"the dominant framework" is a correct and usable phrase in written English.
It is often used to refer to a predominant or prevailing system or structure that holds influence in a certain context. Example: In the field of psychology, the dominant framework for understanding human behavior is currently behavioral psychology.
Civilized society tends to divide into a dominant culture and various subcultures that flourish within the dominant framework.
Some people's learning seemed best characterized by the dominant framework, others by the alternative.
As Zhao (1998) maintains, the propaganda model has long been the dominant framework for analyzing the Chinese media industry.
One particular class of goals, achievement goals, has emerged as the dominant framework for studying achievement motivation.
If the dominant framework accurately describes spatial microgenesis, we should not expect any participants to acquire much metric knowledge about distances and directions; it is questionable if they would even acquire much information about sequences of places along routes.
Two accounts have been proposed to explain the process of acquiring spatial knowledge in new environments (microgenesis) from direct experience, without symbolic sources: the "dominant framework" proposed by Siegel and White (1975) and an "alternative framework" proposed by Montello (1998).
(Meyers 1997; Meyers 1997; Kittay 1999) The second form of such critique also alleges that the dominant frameworks misrepresent their subject matter by obscuring what's relational.
This is especially evident in the North Atlantic, where L. pertusa is the dominant framework-forming species.
It is important to note that while the other five species are not as well studied as L. pertusa, they are the dominant framework-forming scleractinians in many regions of the world's oceans (i.e. the South Pacific).
On the first form, the charge is that dominant frameworks misrepresent their subject matter by ignoring important relational aspects of what they purport to be talking about.
The critical charge, stated very generally, is that dominant frameworks for representing the world, especially the social world, purport to classify things on the basis of intrinsic properties when in fact the classifications are crucially dependent on relational properties.[7] There are two forms of this critique, and correspondingly, two kinds of response.
