Hello Everybody;

I have a question regarding the construction of my framework which I hope makes sense. Basically, I have reviewed research related to two different domains, let us call this Domain X and Domain Y. I identified themes in the literature related to Domain X and to Domain Y and ended up with (for example) something like this:

Domain X:

Theme: Environment Components: Economics, Law, Technology
etc

Domain Y:

Theme: Setting Components: Location
etc


I then tried to identify common cross-domain themes. At the moment I have made these cross-domain links by looking at the semantic meanings of each of the components and linking similar components. For the example above I grouped the components Economics, Law, Technology and Location together since they address the same theme (which I called 'Context').

This technique allows me to construct a conceptual framework but it relies on semantics and my interpretation. I would like to reduce this reliance by linking the components using a technique which is independent of the person making the links. That is the technique reduces bias and produces the same groupings no matter who performs the groupings.

I was wondering if anyone can point to any established techniques that can be applied to achieve this linking?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Prins

*Bump*

Can anyone help Prins?

Thank you Reenie for trying to encourage people to contribute. I still have not come up with a suitable solution to this problem. One possible approach I have investigated is the use of Noun-Verb Analysis but I do not believe it to be suitable for my needs. I will continue to try and identify a suitable technique but support from friends here at postgraduateforum.com would be greatly appreciated.

Try content analysis or grounded theory?

How about instead of creating your own intellectual framework from scratch you modify a framework that's already out there? Say either neo-institutional theory or Actor Network Theory? Maybe even neo-institutional theory and Actor Network Theory, which is pretty much what Nigel Thrift does. Both of these foreground certain aspects over others, but then at least you are engaging with some overarching 'theory'.

"This technique allows me to construct a conceptual framework but it relies on semantics and my interpretation. I would like to reduce this reliance by linking the components using a technique which is independent of the person making the links. That is the technique reduces bias and produces the same groupings no matter who performs the groupings."

Ontologically one could argue that it is impossible to use a technique which is independent of the person making the links. I think you simply have to show your link with your criteria and then justify it based upon your own positionality and reflexivity. I think as long as you justify what you did, how you have done it, and the reasons why you have done it in your methodology chapter, then you could comfortably defend it.