SAGE journal articles and other additional readings have been carefully selected by the author to accompany each chapter. Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Article 4.1

Pedersen, E. (2007). Theory is everywhere: A discourse on theory. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 25, 106-128. 

Abstract:
There is confusion concerning what theory is, how to recognize it, how to know when and if it is needed, and when it is present. The purpose of this article is to explore the concept of theory via a concept analysis and to examine how and why understandings of theory may vary. Definitions of theory are examined. Definitions have two to four definitional components: theoretical structure, functions, elements, and relationship of theory to research. The use of theory in textiles and clothing is discussed including theory for practice and creative activity. When using the identified functions of theory as a guide, theory can be identified as present in most applications within the textiles and clothing field, even when theories are not named or discussed.

Article 4.2

Rocco, T., & Plakhotnik, M. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource Development Review, 8, 120-130.

Abstract:
This essay starts with a discussion of literature review, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework as components of a manuscript. This discussion includes similarities and distinctions among these components and their relation to other sections of a manuscript such as the problem statement, discussion, and implications. The essay concludes with an overview of literature review, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework as separate types of manuscripts. Understanding similarities and differences among the literature review, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework can help novice and experienced researchers in organizing, conceptualizing, and conducting their research, whether qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods.

Article 4.3

Snow, D., Morrill, C., & Anderson, L. (2003). Elaborating analytic ethnography: Linking fieldwork and theory. Ethnography, 4, 181-200.

Abstract:
Among the diverse styles of qualitative methodology is what John Lofland referred to as “analytic ethnography.” In contrast to the traditional interpretive style that attempts to get at the crux of “what is going on,” to the more formal approach that seeks to identify the cognitive rules undergirding behavior, and to the more recent postmodern preoccupation with individual experience and voices, analytic ethnography seeks to develop systematic and generic understandings and propositions about social processes. In this article we elaborate analytic ethnography beyond Lofland’s original statement by articulating how it can contribute to theoretical development through conceptual refinement and theoretical extension as well as through the more traditional development of grounded theory. We discuss and illustrate these three strategies for theoretical development by drawing on various field studies, including our own, and by suggesting the conditions propitious to each strategy.