My research is a qualitative study and it is observed from Creswell's work that it need not necessarily have a framework to be drawn. The research, on the other hand, incorporated a theoretical lens to guide the study and substantiate observations.
Nonetheless, when consulted with experts it is argued that there is a lack of a framework to be included so that the observations can be aligned with the set framework
There are quite a number of different approaches to qualitative research. In particular, when your study is more exploratory, then you do not need a theoretical framework. In contrast, when there has already been a fair amount of research in your area, then a theoretical framework can help explain how your project relates to that prior work.
Either way, the important thing is to begin with a clear "purpose statement" and/or research questions.
It's better to draw your framework to help the reader to understand the relationship or impact of different variables as independent dependant, meditating, or moderator variables. We can use the figuring also for advanced statistical analysis especially in structural equation modeling (SEM). Using the software is better for this kind of analysis. You can use Smart PLS, AMOS, LISREL, or any software that can help to draw this figure. For descriptive analysis, it is not necessary to draw this kind of figure. You can use Tables, Sharts, Mathematics such as average, standard division, and other kinds of Mathematics formulas that can help to read your result clearly.
I strongly recommend using the framework as a figure when using the inferences analysis because this will help the reviewer understand your research quickly and you will get a good chance to accept your work.
One always needs, and includes a theoretical framework, it may simply not be discussed in that way. For example, my memory of Cresswell places the distinction of framework as limitation- contrasted with the inclusion of theory within methodologies, but epistemologically, that's not saying that there is no theory, he focused on the different ways to 'use' theory in research to try to demonstrate that the theory is mechanistic, it does things, and therefore where and how you place theory, in an overarching framework or in selection and justification of methods in methodology does matter. But there's always theory, and it is structuring of the research-- thus I'd argue a framework or scaffolding.
Part of what you're question implies is 'how and where does one usefully discuss the theory' and when does one commit to/select the theory they will use. And those are difficult questions. the conventions of writing in different fields will center or camouflage theory in different ways, though I'd argue that epistemologically, scientific norms favor transparency and openness about all axioms/selections/theories you make, so up-front and center is best. But the other one, for example when to select which theory, which methodology, which frameworks of evaluation and interpretation, that is harder to answer. While academic/theoretical Honesty says, one clearly needs to expose your theory, and conventions dictated how and when, what theory to use isn't clear at all.
For example you have the real divide between "grounded theory," where the hypothesis and structure of inquiry follow initial observations, and constructive or directive theory, where you have a question, a gap in the literature, or a hypothesis precede going to the field. That's a difference between a strongly inductive vs deductive system. The reality is both have theory, its when you fix/determine and consider the selection of theoretical focus closed.
Using a theoretical framework in qualitative research can be contingent on the utilized approach. For instance, a theoretical framework in ethnography could be essential for grasping socio-cultural and political issues. Besides, employing a theoretical framework in a case study could minimize researcher bias. On the other hand, a theoretical framework could be deemphasized in narrative inquiry or phenomenological research. Here are two helpful articles.
Garvey, C. M., & Jones, R. (2021). Is there a place for theoretical frameworks in qualitative research? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1609406920987959. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920987959
Green, H. E. (2014). Use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in qualitative research. Nurse Researcher, 21(6), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.21.6.34.e1252
Good luck,
I agree that using theoretical frameworks depends on what your research approach is. For example grounded theory would find it unacceptable.
Yes, one always starts with some preconceptions but that is hardly the same as starting with a theoretical framework.
Better propose the "concept indicator model" if you are interested in plugging a priori constructs and propositions.
I think that use of a theoretical framework is not absolutely unacceptable when using Grounded Theory methodology.
Although one can argue that in the main grounded theorists seek to start work with no preconceptions as they interpret 'what's going on', it could turn out that this 'what's going on' is best interpreted via a previously worked-out theoretical framework.
As Glaser has said, "All is data." toward forming your grounded theory.
Absolutely.
What I meant in previous post is that there could be an instance---once you are into your study with no preconceptions--- where your find that your grounded theory of the studied situation essentially mimics an already worked-out theoretical framework that you are aware of from 'the literature'; so why not just integrate this into your grounded theory rather than totally 're-invent the wheel'.
Indeed, Glaser envisaged this very situation.
I agree that matching an existing theory is a real possibility but almost nothing is written about how to handle this situation.
I agree with most of above mentioned, however, it depends on the idea and process of how to handle your research prob also, if that complicated that means you need to draw a model, other than that, I think is no need to add a model.
In qualitative research, a theoretical framework is used to guide the research process. The theoretical framework provides a foundation for the research and helps shape the research plan. It explains and evaluates the theories that support the research and shows that the work is grounded in established ideas. It defines any key concepts, discusses the relationships between them, and describes assumptions and expectations within this framework.
A theoretical framework is the use of a theory (or theories) in a study that simultaneously transmits the deepest values of the researcher or researchers. It also provides a clearly articulated signal or lens on how the study will process new knowledge. The theoretical framework lies at the intersection of existing knowledge and previously formed ideas about complex phenomena, the epistemological dispositions of the researcher, and a lens and an analytical methodical approach.
Working with these three components makes theory a valuable tool for the coherence and depth of a study. Although there may be cases where the exploratory nature of a study nullify the benefits of a theoretical framework, research without theory does not exist (Lincoln and Guba, 1994).
A researcher who cannot articulate a theoretical framework may not have done the difficult and essential work of unearthing its deepest operating principles and preconceptions about its study. The belief that preconceived notions do not exist or have an impact on a study is, in fact, a theoretical arrangement.
The importance of using a theoretical framework in a thesis study cannot be overly emphasized. The theoretical framework is the basis from which all knowledge (metaphorically and literally) of a research study is constructed. It serves as a structure and support for the justification of the study, the approach to the problem, the purpose, the importance and the research questions. The theoretical framework provides a basis, or an anchor, for literature review and, above all, for methods and analysis.
Wilberforce,
Think that I can agree with most of your post---except the bit about transmitting "...the deepest values of the researcher or researchers.".
My view is that at the point of doing research, researchers' values haven't got a lot to do with it.
- Badges
- Science topic