I don't have a theoretical framework for my research - is that a problem?
I
Sorry I don't have the book to hand. Perhaps we have a different understanding of theoretical frameworks. If you explain pragmatism that sounds like your theoretical framework. If in doubt ask your supervisor.
I would second what pd1598 is saying-I would think that your theoretical or conceptual framework is based on pragmatism based on what you have said. So when discussing findings or concluding you would, at appropriate points in the chapters, reference back to how findings/results fit within the use/scope of a mixed methods study design underpinned by a theoretical framework informed by pragmatism. I would think if you do this (aka hope) you would be okay. For example, I have chosen to take this approach in my discussion and conclusion chapters and am trying to highlight the connection between this and my methods chapter (where it is explained more fully). However, I am using a mixed methods design that is informed by a predominantly interpretive constructivist framework-but I think the same thing would apply.
"The process of designing a theoretical framework is develop- mental and experiential. I would argue that the personal journey is a life-changing event for many researchers, and one that should not be feared. The journey toward theoretical ‘know how’ and ‘know what’ is worthy of careful planning and preparation."
That bit above is a quote from the article you posted. I've quoted it because in the journey of my thesis (known personally to me as WBT or "wretched bloody thesis"), I have changed my theoretical framework from what I wanted, or thought I should be doing, to actually working out what I was doing. I wanted to do a qualitative phenomenological study that used a purely hermeneutical phenomenological approach. It ended up as me doing a very standard Educational empirical mixed methods study using a social constructionist/constructivist epistemology. But, what I did discover was that as a practitioner, I, like many teachers, tended to be eclectic and pragmatic in my practice, using whatever seemed best practice at the time. In my thesis, I discovered that actually the lack of cohesive learning theories and a theoretical base meant that many of the teachers practices, (including my own) were hindering not harming the specific phenomenon, because one or two of the practices would encourage fixed beliefs in students rather than facilitating a growth mindset.
So to try to be a little more concise, I am explaining all of this, including some of the messiness in my discussion chapter, but linking it to my intepretive constructivist paradigm and justifying this messiness and the end 'revelation' albeit it ever so humble, by my open ended subscription to constructivism and interpretism as an over riding conceptual framework. This is my interpretation, based on an interpretation of the evidence, data and findings and I have made it as transparent as possible using methodologies that would be considered 'text book' methods such as latent thematic analysis, etc. I don't know whether this helps you or hinders you, I am sorry if it confuses-it is such a difficult part of the thesis, but it really helped me also understand the difference between a PhD and Masters thesis (which I completed just before starting this doctorate) where the understanding of theoretical underpinnings was not any where near as rigorous. My thesis is also a practitioners thesis, hoping to link theory to practice-but basically about professional practice.
