DBAX 8101 Week 4 Targeted Framework Revision Example

One Objection, One Section, Nothing Else Changed: A Targeted Revision of the Job Embeddedness Framework in an Interview Study of Technician Retention at Small HVAC Contractors, With Every Change Tagged

Student Name

Walden University

DBAX 8101: Business Research Project Mentoring

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

One Objection, One Section, Nothing Else Changed: A Targeted Revision of the Job Embeddedness Framework in an Interview Study of Technician Retention at Small HVAC Contractors, With Every Change Tagged

The Objection

My mentor's note on the framework section has come back three times in some form. The most recent version reads: "Job embeddedness is described in chapter one and then never used again, not in your questions and not in your analysis." The study asks why skilled technicians stay at small heating, ventilation and air-conditioning contractors when larger firms and other trades pay more, through interviews with eighteen technicians at six firms. This document revises only the framework section, against that single objection, and records each change.

Revised Framework Section

Job embeddedness theory, introduced by Mitchell et al. (2001), explains why people stay in their jobs by looking at the forces that bind them, not only at their satisfaction. It has three dimensions, each considered both on the job and in the community. Links are the connections a person has with other people and activities. Fit is how compatible the person feels with the job and the community. Sacrifice is what the person would give up by leaving. Mitchell and colleagues found that embeddedness predicted whether people stayed beyond what job satisfaction and commitment explained.

For technicians at small contractors, each dimension suggests specific questions. Links on the job include relationships with the owner, who is often a former technician, and with long-standing customers who ask for a particular technician by name. Links in the community include family and church ties in a small town where the contractor is based. Fit concerns whether the technician values the variety of residential service work and the independence of working alone in a van. Sacrifice includes informal benefits such as taking the van home, flexible hours when a child is sick and the owner's willingness to advance pay in an emergency, which a large firm might not match.

The study uses these dimensions in two ways. First, the interview protocol asks about each dimension directly, as shown below. Second, the analysis uses the six combinations of dimension and setting, on the job and in the community, as initial coding categories, while leaving room for codes that do not fit them. Lee et al. (2014), reviewing two decades of embeddedness research, noted that qualitative studies can show how embeddedness forms in particular settings, which the survey studies that dominate the literature cannot.

Table 1

Embeddedness Dimensions Tied to Interview Questions and Coding Categories

Composite study. Questions are revised versions of the original protocol items.

Revision Memo

Four changes were made, each tagged to the objection. One: the definitions of links, fit and sacrifice now include examples specific to HVAC technicians, so the framework is applied rather than summarized. Two: a paragraph now explains how the framework shapes the interview protocol. Three: a table ties each of the six combinations to an interview question and a coding category. Four: the analysis plan now names the six categories as initial codes.

Nothing else was changed. Several other improvements occurred to me while revising, including a clearer sample description and a tighter literature review section on turnover in the trades. They are recorded on a deferred list for the next round, so that my mentor can judge this revision against the objection without other changes in the way.

How the Mentor Can Check the Revision

The mentor can check the revision in two steps: read the revised section against the objection, then compare the table with the interview protocol and the analysis plan. If each dimension appears in all three places, the objection has been answered. If any does not, the revision has missed part of it.

Deferred List

Sample description in chapter three needs the number of firms by size. The turnover section in chapter two repeats a statistic. The limitations section does not yet mention that small firms may differ by region.

Why Change Only One Thing

Caffarella and Barnett (2000) found that doctoral students benefit when they treat critique as a dialogue; changing only what the objection concerns makes it possible for the mentor to tell whether the objection has been answered.

References

Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/030750700116000

Lee, T. W., Burch, T. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (2014). The story of why we stay: A review of job embeddedness. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 199-216. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091244

Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102-1121. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069391