Well, given the diversity of appraoches in qualitative research, which is outlined above, I can only tell what an analytic framework is to me and how I build or use it.

I always do my qualitative research in order to answer a theoretical research question, i.e. a question pointing out something that is not known by substantive theories of a section of social reality. In order to answer theoretical questions using qualitative empirical  data, I must use theory to inform data collection and analysis. This is what my analytical frameworks do: They link the theoretical question to the empirical analysis by summarising what is theoretically known about relevant empirical phenomena (and thus needs to be empirically investigated). I usually end up with a list of actors and their properties, actions, conditions of action and effects as well as assumptions about their relationships. This I can translate into empirical research questions that tell me what data to collect, and what to look for in data analysis.

I should point out that a major point about using qualitative methods is their openness, so I have to make sure my data collection and analysis is open for anything not included in my analytical framework but relevant to the question. There is always something.

I think you will find this approach to be consistent with what Miles et al. suggest:

Miles, Matthew B., A. Michael Huberman and Johnny Saldaña (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis - A Methods Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks u.a.: SAGE Publications.

Dear Thanesh,

I can see your first question through the lenses of 'Epistemology', 'Statistical Sciences' and 'Computer Science'. The most important fact about the quantitative researches is that 'their methodologies (all) become supported by quantitative analysis of given (or experienced) data'. Quantitative methods of data analysis can strongly be supported by computational and numerical methods in mathematical and statistical frameworks (e.g., mathematical operations, computational models, statistical distributions). So, I can contemplate that their most significant focuses are concerned with computational aspects of knowledge. On the other hand, the qualitative methods attempt to take into account the qualitative aspects of knowledge (e.g., features, properties). Also, they really need to be supported by analytical frameworks. According to this grasp of qualitative knowledge, qualitative researches may make strong interrelationships with inductive and abductive approaches. And as you may know, these approaches require to be constructed over analytical frameworks. Additionally, I shall stress that qualitative methods give different values to different components of the case of study with regard to meta-cognitive knowledge (e.g., conditionality, contingency and contextualisations). And I believe that meta-cognitive knowledge must be supported by analytical frameworks. It could be regarded as a reason behind your second question (why do not existing frameworks always fit into research?). In fact, in qualitative researches we may need to rely on variable, floating, and flexible frameworks that can represent the stream of knowledge in various contexts and conditions.     

Hello Thanesh

When I first read your question, I thought that it related to the 'Framework' approach (Ritchie and Spencer) which I have used. However, I then realised that it was not, so I then investigated to see if I could help, and look forward to reading other members' answers; I found Farshad's response most interesting. 

This link (below) describes an analytical framework for an essay – as an example – see paragraph ‘Developing an analytical framework for an essay’. This is inductive as it progresses from the broader perspective to the detail. It could also be used to plan / organise data.

I would see the analytic framework more as part of the organisation of the research, earlier on, rather than linked with any deductive reasoning.

https://sydney.edu.au/stuserv/documents/learning_centre/M5.pdf

 I found this paper worth reading when I was looking into your question - you might find them worth looking at:

Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167-186.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258190377_Theory_Construction_in_Qualitative_Research_From_Grounded_Theory_to_Abductive_Analysis

This is the full text link:

http://grap.ulb.ac.be/wp-content/uploads/Timmermans-and-Tavory_Abductive-Analysis.pdf

This chapter was a reference that I followed up, from elsewhere:

Ragin, C. C., & Amoroso, L. M. (2010). Constructing social research: The unity and diversity of method. SAGE Publications: Chapter 3 

http://depts.washington.edu/methods/readings/Ragin_Chapter3.pdf

Very best wishes

Mary

Article Systematic Combining: An Abductive Approach to Case Research

Article Theory Construction in Qualitative Research From Grounded Th...

Whether you use an inductive approach or an approach that is driven by a conceptual framework (deductive) depends on your research question. A great deal of qualitative research pursues exploration and discovery, so for those goals an inductive approach is the most appropriate. For other purposes, a more deductive approach might indeed be desirable.

Several qualitative strategies, such as Braun & Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis, are consistent with either an inductive or deductive approach. Grounded theory, on the other hand, is not intended for use with a pre-existing theory. Ironically, this even applies to theories that were developed through previous applications of GT, at least according to Charmaz (2014).

Qualitative research is situated in a specific context, which requires a flexible researcher ready to adapt research design to the circumstances. Several prominent researchers suggested to adopt flexible research design, which can lead towards developing specific analytical framework. It is advisable to read about possible approaches, documented in the literature, adopt and play with some of them. However, we always should have in our minds that we must understand what is going on.

Developing an analytical framework is challenging, especially if you can apply it in few cases to check how it works. And of course, the framework may evolve based on the experience from the field.

Good luck and enjoy in experimenting.

Zeljko

Well, given the diversity of appraoches in qualitative research, which is outlined above, I can only tell what an analytic framework is to me and how I build or use it.

I always do my qualitative research in order to answer a theoretical research question, i.e. a question pointing out something that is not known by substantive theories of a section of social reality. In order to answer theoretical questions using qualitative empirical  data, I must use theory to inform data collection and analysis. This is what my analytical frameworks do: They link the theoretical question to the empirical analysis by summarising what is theoretically known about relevant empirical phenomena (and thus needs to be empirically investigated). I usually end up with a list of actors and their properties, actions, conditions of action and effects as well as assumptions about their relationships. This I can translate into empirical research questions that tell me what data to collect, and what to look for in data analysis.

I should point out that a major point about using qualitative methods is their openness, so I have to make sure my data collection and analysis is open for anything not included in my analytical framework but relevant to the question. There is always something.

I think you will find this approach to be consistent with what Miles et al. suggest:

Miles, Matthew B., A. Michael Huberman and Johnny Saldaña (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis - A Methods Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks u.a.: SAGE Publications.

Inductive and deductive research, ideally, complement one another. If one looks at this simply, inductive research begins with data and ends with some kind of framework. Deductive research begins with a framework (usually a set of hypotheses) and uses the framework to analyze data. In both cases, the research should shed light on phenomena in the world.

For qualitative data, grounded theory is an inductive approach where the data is used to form loose frameworks to make sense of what is being studied. The question for me is what is next? If a framework is generated, should it be used to guide future qualitative research? If yes, what should the nature of the framework be? How should it be used? I suggest Working Hypotheses, Pillar Questions and the Practical Ideal type frameworks for what is next. (see references below for more information)

Frameworks are useful in comparative qualitative research. This is particularly true when the unit of analysis is not individuals. The hunt for empirical evidence can remain stable across cases, and some kind of generalization is at least possible.

I like frameworks for applied research in my field of public administration (deductive method). This is particularly true when some kind of process is evaluated. Depending on the research question, quantitative and qualitative data can be collected. For this kind of research problem, I suggest the Practical Ideal Type. When the research problem is less structured and more preliminary, I suggest working hypotheses or pillar questions. All of these frameworks should be developed using a combination of scholarly literature and experience and be justified with sound reasons. They then provide a useful guide for data collection and analysis. Interview questions can be informed by the frameworks as can the review of documents and direct observation.

These kinds of frameworks have been used to evaluate the quality of the relationship between a city parks department and a non-profit, which supports parks, how well a city fire department's incident command system is working, the early use of veterans courts in Texas. For more on these frameworks in qualitative research see.

Chapter Public Administration Methodology: A Pragmatic Perspective

Chapter Doing Practical Research And Publishing in Military Studies

Book A Playbook for Research Methods: Integrating Conceptual Fram...

Many thanks all of you for your valuable time and intellectual contributions.