Dear Esi

I find that it is useful to wrap your findings around theory, particularly at the discussion stage after you have done your analysis of findings. Using theory/conceptual framework might help enhance transferebility and adds rigour to your research because theories tend to apply to several settings, and there maybe several comparable contexts beyond your specific research field. Secondly, a theoretical framework could also help clarify your thinking and help you "make sense" of your data, for instance, explaining linkages in the perspectives of your research participants. Thanks

It may be helpful to have some theoretical framework for shaping the inquiry, however, the real value in theory will come typically at the end when you are trying to postulate on the qualitative pattern you see, and why they may exists or how they may appear to be linked in some way.

Your conceptual framework is your---the researcher's---idea of 'what's going on' based on your research; while I also agree  with Camlus and Austin.

Thus, any propositions which you might contribute to the literature will concern those elements of your conceptual framework which existing theory does not address.

Remember though, that your study is one among many; so to be truly new, any of your propositions would have to be replicated by others.

Thus, if you think that you've got new propositions to make as a result of your research, please do put them forward.

But will they be replicated. That's the test.

A Phenomenological qualitative study should not begin with a theory or conceptual framework.  The idea behind qualitative research is to study the components of either a new field or a field in which core components have not been well described. 

Usually a framework will prejudice a qualitative study by asking questions that are consistent with a theory. 

I agree with the others, though, that after your data has been collected to see if your results are in line with or different from some theories or conceptual frameworks.

Typically, your data will be consistent with other findings but maybe include something different that no one has described before.

Good luck

Thanks for sharing with me Calmus, Austin,Phlip and Madelaine.... Comments are really  helpful and on this lonely road of thesis writing it helps to have people respond to a question one has!

Madelaine, as i have not started out with a conceptual framework  on what basis can i bring in a theory to compare with at the analysis  stage? My worry is i dont want to be accused of 'surprising' the readers of my work with comparisons with theory although in my literature  review i do bring out findings from other studies.

Should i then be content with just presenting  my results,comparing it to similar works and leave it at that  not try to propose any propositions ?

Perhaps it's also worth distinguishing between different kinds of theory.  In most versions of phenomenology the aim is in some way to 'return to the things themselves' and therefore this would be at odds with a starting position that theorises the particular concepts you are interested in.  However, phenomenology does still have ideas about the nature of subjective experience and how we can come to know this - so perhaps you could see this as a kind of meta-theoretical starting point.  

If you are taking a more interpretative (rather than descriptive) approach to phenomenology, then some of the literature on Interpretative Phenomenological Analaysis might be helpful for thinking about how researchers can draw on various kinds of theory at the stage where they are interpreting their findings.  There's a paper by Larkin, Watts & Clifton here http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1191/1478088706qp062oa which discusses the tensions between 'giving voice' in phenomenology and offering interpretation.

 In a first step you could proceed by asking a question in the form of a hypothesis, which is an intuition of an educated person using imaginative variation based on your background . The second step is a  setup capable of experimentally  testing the hypothesis. The next step is the experiment itself and the analysis of the experimental results. These results either confirm or contradict the hypothesis. In Husserl's language the question in the first step in the form of a hypothesis and the adequate experimental setup is a noetic act whereby the  some meaning or judgment is projected on the object of enquiry. This act is synthetic (informative) a priori (intuitive, independent of experimental results).   The projection of meaning on the object of inquiry is an empty intentionality.  The second step, which gives the experimental results, is an act of apprehension in which the object of enquiry (the intentional object) gives you some meaning by an intuitive act. If the experimental result confirms the hypothesis, the intuition is a categorial intuition and the intentionality is fulfilled.  The categorial intuition is the form which makes every representing and everything represented what it is; it differs from Kant's percepts by the fact that it has some concepts attached to it. The preceding procedure is the way you can conduct a dialogue with the object of enquiry. It can be viewed as the phenomenological encounter between a noetic act and the noema within the horizon oe background of your lived experience.

Wolfgang,  Don't you think that hermeneutics is the dialogue conducted with the object of enquiry viewed as the phenomenological encounter between the noetic act and the noema within the horizon of the lived experoence?  

in my phenomenology study of Lesbians and Gays as senior level administrators at universities, I used a conceptual framework in my stud,y but not as a theoretical framework, but instead as a premise to define my participants sexual orientation and it was Queer Theory. 

A conceptual framework is necessary for build the study investigations...

Biologist Heinrich (1984) claims that  “Even carefully collected results can be misleading if the underlying context of assumptions is wrong” (p. 151). Thus conceptual framework becomes absolutely necessary to understand the findings and put them in proper perspective.  To emphasize upon the point, I would invite you to read thoroughly the work of Miles and Huberman who perceive conceptual framework as a visual or written product, one that “explains, either graphically or in narrative form, the main things to be studied—the key factors, concepts, or variables—and the presumed relationships among them” . 

I agree totally with comments about the need for a conceptual framework in a qualitative study. In my study I was interested in understanding the lived experience of sex offenders in the process of reentry and reintegration into society after extended periods of incarceration. I relied on John Braithwaite's book, Crime, Shame, & Reintegration as a conceptual framework. However, that is not to suggest that every qualitative study needs a conceptual framework or that one with a conceptual framework will lack trustworthiness.

Further to my earlier answer--5 days ago---before doing a piece of research, one can also have a conceptual framework regarding some or all of  'what is known' so far in a field of enquiry (above answers); in which case, this may change as a result of your research.

There are examples of using theoretical/conceptual frameworks in phenomenological studies, namely: a theoretical framework was used as a guide for interview questions (Norlyk and Harder, 2010, p. 425); a conceptual framework helped illustrate research design (Conroy, 2003, p. 41)

• Conroy, S. A. (2003) A Pathway for Interpretive Phenomenology International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2, 3, pp. 36-62.
• Norlyk, A. and Harder, I. (2010) What Makes a Phenomenological Study Phenomenological? An Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Empirical Nursing Studies, Qualitative Health Research, 20, 3, pp. 420-431.

Furthermore, the following papers may be helpful to you: 

• Crotty, M., (1996) Doing phenomenology, in Willis, P. and Neville, B. (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice in Adult Education, David Lovell Publishing, Ringwood, Victoria, Australia,  pp. 272-284.
• Green, H. (2014) The Use of Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks in Qualitative Research, Nurse Researcher, 21, 6, pp. 34-38.
• Jabareen, Y. (2009) Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions, and Procedure, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8, 4, pp. 49-62.
• Perry, C. (1998) A structured approach to presenting phd theses: notes for candidates and their supervisors, Australasian Marketing Journal, 6, 1, pp. 63-86.

 Thanks Dawn, Harry,Wolfgang,Pierre,Philp,Enobong,Noman,Thomas and Kenneth! 

I am.now very clear on what exactly to do! So grateful everyone who answered  this question. Thanks  Kenneth for these examples...definitely checking them out right now!

I’m doing a phenomenological study. im Afraid to use a theory because I don’t want the answers

to my questions to be leading. Would I be wrong?

Julie,

I think you are justified in being afraid to use a theory in a phenomenological study. Qualitative research aims to identify new concepts and hypotheses and is particularly useful in unknown areas of study. I had a student who wanted to know what it was like for women to have a baby. No one up until that time had asked women that question. To use a theory or even a conceptual framework would have been to limit the answers to what was already known. We could guess it was painful but what else the women were experiencing was unknown. That unknown was the point of that phenomenological study. It's a shift in thinking to not use a framework but to get at what is unknown, thats' important to be able to do.

Thank you Ms. Lawrence! That was very helpful and I’m going to proceed wihout the use of one and see what the data brings!! Thank you again!