Deconstructing Theoretical Frameworks

The more time I spend reading about theoretical perspectives/frameworks, the more I’m frustrated by them.  There are so many perspectives, each of which overlaps others and none of which is complete in its ability to describe the totality of experience (if there is one... please point me to it...for it must be the 'right' one).  Some frameworks are broad - others heavily nuanced - in their application to context, their interpretation of phenomena, events, and construction of knowledge. It is no surprise to me, as Koro-Ljungberg, Yendol-Hoppey, Smith & Hayes (2009) have pointed out in their article, that the identification and/or appropriate implementation (instantiation) of theoretical frameworks is often found lacking in the literature; it seems it really takes experts in such things - like the authors - to be able to not only distinguish between some frameworks and their application, but also most accurately put names to them; these people are the experts who have spent years and, in some cases, built careers on doing precisely this.

Having just been exposed to Derrida’s deconstructionism makes this all worse, in so much as it forces us to reconsider the ideas we hold in privilege.  

​Can theoretical perspectives’ primacy in social research be deconstructed?

Koro-Ljungberg, M., Yendol-Hoppey, D., Smith, J. J., & Hayes, S. B. (2009). (E) pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uninformed methodological ambiguity in qualitative research projects. Educational Researcher, 38(9), 687-699.