Hi, New here, new PhD student too!

I'm a D/L student focusing on Global Health/International Relations. Largely happy with the isolation and my subject areas. However...just occasionally working remotely can be a right pain, the echo chamber of my head beyond annoying. I'm quite an instinctive/intuitive person by nature and the abstract nature of the theoretical framework is causing me to go round and round in circles. I can't decide whether I'm using theory (theories) to explain findings (and to provide new insights into the literature) or if it should be the other way round (in the sense that having decided to examine my chosen area through a postcolonial lens I'm looking for validation for that decision from the literature and/or my findings). And speaking of the literature, should the theory (post colonialism in this case) be a thread that runs throughout the literature review, providing alternative takes on others claims as it were or should it be kept to the empirical elements of the thesis?

Any thoughts/support would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Hi there, my thoughts are that your theoretical lens is just that, a lens through which you view or interpret your findings. Your findings will be influenced or shaped by your theoretical perspective but ultimately the findings are what are important, and your theory is a methodological tool or process that leads your to your findings which form your final thesis.

Along the way you will need to address the theory more than once- substantially in your lit review in its own section, then from time to time in a form of integrated manner as you explain and interpret the findings and then again in a lesser way at the end when you discuss and conclude.

(I'm basing this on my own epistemological battles and experiences, but this is my understanding of the process, so it might be helpful-or not.)

It can be very tricky and it's really easy to get caught in circles in your thinking.

I'd suggest every now and then re-reading bits of your core theoretical texts. Remind yourself of exactly what points they're making, and what kind of analysis they think is fruitful.

When using a theoretical framework, I'd say you're usually using it as a lens through which to analyse the text. For instance, a postcolonial framework will take an event/text/person/whatever and analyse how it impacts and is impacted by postcolonial concerns (obviously, depends on which theorists you're using specifically). So you might be looking at how the response to X event silenced the voices of the women affected (as a very brief and crude Spivak example). The key then - and where I find it gets hardest - is to take that one step further: the 'so what?' question. You need to then be able to answer what further implications that analysis has on the event, the field of study, what we could learn for the future, whatever it may be.

That is, unless the point of your paper is to justify/prove/expand upon an existing theoretical framework, in which case you'll be doing a bit more of the other aspect you mentioned - using the texts to validate the theory.

I'm sure you knew all that, but I always find it helps to start my thinking from square one every now and then.