Developing the conceptual frameworks and theoretical perspectives in

  • Slides: 49
Download presentation
Developing the conceptual frameworks and theoretical perspectives in our research. Gina Wisker University of

Developing the conceptual frameworks and theoretical perspectives in our research. Gina Wisker University of Johannesburg 2017 1

Pre reading is from Innovations in Education and Teaching International special issue on doctoral

Pre reading is from Innovations in Education and Teaching International special issue on doctoral education Vol 52, no 1 February 2015 1 Margaret Kiley ‘I didn’t have a clue what they were talking about : Ph. D candidates and theory’ And 2 Gina Wisker ‘Developing doctoral authors : engaging with theoretical perspectives through the literature review’ And 3 Shosh Leshem and Vernon Trafford Innovations in Education and Teaching International Vol. 44, No. 1, February 2007, pp. 93– 105 Overlooking the conceptual framework 2

 • Why are you interested in the issues of concepts and theories in

• Why are you interested in the issues of concepts and theories in your research and writing ? • What concerns do you have in your research and writing? 3

we will 1 look at what concepts and theories we are using in our

we will 1 look at what concepts and theories we are using in our research, how to identify and explore and use them, how to build a conceptual framework as a structuring device throughout , and 2 how to discuss and use our theoretical perspectives as a focus and a lens throughout. 3 writing about these and using them in our writing. The workshop is suitable to those engaged with a Ph. D or masters at any stage in your work. 4

 • Key elements in the development, practice and writing of research are the

• Key elements in the development, practice and writing of research are the conceptual framework, and theoretical perspectives which we use. In this workshop we will look at the reasons for, identification of, and mobilisation of conceptual frameworks and theoretical perspectives in our research. 5

The conceptual framework • is the framework of concepts, big ideas –the key terms

The conceptual framework • is the framework of concepts, big ideas –the key terms the key issues which underpin the research. We learn to problematise concepts which focus our work and so unpick , make sense and activate those key concepts in our research. This acts as a structuring device throughout the research –for example if we are researching the relationships between gender and power in university management we would need to problematise ie unpick, ask questions about, clarify the concepts of gender, power, and management – though university management is also the context, in order to begin to explore , data gather and analyse, interpret, argue. 6

Theoretical perspectives • are theories we use to underpin and inform our work –

Theoretical perspectives • are theories we use to underpin and inform our work – for example Foucault’s theory about surveillance, Franz Fanon and the relationships between ethnicity and identity and power. Theories usually have an origin in a theorist (or school of theorists) and in reading their work we identify an approach to our own work – what does Foucault’s theory of x suggest about the perspective we can take? the questions we can ask, the framework within which we ask the questions and address them? These theoretical perspectives direct and focus our questioning, exploration, analysis and then the ways we can interpret , theorise what we find to indicate the contribution to meaning and understanding. Theoretical perspectives act as a lens so that our work moves beyond information and description. 7

conceptual and theoretical framework • Your conceptual and theoretical framework is the scaffold, framework

conceptual and theoretical framework • Your conceptual and theoretical framework is the scaffold, framework of ideas, questions &theories, methodologies, & methods which help you ask your questions, develop your ideas, underpinning your research & dissertation It keeps you focused & on course, • ensures what you find/conclude is underpinned by questions, theories, enabled by methods, arises from them goes some way to addressing them. 8

 • You problematise your concepts (which might even be in your title ,

• You problematise your concepts (which might even be in your title , and certainly in your research questions) – • ask what do you really mean by the ideas/concepts underlying your work? • Eg identity, body, sustainable development 9

 • You find the right theories to underpin inform and enrich your work-

• You find the right theories to underpin inform and enrich your work- to act as a lens through which to explore ask questions produce knowledge deepen your questioning , thought and ability to explore and understand eg • theory of the relationships between identity and place (Baudrillard) , of psychogeography (Debord), of power( and gender, and surveillance , and control) (Foucault) • Tend to have a name attached- 10

The conceptual framework contains, structures, actions ensures: · Ideas and aims and questions ·

The conceptual framework contains, structures, actions ensures: · Ideas and aims and questions · Are underpinned by, enabled by particular theories & theorists · And your research methodologies and methods can actually act as the vehicle by which you ask these theoretically underpinned questions 11

· And how you can analyse and interpret what you find- themes in an

· And how you can analyse and interpret what you find- themes in an author, responses from a focus group, documentary evidence from archives, statistical responses to questionnaire· So you can draw conclusions, make recommendations (depending on the dissertation) based on these questions and aims, theories and methods and findings. 12

concepts • The ‘big ideas’ underpinning and informing your work- usually they are recognisable

concepts • The ‘big ideas’ underpinning and informing your work- usually they are recognisable because you immediately want to ask ‘what do you mean by? ’ • Eg crime, punishment, justice • Poverty, wealth, • Freedom, surveillance, control, secrecy, privacy • Youth , ageing, • Identity, rights, place, space, home, alienation, legal, illegal , otherising 13

Theories • Perspectives, constructions which offer ways of looking at, perspectives on, about something

Theories • Perspectives, constructions which offer ways of looking at, perspectives on, about something and which therefore enable us to understand them in particular ways – different theorise offer different perspectives • They tend to ask and offer structuring answers which offer a focus on why and in what ways to what ends the relationship between, the impact of questions • Sometimes they are implicit and we are unaware of them (inherited from family culture politics etc)and need unpicking and clarifying , or we are very aware of them driving our way of seeing things asking certain questions and interpreting the answers. 14

 • In research we always need to clarify them make them explicit, not

• In research we always need to clarify them make them explicit, not use too many competing theories or the work becomes confused, contradictory , explain them and their focus and limitations, and use them as a lens a perspective through which to ask and address the questions and interpret the information- data, turning it into findings which again are theorised ie understood according to theories theoretical perspectives • What are your preferred theories and why? ? for what work? ? 15

Working with the research questions-first steps • Final titles can be quite broad and

Working with the research questions-first steps • Final titles can be quite broad and flat but questions need to open up ideas, contestation, relationships, contrast, contradictions, differentiation, problems • We often arrive with fascinations and statements rather than questions eg • I want to look at infant mortality rates • Climate change • ‘What’ and information acquisition questions can tend to avoid conceptual levels of work inviting survey responses, flat information giving 16

 • Results of climate change on the south coast of Britain is an

• Results of climate change on the south coast of Britain is an ok but rather broad title but • What are the results of climate change on the south coast of Britain? Is a very flat question and needs opening up • How is climate change affecting the south coast of Britain? Would be better but • Can we improve on it? And what needs to happen with the concepts in here? • What theories might you use to ask this question and address it? How can we bring concepts and theories into the question? Or sub questions? 17

 • What are the relationships between space, place and identity in (the work

• What are the relationships between space, place and identity in (the work of Bessie Head, of Aboriginal writer Alexis Wright, the current Syrian refugee crisis, urban regeneration projects in Johannesburg, ) • Or • How , why and to what ends are issues regarding relationships between space , place and identity engaged with in…. (the work of Bessie Head, of Aboriginal writer Alexis Wright, the current Syrian refugee crisis, urban regeneration projects in Johannesburg, ) • What are the differences in the questions? • How might we problematize the concepts? • What theories might we use to offer a perspective? 18

Please consider the issues, concepts, theories involved in these questions and how you might

Please consider the issues, concepts, theories involved in these questions and how you might go about answering them • How do first world countries help third world countries? • How and in what ways do the context and experience of being a staff member in a university relate to studying for a postgraduate degree? • • • sub questions concepts Theories Methods arising from these Issues in the design, structure, undertaking of the research 19

Discuss • What is your conceptual framework? • What are your theoretical perspectives? •

Discuss • What is your conceptual framework? • What are your theoretical perspectives? • In your own work 20

Your work • What is your title? Your research question(s)? • What concepts are

Your work • What is your title? Your research question(s)? • What concepts are involved in your research questions? • What theories are you using or considering using? What are the perspectives they offer and the limitations? how do they affect the way you are going about your research? • Discuss and clarify with your neighbours 21

my take on theoretical and conceptual frameworks • is the framework or scaffolding of

my take on theoretical and conceptual frameworks • is the framework or scaffolding of the ideas and concepts about which/ with which /underpinned by which a researcher is researching and exploring/experimenting/questioning ( they must explain ideas and concepts they are using eg pain, identity, truth, growth, power) and theories they are using as perspectives to focus their enquiry (theories are often established and so often usually derive from old dead white men-though latterly there’s others who have developed theories )(of for example land space ownership, of social justice, of equality and diversity, of evolution). These drive the questioning the research practices, and the data analysis, and then the interpretation of findings • without either or both you end up with informative descriptive work, work which lacks a focus, and is unlikely to make anything but 22 a factual contribution.

 What helps putting this into practice – • Talking it through • Developing

What helps putting this into practice – • Talking it through • Developing the framework of different chapters • Shape of the dissertation/thesis as it develops • Models 23

A typical plan of a dissertation or thesis · · · · · •

A typical plan of a dissertation or thesis · · · · · • • title abstract (preface/acknowledgement) introduction theoretical perspectives ( containing the literature review-in dialogue with your arguments-this addresses and lays out the conceptual framework- of big ideas/concepts and theoretical perspectives which inform underpin drive your work ) methodology and methods (including the design of the study, sample, timings, choices made) presentation of results/findings/data(including data analysis) discussion of results/findings /data (this involves focusing the concepts and theories again) conclusion containing a summary and both factual (adding to knowledge) and conceptual (adding to meaning)conclusions appendices/statistical tables and illustrations references (perhaps) and bibliography 24

Issues from the literature • Finding 2. Writing struggles interlocked with struggles with theorists

Issues from the literature • Finding 2. Writing struggles interlocked with struggles with theorists • Students reported early writing struggles, lack of confidence in their own right to speak, tension and compromise with theorists. They realise theorists and theoretical perspectives should help them focus on their problems and on data when gathered, but they often struggle to understand them, feel humble about interpreting and using them, and can either over-simplify in a cursory fashion or over- complicate. One asks about the right they have to do more than just rest on and use the work of theorists: • Problem: Are theorists sacrosanct? Can they be challenged? If challenged will the examiners or the accepted format of the Lit review allow it? Should this be so? Why not said or thought differently? (2: A) • This evidences the kind of discoursal struggle explored by Bakhtin (1981, 1986) where the writer seeks both their own voice and the authority to show understanding of and even challenge the voices of authorities in the field. But the strain intellectually, conceptually and in terms of thoroughness sometimes becomes too much and they can fall back onto a more mechanical need to get the Ph. D over with. There is a basic issue here about conceptual thoroughness, quality, and what constitutes a ‘good enough’ Ph. D, even at this stage of engagement with theorists. One comments: ‘I just need to pass thing!’ (2: A) • Confidence and articulacy in entering the conversation with theory, established work and the doctoral student’s own work are two noticeable developments in the literature review. • (from wisker, G 2015 ) 25

 • A respondent in the later study notes the importance of the literature

• A respondent in the later study notes the importance of the literature review in their developing thinking and articulation: • With some existential thinking, a belief in the nature of dialogue, postmodern eclectic matching of theorists and schools of thought, and a need for curiosity are vital in my definition of the purpose of literature review. . I DO have a greater understanding now. The heavily defined schools of theory and the paradigms within which they are contextualised have girded the study and offered it reason, definition, meaning and purpose. That a 'quilt' of learning segments offering a variety of perspectives is building within the key chapters of the lit review and methodology has assisted me. (2: A) • Finally, research writing is seen as joining a conversation: • A big learning experience for me has been that doing a doctorate is not a search for the truth but is really just taking part in a conversation. I suppose that is also a learning experience in that when I sit with the 'learned' in a conference I feel confident in challenging them as I now see myself as a peer. (1: B) 26

from • Gina Wisker (2015) Developing doctoral authors: Engaging with theoretical perspectives through the

from • Gina Wisker (2015) Developing doctoral authors: Engaging with theoretical perspectives through the literature review • Innovations in Education and Teaching • International 52: 1, 64 -74 • http: //www. tandfonline. com/loi/riie 20 • , DOI: 10. 1080/14703297. 2014. 981841 • To link to this article: http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1080/14703297. 2014. 981841 27

 • • • a thesis which has no conceptual framework is unlikely to

• • • a thesis which has no conceptual framework is unlikely to gain a pass (Trafford, 2003 a). As doctoral supervisors and examiners we have observed how candidates encounter difficulties in conceptualising their research, and workshop discussions expose uncertainty about what constitutes a conceptual framework. Workshops for doctoral supervisors also show some unawareness of the pluralist function of conceptual frameworks, consequently some supervisors encounter difficulties in guiding candidates on this issue. These respective difficulties perhaps result from research methodology texts lacking a common language regarding the nature of conceptual frameworks. 28

29

29

Conceptual frameworks Trafford and Leshem Berger and Patchener (1988, pp. 156– 159) propose that:

Conceptual frameworks Trafford and Leshem Berger and Patchener (1988, pp. 156– 159) propose that: ‘reviewing the literature leads to a delineation of the conceptual or theoretical framework of the study’. They pose two questions: ‘Has the conceptual or theoretical base for the study been clearly described and are they related to the research problem? ’ and ‘Is there a theory underlying a research question? ’ They ask how conceptual frameworks guide the entire research process: ‘Is there a clear and explicit connection between theory, earlier findings and purpose of the present study? ’ Thus, Berger and Patchner advocate a pluralist, and cyclical, role for conceptual frameworks in providing coherence for research. 30

Likewise, Rudestam and Newton suggest that: A conceptual framework, which is simply a less

Likewise, Rudestam and Newton suggest that: A conceptual framework, which is simply a less developed form of a theory, consists of statements that link abstract concepts to empirical data. Theories and conceptual frameworks are developed to account for or describe abstract phenomena that occur under similar conditions. (1992, p. 6) By connecting theory with practice, they make the link that many researchers often overlook, but which Lewin expressed succinctly: ‘There is nothing so practical as a good theory’ (Lewin, 1952, p. 169). They argue that conceptual frameworks serve a particular purpose: ‘Generalisations are made on the basis of the particular data that have been observed and are tied to a conceptual framework which then leads to the elucidation of further research questions and implications for additional study’ (Rudestam & Newton, 1992, p. 7). Their delimitation of ‘conceptual framework’ suggests that: ‘A causal network is a graph displaying the independent and dependent variables in a naturalistic study. This chart may serve as the basis for a conceptual 31 framework’ (Rudestam & Newton, 1992, p. 118).

May indicates that the significance of theory (conceptualisation) is central to the research process

May indicates that the significance of theory (conceptualisation) is central to the research process as a maturation process for each researcher. A similar view from Cohen et a (2000, p. 13) is that: ‘Concepts express generalisations from Particulars … a concept is a relationship between the word (or symbol) and an idea or conception’. They remind us that: ‘Whoever we are and whatever we do, we all make use of concepts’ and ‘Concepts enable us to impose some sort of meaning on the world; through them reality is given sense, order and coherence. They are the means by which we are able to come to terms with our experience’. They suggest that concepts have a particular relevance for researchers, since: ‘The more we have, the more sense data we can pick up and the surer will be our perceptual (and cognitive) grasp of whatever is “out there”’. These three views emphasise 32 conceptualisation as ‘meaning making’ in research.

Robson combines these perspectives by saying that: Developing a conceptual framework forces you to

Robson combines these perspectives by saying that: Developing a conceptual framework forces you to be explicit about what you think you are doing. It also helps you to be selective; to decide which are the important features; which relationships are likely to be of importance or meaning; and hence, what data you are going to collect and analyse. (1993, pp. 150– 151) This statement presents the conceptual framework in a pluralist manner 33

 • Blaxter et al explain the components of conceptual frameworks as: • Defining

• Blaxter et al explain the components of conceptual frameworks as: • Defining the key concepts and contexts of your research project should also assist you in focussing your work … They define the territory for your research, indicate the literature that you need to consult and suggest the methods and theories you might apply. (1996, pp. 36– 37) 34

Developing and using a concept map • A concept map, like theory it represents,

Developing and using a concept map • A concept map, like theory it represents, is a picture of the territory you want to study, not of the study itself. It is a visual display of your current working theory—a picture of what you think is going on with the phenomenon you’re studying. (Maxwell, 1996, pp. 25, 37) • The term ‘intellectual puzzle’ is used by Mason (1996, p. 14) which, she suggests, has to be resolved as researchers address ‘the intellectual and theoretical contributions’ of their work. 35

Questions about conceptual frameworks that candidates regularly ask include: ●Where do conceptual frameworks come

Questions about conceptual frameworks that candidates regularly ask include: ●Where do conceptual frameworks come from? ●What does a conceptual framework look like? ●Why should I have a conceptual framework in my thesis? ●Where would I place my conceptual framework in my thesis? ●Who is interested in whether or not I have a conceptual framework? We answered these questions through visual models that portrayed elusive concepts in an easytounderstand format. In this way, we made the ‘taken-for-granted’ visually explicit by illustrating the origins, design and use of conceptual frameworks. The following models have been modified by feedback from candidates and supervisors in their respective workshops, plus our own ‘constructive and awareness-reflection upon the issues’ (Moon, 1999, p. 87). Doctoral candidates explain that they derive their conceptual frameworks from three interrelated areas: ●the works of writers and researchers; ●their own experience and observations, and, ●the act of reflecting on reading, experience and developing research assumptions. 36

Table 2. (Trafford and Leshem) Benefits of using conceptual frameworks in the research process

Table 2. (Trafford and Leshem) Benefits of using conceptual frameworks in the research process Conceptual frameworks help researchers by: • modelling relationships between theories; • reducing theoretical data into statements or models; • explicating theories that influence the research; • providing theoretical bases to design, or interpret, research; • creating theoretical links between extant research, current theories, research design, interpretations of findings and conceptual conclusions. Thus, conceptual frameworks introduce explicitness with research processes. The critical tests of conceptual frameworks are for them to demonstrate: • unity within appropriate theories; • direction to research design and accompanying fieldwork; • coherence between empirical observations and conceptual conclusions. Thus, conceptual frameworks offer a self-audit facility to ensure cohesion and appropriate conceptualisation forresearch conclusions. 37

Table 3. Examiners’ questions regarding the use of conceptual frameworks (Trafford & Leshem, 2002

Table 3. Examiners’ questions regarding the use of conceptual frameworks (Trafford & Leshem, 2002 a) • What led you to select these models of…? • What are theoretical components of your framework? • How did you decide upon the variables to include in your conceptual framework? • How did concepts assist you to visualise and explain what you intended to investigate? • How did you use your conceptual framework to design your research and analyse your findings? The generic question in this cluster is of a quite direct nature, and it may be asked in a direct way: ‘How did you arrive at your conceptual framework? ’ 38

From Traffrord and Leshem 2002 Contribution to knowledge Gap in knowledge Research issue(s) Conceptual

From Traffrord and Leshem 2002 Contribution to knowledge Gap in knowledge Research issue(s) Conceptual conclusions Research statement lnterpretive conclusions Research questions Factual conclusions Conceptual framework Research design Fl. ELDWORK 39

 • • • Innovations in Education and Teaching International Vol. 44, No. 1,

• • • Innovations in Education and Teaching International Vol. 44, No. 1, February 2007, pp. 93– 105 ISSN 1470– 3297 (print)/ISSN 1470– 3300 (online)/07/010093– 13 © 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10. 1080/14703290601081407 Overlooking the conceptual framework Shosh Leshem a * and Vernon Trafford 40

Theory • ‘Theory was another thing I didn’t understand, people kept asking me about

Theory • ‘Theory was another thing I didn’t understand, people kept asking me about my theoretical perspective but I didn’t have a clue what they were talking about’. • From Kiley Margaret 2015 p 57 (special edition on doctoral education ) Margaret Kiley (2015) ‘I didn’t have a clue what they were talking about’: Ph. D candidates and theory, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52: 1, 52 -63, DOI: • 10. 1080/14703297. 2014. 981835 To link to this article: http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1080/14703297. 2014. 981835 41

 • I’ll often stand them up at the board with a whiteboard marker

• I’ll often stand them up at the board with a whiteboard marker and put their project up and do a mind map and it’s literally being Socratic about it … can you think of a theorist or someone who might be able to help you think about that? (HASS Supervisor 6) p 60 42

Theory So what is theory in terms of learning to be a researcher? Using

Theory So what is theory in terms of learning to be a researcher? Using the definition by Schwandt (2007, p. 292) we find that: ‘A formal understanding common in the natural and social sciences is that theory is a unified systematic causal explanation of a diverse range of social phenomena’ [original emphasis]. However, he goes on to suggest that there are less formal ways of describing theory ‘depending on levels of sophistication, organisation and comprehensiveness’. As Saldana (2011) suggests, theories help us to predict and therefore give us some ability to control. He provides a simple example of this; the sky looks cloudy and threatening and so we theorise and predict that it is likely to rain, therefore, we control for this by taking an umbrella with us (pp. 112– 113). In a more detailed explanation of the findings in a unifying manner. (Kiley) 43

Denscombe (2002, p. 10) suggests that: ‘theories don’t only describe what happens, they also

Denscombe (2002, p. 10) suggests that: ‘theories don’t only describe what happens, they also explain why things happen’. He then argues that a theory needsto: ‘take the form of universal statements … provide an explanation … [and] be testable’ [italics original]. The above definitions tend to refer to what, in this paper, is described as theories for research. For example, Maher, Feldon, Timmerman, and Chao (2014) in their paper on doctoral writing state that they are researching faculty perceptions of common challenges encountered by novice doctoral writers: ‘within a socialisation and supervisor pedagogy framework’ (p. 699). To do this they address socialisation theory that suggests there are three main stages in socialisation: initiation, midway and finalisation as well as the pedagogical understandings related to doctoral supervision. 44

While academic researchers are usually in a position to locate their work within preferred

While academic researchers are usually in a position to locate their work within preferred theoretical frames it is important to recognise here that there are different uses and levels of autonomy available to candidates in the use of theory. Some candidates come to their doctoral research with a clear theory in mind whereas others come to a research group that espouses a particular theory which frames the work of the group. Other candidates, particularly but not only, in the humanities and social sciences (HASS) areas are invited to propose theory that they want to use to frame their study. As the findings reported later suggest, some candidates have difficulty with grasping the idea of locating their research within a theoretical framework and why an understanding of theory in research is important. 45

The second way of thinking about theory in research when talking with doctoral candidates,

The second way of thinking about theory in research when talking with doctoral candidates, is the development of one’s own theories based on research findings, referred to in this paper as theorising findings. As Saldana (2011) suggests: ‘We certainly use others’ theories for our conceptual frameworks as initial guidance, but it’s another matter to persuasively articulate how our own findings generalise to other populations, sites, and times’ (p. 112). For example, in her paper titled Becoming a supervisor: The impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors’ learning, Halse(2011) argues that from her work: ‘The importance of integrating a theory of ‘becoming a supervisor’ [one generated from her research] into supervisor professional development is proposed’ (p. 557). Another way of describing this outcome of research is often referred to as theorising one’s research or, in some disciplines, the development of a model or schema to make sense 46

… certainly [there are] problems for students thinking theoretically because they get into the

… certainly [there are] problems for students thinking theoretically because they get into the topic because of a practical problem … but to be a Ph. D you have to be able to put what is found into a theoretical framework. And they have to make that shift from practice to theory and a framework. (HASS Supervisor 11) Continuing in the professional/practice vein HASS Supervisor 18 provided one possible explanation for the difficulties encountered by such candidates: … sometimes for decades they’re reading a kind of derivative stuff and they read a lot because they are quite hungry for reading professionally but really extended theory, you can’t take that for granted. However, it was not only in the HASS areas where this concern was reported. As STEM Supervisor 14 said: It’s the ability to think scientifically … but I’ve had a couple over the years who didn’t ever really seem to get there they just didn’t seem to understand how to figure out what data needs to be collected in order to test a particular concept. [emphasis added] 47

HASS Supervisor 10 suggests that the difficulty with making this link: … is particularly

HASS Supervisor 10 suggests that the difficulty with making this link: … is particularly noticeable for part-time students … they may have had quite a long gap [before] starting a Ph. D … Often they will write a “theoretical” chapter … and then move into the empirical part of the study and find it hard to connect the two. Making the transition was seen as being a critical component of being a researcher. As HASS Supervisor 9 reported: It is that kind of transition from the content area that they are expert in … [to being able to] theorise, argue, present. They can talk on any topic … in a logical sense and argue with you in a logical sense but if they cannot make that transition they will never become a good professional at the end. Not all the examples came from the HASS area, as STEM Supervisor 10 commented: ‘You want your research to be of much broader interest than the species you’ve looked at I guess, and that’s tough, that’s definitely something that students need to really think hard about to get over that hurdle’. Furthermore, as STEM Supervisor 8 suggests the ability to theorise identifies the good candidates from the others: ‘The regular student will describe the object, the good student will go further and generate a theory that will incorporate what they have found’. 48

 • What are the implications for your own work of translating the conceptual

• What are the implications for your own work of translating the conceptual framework and theoretical perspectives into your work as a whole? Running throughout it? • What concepts are you working with? • What theories have you considered? • If you are working part time or transferring from and back into practce do you agree with Kiley’s findings that for some projects in some instance it is harder to theorise because we are practically oriented? 49