internet only – print (Snell & Hodgetts,
version) n.d.)
Snell, D., & Hodgetts, D. (n.d.). The psychology of heavy metal or
communities and white supremacy. Te Kura Kete Aronui, Snell and Hodgetts
1. Retrieved from http://www.waikato.ac.nz/wfass/tkka (n.d.) suggest “…”
CHAPTER III – LEARNING FROM(para. OTHER3) STUDIES
26 13. Magazine article – popular/trade/general interest (Goodwin, 2002) or
AND REVIEWING THE LITERATURE
Goodwin, D. K. (2202, February 4). How I caused that story. Goodwin (2002)
Time, 159(5), 69. defends…
14. Newspaper article – (Print version)
(Hartevelt, 2007)
Hartevelt, J. (2007, December 20). Boy racers. The press, p. 3.
15. Newspaper article (Database like Newztext plus) (also see
library referencing webpage for internet version)
Cumming, G. (2003, April 5). Cough that shook the world. The (Cumming, 2003)
New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from Newztext Plus
database.
16. Newspaper article with no author
(“Report Casts
Report casts shadow on biofuel crops. 92007, October 16).
Shadow”, 2007)
Waikato Times, p. 21.
17. Personal Communication (letters, telephone conversations, (H. Clarke, personal
emails, interviews) communication,
march 19, 2004)
18. Thesis – Institutional or personal webpage – outside the US
Dewstow, R.A. (2006). Using the Internet to enhance teaching (Dewstow, 2006) or
at the University of Waikato (Master’s thesis, University Dewstow (2006)
of Waikato, Hamilton, new Zealand). Retrieved from identified…
http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/2241
 Plagiarism

It is the most widely recognized and one of the most serious violations of the contract
between the reader and the writer. Plagiarism is the using of someone else’s words or ideas, and
passing them off as your own.

Plagiarism can take many forms. There are two major types in scholarly writing:
plagiarism of ideas and plagiarism of text. Responsible authorship practices are an important part
of research.

Plagiarism of ideas is appropriating an idea (e.g. an explanation, a theory, a conclusion, a

hypothesis, a metaphor) in whole or in a part, or with superficial modifications without giving
credit to its originator.

Twenty-five Ethical Guidelines

Guideline 1: An ethical writer ALWAYS acknowledges the contributions of others and the
source of his/her ideas.

Violation:

Copying a portion of text from another source without giving credit to its author
CHAPTER III – LEARNING FROM OTHER STUDIES
27 and without enclosing the borrowed text in quotation marks.
AND REVIEWING THE LITERATURE
Guideline 2: Any verbatim text taken from another author must be enclosed in quotation marks.

Violation:

Copying a portion of text from one or more sources, inserting and/or deleting
some of the words, or substituting some words with synonyms, but never giving credit to
its author nor enclosing the verbatim material in quotation marks.

Guideline 3: We must always acknowledge every source that we use in our writing; whether we
paraphrase it, summarize it, or enclose quotations.

Violation:

Taking portion of text from one or more sources, crediting the author/s, but only
changing one or two words or simply rearranging the order voice (i.e. active vs. passive)
and/or tense of the sentences.

Guideline 4: When we summarize, we condense, in our own words, a substantial amount of

material into a short paragraph or perhaps even into a sentence.

Guideline 5: Whether we are paraphrasing or summarizing, we must always identify the source
of our information.
 Guideline 6: When paraphrasing and/or summarizing others’ work, we must reproduce the exact
meaning of the other author’s ideas or facts using our words and sentence structure.

Guideline 7: In order to make a substantial modifications to the original text that result in a
proper paraphrase, the author must have a thorough understanding of the ideas and terminology
being used.

Guideline 8: A responsible writer has an ethical responsibility to readers, and to the author/s
from whom s/he is borrowing, to respect others’ ideas and words, to credit those from whom we
borrow, and whenever possible, to use one’s own words when paraphrasing.

Guideline 9: When in doubt as to whether a concept or fact is common knowledge, provide a

citation.

Guideline 10: Authors who submit a manuscript for publication containing data, reviews,
conclusions, etc., that have already been disseminated in some significant manner (e.g. published
as an article in another journal, presented at a conference, posted on the internet) must clearly
indicate to the editors and readers the nature of the previous dissemination.

Guideline 11: If the results of a single complex study are best presented as a ‘cohesive’ single
whole, they should not be partitioned into individual papers. Furthermore, if there is any doubt as
to whether a paper submitted for publication represents fragmented data, authors should enclose
other papers (published or unpublished) that might be part of the paper under consideration.
Similarly, old data that have beenCHAPTER
merely augmented with additional
III – LEARNING FROM data points and
OTHER that are
STUDIES
28 subsequently presented as a new study is an equallyAND
serious ethical breach.THE LITERATURE
REVIEWING

Guideline 12: Because some instances of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and even some writing
practices that might otherwise be acceptable (e.g. extensive paraphrasing or quoting of key
elements of a book) can constitute copyright infringement, authors are strongly encouraged to
become familiar with basic elements of copyright law.

Guideline 13: While there are some situations where text recycling is an acceptable practice, it
may not be so in other situations. Authors are urged to adhere to the spirit of ethical writing and
avoid reusing their own previously published text, unless it is done in a manner consistent with
standard scholarly conventions (e.g. by using of quotations and proper paraphrasing).

Guideline 14: Authors are strongly urged to double-check their citations. Specifically, authors
should always ensure that each reference notation appearing in the body of the manuscript
corresponds to the correct citation listed in the reference section and vice versa and that each
source listed in the reference section has been cited at some point in the manuscript. In addition,
authors should always ensure that all elements of a citation (e.g. spelling of authors’ names,
volume number of journal, pagination) are derived directly from the original paper, rather than
from a citation that appears on a secondary source. Finally, authors should ensure that credit is
given to those authors who first reported the phenomenon being studied.

Guideline 15: The references used in a paper should only be those that are directly related to its
contents. The intentional inclusion of references of questionable relevance for purpose of
 manipulating a journal’s or a paper’s impact factor or a paper’s chances of acceptance is an
unacceptable practice.

Guideline 16: Authors should follow a simple rule: Strive to obtain the actual published paper.
When the published paper cannot be obtained, cite the specific version of the material being
used, whether it is a conference presentation, abstract, or an unpublished manuscript.

Guideline 17: Generally, when describing others’ work, do not rely on a secondary summary of
that work. It is a deceptive practice, reflects poor scholarly standards, and can lead to a flawed
description of the work prescribed. Always consult the primary literature.

Guideline 18: If an author must rely on a secondary source (e.g. textbook) to describe the
contents of a primary source (e.g. an empirical journal article), s/he should consult writing
manuals used in his/her discipline to follow the proper convention to do so. Above all, always
indicate the actual source of the information being reported.

Guideline 19: When borrowing heavily from a source, authors should always craft their writing
in a way that makes clear to readers, which ideas are their own and which are derived from the
source being consulted.

Guideline 20: When appropriate, authors have an ethical responsibility to report evidence that
runs contrary to their point of view. In addition, evidence that we use in support of our position
must be methodologically sound. When citing supporting studies that suffer from
methodological, statistical, or otherCHAPTER
types of shortcomings, such flaws
III – LEARNING mustOTHER
FROM be pointed out to the
STUDIES
29 reader. AND REVIEWING THE LITERATURE

Guideline 21: Authors have an ethical obligation to report all aspects of the study that may
impact the independent replicability of their research.

Guideline 22: Researchers have an ethical responsibility to report the results of their studies
according to their a priori plans. Any post hoc manipulations that may alter the results initially
obtained, such as elimination of outliers or the use of alternative statistical techniques, must be
clearly described along with an acceptable rationale for using such techniques.

Guideline 23: Only those individuals who have made substantive contributions to a project merit
authorship in a paper.

Guideline 24: Faculty-student collaborations should follow the same criteria to establish
authorship. Mentors must exercise great care to neither award authorship to students whose
contributions do not merit it, nor to deny authorship and due credit to the work of students.

Guideline 25: Academic or professional ghost authorship in the sciences is ethically

unacceptable.

Hexam (1999) reveals that it is possible to steal from oneself as when one engages in
embezzlement or insurance fraud. In writing, self-plagiarism occurs when authors reuse their
own previously written work or data in a ‘new’ written product without letting the reader know
that this material has appeared elsewhere.
 Protecting the Intellectual Property in the Philippines

Philippine copyright law is enshrined in the Intellectual property Code of the

Philippines, officially known as Republic Act No. 8293. The law is partly based on United
States copyright law and the principles of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary
and Artistic Works.
NOTE:

Review of related literature justify your choice of research question, theoretical or conceptual
framework, and method; establish the importance of the topic;

Review of related literature provides background information needed to understand the study;

Review of related literature proves researchers’ familiarity with significant and/or up-to-date
research relevant to the topic; and

Review of related literature establishes your study as one link in a chain of research that is
developing knowledge in your field.

Resources must be at most five years old from the year of publication with the exception of well-cited
references on educational theories, principles, methods, etc.
CHAPTER III – LEARNING FROM OTHER STUDIES
30
AND REVIEWING THE LITERATURE

Instruction: Write the review of related literature of your study.