What is the Difference between a Theoretical Framework and a Literature Review

【#文档大全网# 导语】以下是®文档大全网的小编为您整理的《What is the Difference between a Theoretical Framework and a Literature Review》，欢迎阅读！

THE CONCEPTUAL OR THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK



This is a very difficult component of the Research Proposal for most students. Few textbooks discuss the origins, nature and purposes of a conceptual or theoretical framework for beginning researchers. Given its abstract character, conceptual frameworks require a very different kind of thinking than, say, identifying methods for data collection. These notes will hopefully anchor your understanding of conceptual or theoretical frameworks.

1. What is a Conceptual or Theoretical Framework?

It is relatively easy to collect data. It is much more difficult to explain what the data means. A conceptual or theoretical framework is therefore a facility with which to make sense of data. Creating conceptual frameworks in advance obviously assists you to focus the data collection, even though it is possible to search for such explanatory frameworks after the data is collected. The latter step is risky, though, for new researchers. To summarise, a conceptual (or theoretical) framework is an explanatory device that enables a researcher to make sense of the data collected.



2. How is a Conceptual Framework different from a Theoretical Framework?

Some writers use the terms interchangeably, and in such cases it clearly does not matter what term is used. Others see a conceptual framework as a lower level of conceptual organisation in which one or more concepts are stringed together in order to explain a particular event; for example, you could use McLaughlin‟s conception of “mutual adaptation” to explain what happens when policy engages practice in classrooms.



In this view, a theoretical framework would constitute a higher level of conceptual organisation in which a full-blown “theory” would be invoked to explain a particular set of events; for example, Fullan‟s theory of complexity could be invoked to explain the complex nature of schools and school systems and the implications for educational change. Other “grand-theories” include Marx‟s theory of the state or Vygotsky‟s theory of learning or Piaget‟s theory of child development. Such ambitious or grand theories have been the subject of criticism as recognition of diversity and difference across social and cultural contexts became the subject of especially postmodern thought.



It is important not to become obsessed with definitions. Rather, decide on what term to use and be clear in your own mind how you are using it. As a new researcher, however, you are advised to stick as close as possible to convention as used by senior researchers.



3. Why do I need a Conceptual (or Theoretical) Framework?

A framework elevates the level of sophistication of your study in that it moves beyond description of what happened to explanations for why it happened. Furthermore, a (theoretical or conceptual) framework provides an organising tool that focuses the data collection i.e., it is useful in researching how teachers make assessment decisions to have a “theory” (or what Elmore calls a storyline) of how you expect teachers to make decisions, and then to test the validity of that theory through empirical evidence. Knowing, therefore, what theory you wish to „test,‟ sensitises the data collection to your storyline. And a framework gives your study broader comparative and theoretical significance, and therefore holds value beyond the specific context within which you as a South African researcher works.



4. How do I find a Conceptual or Theoretical Framework?

The best way is through the research literature and scholarship on, for example, educational change. This means that the more you read, the more you become aware of the different ways in which scholars try to explain change or, for that matter, non-change. In other words, the best means for developing a repertoire of theories of change is by reading the literature on change.



The next step then is to select from the readings the kind of theory (or theories) that you feel has power to explain or predict your expected findings. Beware, though, of a “garbage-can eclecticism” by drawing on multiple theories simply because you refuse to choose.



Let me share a few theoretical or conceptual approaches that several students are using or experimenting with, all of which are powerful if applied in the right context and to the right combination of research questions:



1


contingency theory (e.g., the works of Huberman): that teachers make decisions based on the immediate and specific challenges presented in the course of teaching or planning, rather than on fixed, pre-determined long-term courses of action that are resolutely implemented as planned.

complexity theory (Fullan, among others): that the complex nature of systems means that non-linear and unpredictable lines of implementation are more likely than rational, planned and simple implementation logics.

grounded theory (Glaser and Straus): that a priori decisions about the data is undesireable, and that theorising would (following specific steps) proceed from the data and the data collection process as these unfold, rather than in advance. In other words, explanations are generated from a close and ongoing scrutiny of the data yielded in the course of the study.

hypothesis testing: the opposite of grounded theory, specific hypotheses about what is expected are stated and then tested through the data collection and analysis processes. For example: you can set up the hypothesis that: “teachers when faced with a new curriculum are likely to draw selectively from traditional curriculum practices as well as innovative elements of the new curriculum based on the logic of practicality for that teaching context.”

political symbolism: the literature that tries to explain non-reform by suggesting the primary reason for policy generation is symbolic and, therefore, not concerned in the first instance, with the modalities of implementation (Weiler, Levin, Hess, Jansen among others).

managerialism: an approach for explaining why organisations or educational institutions change in response to external, market-driven demands for efficiency and effectiveness.

theory of deep change: this theory holds that in the absence of adequate training, resources and incentives, teachers are likely to change their assessment practices in a superficial or mechanical way rather than in a deep and meaningful way that challenges the underlying epistemology of teaching and learning.

conceptions of access: this approach draws from the literature different conceptions of “access” and tries to use such conceptions to explain the different ways in which schools both enable and limit access to institutions and knowledge. In other words, a conceptual framework is built from the ground-up using concepts in the literature. Note, while “access” is used as an example, this could be done for other concepts. This is, however, difficult to do so that it does not simply amount to another literature review (see next point).

5. What is the Difference between a Theoretical Framework and a Literature Review?

Some scholars use the literature review as a means for building and expounding the theoretical or conceptual framework. So, this is one way of dealing with the two concerns, by making them part of one strategy for writing. Again, do not spend time on definitional exactitudes.

My own view is that, in the context of your own research apprenticeship, being able to do a critical and evaluative synthesis of the literature (this is what a good literature review is about) is an important skill separate from an explanatory framework for making sense of your data. In the context of a doctoral policy course on educational change, a literature review could consist of a state-of-the-art, evaluative review of what we know about educational change; this review would lead to a justification for your particular study. This is normally a solid way of using a literature review---not for its own sake—but as building towards a platform for justifying your study as adding new knowledge to what the existing literature has not addressed. On the other hand, a conceptual or theoretical framework would simply anticipate what explanation set might be mobilised to make meaning from the data flowing from your key research questions.

JONATHAN D. JANSEN

2

本文来源：https://www.wddqxz.cn/3fc02dec5cbfc77da26925c52cc58bd63186930b.html