Could you please assign this order to the writer that is doing my last order (1132) thank you for allowing continuity. This has two parts first - two pages; second -five pages. for the first, I had included the two articles and the pg 133 on how construct the map. Thank you By July 14, 2017, post your response to the assigned discussion questions in the below Discussion Area. It is important to support what you say with relevant citations in the APA format from both the course materials and outside resources. Include the University Online Library in your research activities utilizing not only the nursing resource database, but also those pertaining to education, business, and human resources. Visit the online library and review these two articles. (write 2 pages) • Connelly, L. M. (2014). Use of theoretical frameworks in research. MEDSURG Nursing, 23(3), 187-188. • Green, H. E. (2014). Use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in qualitative research. Nurse Researcher, 21(6), 34-38. Next, review the evidence you are collecting for your proposed study. Which theories have others cited? Are you seeing a common theme? Next construct a conceptual map (see p. 133 in your textbook). Use Microsoft Word or Microsoft PowerPoint and include this as an attachment. Be sure you have defined the concepts and included relational statements (From Rector, T. S., Anand, I. S., & Cohn, J. H. (2006). Relationships between clinical assessments and patients’ perceptions of the effects of heart failure on their quality of life. Journal of Cardiac Failure, 12(2), 88. Figure 7-14 The construct-concept-variable continuum. ECP, External counterpulsation; MLHF, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure; SAQ, Seattle Angina Questionnaire; SF-36 = Short Form 36 Health Survey. (From Shanks, L. C. [2010]. A pilot study to examine relationships among external counterpulsation, cardiac output, functional capacity, and quality of life [Online exclusive]. Applied Nursing Research, 2010 Dec 28. DOI: 10.1016/j.apnr.2010.09.002.) may need to reexamine the statements identified. Are there some missing links? Are some of the links inaccurately expressed? As the map takes shape and begins to seem right, show it to trusted colleagues. Can they follow your logic? Do they agree with your links? Can they identify missing elements? Can you explain the map to them? Seek out individuals who have experienced the phenomenon you are mapping. Does the process depicted seem valid to them? Find someone more experienced than you in conceptual mapping to examine your map closely and critically. Shanks (2010) conducted a pilot study of the quality of life of 15 patients with coronary artery disease who were receiving external counterpulsation (ECP). In the literature review section of the article, Shanks states, “According to Rector, Anand, and Cohn (2006), the effect of heart failure pathology on quality of life (QOL) is mediated by symptoms such as angina and decreased exercise tolerance” (p. 1). The model in the study by Rector et al. is shown in Figure 7-13. Shanks (2010) used some of these concepts and presented them in a more linear fashion in her simple conceptual framework (see Figure 7-14). She clearly identified the concepts of cardiac pathology, functional limitations, and quality of life. Her diagram also includes the measurements for each concept, thus providing clear logical links to the study\'s methods. She described her conceptual framework as follows: “[Figure 7-14] presents a conceptual model based on the model developed by Rector et al. (2006). This model focuses on the degree to which cardiac pathology influences functional limitations and QOL. One or two measures were obtained for each of the three concepts in this model.” (Shanks, 2010, p. 2) Her research questions reflected the conceptual model: • “1 What are the relationships among cardiac pathology, functional limitations, and QOL at Week 1 (entry into ECP) and Week 7 (end of ECP)? • 2 Is there an improvement in cardiac output at the end of the 7-week ECP program? • 3 Is there an improvement in functional limitations at the end of the 7-week ECP program? • 4 Is there an improvement in perceived QOL at the end of the 7-week ECP program?” (Shanks, 2010, p. 2). The participants in the study ranged in age from 50 to 75 years. Most were white, married men. More than 50% were retired and had annual incomes less than $50,000. Shanks (2010) found no significant correlations in response to research question 1. She also did not find evidence to support improvements in functional status or QOL, with one exception. There was a statistically significant improvement in the 6-minute walk test (research question 3). On the QOL measure, the improvement in the 6-minute walk was further supported by similar findings related to “physical role, physical function, and bodily pain” (p. 4). Although the small sample precluded generalizing the findings to other groups, the findings indicate a need for replication with larger samples. The product of the creative and critical thinking that you have expended in the development of your research framework may provide a structure for one study or become the basis for a program of research. Continue to consider the framework as you collect and analyze data and interpret the findings. While you wait to hear whether your proposal has been funded or while your data are being collected, use the time to expand the written description of the framework and the evidence supporting its relationships into a manuscript for publication (see Chapter 27). When disseminated, your research framework has the potential to make a valuable contribution to nursing knowledge. Key Points • • A concept is a term that abstractly describes and names an object or a phenomenon, thus providing it with a separate identity or meaning. • • A relational statement declares that a relationship of some kind exists between two or more concepts. • • A conceptual model or grand theory broadly explains phenomena of interest, expresses assumptions, and reflects a philosophical stance. • • A theory is a set of concepts and relational statements explaining the relationships among them. • • Scientific theories have significant evidence and their relationships may be considered laws. • • Substantive theories are less abstract, can easily be applied in practice, and may be called middle-range theories. • • Middle-range theories may be developed from qualitative data, clinical experiences, clinical practice guidelines, or more abstract theories. • • Tentative theories are developed from research findings and clinical experiences and have not yet been validated. • • A framework is the abstract, logical structure of meaning that guides the development of the study and enables the researcher to link the findings to the body of knowledge used in nursing. • • Relational statements are the core of the framework; it is these statements that are examined through research. • • Every study has either an implicit or explicit theoretical framework. • • The steps of critically appraising a research framework are (1) describing the concepts and relational statements, (2) examining its logical structure, (3) evaluating the extent to which the framework guided the methodology, and (4) determining the extent to which the researcher connected the findings to the framework. • • The logical adequacy of a research framework is the extent to which the relational statements are clear and used consistently. • • The framework should be well integrated with the methodology, carefully structured, and clearly presented, whether the study is physiological or psychosocial. • • Study findings should be interpreted in light of the research framework. • • Research frameworks may start with existing theories, research findings, and/or clinical experiences. • • The remaining steps of the process are (1) selecting and defining concepts, (2) developing statements relating the concepts, (3) expressing the statements in hierarchical fashion, and (4) developing a conceptual map. • • Concepts and relational statements are visually represented by a diagram of the research framework, also called a conceptual map. • • Developing a framework for a study is one of the most important steps in the research process. Use of Theoretical Frameworks in Research Connelly, Lynne MAuthor Information . Medsurg Nursing; Pitman 23.3 (May/Jun 2014): 187-8. Connelly, L. M. (2014). Use of theoretical frameworks in research. Medsurg Nursing, 23(3), 187-8. 1. Full text 2. Full text - PDF 3. Details 4. References 9 • TranslateFull text • Readers of research reports probably have noticed some studies explicitly name a theory that guided the research and some do not. It is not always clear in reports what role the theory or theoretical framework played (or did not play) in the research. In this issue, Parker (2014) outlined a study about decision making by medical-surgical nurses when they activate rapid response teams. In the report, in the section called \"Nurse Decision Making,\" the author concisely discussed theories of decision making and the models of decision making that others have used to examine the topic with nurses. In addition, Parker used an instrument to measure decision making based on these various decision-making models. This report is a useful example of how theory guides research and also makes sense of the subsequent findings. What Is a theory? First, various terms are used to refer to the theoretic basis of a study, including theory, theoretical framework, conceptual framework, and models. Theory is a set of interrelated concepts (or variables) and definitions that are formed into propositions or hypotheses to specify the relationship among the constructs (Creswell, 2013). A formal theory is well-developed and is useful to predict behavior or outcomes. A theoretical framework or conceptual framework is less formal and typically less developed than a formal theory. Such a framework often is useful when exploratory work is being done to expand the theoretical ideas. A conceptual model usually is focused more narrowly and structured more loosely than theories, and does not link concepts (Polit & Beck, 2014). For example, the Lauri and Salanterä (2002) instrument is based on a model that describes how nurses make decisions but does not predict how effective each type is in making decisions. For the purposes of this column, I use the general word theory to encompass all these terms. In simple terms, a theory is a representation of a portion of reality that helps us make sense of complex phenomena. It is not the reality itself; it is a tool for better understanding. Theories are not right or wrong but some theories offer a better fit for particular situations. Each theory can provide a different lens for looking at a problem, allowing it to be examined from different perspectives for full understanding of all its facets (Reeves, Albert, Kuper, & Hodges, 2008). Theory in a study can be stated clearly or it can be implied (Bond et al., 2011). For example, in physiological studies, the framework usually is drawn from current understanding of physiology and pathophysiology. It often is presented as the state of science in a particular area. In more abstract areas of research, specific theory can be useful to frame the problem, develop an intervention, and guide the research study. A theory about a phenomenon, such as nurse decision making, parsimoniously explains how nurses make decisions in the practice setting. Each theory will have a number of interrelated concepts. Concepts are abstract representations of specific parts of the theory (Polit & Beck, 2014). In the Parker (2014) study, the decision-making models described how different people have different ways of making decisions. Some people are intuitive decision makers, some are analytical decision makers, and others use both types of decision making. While it can seem even more complex, this concise depiction helps us understand the process of making a decision and measure how each nurse in a study normally makes decisions. Guiding Research A theory should not be added to a study because the researcher was told in school that a theory is needed for a research study. A clear connection should exist among the theory, the problem or phenomenon being studied, and the research method. For example, Parker (2014) used an instrument developed by Lauri and Salanterä (2002) based on the various models of decision making. Using a valid instrument based on theory allows the researcher to make comparisons between the results of different studies that otherwise could not be made if the researcher used a separate instrument. In addition, when conducting the study, the researcher also is testing the theory to determine if it works in the study population. In Parker\'s (2014) study, a factor analysis showed items measuring analytic decision making correlated with each other and intuitive decision-making items correlated with each other; however, each of these did not correlate significantly with the other type. In other words, intuitive items were connected with other intuitive items, but not with analytic items. The same is true for analytic items. This supports the validity of the instrument and also supports the theory that guided development of this instrument. When we review the results, then, we can have some confidence they are measuring aspects of the theory appropriately. In addition, investigators should make connections between their results and the theory clear in their discussion of the findings. They should relate their results to other research in which the theory was used. Parker compared his results to results by Lauri and Salanterä (2002). In another example, Yoder (2005) described how the Roy Adaption Model was used in several studies: a study of quality of life in patients with cancer, a study of exercise intervention in patients with cancer, and another study of clinical outcomes in patients with burns. Yoder presented figures outlining each aspect of the theory and how each aspect was measured. Each of the studies provided results helpful to patients, but they also provided support for the Roy Adaptation Model. The figures in this article are useful examples of how to make clear connections between concepts within a theory or model and the measurement instruments. This can be particularly useful in research proposals. Theory also is used to guide the development of effective interventions for patient care. In this case, theorists may use both theory and empirical results to suggest one variable (the intervention) can have a positive effect on another variable (e.g., a person\'s behavior or physical outcome). If a theory indicates, for example, that teaching a patient about his or her disease will improve selfmanagement, then we could conduct an intervention study to test that proposition. Theory also may provide us with other variables that can moderate this effect (Polit & Beck, 2014). Other Issues When research results are not what were expected, two reasons are possible: either the research design or measurement of variables was flawed, or the theory guiding the research did not fit the situation or population. In the case of an inappropriate theory, the researcher may be able to suggest modifications to the theory. The modifications then would need to be tested. Useful theory is refined by this iterative process (Johnson & Webber, 2010). In qualitative research, theory can have several purposes. General theories, such as interactionism and critical theory, can be used to guide qualitative research (Reeves et al., 2008). These are theories that conceptualize how we should study phenomena (Polit & Beck, 2014; Sandelowski, 1993). On the other hand, qualitative investigators often want to generate rather than test theory based on what they find with their particular informants. Prior to and during data collection, researchers often avoid substantive theory about the specific phenomena to prevent being influenced by prior theorizing about the topic. Thus, the theory generated in qualitative research is grounded in data that come from directly observing and talking to the participants (Creswell, 2013). This short column can not cover all the nuances of theory and research. Readers can refer to the references cited or to a good research textbook to obtain more information. Because theory is important to conducting and understanding research findings, readers should understand what theory is and how a researcher can use it effectively to guide a study. References REFERENCES Bond, A., Eshah, N., Bani-Khaled, M., Hamad, A., Habashneh, S., Kataua\', H., ... Maabreh, R. (2011). Who uses nursing theory? A univariate descriptive analysis of five years\' research articles. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 25(2), 404-409. Creswell, J.W. (2013). The use of theory. In J.W. Creswell (Ed.) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.) (pp. 51-76). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Johnson, B.M., & Webber, P.B. (2010). An introduction to theory and reasoning in nursing. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Lauri, S., & Salanterä, S. (2002). Developing an instrument to measure and describe clinical decision-making in different nursing fields. Journal of Professional Nursing, 18(30), 93-100. . AuthorAffiliation Lynne M. Connelly, PhD, RN, is Associate Professor and Director of Nursing, Benedictine College, Atchison, KS. She is Research Editor for MEDSURG Nursing. Word count: 1513 Copyright Anthony J. Jannetti, Inc. May/Jun 2014 Use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in qualitative research Green, Helen Elise. Nurse Researcher (2014+); London 21.6 (Jul 2014): 34. Green, H. E. (2014). Use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in qualitative research. Nurse Researcher (2014+), 21(6), 34. 1. Full text 2. Abstract/Details Abstract TranslateAbstract Aim To debate the definition and use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in qualitative research. Background There is a paucity of literature to help the novice researcher to understand what theoretical and conceptual frameworks are and how they should be used. This paper acknowledges the interchangeable usage of these terms and researchers\' confusion about the differences between the two. It discusses how researchers have used theoretical and conceptual frameworks and the notion of conceptual models. Detail is given about how one researcher incorporated a conceptual framework throughout a research project, the purpose for doing so and how this led to a resultant conceptual model. Review methods Concepts from Abbott ( 1988 ) and Witz ( 1992 ) were used to provide a framework for research involving two case study sites. The framework was used to determine research questions and give direction to interviews and discussions to focus the research. Discussion Some research methods do not overtly use a theoretical framework or conceptual framework in their design, but this is implicit and underpins the method design, for example in grounded theory. Other qualitative methods use one or the other to frame the design of a research project or to explain the outcomes. An example is given of how a conceptual framework was used throughout a research project. Conclusion Theoretical and conceptual frameworks are terms that are regularly used in research but rarely explained. Textbooks should discuss what they are and how they can be used, so novice researchers understand how they can help with research design. Implications for practice/research Theoretical and conceptual frameworks need to be more clearly understood by researchers and correct terminology used to ensure clarity for novice researchers. Full Text • TranslateFull text • Introduction THIS PAPER aims to help the researcher to understand the nature of theoretical and conceptual frameworks and how they can be used to help give direction to a study, or be identified as an outcome. The use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks is part of research, but is relatively obscure among the myriad of literature available. In published research reports, there is often no explanation as to what theoretical and conceptual frameworks are, and they are mentioned in many popular research textbooks at best minimally and often as terms in a glossary. There appears to be no manual about how theoretical and/or conceptual frameworks should be used. This paper examines what the literature says in relation to theoretical and/or conceptual frameworks and considers how researchers seem to be using them. It also shows how a conceptual framework was used in case study research to determine the professional jurisdictions of doctors and nurses in the supply and prescription of medicines, and ultimately to the development of a conceptual model. Definitions of frameworks Fain ( 2004 ) defined theory as \'an organised and systematic set of interrelated statements (concepts) that specify the nature of relationships between two or more variables, with the purpose of understanding a problem or the nature of things\' and concepts as \'symbolic statements describing a phenomenon or a class of phenomena\'. It is a matter of interpretation as to when concepts become organised and interrelated enough to be deemed theories, which might explain why the two terms are used interchangeably when referring to frameworks. However, Parahoo ( 2006 ) suggested that \'theoretical framework\' should be used when research is underpinned by one theory and that a \'conceptual framework\' draws on concepts from various theories and findings to guide research. This is a slightly different interpretation to that of Fain ( 2004 ) because, instead of suggesting that the concepts have been built into a theory, it suggests that parts of multiple theories have been taken. Whether these distinctions matter is questionable. Parahoo ( 2006 ) implied that it is fruitless to consider whether a researcher has used the correct terminology and it is far more important to consider how theory has been used to underpin the study. Authors use the terms \'conceptual framework\' and \'theoretical framework\' interchangeably ( Fain 2004 , Parahoo 2006 ). Some authors only refer to one. For example, Lacey ( 2010 ) referred to conceptual frameworks, suggesting that they identify researchers\' \'world views\' of their research topics and so delineate their assumptions and preconceptions about the areas being studied. Fain ( 2004 ) suggested that where a framework is based on concepts, the framework should be called a conceptual framework, and where it is based on theories it should be called a theoretical framework. Given that there is confusion between theoretical and conceptual frameworks, it could be argued that they are of questionable value. However, frameworks have been described as the map for a study, giving a rationale for the development of research questions or hypotheses ( Fulton and Krainovich-Miller 2010 ). LoBiondo-Wood ( 2010 ) similarly said that the framework is the design and added that the research question, purpose, literature review and theoretical framework should all complement each other and help with the operationalisation of the design. It can be seen that the authors are saying that the framework should be there to assist researchers in ensuring that their research projects are coherent and to focus their minds on what the research is trying to achieve. Rathert et al ( 2012 ) illustrate this confusion. In the title, the authors suggest they have tested a theoretical framework but then discuss a conceptual model. However, they use the term \'conceptual framework\' as a title for its diagrammatic representation. There is no discussion of what these terms mean. Robson ( 2002 ) suggested that a conceptual framework is often developed as a diagram, whereas Parahoo ( 2006 ) refers to this as a conceptual model, although again believes that researchers should not get hung up on terminology. It could be concluded that a diagrammatic representation of a theoretical framework might therefore be termed a theoretical model. It is, however, less likely that one would diagrammatically represent a single theory rather than concepts, which either are being used to build up to a theory or are taken from different theories. While the confusion around the use of conceptual and theoretical frameworks and models may be understandable, a similar laissez-faire approach to accuracy would not be considered acceptable for other parts of research design. More discussion in textbooks and journal articles about how to use frameworks might allay some of the confusion. Using a framework Some research approaches appear not to use a conceptual or theoretical framework in their design. \'Grounded theory\', for example, is an inductive method in which theory generation comes from the data. It was an approach that went against the accepted wisdom of the 1960s that a study should have a definite theory before it begins ( Robson 2002 ). It is an example of a methodological approach that is based on a specific epistemology or philosophy of knowledge ( Avis 2003 ). Corbin and Strauss ( 2008 ) discussed the epistemology of grounded theory in some detail. However, as this methodology has developed, the epistemology has also developed ( Hall et al 2013 ). The development of theoretical or conceptual frameworks can be undertaken as an outcome of the research but it is unlikely that one will be stated as part of the design. However, projects using these methods do have a theoretical framework: that of the philosophy or epistemology on which the research approach is based. For example, Curtis et al ( 2012 ) discussed how grounded theory methodology is based on the epistemology of symbolic interactionism and so they did not identify a theoretical or conceptual model in the design of their research. In their findings, they discussed the concept that emerged from their research of the dissonance for students of professional ideals and the reality of practice. They then showed this diagrammatically in a conceptual model. There appear to be two main ways in which researchers who use other qualitative methods use theoretical and conceptual frameworks. The first is in the design of the study where, if it is explicit, the framework can often be found as a section in the literature review ( Fulton and Krainovich-Miller 2010 ). However, many authors ( Polit and Tatano Beck 2004 , Parahoo 2006 , Fulton and Krainovich-Miller 2010 ) have found that researchers often do not make the theoretical or conceptual frameworks of studies explicit in relation to how these guided their studies. This does not mean that they did not have such frameworks, simply that they may be embedded in the literature review ( Fulton and Krainovich-Miller 2010 ). Somekh and Lewin ( 2005 ) suggested that most social science research starts with a theoretical framework, goes on to analyse the data, before developing new theories or variations of existing theories as outcomes. Robson ( 2002 ) suggested that most new researchers find it useful to develop a conceptual model - the diagrammatic form of a conceptual framework - and refine it as data collection and analysis takes place. LoBiondo-Wood ( 2010 ) felt that the fit between the theoretical framework and the other steps of the research after the design strengthens the study and gives the researcher confidence in the evidence provided by the findings. Even where theoretical or conceptual frameworks are mentioned in the title of an article, it is unusual for there to be a discussion of what these are in the article itself. However, Goddard et al ( 2013 ) used a theoretical framework in the design of their randomised controlled trial and Smith et al ( 2012 ) identified a theoretical framework before researching the knowledge base of screening tools. The second way in which researchers use theoretical and conceptual frameworks is in developing a framework. Parahoo ( 2006 ) argued that generating theory is the purpose of most qualitative research. Polit and Tatano Beck ( 2004 ) suggested that the role of conceptual and theoretical frameworks is to make the research findings meaningful and generalisable. They suggested that the linking together of findings into a coherent structure can make them more accessible and so more useful to others. Fletcher et al ( 2012 ) used grounded theory in relation to the organisational factors that cause sports performers stress. They then used their findings to develop a conceptual framework. Again, although \'conceptual framework\' is in the title of their article, there is no explanation of what such a framework is. Fulton and Krainovich-Miller ( 2010 ) acknowledged that many researchers do not bother to use a theoretical framework and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) does not make any mention of trying to identify a theoretical or conceptual framework in a research article ( CASP 2010 ). This suggests that it does not see the presence of one as crucial to the generation of good qualitative research. Nevertheless, it is not unusual for those undertaking research as part of a programme of learning to be asked to include such a framework in their projects, usually at the proposal stage. Because so little is written about frameworks, this can confuse students trying to understand what is being asked of them. Books written to support students in achieving a PhD may not provide much help, as some do not mention the use of theory in study design ( Phillips and Pugh 2005 ). At this point in time, finding a theoretical or conceptual framework can be seen as another hurdle to overcome, rather than something to assist researchers in keeping their projects focused and on track. Use of a framework in a PhD project A PhD study by Green ( 2008 ) used a case study approach to consider the professional jurisdictions of nursing and medicine in relation to the supply and prescription of medicines by nurses in the acute hospital setting. The study was undertaken over a period of time when the supply and prescription of medicines by nurses was relatively new but the regulations set by the Department of Health (DH) were being relaxed ( DH 2005 ). The study aimed to examine the attitudes of doctors and nurses in relation to their professional boundaries in the light of the legalising of prescribing for nurses. At this time, there was some research evaluation of prescribing but this tended to focus on the prescribing rather than what professionals thought about the notion. Where professional attitudes of doctors or nurses were mentioned, it was as a secondary outcome, rather than the main focus ( Latter et al 2004 , Bradley and Nolan 2007 , Courtenay 2007 ). It terms of a framework to guide the study and aid the way it was organised, the body of work that has been undertaken in relation to the Sociology of Professions appeared relevant to the project. The theories of two sociologists were used ( Abbott 1988 , Witz 1992 ). The focus of the research was new work for the profession of nursing and in an area that had been a monopoly for doctors previously. Abbott ( 1998 ) and Witz ( 1992 ) had both looked at the movement of work from one profession to another. However, concepts from their theories were used, rather than the full theories. The research was based on the following concepts ( Abbott 1988 ): Professional jurisdictions: the boundaries of work \'owned\' by a profession. Authority: the type of authority that a profession has to undertake its work. And from Witz ( 1992 ): Exclusion: attempts to ensure that members of a profession are prevented from undertaking specific aspects of work. Usurpation: attempts to include specific aspects of work normally carried out by another profession. These concepts were used to frame the research questions and were also used to develop a model to try to explain the past and present situation in relation to doctors, nurses and prescribing. The research data were then collected through observation, semi-structured interviews and document analysis at two case study sites. Categories and sub-categories were identified from the data and described as part of the study. The discussion could have centred on the categories identified. However, it was at this point the data were brought back to what the categories had to say about the above concepts and how the research questions centred on these concepts were answered. There were new conceptual models developed from the data that represented variation between the two sites in terms of the concepts identified at the beginning of the research. An example of a conceptual model can be seen in Figure 1 . As this shows, the weight of intervention by the management of the organisation to support nurse prescribing seemed to have an effect on its introduction to the organisation but the main concepts are visible in the model. A conceptual framework was present throughout the research project and report. It helped frame the research\'s questions, design and outcomes. The same data may have been collected if a different theoretical or conceptual framework had been used or if no framework had been there, but it is likely that it would have been represented differently. The use of a framework helped the researcher to order her thoughts and organise the way the data would be represented. The use of a conceptual framework had started as an academic exercise to fulfil the demands of an academic supervisor and the expectations of a PhD project. It is probably only now, looking back at the project, that the extent to which the conceptual framework pervaded it is apparent. The existence of the conceptual framework was helpful in ensuring the research was given order and achieved completion in a way that could clearly be communicated to its readers. Conclusion As with many topics, in research there is a language to be learned by those who are going to become expert researchers. Much of this is explicit and can be read about in research texts and published papers. Although researchers can read extensively about research methodologies and data collection methods, this is not the case for theoretical and conceptual frameworks. This may be because, to seasoned researchers, it is so ingrained that it is unworthy of comment, or perhaps it is because these concepts are not overtly discussed and many researchers are confused about the correct terminology. Certainly, it might be expected that where a term - such as conceptual or theoretical framework - was included in a title of a published research paper there would be an explanation of it somewhere in the paper. However, this rarely occurs. If the apparent mysticism of theoretical and conceptual frameworks is to be debunked, then they need to be included as significant sections in publications. The focus of the frameworks as an aid to researchers to help ensure that they have framed their research coherently throughout their design should be ensured. For those who find diagrammatic representation helpful, the use of models as a way of illustrating the framework for others should be encouraged. It would be good to see the nuances of differences between concepts and theories discussed more regularly so all researchers understand their meaning or why variation in meaning is acceptable when using different approaches. This occurs with other parts of research and if we are to assist future researchers, it needs to happen with theoretical and conceptual models and frameworks. Novice researchers need to know that frameworks and models are there to help them and are not just another hurdle to be overcome to in the battle to achieve accreditation as a researcher. References Abbott A ( 1988 ) The System Of Professions: An Essay On the Division Of Expert Labour . Chicago University Press, Chicago IL. Avis M ( 2003 ) Do we need methodological theory to do qualitative research? Qualitative Health Research . 13, 7, 995- 1004. 14502964 10.1177/1049732303253298 Bradley E , Nolan P ( 2007 ) Impact of nurse prescribing: a qualitative study. Journal of Advanced Nursing . 59, 2, 120- 128. 17524048 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04295.x Corbin J , Strauss A ( 2008 ) Basics Of Qualitative Research . Third edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA. Courtenay M ( 2007 ) Nurse prescribing: the benefits and the pitfalls. Journal of Community Nursing . 21, 11, 502- 506. By July 14, 2017, write a (5 pages) paper addressing the sections below of the research proposal. This week you will submit the Literature Review section of your proposal. Each week you have been adding to your growing body of evidence to support your problem and proposed innovation to address the problem. The review of literature is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of your research topic. Thus, it should compare and relate different theories, findings, etc., rather than just summarize them individually. The following resources will help guide you (in addition to our course textbooks): • http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/ReviewofLiterature.html • http://www.duluth.umn.edu/~hrallis/guides/researching/litreview.html • http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/literature-reviews/ • Writing the Literature Review: Step-by-Step Tutorial for Graduate Students: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IUZWZX4OGI • Writing the Literature Review (Part Two): Step-by-Step Tutorial for Graduate Students: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoYpyY9n9YQ

ANSWER

If this is not the paper you were searching for, you can order your 100% plagiarism free, custom written paper now!