If you don’t have a theory you don’t have research. The distinction between a theory and a theoretical framework; to some extent they are similar, but they are fundamentally different. A theory is an abstraction of reality. General theories are the set of tools that are applied to a particular research problem – they are applied to the context we are interested in. A theory is a mechanism, device, or model about something. Theory is a model of the process you are looking at – the purpose of theory is to help us build our conceptual model.
The theoretical framework is where we theorise, hypothesize and put across our ideas and arguments. For example, a hypothesis is built on a theory, however it is about what we think, it is not the theory. The purpose of the theory is to give structure to the researcher. When we apply a theory to our research problem/issue and develop our argument this is our theorisation, and in a sense, our contribution to the literature. Remember that a significant and original contribution to knowledge means a significant and original contribution to theory in our disciplinary area.
What is truth is what we can defend and make an argument for. However, in the end we give an opinion. When we talk about advancing knowledge, we are talking about advancing knowledge in our disciplinary area.
There needs to be a fit between theory and the research problem because through the interaction between our theory and research problem we develop our argument and theorisation, and therefore, our contribution to knowledge. Hence, the assumptions and philosophical positions underlying the theory need to fit and match your research problem.
A theory is general. Your research problem is specific. So any one theory may be used for many research problems. Although for a particular research problem there may be only a few theories (or even one) that are applicable. Therefore, you are applying a general theory to a specific situation and using it to help construct an argument and understanding your problem.
In order to make things better, you need to first understand how they work. This is obvious because when you understand how they work you can identify the strengths and deficiencies, areas that can be improved, etc. Data is evidence for the claim. Need to stick the claim and evidence together.
For qualitative research, you use theoretical sampling or purposeful sampling. You only need one example to challenge a theory. You do not prove, but test a theory. You cannot prove, only disprove a theory – reject a hypothesis – falsification. You say your findings either support your hypothesis or do not support your hypothesis.
It was interesting to discover that in qualitative research you can change your theory many times during the research until you find the right fit. This seems a bit like grounded theory where you get your data first and then turn to the literature to finding theories, etc.
Your contribution is what is not understood in your disciplinary area. Need to constantly ask yourself (reflexivity): what am I providing that has not already been explained?
I think there is a constant interplay between qualitative and qualitative research – it is like a feedback loop - circular. You go from qual to quant to qual to quant, etc and each feeds into the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment