In literary studies, I am not a huge fan of long theoretical frameworks. A major reason is that any literary work, unless it is utterly trivial, is always already theorised more complexly than any theoretical model you choose to bring to bear on it. Students therefore end up ‘applying’ theory to their topic when really they should be responding to the work in order to find the unique and most intelligible way of interpreting it. Draw on theory in all its diversity, yes, but don’t read the work to fit the theory.

Greetings and Regards.

The output of the second chapter of the research or the theoretical foundations is the theoretical framework that gives high value to the research and makes the work more professional...

Yes, Fatemeh. For how long do you usually stay with it?

Dear Muthana Makki Mohammedali,

I can share what I have heard from my supervisor. Despite there is not any specific indication in a form of a number about a theoretical framework but at least 20% novelty is expected. If the average weight of results and discussion account for 40%, then the rest of the work can be considered as a literature review and theoretical framework.

Best

Ibrahim

I can share what I have heard from my research team. Despite there is not any specific recommendation in a form of about the theoretical literature and workflow but at least 40%+ novelty is expected as practical approach. If the overall average value of outcomes and discussion around for 60%, then the remain of the proposed work can be treated as a good literature review and case study.

Best

Dr Kanta Prasad

Dear Muthana Makki Mohammedali

I gather you’re working on a project that requires a theoretical background? In that case, if it is a Ph. D. thesis, then its relatively lengthy introduction can subsume a literature review though not all universities agree on the necessity of incorporating one in the thesis. if it is a paper of no more than 10000 words, I recommend you keep theoretical basics to a minimum. Any necessary, lengthy explanations can be referred to in the notes section. Reviewers as well as editors frown at too much theoretical elaboration in the main body of the research and though they want your paper to be well- researched as evident in a varied and/ or long list of references, they prefer you depend more on primary rather than secondary materials. Too much theoretical information may interrupt the smooth flow of your argument and could even discredit the originality of your contribution. There’s however one exception to this rule. If the theory or discipline of your choice is just emerging and very little research is available on it, then the journal itself may very well encourage you to provide an elaborate literature review. As a compromise, I suggest an approach according to which you neither neglect nor indulge in theoretical explanations. You can incorporate secondary materials into your arguments rather than dedicate a section by itself to literature review and see how the reviewers/ editors respond to that. At worst, they would ask you to revise a few parts of your research either to reduce or increase theoretical information. My best wishes

Thanks, Jinan F. B. Al-Hajaj . This makes a lot of sense.

In literary studies, I am not a huge fan of long theoretical frameworks. A major reason is that any literary work, unless it is utterly trivial, is always already theorised more complexly than any theoretical model you choose to bring to bear on it. Students therefore end up ‘applying’ theory to their topic when really they should be responding to the work in order to find the unique and most intelligible way of interpreting it. Draw on theory in all its diversity, yes, but don’t read the work to fit the theory.

If I am not wrong, that would be about 30% in most of the universities in Armenia. I'll make sure and if I am, I'll update it.

Thanks, Gourgen Karapetyan .

Thanks, Laurence Wright . I agree that our business in literary studies is to focus on the literary text. However, when you are trying to look at a text through a certain lens I prefer working in tandem on both, the text and the theory. This helps me to see where the theory operates and where it doesn't.

Well i think we can create research project, research papers, books...journals...manuals..magazines and much more of our own..by utilizing our own new and thought provoking concepts...but unless and until it is not given an authentication by some authenticated authority...it is futile...I made my three research projects...my own concepts... when funding agency approves my project..i will get credit...if not...no credit..only concept remain there...same is the case with paper..we got rejection in 7 or 8 NAAS rating journals...so here we have to work hard ...try for new and innovative concepts....

Thanks, Rifat Bhat . Probably this is where Laurence Wright 's attitude bears much meaning. With concepts of your own.

Thanks @Muthana Makki Mohammedali. I agree with you that working in tandem on text and theory is helpful in the research process; but when it comes finally to writing the research paper we should have reached conclusions as to the theoretical bearings underlying the interpretation. They become an organic part of our interpretation. In my view it is better to avoid long passages of unassimilated theoretical exposition unless your main purpose is to write about theory. Theory must serve your interpretation rather than the other way round. At least, that is what I think.