We have been asked by a reviewer to include a Conceptual Framework in our Literature Review, but our understanding is that in Qualitative research, the conceptual framework results from the data, so would go in the Discussion.
What experience and advice do you have?
I think it depends on the extent to which you did have theoretical ideas that guided your data collection and analysis. So first, re-read your literature review and think about whether what you wrote there might have triggered this response from the reviewer. If so, then the framework would go at the end of the literature review.
Alternatively, if you did follow the classic qualitative approach of developing theory, then the reviewer might be asking you to go beyond your current results, and in that case you would put the conceptual framework at the end of the Results section.
I have actually seen people do both, where there is a more abstract summary of the literature and a more concrete summary of the results into a model (usually conveyed in a diagram).
I think it depends on the extent to which you did have theoretical ideas that guided your data collection and analysis. So first, re-read your literature review and think about whether what you wrote there might have triggered this response from the reviewer. If so, then the framework would go at the end of the literature review.
Alternatively, if you did follow the classic qualitative approach of developing theory, then the reviewer might be asking you to go beyond your current results, and in that case you would put the conceptual framework at the end of the Results section.
I have actually seen people do both, where there is a more abstract summary of the literature and a more concrete summary of the results into a model (usually conveyed in a diagram).
It is not easy to provide the right answer to your question since we do not have insight into your paper. Nevertheless, some leading scientists/authors in qualitative research have argued that literature review goes after presenting research methods and findings. In that course of thinking, maybe you are asked to provide your conceptual framework and after that to discus and compare it with existing work (frameworks, theories) in the research field.
Actually, I agree with your standing, that conceptual framework should be presented in discussion section after presenting research methods, but think about comparing it with existing work reported in the literature.
Regards,
Zeljko
I have had a very similar experience in writing a review paper -- a reviewer wanted me to put the conceptual model for carrying out the review up front, although I had relied on a Grounded Theory approach in which the logical structure for the review emerged from the review itself. To satisfy the reviewer, I found an article that addresses this very issue, (my verbatim response, with the reference, is below). I'm hoping this may help: In your case, maybe you could state in the intro the decision rule you used, as far as developing a conceptual model, and then discussing what you then found later in the paper, on that basis. I think that being able to cite the Dixon-Woods et al. paper as a guide really helped - as the paper was accepted :)
My own response to reviewer: "This comment raises a general issue in conducting a scientific literature review (which I have approached as a variety of qualitative research itself): Whether to begin with a prescribed model, or to use a Grounded Theory approach in which the themes are produced from the data. Rather than starting with my own conceptual model, I purposely chose the latter approach, to determine which factors did emerge from the studies in the most unbiased manner possible. In making this decision, I relied on a systematic review of strategies for synthesizing qualitative research: Dixon-Woods, Booth, and Sutton (2007): Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports; Qualitative Research, http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/3/375)."
Thanks you to everyone for your comments so far. Gordon, thank you in particular for the citation and your discussion.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology