8.2 The Research Process: Problem, Hypothesis, Framework and Review of Literature
Key Takeaways
- TOS competencies B.2.1 and B.2.2 require candidates to use the research process to identify a problem and formulate a hypothesis, and to apply the theoretical or conceptual framework and review of related literature.
- A researchable problem is specific, feasible, ethical, significant to practice and answerable with obtainable data.
- The null hypothesis states no difference or relationship; the alternative may be directional or non-directional.
- A theoretical framework borrows an existing theory; a conceptual framework maps the specific variables and their presumed relationships in this study.
- The review of related literature establishes what is known, exposes the gap the study fills, and supplies instruments and constructs.
8.2 The Research Process: Problem, Hypothesis, Framework and Review of Literature
Blueprint anchor. TOS sub-topic B.2 Overview of the Research Process carries 5 items. Competency B.2.1 covers using the research process to identify the research problem and formulate the hypothesis; B.2.2 covers applying the theoretical conceptual framework and the review of related literature.
1. The Steps of the Research Process
- Identify and delimit the research problem.
- Review related literature and studies.
- Construct the theoretical or conceptual framework.
- State objectives, research questions and hypotheses.
- Define variables operationally.
- Select the design, population and sampling plan.
- Develop and pre-test instruments.
- Collect data.
- Process, tabulate and analyse data.
- Interpret findings and draw conclusions.
- Formulate recommendations.
- Report, disseminate and utilise.
The steps are iterative in practice — literature reading reshapes the problem, and pre-testing reshapes the instrument — but the examinable order is the one above.
2. From a Concern to a Researchable Problem
A practice concern ("our livelihood programme does not seem to work") is not yet a research problem. The conversion applies five tests:
| Test | Question | Failure example |
|---|---|---|
| Specific | Is the population, variable and period defined? | "Poverty in the Philippines" |
| Feasible | Can it be done with available time, budget and access? | A five-year follow-up with a one-month deadline |
| Ethical | Can it be done without harming participants? | Withholding assistance to create a control group |
| Significant | Will the answer change a decision? | A study whose result cannot alter any programme choice |
| Answerable with data | Is evidence obtainable? | "Is our programme morally right?" |
Converted example. "Among 2024–2025 Sustainable Livelihood Program micro-enterprise grantees in Municipality X, what proportion of enterprises remained operating twelve months after grant release, and which household and enterprise characteristics are associated with survival?"
Objectives, Questions and Hypotheses
- General objective: the overall aim in one sentence.
- Specific objectives: numbered, each beginning with a measurable verb — determine, compare, describe, assess.
- Research questions: the interrogative form of the specific objectives.
- Hypotheses: required only when relationships or differences are to be tested; purely descriptive studies need none.
3. Formulating Hypotheses
| Type | Form | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Null (H₀) | No difference / no relationship | "There is no significant difference in enterprise survival between grantees who received mentoring and those who did not." |
| Alternative, non-directional (H₁) | A difference exists, direction unspecified | "There is a significant difference in survival between the two groups." |
| Alternative, directional (H₁) | A difference exists in a stated direction | "Grantees who received mentoring have significantly higher survival than those who did not." |
A usable hypothesis is testable (falsifiable with obtainable data), specific about the variables and population, grounded in theory or prior evidence, and stated before data are examined.
[!IMPORTANT] Standard item. Statistical testing operates on the null hypothesis. The researcher does not "prove" the alternative; the null is either rejected or not rejected. An item that offers "the study proved the hypothesis" is offering the wrong answer.
4. Theoretical Versus Conceptual Framework
| Theoretical framework | Conceptual framework | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | An existing, established theory adopted to explain the phenomenon | A researcher-constructed map of the specific variables and their presumed relationships |
| Source | Literature; another scholar's theory | Synthesis of literature plus the researcher's reasoning |
| Breadth | General and abstract | Specific to this study |
| Typical presentation | Narrative exposition of the theory and its application | Narrative plus a schematic diagram, commonly input–process–output or independent–dependent variable |
| Example | Sustainable livelihoods framework adopted to explain enterprise survival | Diagram linking prior business experience, mentoring hours, household shocks and access to markets to twelve-month survival |
Both may appear in one study: the theory supplies the explanatory logic, the conceptual framework specifies what will actually be measured.
5. The Review of Related Literature
Functions.
- Establishes what is already known, so the study does not repeat settled ground.
- Identifies the gap the study fills — the single most important paragraph in the chapter.
- Supplies constructs, definitions and validated instruments.
- Justifies the design by showing what has and has not worked before.
- Provides the comparison base for discussing findings.
Structure. Organise thematically by concept, not one-study-per-paragraph in chronological order. Each theme should end with a synthesis sentence stating what the body of work collectively establishes and where it stops.
Sources. Distinguish primary sources (the original study or the statute itself) from secondary sources (a review or a textbook summary). Prefer primary sources, current material, and — for Philippine practice questions — local studies and official statistics over foreign generalisation.
Common defects examiners describe in stems.
- A chronological catalogue with no synthesis.
- Citation of secondary summaries where the original is available.
- Literature that never connects to the study's own variables.
- No stated gap, so the study's necessity is never established.
- Reliance on foreign findings where local evidence exists and differs.
6. Worked Practice Application
A municipal social welfare office observes that many parents in a conditional cash transfer programme miss the monthly family development sessions.
Step 1 — Problem. "Among programme households in Municipality Y during 2025–2026, what is the rate of family development session attendance, and what household, logistical and programme factors are associated with non-attendance?"
Step 2 — Literature. Existing evaluations report attendance shaped by session timing, travel cost, competing wage work, and the perceived usefulness of the content. Gap identified: no local study distinguishes inability from unwillingness, so the office has been designing sanctions when the binding constraint may be logistical.
Step 3 — Framework. Conceptual framework diagram: independent variables — session timing, distance and fare, household caregiving load, wage-work schedule, perceived relevance of topics; intervening — attendance; dependent — compliance status and grant continuity.
Step 4 — Hypotheses.
- H₀: There is no significant relationship between travel cost and attendance rate.
- H₁: Higher travel cost is associated with lower attendance rate.
Step 5 — Why this matters. If travel cost is the driver, the correct response is rescheduling and cluster-level sessions, not a compliance sanction. The research question was designed precisely so that its answer changes a decision — the significance test that separates a research problem from an idle question.
Which statement best distinguishes a theoretical framework from a conceptual framework?
A student writes: "The study proved the hypothesis that mentoring increases enterprise survival." What is wrong with this sentence?
A review of related literature lists twenty studies in chronological order, each in its own paragraph, with no synthesis and no statement of what remains unknown. The principal defect is that it: