background preloader

Conceptual framework

Facebook Twitter

A conceptual framework is an analytical tool with several variations and contexts. It is used to make conceptual distinctions and organize ideas. Strong conceptual frameworks capture something real and do this in a way that is easy to remember and apply.

For example, Isaiah Berlin used the metaphor of a “Fox” and a “Hedgehog” to make conceptual distinctions in how important philosophers and authors view the world.[1] Berlin describes hedgehogs as those who use a single idea or organizing principle to view the world (examples given include Dante, Pascal, Dostoevsky, Plato, Ibsen and Hegel). Foxes, on the other hand, incorporate a type of pluralism and view the world through multiple, sometimes conflicting, lenses (examples include Goethe, Joyce, Shakespeare, Aristotle, Herodotus, Molière, Anderson, Balzac). Economists use the conceptual framework of “supply” and “demand” to distinguish between the behavior and incentive systems of firms and consumers.[2] Like many conceptual frameworks, supply and demand can be presented through visual or graphical representations (see Demand curve).

Conceptual framework. Overview[edit] The use of the term conceptual framework crosses both scale (large and small theories) [3][4] and contexts (social science,[5][6] marketing,[7] applied science,[8] art [9] etc.). Its explicit definition and application can therefore vary. Conceptual frameworks are particularly useful as organizing devices in empirical research. One set of scholars has applied the notion of conceptual framework to deductive, empirical research at the micro- or individual study level.[10][11][12][13] They employ American football plays as a useful metaphor to clarify the meaning of conceptual framework (used in the context of a deductive empirical study).

Likewise, conceptual frameworks are abstract representations, connected to the research project's goal that direct the collection and analysis of data (on the plane of observation – the ground). Types of conceptual frameworks[edit] Note that Shields and Rangarajan (2013) do not claim that the above are the only framework-purpose pairing. Overview.

Types of conceptual frameworks

Abstract and concrete. In philosophy[edit] Abstract objects have often garnered the interest of philosophers because they raise problems for popular theories. In ontology, abstract objects are considered problematic for physicalism and some forms of naturalism. Historically, the most important ontological dispute about abstract objects has been the problem of universals. In epistemology, abstract objects are considered problematic for empiricism. Abstract objects and causality[edit] Another popular proposal for drawing the abstract-concrete distinction contends that an object is abstract if it lacks any causal powers.

Concrete and abstract thinking[edit] Jean Piaget uses the terms "concrete" and "formal" to describe the different types of learning. Terminology[edit] In language, abstract and concrete objects are often synonymous with concrete nouns and abstract nouns. See also[edit] References[edit] External links[edit] Action research. Action research is either research initiated to solve an immediate problem or a reflective process of progressive problem solving led by individuals working with others in teams or as part of a "community of practice" to improve the way they address issues and solve problems. There are two types of action research: participatory action research and practical action research. Denscombe (2010, p. 6) writes that an action research strategy's purpose is to solve a particular problem and to produce guidelines for best practice.

Action research involves actively participating in a change situation, often via an existing organization, whilst simultaneously conducting research. Action research can also be undertaken by larger organizations or institutions, assisted or guided by professional researchers, with the aim of improving their strategies, practices and knowledge of the environments within which they practice. Overview[edit] Major theories[edit] Chris Argyris' Action Science[edit] Dr. Analogy. Analogy has been studied and discussed since classical antiquity by philosophers, scientists and lawyers. The last few decades have shown a renewed interest in analogy, most notably in cognitive science. Usage of the terms "source" and "target"[edit] With respect to the terms source and target there are two distinct traditions of usage: Models and theories[edit] Identity of relation[edit] Shared abstraction[edit] Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle actually used a wider notion of analogy.

The Middle Age saw an increased use and theorization of analogy. Special case of induction[edit] Premises a is C, D, E, F, G b is C, D, E, F Conclusion b is probably G. Shared structure[edit] According to Shelley (2003), the study of the coelacanth drew heavily on analogies from other fish. Keith Holyoak and Paul Thagard (1997) developed their multiconstraint theory within structure mapping theory. High-level perception[edit] Analogy and Complexity[edit] If the source and target are completely known: Concept. A concept is an abstraction or generalization from experience or the result of a transformation of existing concepts. The concept reifies all of its actual or potential instances whether these are things in the real world or other ideas. Concepts are treated in many if not most disciplines whether explicitly such as in psychology, philosophy, etc. or implicitly such as in mathematics, physics, etc.

In metaphysics, and especially ontology, a concept is a fundamental category of existence. In contemporary philosophy, there are at least three prevailing ways to understand what a concept is:[1][See talk page] Concepts as mental representations, where concepts are entities that exist in the brain.Concepts as abilities, where concepts are abilities peculiar to cognitive agents.Concepts as abstract objects, where objects are the constituents of propositions that mediate between thought, language, and referents.

Etymology[edit] Abstract objects[edit] Issues in concept theory[edit] Ontology[edit] Conceptual model. A conceptual model is a model made of the composition of concepts, which are used to help people know, understand, or simulate a subject the model represents. Some models are physical objects; for example, a toy model which may be assembled, and may be made to work like the object it represents. The term conceptual model may be used to refer to models which are formed after a conceptualization (generalization)[1] process in the mind. Conceptual models represent human intentions or semantics[citation needed][dubious ].

Conceptualization from observation of physical existence and conceptual modeling are the necessary means that humans employ to think and solve problems[citation needed]. Concepts are used to convey semantics during natural language based communication[citation needed]. Since a concept might map to multiple semantics[clarification needed] by itself, an explicit formalization is usually required[by whom?] Models of concepts and models that are conceptual[edit] Overview[edit] Conceptual system. Overview[edit] A conceptual system is a conceptual model. Such systems may be related to any topic from formal science to individual imagination. Conceptual systems may be found within the human mind, as works of art and fiction, and within the academic world. Indeed, this article may be understood as a conceptual system because it includes a set of interrelated concepts.

Broadly, when a conceptual system includes a range of values, ideas, and beliefs the conceptual system is said be a view of the world. The idea that the human mind might contain conceptual systems goes back at least as far as Kelly's personal construct theory in 1955. Within the academic literature, each theory may be understood as a conceptual system. Generally, that validity may also be described in terms of its internal coherence and the correspondence between the conceptual system and another systems (e.g. social system or physical system). Examples[edit] Examples of conceptual systems include: See also[edit] Inquiry. An inquiry is any process that has the aim of augmenting knowledge, resolving doubt, or solving a problem.

A theory of inquiry is an account of the various types of inquiry and a treatment of the ways that each type of inquiry achieves its aim. Classical sources[edit] Deduction[edit] When three terms are so related to one another that the last is wholly contained in the middle and the middle is wholly contained in or excluded from the first, the extremes must admit of perfect syllogism.

By 'middle term' I mean that which both is contained in another and contains another in itself, and which is the middle by its position also; and by 'extremes' (a) that which is contained in another, and (b) that in which another is contained. For if A is predicated of all B, and B of all C, A must necessarily be predicated of all C. ... Induction[edit] Abduction[edit] The locus classicus for the study of abductive reasoning is found in Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Book 2, Chapt. 25. Example of inquiry[edit] Mindset. A mindset can also be seen as incident of a person's Weltanschauung or philosophy of life. For example there has been quite some interest in the typical mindset of an entrepreneur. Mindsets in politics[edit] A well-known[by whom?] Example is the "Cold War mindset" prevalent in both the U.S. and USSR, which included absolute trust in two-player game theory, in the integrity of command chain, in control of nuclear materials, and in the mutual assured destruction of both in the case of war.

[citation needed] Although most consider that this mindset usefully served to prevent an attack by either country, the assumptions underlying deterrence theory have made assessments of the efficacy of the Cold War mindset a matter of some controversy. Modern military theory attempts to challenge entrenched mindsets in dealing with asymmetric warfare, terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Collective mindsets[edit] Fixed mindset and growth mindset[edit] See also[edit] References[edit] Ontology. Parmenides was among the first to propose an ontological characterization of the fundamental nature of reality. Etymology[edit] While the etymology is Greek, the oldest extant record of the word itself, the New Latin form ontologia, appeared in 1606 in the work Ogdoas Scholastica by Jacob Lorhard (Lorhardus) and in 1613 in the Lexicon philosophicum by Rudolf Göckel (Goclenius).

The first occurrence in English of ontology as recorded by the OED (Oxford English Dictionary, online edition, 2008) came in a work by Gideon Harvey (1636/7–1702): Archelogia philosophica nova; or, New principles of Philosophy. Containing Philosophy in general, Metaphysicks or Ontology, Dynamilogy or a Discourse of Power, Religio Philosophi or Natural Theology, Physicks or Natural philosophy, London, Thomson, 1663.[5] The word was first used in its Latin form by philosophers based on the Latin roots, which themselves are based on the Greek.

Overview[edit] Some fundamental questions[edit] Concepts[edit] Types[edit] Paradigm. In science and philosophy, a paradigm /ˈpærədaɪm/ is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitutes legitimate contributions to a field. Etymology[edit] Paradigm comes from Greek παράδειγμα (paradeigma), "pattern, example, sample"[1] from the verb παραδείκνυμι (paradeiknumi), "exhibit, represent, expose"[2] and that from παρά (para), "beside, beyond"[3] and δείκνυμι (deiknumi), "to show, to point out".[4] In rhetoric, paradeigma is known as a type of proof. The purpose of paradeigma is to provide an audience with an illustration of similar occurrences.

This illustration is not meant to take the audience to a conclusion, however it is used to help guide them there. A personal accountant is a good comparison of paradeigma to explain how it is meant to guide the audience. Scientific paradigm[edit] An example of a currently accepted paradigm would be the standard model of physics. Paradigm shifts[edit] Use. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Use may refer to: or to: