I'm currently writing on a dissertation, c.40 pages, and I'm left with no academic support due to the holidays now.
My topic in international relations is very specific and something about which there exists only scant literature. In fact, most of that literature redefines the phenomenon (very contentious that it does exist), but I want to explain how it actually emerges, the reasons why it happened. The work will be done comparatively with two case studies and process tracing. The phenomenon logically is the dependent variable.
From studying the two cases I have gained a good understanding of the drivers behind the phenomenon, and those drivers explain the emergence of the phenomenon in both cases. So the drivers are the independent variables. What I know so far helps me to bridge the gap between IV and DV; that is, explaining the mechanism that led to the occurrence of the DV.
However, what stuck me know from reading guides on how to write dissertations (or Bachelor/Master thesis) is that they all presuppose a 'theoretical framework', or a 'theory' that drives the research question. Apart from conceptualising how to think and measure the DV, I don't really know what else I should add. There is no literature/theory that would explain the DV. Why can't I just proceed as I planned?
Would appreciate any help!
Hi Luke!
I don't know your research question, and I am not a researcher in your area, but I think I understand the problem, as I had similar problems myself during doctoral studies in applied pedagogical science some years ago (defended my doctoral thesis 2017).
I was researching the integration of ICTs into existing practices of teaching and learning, sometimes called "blended learning" which is a term that many confess to, but does not mean much - and does not have a really good theory framework behind, but is driven by a series of factors and has many historical parallels. I went further and found that the much-researched areas of "e-learning", "online learning" and "distance learning" often claimed to have a theory behind, but these did not explain much at all, really. So I found them useless.
Some academics around me (not my supervisor) told me (even urged me) to confess to any of the classic theory authorities in the general pedagogic field, as Bernstein, Bourdieu or Foucault - "doesn't really matter who, but Foucault is a little out of fashion today" someone said - and I did not feel that was right or creative for me. I wanted to get somewhere with my research, just not accommodate problems or results to commonly used theories. It would only be tedious work to explain what my research questions had to do with these much-used theoretical authorities at all, without getting much help from them. If everything can be explained by a theory, nothing can be explained by it, at least not well. (Compare to what a person with persecution mania thinks about the world - all observations are easily explained as examples of ingenious evil to damage him).
As I am a philosophy teacher - and as such a wholesale dealer in theory - I worked on without a theory to lead me but examined many theoretical frameworks along the way and at last found a couple of really good ones to combine; Barbara Adam's social theory of time and Luciano Floridi's Philosophy of Information. Suddenly I got a very good fit.
However,
Now I see that you do not have a big dissertation to finish, and probably not so much time either to look for any untraditional theoretical framework. What I think you can do is to clearly explain why you do not think any of the usual authorities fits well to your research questions. Include a couple of unusual theoretical perspectives as well, some that may be a help in parts. In this way you can show that you are not just careless about theory.
Furthermore, I do not know the theory traditions at your institution, and the attitude about students hunting all-over for new fresh theories (or even try forming new ones, which is not that easy and fast-done at all, demands many underlying empirical studies). Your supervisors can, if you are doing a bachelor's or master's dissertation, simply expect and demand that you apply the same theory as commonly used on everything, as best you can. That may be the task as a part of your education, or a consequence of their own beliefs about the wide applicability of a specific theory. The safest bet is probably to do your very best to use your supervisors theoretical authorities. So be cautious, and do not see my narrative above as advice - it does not come with any guarantee. Also, doctoral studies are regarded as education, on the threshold to research, but anyway, mostly education to become a researcher.
At last - here is what I should not write perhaps - check up Luciano Floridi's Philosophy of Information. It has a wide applicability on the knowledge society and it's mechanisms, as it skips the idea that everything in the knowledge society is only a more-and-better of what we had before. He creates something new, "of our time, for our time", with a lot of very useful terminology. Another theory, as you mention international relations and globalisation is probably included, check also out Simon Marginson's ideas about the "glonacal", the "Glonacal agency heuristics". Hope anything of this above helps, and good luck.
Question "What to do "? Clarifies the goal or problem for which the researcher wrote the research or the problem for which the researcher found the appropriate solution by reading previous studies or benefiting from the mistakes of others
When it comes to provide theoretical support, I slightly take a different view. We need to come up with an explanation that sounds cogent. Available theories are handy in this regard. Yet, their absence must not be discouraging for us as we can provide reasoning on the basis of our own understanding supported by relevant examples.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing