Hi all, I'm hoping you can help.

One of the requirements which we have to have done by the end of our first year is to have identified the 'key concepts and theoretical lens' for our research.

I have MAJOR problems with being able to see where I'm coming from, and seeing the theory behind it. I've always majorly struggled with this bit!

Can anyone explain what this actually means, in easy-peasy language? My sup said that my research won't necessarily be informed by some sort of grand theory, but I'm just baffled!

Thanks all :)

Not sure this reply will be too much help, Button - but you're not the only one to be confused by theoretical lenses! I couldn't work out how deep the theoretical basis for what I'm doing needed to go - how much theory there needed to be to justify the approach I was taking. But in the end I've decided it's not as bad as I feared - it varies according to how applied your research is, and how much theoretical work there tends to be in your discipline. My work is kind of cross-disciplinary, and that left me feeling I had to marry psychological, sociological, geographic and environmental theories together. Now I think I just need to explain the particular approach I'm taking and how that shapes the way my research is designed and the elements I'm focusing on.

As to the key concepts - I think those become familiar through the literature - it's the stuff that either keeps coming up over and over in different journal articles, or it's concepts that give a way of looking at the literature and seeing patterns or groupings within it so that it all seems much more coherent and less sprawling. That's how I see it, anyway.

Not sure that's a very helpful answer but I'm sure someone will be along with something more sensible to say!

I think one way to think of this is the "point of view" of your research--where you, as the researcher are "coming from" with your work, and what underlying values, assumptions, world views, etc ( in academic speak--epistimology and ontology) inform your work.

The big box of your frame or point of view is your "paradigm". Think of the paradigm as a three legged stool. One leg is methodology, one leg is ontology and the third leg is epistimology. All of those combine to form the big framework of your work.

If you are in social sciences or humanities or even in law, I think a helpful place to understand this quickly and easily is the big Sage Handbook on Qualitative Methodology. It has a chapter with some charts that easily summarise all of this in an easy to digest way.

Law is for instance a discipline where many within it might argue it has no paradigm, ontology, methodology, etc. These are the classic arguments of a postivist stance in law...:D All research is done using some form of a paradigm, whether acknowledged or not...and the paradigm helps define then what methods you will use in your research.

Another helpful resource is a book by Creswell where he explains how to write a purpose statement and a research question for your research. These are more easily said than done, but I ( and others) have found having these two things can be a helpful roadmap on the research and where it is going ( and these have to be reformulated from time to time, which is all part of the PhD process).

A bit of a ramble, but I hope that helps!

======= Date Modified 20 Jan 2011 16:53:49 =======
The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp22-24 refers to research as a paradigm and the charts Olivia mentions. A friend of mine recently successfully passed her viva with just one minor correction; to state her ontology and epistemology (in a single paragraph) explicitly rather than what the examiners felt was the implied manner of her thesis - it's well worth being clear of your stance and worldview.