Week 4:The Role of Theory
Why do we need a framework?
Lester argues the following reasons for why a framework is necessary:
1. Provides structure for constructing and designing research.
2. A framework is necessary to make sense of data
3. Framework allows us to "transcend common sense"
4. Need for deep understanding, rather than understanding in the moment or for one purpose.
Benefits of Theoretical Frameworks
1. Grounds data and research within a set of theories based on previous research.
2. Allows like-minded researchers to extend and explain data to further progress in a particular area
Limitations of Theoretical Frameworks
1. May force the researcher to explain results based on theoretical factors rather than evidence
2. Data may be stripped of context and situation in order to fit into the theoretical framework
3. Theory-based discourse is not helpful in 'day-to-day' practice
4. Situating research in one theory does not allow for "triangulation" which is described as the process of considering all theories and explanations and then synthesizing and understanding many different possibilities.
Practical Frameworks
1. Connects to the day-to-day experiences
2. Is not situated in any larger theories and therefore can only be seen through one lens.
Conceptual Framework
1. System of justification, rather than explanation
2. Based on wide array of current and far-ranging sources
3. Only points and information that is relevant to the study are considered.
While there are many types of frameworks, it is clear that having a framework to guide research and understand data is important. As researchers, we must not only interpret the data collected and attempt to connect it to our focus question, we must also ask "why?" (p. 75). Having a framework in place provides the structure to ask 'why' as we interpret the data and attempt to make sense of it. I was intrigued by one of the limitations of theoretical frameworks; the notion that a researcher may feel compelled to situate data and findings within a theory, rather than look at the evidence and ask what it tells us in general. In this case, are we as researchers trying to fit our findings to a preconceived notion, or are we allowing the evidence to guide us to a finding?
There is a balance that must be struck between having a framework to guide and ground our research, but also allow for it to not limit us in understanding the findings.
In conclusion, have you ever used a framework for research or to situate your studies? Did this framework help or hinder your study?
Thank you Sarah for the very clear outline of the different frameworks. I tend to be drawn to research that is more theoretical or conceptual, in terms of interest, but I note that one of the drawbacks of theoretical research is it not very helpful for 'day-to-day' life. I think this is especially true in terms of educational research where this can be a disconnect between academic research and a teacher's daily grind (I have mentioned this before I'm sure, it is a real bug bear of mine!)
ReplyDeleteI don't think I can say I have ever used a methodological framework to frame my studies (this is my first attempt) but I have always used the framework of 'doing' history ie. asking questions of primary evidence to construct narratives of the past. This framework is theoretical in terms of its assumptions and ideas about evidence and how it informs us about the past but is also practical as there is a practical process as to how history is constructed - rules to be followed. I think within this framework the questions asked of the evidence (data) are the most important aspects and they tend to shape the finished outcome more than the actual data. Research has been conducted when two historians are given the same set of evidence and ask the same questions and come up with completely different narratives. Consciously or subconsciously, the tendency to answer a research question with the answers that you want rather than the answers you find, must be an issue for all researchers.
The idea that a theoretical framework is important is research as it situated a particular study within the "bigger picture" offers me yet another point to ponder. Often we may overlook it or indeed forget that there is one.
ReplyDeleteThe limitations of theory-based discourse that is not helpful in day-to-day practice rings true to me. Research-based theories, practices and frameworks were helpful if I encountered them during that summer months when I was away from the classroom. Thinking about what might contribute to better pedological practice needed to be considered in a more reflective and restful environment than when one was trying to meet the needs of a classroom of children on a daily basis. I have used the results of other people's research in my studies but I have never done research myself to enhance my studies. That may change now. I have never thought of myself as a "researcher" and the notion is an interesting one for me.
Hi Sarah!
ReplyDeleteThanks for synthesizing the article so clearly!
I have to admit, this is all really new to me. To Jennette's point, I wouldn't really call myself a researcher either. I mean, I have definitely referred to sources to build my position, which I guess aligns to conceptual frameworks. But if I honestly reflect, I think I am guilty to being that "researcher" you note above, who has an idea/ position based on experience and finds further evidence to support it. I am just wondering how this approach is different than a conceptual framework? Is the difference that the position should not be that of my own, but rather the world view? I would expect so, but I find it hard to differentiate at times!
A practical framework sounds interesting, because it seems to allow a researcher to dig deeper at a more pragmatic level. This depth I think is essential in truly understanding. I wonder if/ how researchers can apply a hybrid of both frameworks to build a more holistic research outcome (details and birds-eye-view).