Describe An Explicit Theoretical Or Conceptual Framework For The Study?

Does the report describe an explicit theoretical or conceptual framework for the study? If not, does the absence of a framework detract from the usefulness or significance of the research?

This article expressly states it’s theoretical framework by saying, “The purpose of this study was to examine workplace bullying victims’ perceptions of what they heard their bully counterparts say through their use of prosody” (Dzurec, Kennison, & Albataineh, 2014, para. 1). In other words, based on the idea of a theoretical framework as described in (Polit & Beck, 2017) this study is based on the idea of perceptions that employees had of being bullied through the way they were spoken to.

Does the report adequately describe the major features of the theory

Some examples of these were studies that found victims were unaware they were getting bullied until it had progressed over time, that not only peers but management were involved, and that most of the time it was a subtle process that occurred over a lengthy period of time all of which resulted in harmful stress at work (Dzurec et al., 2014).

Is the theory or model appropriate for the research problem? Would a different framework have been more fitting?

The problem of bullying in the workplace as evaluated from the perspective of prosody, or how someone communicates or acts towards others, is a fitting model as evidenced by the referenced study from Hogan & Stubbs (2003) which found that seventy-five percent of all communication occurred through prosody.

If there is an intervention, was there a theoretical basis or rationale for the intervention?

There is no intervention in this study, although the authors suggest that, results from their research could provide some means to address the problem of workplace bullying and a way to handle it. (Dzurec et al., 2014) [Click and drag to

281) [Click and drag to move]

Do the research problem and hypotheses (if any) naturally flow from the framework, or does the purported link between the problem and the framework seem contrived? Are deductions from the theory logical?

The research problem of bullying in the workplace and the hypothesis that the bullying stems from prosody flows smoothly from the framework presented and the process outlined led to the results of the study being rendered logically which culminated in a reasonable and acceptable conclusion.

Are the concepts adequately defined in a way that is consistent with the theory? If there is an intervention, are intervention components consistent with the theory?

The concepts the authors have devised are largely based on previous research that they themselves conducted that revealed the connection of despotic communication and the resulting adverse outcomes of the victim’s experiences. The authors summarize this by stating, “grave and negative influence in places of work and education may be attributable to threats proffered through the complexities of the unacknowledged messages fixed in their manner of speaking, that is, in their prosody” (Dzurec, Kennison, & Albataineh, 2014, p. 283). There is no intervention in this