Question

When we create analytical/or theoretical framework, what are the main issues? and how the framework is related to variables and their measurements?

Answer 1

Answer:

You have hit on distinctions that are often confusing. They are confusing because different fields use them in different ways. Scholars also often use them in vague ways, assuming definitions that often do not have agreement within and across fields.

Part of the issue surrounds the level of analysis the framework is being used. Frameworks change as one moves from a micro (individual study) to the macro (big theory books) level. Please note, I use pragmatism as my philosophy of science, therefore, I see these frameworks as tools to achieve objectives (that could be concrete or abstract). A map is a useful metaphor. A map helps one navigate a terrain, it should be judged by how well it gets the job done (help the user reach the destination). It is not reality, it is not meant to be reality, rather a tool that helps one to navigate real spaces.

The conceptual frameworks I have worked with most closely might be called micro conceptual frameworks. This is the framework that is closest to the data in an empirical study. It could be a set of hypotheses or descriptive categories.

Now these hypotheses come from other theoretical frameworks that are at broader levels of analysis. These frameworks are found in the literature and often provide a justification for the set of hypotheses.

I have written a great deal about these frameworks. See the articles I referred to in the other post. I am repeating them here because others do not have immediate access to these references.