Pikirkool: Thanks, that's a useful breakdown of the iterative process involved.

Nearlyfinished: I agree, it really is!

You guys have been really useful to get me started, but I just wanted to note, someone I follow (in thee RSS/Twitter kind of way, not the creepy-stalker kind). They are doing a step-by-step process of developing a Literature Review. So far they have done a Literature Search and sorting the Literature into a workable load. I am waiting until the Framework part!

http://patthomson.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/mapping-the-literatures-step-two-acwrimo-work-in-progress/

Reenie, thanks for putting my post back to the top.

Pikirkool, I found a useful thread on Twitter: http://phdchat.pbworks.com/w/page/47405164/Conceptual%20Framework which had a link to useful article by Lesham & Trafford: http://www.edu.salford.ac.uk/her/ltrn/writers/docs/Overlooking_the_conceptual_framework.pdf.

I read through the article you sent the link to, which I am very grateful for, but the framework is very different - I'm tying an existing theoretical field from human geography with a sociology of action. This means I set up the Lit. search based on the subject-matter, had the articles from that, put them into different categories. After assessing that there is massive gap in research on my area, I realised that I needed some form of conceptual entry that would not direct (over sensitise) my data collection and analysis (Grounded Theory).

Turning to a sociology of action, I found that key themes exist in both sets of literature. So my approach so far has been in a different order than yours. I have discussed the existing field of literature of the technology I am researching, I have defined the gap that exists in current research (and outline the historical reason why this gap exists) - I call this 'Part A'. On the other hand, I have reviewed literature on a sociology of action/social theory of social order (Bourdieu/de Certeau), outlining the ontic and epistemic assumptions I make. I cal this 'Part B'. I can see the themes that run-through both sets of literature. What I am struggling with is linking Part A to Part B. To do that, I wanted to develop a framework.

From various discussion online/offline, there seems to be a lack of literature on this, so I guess it will just be an intro, Part A, a bridge paragraph, Part B, a concluding paragraph!

I find video recording interviews makes them easier to transcribe. I'm not sure why, but seeing the person makes it easier for me! With the newer Nvivo (versions 9 up) you can mark and annotate a timeline against the video footage. You can also code, and cross reference other sources. Is the transcription necessary?

I once tried transcribing through Google Voice. It didn't work :( I hear DragonTalk is not much better. You could always pay an undergrad to do it.

I am in the process of writing my Literature Review, and I have found some difficulty locating relevant literature.

A large body of work exists on the technical aspects e.g. How to structure an argument, how to use Academic databases like Web of Knowledge, the Sci Verse Hub etc.

A large body of work also goes through how to 'systematically review articles. This ranges from a Cochrane style review, through to more qualitative stances that do not see the need for a separate literature review.

What I need, and what seems to be missing is:

1. Any literature on how to combine literatures from two or more fields, in order to develop a framework.
2. Any resource that clearly outlines the difference between a Conceptual framework, Theoretical framework, and an Analytical framework.

I would be grateful for any suggestions on solving these issues. The first is my primary area of concern. I have looked at Hart, Seale, Silverman and the usual suspects for my area (Qualitative social sciences). I have also been on the usual Twitter PhD Forum and PhD Chat threads, and assorted academic blogs. I have discussed this with peers and my supervisor. I have even started looking through completed theses to plough the bibliographies. Still, there is nothing.

I have reviewed literature in the two disciplinary areas, and have themes that run through the review, but still I am at a loss here in developing a framework.

Hi all,

Thanks for your replies. I think 'Style', sounds like the book for me (based on reviews). Although this writing thing is still a tricky area.

I am having a bit of difficulty writing in a fluid, readable style. The grammar and punctuation are fine, but the written text just sends me to sleep - and I am the researcher writing it! Does anybody know of a good resource that outlines, or helps with thesis writing styles.

You can't go wrong with the original, although it can be a bit inaccessible at times. Most academic books of the 60's and 70's were. I guess it created a nice elitist barrier for us oiks, either that or typewriters had no Flesch–Kincaid tests.

1. Glaser, B & Strauss, A (2006) The discovery of grounded theory : strategies for qualitative research / Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss.
Glaser has a website: http://www.groundedtheory.com/

If you want a systematic fool-proof, methodologically fraught guide (harder to defend at a viva):
2. Strauss, A & Corbin, J (1990) Basics of qualitative research : grounded theory procedures and techniques

If you want more a loose structure:
3. Charmaz, K (2006) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques

Other than that, just look at pretty much any qualitative data analysis book for the last 30 years in social sciences section, GT will be there. Remember it is a methodology not a method. Also go to the British library ethos online. Search for GT and there are 1000's of theses with simplified explanations in methodology chapters. Some are shockingly bad mind, but others are good. If you get really stuck, laughable as it may be - wikipedia actually has a pretty good article on GT

So anyway, I work 3 x days a week and spend 2 x on the PhD working from home. My output seems about the same (3 months in) as full-timers. It is a manageable process, it does require flexibility and getting up at a normal time, starting the PhD reading/writing at 9.00am and finishing at 5.00pm (allowing two breaks to refresh the cafetiere coffee and a 1 hour lunch -for a walk and fresh air). It seems that compartmentalising works well for me. When I go into the Uni library I see other PhD's running around and others seemingly doing nothing. I do think a few years of paid employment give it a bit of reality - I've seen some PhD's who went BA, MA straight into a PhD without ever really working and they seem to have a very slow pace of working.

How did the mismanagement lose you 6 months? What happened?

It's not a literal issue. The real question is this:

Some people manage to compartmentalise their life, and so a PhD fits in with their day to day life and other commitments. To do this there are several approaches, for some a structured approach works - they enter their office, the library or switch on their laptop at a preset time and finish at a preset time (I am sure there is room for flexibility here). For others of this mindset, it can occur by goal i.e. I'll get the first section in Chapter 2 completed by Friday so I can relax at the weekend etc.

Several people I have met allow their PhD to become their life, losing track of which films are in the charts, what music is in fashion, oftne becoming despondent with daily life to the detriment of familial and friendly relationships, and also to the point that the excessive hours ploughed into it have been detrimental to the end product quality.

My initial query was more of a self-reassuring gauge that others compartmentalise well, partly because I will be doing my PhD part-time 2 weekdays and a Saturday while working on an intensive project at work 3 days a week. The reassurance gives me the confidence that it is possible.

I am sorry that you are not able to empathise with the diversity of working modes PhD candidates hold. I wish you luck.

Thank you for all the responses (and reassurance). It's good to know that others have succeeded by treating the PhD like a 9-5, especially as I will be going Part-Time with a medially involved part-time job and a set a familial commitments.

Thank you for all the responses (and reassurance). It's good to know that others have succeeded by treating the PhD like a 9-5, especially as I will be going Part-Time with a medially involved part-time job and a set a familial commitments.

Thank you for the responses. I guess that is a 'No.' in general then! It just seems so scary, prior to starting a PhD that I'm entrusting 3 to 4 years full-time labour and around £12,000+ to what in effect is a complete stranger, only likely to converse with me once a months for 8 months each year for the duration-hence I will have spent 24 hours with them. Madness. Obviously the relationship will (I hope) be closer than that. But it all seems so risky to place so much trust in one other person with little or no chance to move without losing out in terms of time and finances.

Whilst I have not started the PhD yet, as a prospective Part-timer, my prospects of retaining are singular supervisor throughout the entire project is slim. This means my prospective supervisor could move university, retire, give up on my, be abducted by an alien etc. This means I may need to move university to keep my supervisor or to find a new one. I have tried searching for an articles, threads and comments on Changing University mid-PhD, but can find none. In an age when this moronic Willets fellow is shifting my role from potential researcher toward course consumer, I would be interesting in seeing if it possible to transfer institution mid-PhD. Has anybody managed this? Assumably an MPhil ABD could shift with ease, but how would it fare pre-upgrade to shift?

Example: I start a PhD part time. I do 18 months, then the project gradually grows away from the supervisors area of research. Being Part-time, I get less than half the attention/time required, so the growing rift between the supervisor and myself goes unchecked. I'm 18 months in and I notice that another local University has a great researcher, with research interests matching my new focus, and they are happy to supervise my project - better still I could do it distance via Skype in their new Asia campus paying half the fees I do in the UK. - Would there be any covenants or stipulations that would stop be shifting University? Would the new University only accept in full year chunks?

Whilst not a plan for me, I do like to keep options open.