You may use someone else's framework, or you may develop your own.  Developing your own is harder, in my opinion.

Consider Grounded Theory, in which begin with inductive data and repeatedly compare back and forth between data and analysis, resulting in an evolving analysis to construct theory “grounded” in the data, and filtered by the experiences and understandings of the researchers.  

But I will warn you that not all journal reviewers understand this process, even if they have qualitative research experience.  Using a framework that has previously been peer-reviewed may be a better strategy for a beginning researcher.  

I agree with the previous answer. I also recommend considering Grounded Theory. It may be easier to have peers / reviewers accept your work if you use Grounded Theory, which is more established.

It depends on the strain of phenomenology. Descriptive phenomenologists would argue that you should approach the data free from bias as much as possible, so applying a conceptual framework is therefore out of the question. Descriptive phenomenologists see bias, research questions and applying existing knowledge as sort of an ulterior motive which may influence the researcher to "find" things in the data that aren't there, or to use the data to confirm their own ideas. In which case, you would not use a framework to guide your work.

However, interpretative phenomenologists do not agree with these ideas. They believe that being free from bias is impossible, and that they best you can achieve is to acknowledge your bias, and use a method which forces you to pay attention to every piece of information in your interviews. But, the key thing here. is that intepretative phenomenologists value the experience and bias of the researcher, because that brings informed insights to the table when it comes to analysis. Researcher expertise can be seen as a valued resource when the researcher has experience in the area of study. Therefore, you could debatably use your framework as justification and explanation of your own personal bias, perhaps using it as inspiration for some of the research questions. I would be careful with this though, and be sure to read up. I recommend reading work by Jonathan Smith, such as his 2015 book, or Smith, J.A., Flowers, P. and Larkin, M., Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. 2009.

Alternatively, you could consider using IPA or another phenomenological method you like as an analytical tool without necessarily taking on the perspective that method was born out of. This is sometimes done by researchers who have justification for favouring a specific method but may not agree with some of the assumptions underpinning that method. I personally would argue that you're better off choosing a method and a perspective that matches your own, and matches your aims and research question, because that will be more relevant and applicable. But I've seen different researchers do it both ways.

Best of luck.

Thank You Michael, Sara & Leah, for the valuable info,

it seems a debatable topic and interesting. As you said Leah, I'll read some of the books that you referred to, but definitely I'll consider all these thoughts. Thanks again

Any more info, you all welcome.

I cannot imagine any research which is not grounded on some "conception", to begin with why the researcher is interested in when deciding to explore any situation. The devil is in details and this personal question most often dictates the methods: how  do you intend to explore "lived experience"? By listening (freely, semi-directively?) to the patients words? By reading their diary? By listening to  what they say in consultations? By looking at how they behave? In which situations? What will you look at when analyzing the obtained data?  I guess that thinking to why you choose any method will show you what is the conccept behind.

Best

Catherine Morin

Thanks Catherine,

I guess as Leah said that different phenomenological schools apply different principles. For, example, Jonathan Smith is an IPA, and with no question Conceptual/theoretical framework is mandatory in IPA studies and the study will not stand without it. however, Amedeo Giorgi as a descriptive phenomenologist encouraged researchers to "bracket" their own assumptions pertaining to the phenomenon in question by refraining from positing a static sense of objective reality for oneself and the participants whose experiences are being studied. This allows the researchers to attend to the descriptions of the participants without forcing the meaning of the descriptive units into predefined categories.

Comments: Bracketing itself imply that usually researchers come to their study with predetermined concepts. in fact to me this is something normal, because our readings (literature reviews), observations, and/or previous practice are triggering our research question. Hence, by saying bracketing, we admit that we attend to the research with preconceptions. The challenge I think for those who follow the descriptive phenomenology is to find a way to make sure that the predetermined concepts did not inform their analysis process.

Open for any comment :)

Hi Leah:  I just saw your reference to the book called Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research by Jonathan A Smith, Paul Flowers, Michael Larkin.  For my dissertation concept development, I am planning to use IPA and appreciate the recommendation.  I just ordered it from Amazon.com and it will be here on Friday, 2-24.  I needed a solid text in theory, practice, and analysis, so thanks for the good question on setting the phenomenological framework.  

warmly, Ava