CHAPTER THREE: LITRETURE REVIEW
Scanning across documented resources of knowledge to understand a priori findings is a “launching pad” for researchers undertaking an original research from which an insight on the required level of rigor of the phenomenon to be studied is captured (Creswell, 2009; Aveyard, 2007; Kumar, 2005; Punch, 2000). The exploration in search of “truth” that can “shade light” to understand knowledge gaps and surmount societal challenges commences by accessing and reviewing available literature sources (Creswell, 2009; Leedy & Armrod, 2005). Literature review makes it easier for subsequent researchers to refer and scrutinize the stock of scholarly works so far done in order to avoid redundancy and reworks in the process of establishing a substantive knowledge (Creswell, 2009; Boot & Beile, 2005). The notion described by Punch (2000: 42); “All social researches have a relevant literature, and no research takes place in a vacuum” indicates that researching is not a repeat of what has so far been done but to close gaps and advance already established findings (Creswell, 2009; Boot et al., 2005). To conduct a valid and credible review of a literature in retrospect where TTs are rooted has demanded a meticulous work of identifying and locating relevant sources, setting criteria for screening literature materials, and sorting and filtering to ensure their applicability to the intended purpose (Leedy &Ormord, 2010; Boot et al., 2005). In conducting the literature review the core points that were taken into consideration include:
a) The relevance of the issues reflected in the materials referred;
b) Appropriateness of the methodologies used to produce the materials;
c) Soundness of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks reflected;
d) Degree of focus needed to reveal and address the inherent gaps (Leedy & Ormord, 2010; Creswell, 2009; Boot et al., 2005).
In fact, a literature review is not an “open ended swing” that moves freely in search of the works of preceding researchers. It greatly deals focusing around the subject of interest (Creswell, 2009; Kumar, 2005). To this end, the researcher has followed Kumar (2005) and Boot et al.’s (2005) views that shows how the process of the research need to be guided using a focused set of “sound assumptions” namely, looking to those literature materials falling into similar category and arguing only on unaddressed knowledge gap in a manner to:
a) Show how the previous works can clarify or justify the research to be done;
b) Compare predicted or proposed research outcomes with previous findings;
c) Help to resolve the problem by answering the research questions the study has dealt;
d) Indicate how the planned research work was going to enrich the preceded studies;
e) Justify how the researcher formulates a “good theory” upon which the “broad research” area ponders.
The excursions across documented materials have looked after segregating relevant items by including or excluding literatures from the view point of methodological approaches, practical and theoretical significances, grasping insights for structuring the study program, and deductions of substances to be composed in the context of the review (Boot et al., 2005; Kumar, 2005). However, to reckon on the assumption that documented resources in any field of a study are widely available was found to be an overemphasized statement when it comes to the reality of the marginalized TTs of Ethiopia. The sector has been merely abandoned and left to haunt in wilderness, being a victim of punitive measures that went to the extent of harassing and denying the existence and relevance of traditional practitioners. As stated above, the literature sources related to TTs of Ethiopia are very scanty. Nevertheless, as much as the review got momentum, accessing ancient archives and accessing custodians of artifacts and intimating scholars and practitioners working in and around traditional practices were found reasonable and sufficient to address the gaps where the proper and accredited literature materials failed to fill. In the absence of an in-depth studies conducted on TTs of the country, referring to un-authoritative literature materials, as far as they can convey some degree of data and information or shade light regarding the subject matter, were taken as supplementary and complementary sources. To validate such literature sources and the information they contained, the “peripheral” materials were subjected to scrutiny by comparing and contrasting with similar issues addressed using secondary and primary data. Ultimately, the endeavors made by the searcher to understand why TTs have been denied the attention and intervention they deserved and the mystery how they sustained across centuries without bending to the emergent technologies that have the power of wiping out a priori innovations was finally achieved.
HISTORICAL ROOTS OF TECHNOLOGY
Emergence of Primitive Technologies
Technology is the innovation of tools and techniques by the mental capacity of human species that is used in helping to adapt to the constantly changing environment, to facilitate the accomplishment of demanding activities, and deter the ever-confronting threats (Rihll, 2009; Adams, 2004; Zaleski, 2011; Anderson, 2010). In actual terms, technology refers to the knowledge of designs, methods, systems, techniques, tools, and crafts innovated to exploit natural resources or to overcome problems of practical encounters facing humanity (Zaleski, 2011; Moskowitz, 2009; Rollings & Earnest, 2006; Rollings, 2006). The word technology is derived from the combined Greek words of techne (art, craft) with logos (words, speech). By the early 20th century, the term came to embrace ranges of processes and simple tools belonging to the prehistoric times that ultimately evolved overtime into advanced machines (Rihll, 2009; Adams, 2004). If the very essence of technology is assed from the view of its natural merits, it can be stated that all creatures do have embodied instinct techniques metered to their need and posture that could help them to perform if they have to survive.
In fact, animals have a physical power exerted through their limbs, teeth, horns, etc., to use and defend, while humans have an ever developing mental capacity, with less physical power, operating both voluntarily and instinctively where its creativity and applicability extends beyond filling the void of cropping demands (Kuhn, 2005; Plummer, 2004; Khan, n.d. Buchanan, n.d.). Non-human species are endowed with instinctive but static reactions and actions to suit to their environment, as observed, among others, in bees building elaborate hives to deposit their honey and birds to make nests (Buchanan, n.d.; Kuhn, 2005; Plummer, 2004; Khan, n.d.). In the proper sense of technology, it is only humans that use mental power to design and innovate external tools and methods aimed at aiding, reinforcing, transmitting, fabricating, multiplying or magnifying the activities to be performed. In the center of technological innovation made by humans, however, the creation of language as a tool of communication has remained to be pivotal (Stake, 2013; Donmoyer, 2013; Zaleski, 2011; Anderson, 2010), which was and shall remain iconic and “center stage” of all ancient, current, and future human wonders of innovation. Language is the pillar of communication, on top of showing the identity of interacting parties, which could be taken as the earliest soft ware technology, as it was for crafting of stones that can be considered as the earliest hardware technology (Varner, 2012; Kuhn, 2005; Plummer, 2004).
From the records cited below, the initial or earliest crude technological tools and techniques were related to the application of stone tools estimated to have been practiced since 2.5 million years ago found in Ethiopia (Tamene, 2010; Klein, 2005; Pankhurst, 2001). The introduction and evolutionary improvement of the rudimentary tools and techniques had enhanced the performance of hunting, food preparation, and fruit and root gathering. That is to say, all the way of the technological evolution, the old has been giving birth to the new until a breakthrough emergence of sophisticated innovations has reached the zenith of the current information technology era (Rollings, 2006; Plumer, 2004; Gere, 2003). Historically, the invention of stone tools was followed by multifaceted inventions where all served as preludes to the emergence of subsequent civilizations. According to seminal works on the overall social evolution (Rollings, 2006; Plumer, 2004; Gere, 2003; Springborg, 2002; Nass et al., 1995), the emergence of civilization is characterized mainly by:
a) The conception of man as a citizen or member to a community;
b) The creation of an economic surplus and development of monetary economy;
c) The development of writing and learning science;
d) Skill development in construction, metalwork, pottery, textile, sculpture, paintings;
e) Instituting forms of political representation or social stratification;
f) Impersonal or bureaucratic administration;
g) Establishing institutions for organizing and disseminating skill and knowledge.
The history of technology is the history of inventions, in many ways similar to the history of humankind (Rollings, 2006; Springborg, 2002; Nass et al., 1995). Reviewed literatures have indicated that the concept and duration of technology can be perceived nearly as old as human history. Wherever there is a trace of lived ancestors, there is a parallel technology apparent to same era. That is why in East Africa, specifically in Ethiopia, where remains of the oldest human fossils were discovered, the oldest rudimentary stone tool was also found (Tamene, 2010; Klein, 2005). The context of TTs knowledge is not purely mechanical. Rather it embodies social, economical, political, spiritual, emotional, and cultural meanings and reflections mostly evident through ethnical and ritual manifestations and behaviors of practicing communities (Pierotti, 2011; Sengupta, 2007: Kuhn, 2005). The pioneering roots of TTs belonging to the remote past have been evolving from generation to generation usually practiced by artisans (Sengupta, 2007; Kuhn, 2005; Cohn-Sherbok, 1992). Artisans, as indicated in biblical era were those engaged in construction of temples, ironworks, smiths, potters, masons, and stone-cuttings. In the middle ages, the range of the products also grew to include wool and silk weavers, dyeing, and glass manufacturing, and in the dawning of modern era, technological activities like tailoring, diamond cutting, shoe making, etc. have been developing (Pierotti, 2011; Sengupta, 2007, Cohn-Sherbok, 1992). However, the number of traditional artisans dwindled following the period of industrial revolution, which eroded cultures embodying them because they were not able to meet the growing demand for mass production (Pierotti, 2011; Sengupta, 2007, Farry, 2006).
The knowledge of TTs has been evolutionarily enriched and upgraded across generations until almost all a priori inventions faded into “oblivion” when technological development became more and more dynamic (Pierotti, 2011; HCA, 2010; Sengupta, 2007; Khan, n.d.). In fact Sengupta (2007: 21) believed that “modern technology has only enriched the earlier technology and knowledge just as in past”: an emphasis that society should not afford traditional knowledge to go into extinction, which is the basis of present and future technological grounds by overcoming the prejudices vitiated as traditional not worthy to the modern world (Sengupta, 2007). By many, the concept “traditional” is taken as a connotation to describe the past that could represent unchangeable, irrelevant to contemporary world, a declining phenomenon, belonging to distant past, difficult to conduct verification, not referring as such to knowledge but just as something reflecting a way of old life, etc. (Pierotti, 2011; HCA, 2010; Sengupta, 2007; Khan, n.d.). That is why even the surviving TTs that demonstrated effectiveness to survive by adapting to changes across generations are not getting sufficient appreciation, and the role they play has often been downplayed (Pierotti, 2011; HCA, 2010; Bertram, 2011; Sengupta, 2007). Sociological and anthropological investigations of social and cultural developments have established that technological progress was the factor for having the major stages of social evolution referred as Savagery, Barbarism, and Civilization as the basis for subsequently advancing technologies (Spencer, 2011; Earle, 2005; Nass et al., 1995; Morgan, L., 1877). In addition, Nass et al. (1995) have indicated that the effects of social identification of traditional practices (inclusive TTs) are pervasive and powerful realities leading to group identity where:
a) They perceive themselves to be more similar to each other;
b) They are more likely to act cooperatively;
c) They feel less stranger to agree with group opinion;
d) They perceive group massages to be of higher quality;
e) They confirm more similarity in both behavior and attitude.
For Ingham and John (2007), societal relations were the fabrics for developing a culture of stability and coherence in which the basis for societal advancement and sowing the seeds to open the technological realm of the future incubates. The improvement of primitive technologies had taken place within the agrarian society, which in turn brought the end of the agrarian era (Green
& McCann, 2011). Broughton et al. (2005) have explained how farming technology came to emerge in prehistoric era from the need to ease the hardship of hunting and gathering and save energy and time (Green and McCann, 2011; Broughton et al., 2005). According to Green & McCann (2011) and Sihag (2009) the development of agrarian economy was also the inception of capitalism where surplus or in excess of what was needed for survival caused the emergence of “bartering” goods as an embryo of subsequent commercialization and urbanization. Green and McCann (2011) have also studied how the parallels in the improvement of technologies heralded the dawning of the robust industrial revolution in place of an agrarian era, which lasted from the 17th to the beginning of the 19th century.
The development of the western world is rooted on the foundations of their indigenous technologies, which evolved into industrial revolution (Shibata & Kodama, 2008; Davis & Davis, 1998; Gray, 1984; McClelland, 1961). It was due to this reason that they were able to conserve and nurture the primitive and cultural technologies into an advanced levels that they were able to transform the entire socio-economic fabrics (Shibata & Kodama, 2008; Davies, 1998; Gray, 1984; McClelland, 1961). The continuous and vehement process of conserving, reinventing, and advancing indigenous technologies have enabled them to achieve a quality and quantity oriented production that by far exceeded their demand, which ultimately flooded the designate markets (Shibata & Kodama, 2008; Davies, 1998; Gray, 1984; McClelland, 1961). This fact shows a conceivable pattern where the economic achievement of the developed world is indeed anchored and correlated to the way they were able to conserve and transform the culturally framed indigenous technologies (Shibata & Kodama, 2008; Davies, 1998; Gray, 1984; McClelland, 1961). From this deduction, it is rational to conclude that throughout the history of humanity technology has been the driving force in every sphere of civilization and transformation (Shibata & Kodama, 2008; Davies, 1998; Gray, 1984; McClelland, 1961). That is why wherever there are traces of old civilizations like that of Ethiopia, there were dynamic TTs doing the job that should have earned the credit.
Evolution and Revolutions of Technologies
Technology has been evolving and accumulating from primitive to civilization, from incremental to radical, and from levels of rudimentary to sophistication apparent nowadays (Zaleski, 2011; Moskowitz, 2007; Rollings & Earnest, 2006). The emergence of technologies as tools and methods to assist humans in their struggle to adapt to changes and defeat or defend the challenges posed by nature is as old as the history of its creator—the humankind (Rihll, 2009; Rollings, 2006; Wasbeck, 2004; Gere, 2005). The evolution of ancient technologies was reflected in a prolonged period of time without requiring a planned “foresight” (Murman, 2010; Rihll, 2009; Rollings, 2006) until a complete transformation or “disruption” of one after another took place. In the course of human history, technological progress has gone through three evolutionary stages: tool, machine, and automation (Rollings, 2006; Plumer, 2004; Zeneski, 1996). Referring to literatures on technologies of socio-economic works of Hodson and Sullivan (2012), Giusta (2010), Hadson and Sullivan (2012), Rollings (2006), Broughton et al. (2005), Kuhn (2005), Paine and Ammerman (2005), Plumer (2004), Gere (2005), Morgan and Guevara (2009), Morgan, L. (1877), Buchanan (n.d.), and across pertaining encyclopedias, on-line library of UNISA, and websites like Google Scholar and Wikipedia, the researcher was able to retrieve the following generally accepted evolutionary and revolutionary periods of technological development stages recorded chronologically:
1. Before 2.5 million yeas (currently updated to 3.1 million years) the oldest form of stone tools was in use in Ethiopia, which was improving from time to time;
2. Fire was introduced before 1 million years ago;
3. Before 380, 000 BC the production of clothes and shelter was taking place;
4. Rudimentary textile technology have started around 27000;
5. Farming was practiced before 12,000 years following primitive hunting and gathering;
6. Writing system was evolving starting 3500 BC;
7. Practicing Iron works and application started around 1500 BC;
8. Domestication of animals started before 10,000 years as extension of farming;
9. Stone boiling was in use as the oldest cooking methods in the Stone Age era;
10. Primitive form of skin care using organic cosmetics was practiced since the 4th millennium BC;
11. Industrial revolution took place starting 1750th AD;
12. Telecommunication revolution came into being beginning the 1900s.
The combined impact of the renaissance that took place in medieval Rome, and the Industrial Revolution that occurred in England, have marked the transformation of the category of primitive technologies (ranging from manual to semi-mechanical) into the category of advanced stage (ranging from mechanical to electronics) through evolutionary and revolutionary processes (Bertram, 2011; Marens, 2007; Baba, 2005; Khan, n.d.). This was the mark where anthropology and business of crafts that had roots before the industrial revolution had converged and converted into a market economy (HCA, 2010; Marens, 2007; Baba, 2005; Khan, n.d.). Industrial revolution, which took place in England became highly specialized in manufacturing textile, iron, engineering, building materials, transport, farming, trade, town planning (e.g., roads and drainage), etc. (Ross, 2008; Housel, 2008). The industrial Revolution, which resulted in subsequent “explosion” and advancement of a variety of technologies, had broken the dominance of the static TTs (Sarkar, 2010; Ross, 2008; Khan, n.d.). That is, inventing machines to do the hard work changed the existed world of artisans radically because of “creative destruction” processes that has opened new markets and closed down old markets (HCA, 2010; Lundvall, 2004; Kotler, 2000; Christenson, 1997). Industrial revolution expedited the technological “change in the way things were made and sold, and how people lived and worked” (Ross, 2008:
9) and brought an end to the way ancient people used to live. The industrial revolution was characterized by the emergences of entrepreneurs who had the “critical ability” to recognize “disequilibrium” from which their business opportunities were maturing (Han & Mckelvey, 2008; Baumol, 2005). To the contrary, the swift technological revolution had a negative impact, which often resulted in the demise of indigenous technologies, especially in societies who used to value or “worship” cultural practices as their icons of identity and means of livelihood; such as the many indigenous practices still evident in Africa (Bertram, 2011; HCA, 2010; Ekekwe, 2010; Ajei, 2007; Khan, n.d.).
The marginalization of traditional practices and swift advances in technologies have increased the risk of destroying the vast “repositories” of accumulated knowledge and cutting the links of humanity with its origins in the remote past. In disregard to the international human rights declaration enshrined to protect the rights and practices of indigenous societies, the attempts of modern era to discard ancient technologies, tribal communities, and cultural practices by itself has been threatening the conservation of human traces and their technological heritages (Bertram, 2011; HCA, 2010; Lauderdale & Nativadad, 2010; Rihll, 2009). According to these authors, the stance of Neo-Liberalism contingent on the uncontrolled egoism of individualism and the centralized prosperity of multinational corporations has aggravated the destruction of indigenous norms and practices. This raises a fear that if people with initiation and motivation to conserve the values embedded in TTs are not able to take the lead, the surviving skills and resources constituting the basis of ancient knowledge could not have a future. The rush of the world into“hegemony” of cultures devoid of ancestral norms and practices need to be “paused” and reflect on the beauty of diversity laid by preceding generations (Javalgi, et al., 2011; Maiga, et al., 2011; Lauderdale & Nativadad, 2010). In addition, the long overdue agenda to recognize the significant role played by shadow economy mostly operating using TTs (Tadajewski, 2009; Friedrich, 2006; Williams, 2006) also implies the need to account and rejuvenate traditional resources before what remains becomes extinct.
In fact, it is emphasized that the basis of the incumbent era as an age of “knowledge-driven” economy could be bolstered by embracing and looking back into traditional skills that can bring an added leverage of organic and green technologies to the prevalent socio-economic development (Javalgi et al., 2011, Maiga et al., 2011; Schiavone, 2011). TTs are indeed valuable to present and the coming generation in many forms of values including personalized, educational, economic, and environmental. But, they are faced with many challenges and detrimental problems of cohesion and vision; lack of institutional support, education and training; derailed public perception and weakened mindset of artisans; all calling for an effective and timely rescuing intervention (Javalgi et al., 2011; Maiga et al., 2011; Bertram, 2011; Ajei, 2007; Khan, n.d.). These authors warn that the life of heritages will not be long enough before to read them from history books only, unless a timely corrective measure were considered. However, the reason why TTs are not entirely defeated as predicted by the extant technological theories or why they are not nurtured and transformed as factors of social and economic values, is not unequivocally established fact. That is why this study was expected to induce an emergent theory, which could be more “abstract” and profound to address the concerns surrounding the wider technological spectrum (Punch, 2000) encompassing the realm of TTs, in general, and that of Ethiopia, in particular.
Economic Models Related to Traditional Technologies
The endurance and survival of TTs indicates that they, in fact, have a sustained demand for the embedded quality appealing even to the modern day settings (Javalgi et al., 2011; Maiga et al., 2011; Cunningham & Young, 2009). This shows that, contrary to the conceptual bases on technology, TTs can serve as prelude to advance new inventions and market opportunities by becoming the bases for creating comparative and competitive advantages (Michealides & Theologou, 2010; Tamilia, 2009; Laitinen, 2006). The impact of “perfect markets” of neo-classical models, which is, of course, based on the fabrics of societal development (Thampapillai, 2010; Avella & Vazquez, 2010) had indeed a regression impact in diminishing the role of institutionalized markets. It works against protecting and nurturing ancient socio-economic values, which is contrary to ensuring the continuum and transformation of indigenous technologies (Galera & Borzaga, 2009). The concept of leaving markets to operate freely has forced many vulnerable and rare ancient technologies to vanish or operate in shadow and get pushed to the periphery (Thampapillai, 2010; Avella & Vazquez, 2010; Waskey, 2009).
The conceptual base of “perfect competition” has not helped indigenous, historical, and cultural resources to bolster or to fertilize with foreign or “advanced” technologies, ideas, and values in a meaningful way that could help “backward nations” to benefit such as those belonging to Africa (HCA, 2010; Ajei, 2007; Bossche, 2005; Buchanan, n.d.). Instead, these technologies should have enjoyed a “preferential treatment” in tandem with the wider societal and historical values and beliefs they embody. A strategy that promotes the “survival of the fittest,” favoring modern technologies at the expense of TTs, has not produced a viable economy and social justice in the situation of “underdeveloped nations” who used to rely extensively on home grown indigenous practices (Bertram, 2011; Ekekwe, 2010; Ajei, 2007; Bossche, 2005). In fact, western technologies have widened the gap of disparity and cultural “confusion” in spite of attaining the promised developmental programs due to the difficulty to assimilate into the norms of traditional societies that are shaped by the practices of owned TTs (Ekekwe, 2010; Bolden & Kirk, 2009; Simons, 2001). Though many new inventions are often unrecognized reinventions of the old, so far the chance to formally spare the survival of TTs by some benevolent actors has been through either to find new or niche markets, switch to adapt some components into new technologies, or revitalize old core capability postures (Bertram, 2011; Tajeddini, 2011; Rihll, 2009; Schiavone, 2011; Khan, n.d.).
To enhance the sustenance and transformation of TTs as a basis of competitive advantage, the drive for innovativeness has to emanate from the inspiration and cultural affinity of the actors (Tajeddini, 2011; Schiavone, 2011; Rihll, 2009) supported by the creation of conducive environment. That is why, even in areas like Ethiopia that could have had comparative and competitive advantage, external and internal pressures have deterred in making a stride by the actors of TT constituencies (Bertram, 2011; HCA, 2010; Bondy, 2004; Porter, 1997). The external influence and hegemony, together with generations of citizens more and more getting detached from their cultural and historical roots, has complicated the social tenets of indigenous ontology and wasted or dwarfed many of the antique skills (Bhalachandran, 2011; Giusta, 2010; Morgan & Guevara, 2008; Schein, 1990). These technologies have been often ignored and left to perish in wilderness for the sake of advocating and promoting the alien, but often the “imposed,” strategies of modernization (Ekekwe, 2010; Ajei, 2007; Leavy, 2003). Ajei (2007) has also stressed that traditional tools and values were not at all obstacles to modernization rather a constructive synergy could have been created. As to Ajei (2007: 153), the authenticity of indigenous knowledge to cultural affinity “demands that we have to stop being what we have not been, what we will never be, and what we do not have to be.” This presupposes that economic development models or theories need to be grounded, valued, and nurtured on the tenets of indigenous technological knowledge (Bertram, 2011; Tajeddini, 2011; Rihll, 2009; Khan, n.d.) central to the ontology and epistemology of practicing societies (Ekekwe, 2010; Ajei, 2007; Leavy, 2003).
TABLE OF CONTENT
CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPTS
CHAPTER ONE: ORIENTATION OF THE RESEARCH
1.2. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
1.6 STUDY ENVIRONMENT
1.7 TRUSTWORTHINESS AND TRANSFERABILITY OF THE STUDY
1.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
1.9 PLAN OF THE STUDY
1.10 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FOUNDATION OF THE RESEARCH
2.2 THEORIES EXPLICATING RELELVANT CONSTRUCTS
2.3 THEORETICAL WORLD OUTLOOKS
CHAPTER THREE: LITERETURE REVIEW
3.2 HISTORICAL ROOTS OF TECHNOLOGY
3.3 REVIEWS OF THE CASES STUDIED
3.4 CONSTRUCTS DEFINING THE FATE OF TTs
3.5 LITERATURE GAP
CHAPTER FOUR: PROBLEM STATEMENT AND PROPOSITION
4.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
4.3 PREDICTED PROPOSITIONS
CHAPTER FIVE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
5.2 RESEARCH PARADIGM
5.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.4 RESEARCH DESIGN
5.5 CASE STUDY
5.6 TARGET POPULATION
5.7 UNIT OF ANALYSIS
5.8 SAMPLING METHOD AND SIZE
5.9 MEASURING INSTRUMENTS
5.10 DATA GENERATION
CHAPTER SIX: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
6.2 MODELS OF DATA ANALYSIS
CHAPTER SEVEN: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
7.3 ROLE OF ABSTRACTED CONSTRUCTS
7.4 RESULTS OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS
7.5 SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS
CHAPTER EIGHT: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
8.5 REFLECTIVE CONCLUSION
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT