 |
 |
Interesting incidents you describe. And surprising, perhaps not to others, but at least to me. I can imagine ( and indeed hope ) that what that doctoral student actually meant was that his or her institution did not require that a candidate's theoretical framework be made explicit or be identified as matter for discussion and/or basis for assessment. Is it conceivable that any doctoral study -- or for my part any master's or even undergraduate study -- could be executed and reported ( i.e. : brought to a successful conclusion ) *without* a theoretical framework ? I can't myself easily imagine how. And I would, ergo, be much surprised if there is any institution that responds, or could respond, to your first two questions with anything other than "No. No." Whether the student concerned is expected by the educators to make explicit / to justify / to defend / to contextualize this operative framework is, as above suggested, quite another matter -- but, even if such is not the case, aren't we entitled to expect that a student, in the kind of situation you describe, shouldn't be able to get away with the kind of response that s/he in fact gave on that occasion to the question "will you please tell us about the theoretical framework for your study ?" ( or however it was that the question was phrased ) ? But I would, myself, prefer to hope that there's not even any institution around nowadays that does not consider the theoretical framework for a study to be a matter for explicit attention and discussion -- certainly at the doctoral level, but preferably also at lower levels. I am aware that it is possible for a student to complete and even to report a study without devoting sufficient, or maybe any, conscious attention to what ( kind of ) theoretical framework has guided the research and conclusions. The point is whether responsible educators should allow this to happen. As far as using research "no further back than the year 2006" is concerned -- I can understand that such might out of purely pragmatic pedagogical considerations be imposed as an arbitrary/artificial ( non-real-world ) limitation for certain topics under certain circumstances. But if it is indeed being applied to actual doctoral research, I'd very much like to hear some more details and some good explanation or rationale. And all the more so if we're talking here not an isolated exceptional case in a specific research domain, but rather ( as you seem to imply ) a more general stipulation. Apologies for running on at such length. This seems to me a hardly unimportant matter. - Laval Hunsucker Breukelen, Nederland ________________________________ From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wed, April 6, 2011 10:23:14 PM Subject: Doctoral Expectations and Frameworks Doctoral Expectations and Frameworks Two incidents in the past month lead me to raise a question on this list about doctoral studies. I want to be very careful to frame the question so that it is clear that I am seeking to understand expectations not to criticize them. At a recent doctoral student presentation the candidate was asked about the theoretical framework for the study. The response was that the institution did not require a theoretical framework (for some of us this is a distinguishing feature between master’s and doctoral work). Is this the case at your institution? Is this a change? Today a doctoral student from another institution asked me about recent research in a specific area. The institution “requires that I use research no further back than the year 2006.” (I will set aside whether there is any relationship between the topic of study and the date prescription.) Again, is this the case at your institution? Is this a change? I have not encountered these before and wonder if there are changes underway or I am less aware of expectations elsewhere or whether these are unique. Thank you. Ken Haycock voice: 778-689-5938