I've been perusing the blogs (not just ours but those from other groups as well) and I seem to be the only person struggling with the "theoretical framework" that I will be applying to my research, analysis and discussion. Is that true? Am I really the only one? I have been sitting at my laptop for hours, days actually, collecting relevant literature for my lit review and finding articles and citations that contribute to all sides of the discourse on my chosen topic. So, my question is, how then does this differ from the theoretical framework that I am going to use?
Doesn't it stand to reason that my framework will come from my literature review? Won't I be looking at all the information in front of me and selecting that which I believe applies most closely to my area of interest and the method that I've chosen? I think that this is right and it seems logical to me so I will forge ahead in this vein and should anyone get to this post before our class Monday, I'd love to get your feedback. Thanks and happy writing!
Take comfort, you are not the only one!
ReplyDeleteI am confused about how to go about writing the theoretical framework section as well. I am confused myself how the theoretical framework will differ much from the lit review. I think your approach is correct; that we focus on our own research and what we are going to do 'differently' from previous researchers. Nice to know I'm not alone!
Hey there, I’m actually from group 4, but I thought I’d take a leap over and comment on your post. I’ve actually had a similar struggle of trying exactly how to define “theoretical framework”. I think I’m approaching it similar to you where it naturally stems out of my lit review. Gathering work from a variety of sources and seeing how they tackle related issues helps to frame my research as I think Luker has pointed out before. However, I’ve been toying with splitting “theoretical framework” into two distinct sections, one for theory aka the lit review and one for methodology. In my case, I’ve found that there are specific methodological/ethical approaches that needs to be considered when conducting my research and therefore informs my methodological framework and research design, which must be stated. In terms of theoretical framework, I still am relying on relevant literature to draw out common themes, theories, and ideas to almost rely on certain academic traditions as the groundwork for my project. In other words, I’m communicating with a specific academic area and body of knowledge with which this project would be relevant to. In order to commune with them, I have to use their common concepts and language.
ReplyDeleteHope that makes sense!
- Wayne Soon
Thank you so much for your comment Lana and Wayne. I take comfort in knowing that you are also facing the same issue and attempting to reconcile it in the same manner. Good luck with your proposals.
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping that you've been able to overcome your theoretical-framework-block but in case you haven't I thought I might chime in. In some ways I have the opposite problem: I tend to start of with theory and theoretical-frameworks and try to find ways to ground the theory. This is problematic in a lot of ways and I'm finding that this course has helped me develop a more grounded approach. Still, reading and thinking about theory is what really interests me -- I shouldn't admit it but I even do it in my spare time (spare time?) -- and it's where my mind tends to go if left unconstrained by reality.
ReplyDeleteFor me a theoretical framework represents the broader, more abstract discussion that you're taking part in and contributing to. I tend to think of it not as a method you choose as you would a tool but more like neighbourhood in which you'd like to build a house. You pick your tool (method) on the basis of your subject and more or less because you think it will be useful in illuminating that subject. When building a house you pick the tool that's most useful for building a frame or laying shingles. You don't really pick the neighbourhood for the house in the same way: you pick it not because it's useful but because you feel comfortable there, or you think it's interesting or it has a strong community. It's where you feel you belong. (if this sounds absurd just go along with me for one more minute).
For me a theoretical framework is where you think your research belongs, it's the neighbourhood in which you see yourself working. It's the discussion to which your research is contributing, hopefully, but more importantly, it's the discussion that has inspired your work and informed your ideas. Take Foucault for example. Some people read Foucault and think, yes! Power! Everything is about power dynamics. Then they go off and start seeing power dynamics everywhere. Eventually they stumble upon a particularly compelling phenomenon that they think can be explained in terms of power dynamics. They design a research project (and method(s)) that they think will allow them to understand that phenomenon and set to work. As they do so they will have the idea of power dynamics in the back of their mind, hoping that their findings will eventually line up with their theoretical framework. Of course it doesn't always -- it may actually substantiate some other framework, or might act against your framework -- and that's why it's just a framework and not something more concrete: you might have to abandon it for another over the course of your work.
I'm not sure what you're working on so it's hard for me to suggest what your theoretical framework might be. It might help to ask yourself something like: who are some of the big, important thinkers that have written about my topic? Which of their ideas are informing my project? I don't think these have to be social scientists: maybe you think something that an art historian wrote about is relevant or maybe a philosopher. And I think that's where your theoretical framework differs from your literature review: if you're working in the social sciences your lit review should contain other social sciences and other social science research. They should be people who share the same methods as you (to some extent), people who are doing the same sort of work as you. Someone studying chimpanzee society is going to cite other current chimpanzee research in their lit review, but if they're trying to argue that chimp behaviour is informed by their environment they might refer to, I don't know, Jane Jacobs (not Jane Goodall) in their theoretical framework. Does this make any sense?
ReplyDeleteI'm proposing to look at people that are using new technologies to measure aspects of their live, themselves (physically, mentally, emotionally), their environment, etc., in order to make changes to their lives -- kind of like small-scale science. In my lit review I'm including other research that has looked at this and similar phenomena which ranges from research into "citizen science" to research about the impact of cheap computer sensors on health care. But, in my heart of hearts (mind of minds?) I'm also really interested in the epistemological implications of this, which includes people like Heidegger, Gadamer, and Habermas and theories like hermeneutics. I also think ideas of rationalization, institutionalization, commodification, and alienation are related to my work, all of which have a basis in theory. I'm not going to be doing research like Heidegger but I do think that his ideas have some bearing on the phenomenon that I'm exploring. For me that's the difference between a theoretical framework and a lit review.
I can't say this is what Prof. Grimes has in mind when referring to a theoretical framework, nor am I even sure that what I just wrote makes any sense, but I hopefully it provides another perspective and gives you a better sense of what to include in your theoretical framework.