conceptual framework is used in research to outline possible courses of action or to present a preferred approach to a system analysis project. The framework is built from a set of concepts linked to a planned or existing system of methods, behaviors, functions, relationships, and objects. A conceptual framework might, in computing terms, be thought of as a relational model. Conceptual frameworks are a type of intermediate theory that have the potential to connect to all aspects of inquiry (e.g., problem definition, purpose, literature review, methodology, data collection and analysis). Conceptual frameworks act like maps that give coherence to empirical inquiry. Because conceptual frameworks are potentially so close to empirical inquiry, they take different forms depending upon the research question or problem. Shields and Tajalli (2006) have identified several types of conceptual frameworks (working hypotheses, descriptive categories, practical ideal type, models of operations research and formal hypotheses) for the field of public administration. The frameworks are linked to particular research purposes (exploration, description, gauging, decision making and explanation/predicition). When purpose and framework are aligned other aspects of empirical research such as choice of methodology (survey, interviews, analysis of existing data, direct observation, focus groups etc) and type of statistical technique become obvious.
In regards to homosexual couples and domestic violence, studies indicate that couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples. In addition, studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior which will be covered shortly. These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders.
QUOTES ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY
David Kupelian writes about how the destructive homosexual lifestyle was marketed to America despite the homosexuality statistics above: |“ |...let me introduce you to two experts on the selling of homosexuality to America; in fact, they wrote the book. |” | | |Harvard-educated marketing professionals Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen authored the acknowledged PR bible of the | | | |gay-rights movement, "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s." | | | |The sophisticated strategy Kirk and Madsen lay out for changing the way Americans think about homosexuality boasts three | | | |phases: "Desensitization," "Jamming" and "Conversion." | | | |"Desensitization," these two gay marketing gurus tell us, consists of inundating the public in a "continuous flood of | | | |gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can't shut off the shower, they | | | |may at least eventually get used to being wet."... | | | |"Jamming," explains marketing expert Paul E. Rondeau of Regent University, in his comprehensive study "Selling | | | |Homosexuality to America," "is psychological terrorism meant to silence expression of or even support for dissenting | | | |opinion." Radio counselor and psychologist Dr. Laura Schlessinger experienced big-time jamming during the run-up to her | | | |planned television show. Outraged over a single comment critical of homosexuals she had made on her radio program, | | | |activists launched a massive intimidation campaign against the television program's advertisers. As a result, the new show| | | |was stillborn. | | | |"After the Ball" tries to inspire potential jammers by providing a juicy list of negative...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document