Examining the Role of Frameworks in Theorizing Process

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran

2 PhD student in Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran

3 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Entrepreneurship

4 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran

Abstract

Examining the role of the framework types in theorizing process is one of the basic needs of this research area. This paper, while distinguishing between the research guide framework and the theorizing framework, has placed its primary focus on studying the application of the framework types in different theorizing perspectives. For this purpose, it studied two dimensions of “How” and “When” that the “How” dimension relates to philosophical foundations in the theorizing process, and the “When” dimension is pertinent to research strategies and conceptualization traditions in this process. The “best fit based framework” was selected as the research method. The result was identifying four general states of using frameworks which encompassed six theoretical perspectives so that their use varies according to the “how” and “when” dimensions. The innovation of this paper is introducing perspectives on the theorizing process based on the “theory-research interaction” state and applying the framework in them, which is detailed in the paper.
 

Keywords

References

اکبری، م. (1397). اعتبارسنجی در پژوهش‌های کمّی، کیفی و آمیخته. روش‌شناسی علوم انسانی. 24(94). صص 23-45.
بارل، گیبس؛ مورگان، گارت (1943). نظریه‌های کلان جامعه‌شناختی و تجزیه‌و‌تحلیل سازمان: عناصر جامعه‌شناختی حیات سازمانی. ترجمه: محمدتقی نوروزی (1393). قم: سازمان‌ مطالعه ‌و تدوین‌ کتب‌ علوم ‌انسانی ‌دانشگاه‌ها (سمت)، مرکز تحقیق و توسعه‌ی علوم انسانی و موسسه آموزشی و پژوهشی امام خمینی (ره)
بلیکی، نورمن (2000). طراحی پژوهش اجتماعی. ترجمه: حسن چاوشیان (1393). تهران: نشر نی
تدلی، چالرز؛ تشکّری، عباس (2009). مبانی پژوهش ترکیبی: تلفیق رویکردهای کمّی و کیفی. ترجمه عادل آذر و سعید جهانیان (1395). تهران: انتشارات جهاد دانشگاهی
دانایی‌فرد، حسن (1393). نظریه‌پردازی: مبانی و روش‌شناسی‌ها، (چاپ سوم). تهران: انتشارات سمت
سرمد، زهره؛ بازرگان، عباس؛ حجازی، الهه (1394). روش‌های تحقیق در علوم رفتاری، (چاپ بیست و هشتم)، تهران: انتشارات آگه
ون‌دی‌ون، آندرو (2007). روش‌شناسی نظریه‌پردازی: بر مبنای پژوهش مشارکت‌جویانه در علوم اجتماعی. ترجمه: حسن دانایی‌فرد (1392). تهران: انتشارات صفار
Andersen, P. H., & Kragh, H. (2010). Sense and sensibility: Two approaches for using existing theory in theory-building qualitative research. Industrial marketing management, 39(1), 49-55.
Carroll, C., Booth, A., Leaviss, J., & Rick, J. (2013). “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC medical research methodology, 13(1), 37.
Christ, T. W. (2013). The worldview matrix as a strategy when designing mixed methods research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7(1), 110-118.
Creswell, J.W., (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches 4th ed., Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Ltd
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. -E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553−560.
Eastwood, J. G., Jalaludin, B. B., & Kemp, L. A. (2014). Realist explanatory theory building method for social epidemiology: a protocol for a mixed method multilevel study of neighbourhood context and postnatal depression. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 12.
Fisher, G., & Aguinis, H. (2017). Using theory elaboration to make theoretical advancements. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 438-464.
Green, H., (2014). Use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in qualitative research. Nurse Researcher. 21, 6, 34-38.
Guyon, H., Kop, J. L., Juhel, J., & Falissard, B. (2018). Measurement, ontology, and epistemology: Psychology needs pragmatism-realism. Theory & Psychology, 28(2), 149-171.
Järvensivu, T., & Törnroos, J. Å. (2010). Case study research with moderate constructionism: Conceptualization and practical illustration. Industrial marketing management, 39(1), 100-108.
Jensen, L. A., & Allen, M. N. (1996). Meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Qualitative health research, 6(4), 553-560.
Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). Renaissance of case research as a scientific method. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 232-240.
Kivinen, O., & Piiroinen, T. (2004). The relevance of ontological commitments in social sciences: Realist and pragmatist viewpoints. Journal for the theory of social behaviour, 34(3), 231-248.
Kovács, G., & Spens, K. M. (2005). Abductive reasoning in logistics research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 35(2), 132-144.
Leshem, S., & Trafford, V. (2007). Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in education and Teaching International, 44(1), 93-105.
Orton, J. D. (1997). From inductive to iterative grounded theory: Zipping the gap between process theory and process data. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13 (4), 419−438.
Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 120-130.
Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633−642.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in human behavior, 26(3), 277-287.
Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. Journal of advanced nursing, 50(2), 204-211.
Whittington, R. (1988). Environmental structure and theories of strategic choice. Journal of Management studies, 25(6), 521-536.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 October 2020
  • Accept Date: 10 October 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics