Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Theoretical Framework and Approaches in Science

The theoretical framework is a strategy and approach to solving problems, consisting of:

(a) Literature Review

A literature review is a sub-chapter on the author's efforts to review, develop and relate the problems formulated with theories, concepts, research results, and previous documentation results.

Literature review:
  1. Develop a description of the research problem.
  2. Reveal the theoretical and empirical basis of a problem.
  3. Development of a framework of thought.
  4. Provide the basis for the formulation of the hypothesis.
  5. Assist in the interpretation of the results of data processing.

(b) Framework of Thought

Conceptual framework and research that presents the relationship of variables that are expected to occur, and are obtained from the results/elaboration of the literature review.

The Purpose of the Thinking Framework:
  1. Provide the author's strategic direction and approach to solving problems.
  2. Describe thoroughly the concepts used in research, and at the same time can present the relationship between variables or factors used by the author.
Theoretical Framework and Approaches in Science
image source: pexels.com

Approaches in Science

In dealing with life's problems, humans have accumulated a large amount of information on knowledge. Farmers know that the appearance of certain constellations indicates a good time to start planting rice. Shamans can show that black taro leaf sap can accelerate wound healing.

People know that the speaker has more influence and authority than the listener. This information has been accepted as true without question. This kind of information we call common sense (common sense) is the precursor of what we call science. Many disciplines grow out of general assumptions or from solving problems of everyday life.

Geometry from experience measuring terrain, biology from experience dealing with human health or animal care, economics from household problems, and so on. Many scholars of science have been so impressed with the relationship between general assumption and science that they have argued that science is nothing but an organized and classified general assumption (Negel, 1961: 3). It is often jokes that a social scientist's job is simply to discover what people have known for a long time.

Differences in General Assumptions with Science:
  • General assumption information is usually not accompanied by an explanation of why it happened. Science tries to find and formulate the conditions that determine the occurrence of various events. Statements about these determining conditions are called scientific explanations
  • Information in the general assumption contains concepts that have broad or vague meanings. Broad in the sense that the meaning/group of things addressed by the term is not clearly and sharply defined. Escape in the sense of the hub. Among the concepts that are not formulated specifically and carefully. Science is the opposite.
  • The general assumption is accepted without being tested for truth. Science systematically and empirically tests the theories and hypotheses it states.
  • The general assumption is never to question control. In a scientific sense, control means that scientists systematically try to eliminate the inclusion of other variables that are the cause of certain events other than the hypothesized variables as causes.
  • Science in explaining the phenomena it observes always tries to avoid a metaphysical explanation. Because of the untestable metaphysical explanation
Communication science is a branch of social science that is multidisciplinary. It is called so because the approaches used to come from and involve various other scientific fields such as linguistics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, politics, and economics. This is seen in the discussion of various theories, models, perspectives, and approaches in communication science.

This multidisciplinary nature cannot be avoided because the object of observation in communication science is very broad and complex, involving various social, cultural, economic, and political aspects of human life.

Before arriving at the discussion of various theories and models in Communication Science, we will first discuss the approaches or views in science that apply in the academic community. This is important because these views are the basic framework of various theories and models that exist in communication science.

According to Littlejohn (1989), in general, the world of society scientifically according to the point of view and the main object of observation can be divided into 3 groups or approaches. First, the scientific approach, the humanistic approach, and the social science approach.

The scientific approach generally applies among exact science experts. According to this view, science is associated with objectivity. Objectivity in question is objectivity that emphasizes the principles of standardization of observation and consistency. The philosophical basis is that this world has form and structure.

Individual researchers may differ from each other about how the shape or kind of these forms and structures. However, if researchers research a phenomenon using the same method, the same findings will be produced. This is the essence of objectivity in the context of the standardization of observations and their consistency.

Another main characteristic of this group of approaches is that there is a clear separation between the known (object or thing to be known and investigated) and the knower (the subject of the actor or observer). One form of research method that is commonly used is the experimental method. Through this method, the researcher intentionally conducts an experiment on the object under study.

Research objectives are usually directed at measuring the influence or cause-and-effect relationship between two or more variables, by controlling for other variables. The general procedure is done by giving or holding a special treatment to the object under study and examining its impact or effect.

If the scientific approach emphasizes the principle of objectivity, the humanistic approach group associates science with subjectivity.

The main differences between these two approaches include:
  1. For the scientific approach, science aims to standardize observations, while the humanistic stream emphasizes individual creativity.
  2. The scientific school holds that the goal of science is to reduce differences in views about the results of observations, while the humanistic school aims to understand the responses and results of individual subjective findings.
  3. The scientific school views science as something "that is there", outside the researcher's self. On the other hand, the humanistic school sees science as something that "is here", in the sense of being within the observer/researcher.
  4. The scientific school focuses its attention on the "world of inventions", while the humanistic school focuses its attention on the "world of the inventors".
  5. The scientific school seeks to obtain "consensus", while the humanistic school prioritizes alternative interpretations.
  6. The scientific school makes a clear separation between the knower and the known, while the humanistic school tends not to separate the two things.

In the context of the social sciences, one form of research method commonly used in this humanistic school is "participatory observation". Through this method, the researcher observes the attitudes and behavior of the people he studies, blends in, and engages actively in the lives of the people he studies. For example: hanging out, staying at people's homes, and participating in their daily activities for a certain period.

The interpretation of the attitudes and behavior of the people he studied was not only based on information obtained through interviews or questions and answers with the people he studied but also based on direct observations and experiences of interacting with them.

The classic view of the humanistic school is that a person's perspective on something will determine his description and description of it. Because of its subjective and interpretative nature, the humanistic approach is usually suitable to be applied to examine issues involving value systems, art, culture, history, and personal experience.

A third stream is a special approach to social science. The approach adopted by the supporters of this flow group is a combination or combination of existing approaches. In many ways, the social science approach is an extension of the natural science approach, because several methods are applied, many of which are taken from the natural sciences. However, the methods of the humanistic approach are also applied.

References:
  1. Beer, Jennifer, Intercultural Communication at Work, Washington, 1997.
  2. Mulyana, Deddy and Jalaluddin Rakhmat, Intercultural Communication, Youth Rosdakarya, Bandung, 2003.
  3. Rumondor, Alex, et al, Intercultural Communication, Open University, Jakarta, 1996.