What is compelling about using a theoretical approach in a theses?

The way I see the question about using a theoretical framework or not compares to the trip to an unknown city. If I have never been to a place before, I have two choices: the first alternative is to get a map of the city and study it to find out where are the things I would like to do and see, the places I would like to visit – and likewise to find out the ones I am not interested in and how to avoid them. The other alternative is I forget the map and just explore the city freely and let myself be charmed by it.

There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to each way and I will have different experiences depending on which one I choose: without the guide I might be surprised by the different things I find on my journey, and even become acquainted with things I never knew that existed or that were located in those places, or in that city. I might even have a richer experience by letting one place lead to another and making a path of my own, which would be a very special and unique trip. However, there is the risk I will leave the city thinking: was there anything else there that I could have found very interesting and I didn’t see? Or worse even: did I just miss the best thing in town?

On the other hand, with the guide I can make sure I visit the places and things I would like to see, I can make my judgment if that was interesting or not. But I will also be aware of the points of the city I haven’t been and draw conclusions of why I didn’t go: because I was not interested or because I spent my time enjoying one particular place or attraction I had planned to visit. It can be more of a boring way of seeing things, but at least I won’t come back with the feeling of missing something,.

However trivial this metaphor may be, I think it helps me explain why I am interested in making use of a theoretical framework in this research: according to Wolcott (1995) the choosing to use or not a theoretical framework is ultimately a question of personal taste. For this matter, I am more of guide a sort of person.

It is clear that this top-down approach to field research contradicts much of what the inventors of Grounded Theory and preachers of inductive methods in general would see as the correct thing to do: for them, the emergence of theory from raw data is what creates theory. However, I don’t believe that complementing the bottom up approach with a theoretical structure can be disadvantageous from a practical point of view of a study that needs to be focused, specific and concluded in a short period of time.

I don’t see Activity Theory, or CHAT as a straight jacket to which fieldwork is supposed to fit, but as a guide to what areas I could be interested in looking within the limits of my research. Quite the opposite, I don’t intend to adapt the fieldwork to it: the theory is supposed to serve the purpose of the research, not to slave it.