In this line, I think about thematic framework developed by inductive thematic analysis. Thematic framework include the relevant themes about the investigated phenomenon. In the case when you investigate the practice in a business environment, you will face changes, which should be reflected in your framework. How to cope with these changes and keep your framework up to date?
The topic you formulate is really interesting. I think that ultimately this is a problem of scaling your phenomena. Keeping the scale of analysis you may change your investigation within the limits of the defined framework. When you need to change the scale of your investigation (for instance from individual up to a group, or from a group up to an organization, and vice versa) you should change first the scale of your framework. Some phenomena which are specific at the individual level can be scale up, but others cannot. For instance you may scale up the concept of memory from individual level up to an organization, but not the concept of feeling. Turbulence is a very interesting phenomenon from this point of view which might help you to understand the meaning of changing the scale. Also, you may study chaos theory, where changing scales is a fundamental phenomenon.
Dear Zeljko,
Greetings. Nice question. Real time issue for many in today's context, especially who are involved in preparing and presenting thematic frameworks for higher levels in the business environment. My experience is as follows:
1. Keep the subject at the core and put all the influencing or related dub-subjects in the orbit.
2. Once the orbit sub - subjects are firmed up, prepare simple frameworks for sub-subjects, which you like to explain.
3. Once all the sub-subject frameworks are established, you will be able to see the b bigger picture of the overall framework for the main subject.
4. Reviews will enable you to fine tune further and to improve the concept much stronger.
5. Peer / Subordinate / Superior and or client comments on the sub-frameworks and main framework will further sharpen the concept. / main framework.
Hope this helps.
Have a great day.
Best Regards.
Sekar Gopal.
Dear Zeliko,
I agree with my colleagues that this is one of the better questions I have seen - good to think about.
Let me interject the topping off or capping effect of your theoretical framework on your themes. By that I mean your themes should not just evolve into outer space - rather just as, in Sekars example you keep the subject at the core - you use your theory to establish the outer limits.
For instance with pragmatism you keep themes within the bounds of relevancy to outcome. Within critical realism frame you focus on the questions between relationships as they develop ideas of causality.
Would anyone else like to jump in on examples?
Best regards I hope this helps,
Alana
Yes, there are a lot of open questions, and the previous answers suggest some possible directions for thinking. Thanks for answers. I really hope that this discussion thread will be of benefit for some people.
I think the changes are apparent in this case ( business environment ) .I worked on this aspect recently. My suggestion is that we should keep our thematic analysis context based , here we will come with changing themes but within the context. we will have changing themes but in our control.
Regards
Rafique
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction