In exploratory sequential mixed methods designs, the needs of the quantitative study will dictate how you conduct the preliminary qualitative study. The same is true in explanatory sequential designs, where your goal is to gain a better understanding of the quantitative results. So, you do not need a theoretical framework for the qualitative portion of the research in either of these cases. Instead, you need a clear justification for how your qualitative study will contribute to the overall results.

In concurrent designs, it depends on what your goals are. For example, you might want to compare two separate studies of the same research objective, in which case, you would only need one theoretical framework. Alternatively, you might have different but connected goals for the qualitative and quantitative portions of the project, in which case you might well need a theoretical framework for each of them, as well as a clear plan for how you will integrate the two sets of results.

Thank you so much Prof. David L Morgan for this explanation, it has helped.

I am kindly requesting to know the existing Theoretical frameworks which I can use to conduct a qualitative study.

Thank you so much

In the field of mixed methods research, whether sequential or concurrent, the use of theoretical frameworks to illuminate qualitative findings is recommended and sometimes highly recommended. Theoretical frameworks provide a structured lens through which we researchers interpret and understand qualitative data. This ensures that our analysis is firmly grounded in established concepts and theories. This not only increases the depth and rigor of qualitative analysis, but also facilitates the integration of qualitative and quantitative findings, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem. By grounding qualitative findings firmly within a theoretical framework, researchers are able to gain deeper insights and make valuable contributions to the advancement of knowledge in their field.

Volkan Aşkun I think your assumption that one always needs a theoretical justification for a qualitative study does not apply to sequential designs in mixed methods research. As I pointed out in my first posting, the design and content of the qualitative component in such studies is driven by the needs of the quantitative study. That is why these designs are frequently summarized as qual --> QUAN and QUAN --> qual. As an example, if I am doing a sequential exploratory study that uses focus groups to create a segment of a questionnaire, I need to understand how those variables will fit into the quantitative data collection and analysis, but I do not need any theoretical framework that relates to the qualitative research itself.

Sorry David L Morgan , I understood the qualitative theoretical framework as Moses mentioned as grounded theory, narrative, case study, etc. At this point I thought that these need to be articulated in depth. I hadn't thought of any other expression, you are absolutely right about that. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Do you need a theoretical basis? YES. When you start a study, you must know and connect to the theoretical basis inside and outside your field. Better yet, use a conceptual basis before, during, and after to help guide you and begin a conversation with other research. Bernard Glaser of grounded theory fame stated one should read widely on the theories directly connected and ancillary to understand the state of knowledge. Conceptual needs differentiated from theoretical.

I cannot think of anyone more opposed to the use of prior theories than Glaser. His continual advice was to “avoid preconceptions.”

I meant Barney, not Bernard. Glaser's writings and institute emphasized shedding preconceived notions, but Glaser admitted one would never be a tabula rasa [Glaser was well known for being eclectic in his readings]. Of course, to show a research gap, authors must have some knowledge of the literature to frame a problem. Glaser also stated in his book Theoretical Sensitivity [1978] and was known by colleagues to read theories widely within and outside the field of study (the reason for some feeling he has a seemingly contradictory suggestion to not have preconceived notions but states to be steeped in the literature to improve sensitivity and integrative findings). Glaser also recommends a literature review during the substantive phase. There is no paradox. Glaser states do not get trapped by preconceived notions, but he also did not suggest one remain a blank slate. Being grounded in the theory is the real aim.

Glaser’s Ideas about theoretical sensitivity we’re very abstract, including concepts such as “context.” And literature reviews were only to be done after analysis was completed.

So if you can call that theory…

Typically, you do not use a theoretical framework as the basis for qualitative research. One major purpose of qualitative methods is to identify major concepts in an area of research, especially in new areas of investigation.

The fun part (at least for me) at the finish of a qualitative study, is to look at theories that are supported, added to or proven false by the results from the qualitative study.

One of my favorite examples is a study conducted by Paul Dudley White. At one time, one I was a nursing student, patients who had had a heart attack were restricted to bed for weeks. They even had to be fed! Simply put, the idea or theory was that strict bedrest rested the heart so it could heal, similar to a broken bone. Dr. White tested healthy people who were put on bedrest. Their heart functions started to diminish. That study challenged the current theory showing patients after a heart attack needed to be up and functioning to maintain cardiovascular health. It totally changed patient care.

Good luck with your study

Actually, theoretical and/or conceptual frameworks are used frequently in qualitative research. Some forcefully claim every time (I tend to agree). Still, the use of theory depends on the aims and research question. A useful way to demarcate the use of theory is by inductive or deductive (though acting like their is a strict difference is hotly debated, with many believing one cycles back and forth). Deductive has a framework, which is theory-informed and possibly replication of a previous study. Inductive is much more grounded in the data and might consider theory much more later than earlier. Most qualitative research textbooks teach how to use theory to inform research. Please see Collins, C. S., & Stockton, C. M. (2018). The central role of theory in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1609406918797475.

Here's another factor. When teaching graduate students research for 25 years, I noticed some students needed a framework to do a research project. The process of going into a study with general goals to describe the components of a phenomenon was almost incomprehensible for many. The explorers, however, liked the freedom to investigate unencumbered by a theory. I once interviewed 111 people who had once been unconscious. Over 25% of them could hear and understand what was being said, that ability increased when they were moved, like from a bed to a stretcher. At that time, the theories all said unconscious patients were unaware but mostly because they could not talk or move. Now some centers are hooking unconscious patients up to EEG machines to detect awareness.

The trend in research now is to allow theories for all studies. I believe especially new phenomenon needs to be explored unencumbered. I just wrote a little piece on some of the joys of having a cell phone compared to the dark ages without them. I wondered if anyone has researched what it's like to have a cell phone. What are the main ways people use it? Fun stuff!

The key is, as Gioia, Jong-hee, and Sartori eloquently stated, using theory or a conceptual framework should result in a conversation, limitations, checking conceptual dilution, and reframing. Yes, many blindly show allegiance to theories. Glaser pointed out many theories are not empirically based--sadly, many social science theories are little more than politics dressed up. We should know theories and research, but theories are neither laws nor facts. Sadly, many in research, as stated by Braun and Clarke, turn their questions into answers.

I think yes, it would give theoretical grounding to the descriptions, qualitative conjectures, i.e. scientific support to the qualitative statements.

In a sequential explanatory mixed method, your qualitative portion will further explore your quantitative findings to generate themes. Your theoretical and conceptual framework will fall under the quantitative portion of your mixed methods. This also applies to the sequential exploratory mixed method.