theoretical framework and conceptual framework in research

Theoretical vs Conceptual Framework

What they are & how they’re different (with examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | March 2023

If you’re new to academic research, sooner or later you’re bound to run into the terms theoretical framework and conceptual framework . These are closely related but distinctly different things (despite some people using them interchangeably) and it’s important to understand what each means. In this post, we’ll unpack both theoretical and conceptual frameworks in plain language along with practical examples , so that you can approach your research with confidence.

Overview: Theoretical vs Conceptual

What is a theoretical framework, example of a theoretical framework, what is a conceptual framework, example of a conceptual framework.

• Theoretical vs conceptual: which one should I use?

A theoretical framework (also sometimes referred to as a foundation of theory) is essentially a set of concepts, definitions, and propositions that together form a structured, comprehensive view of a specific phenomenon.

In other words, a theoretical framework is a collection of existing theories, models and frameworks that provides a foundation of core knowledge – a “lay of the land”, so to speak, from which you can build a research study. For this reason, it’s usually presented fairly early within the literature review section of a dissertation, thesis or research paper .

Let’s look at an example to make the theoretical framework a little more tangible.

If your research aims involve understanding what factors contributed toward people trusting investment brokers, you’d need to first lay down some theory so that it’s crystal clear what exactly you mean by this. For example, you would need to define what you mean by “trust”, as there are many potential definitions of this concept. The same would be true for any other constructs or variables of interest.

You’d also need to identify what existing theories have to say in relation to your research aim. In this case, you could discuss some of the key literature in relation to organisational trust. A quick search on Google Scholar using some well-considered keywords generally provides a good starting point.

Typically, you’ll present your theoretical framework in written form , although sometimes it will make sense to utilise some visuals to show how different theories relate to each other. Your theoretical framework may revolve around just one major theory , or it could comprise a collection of different interrelated theories and models. In some cases, there will be a lot to cover and in some cases, not. Regardless of size, the theoretical framework is a critical ingredient in any study.

Simply put, the theoretical framework is the core foundation of theory that you’ll build your research upon. As we’ve mentioned many times on the blog, good research is developed by standing on the shoulders of giants . It’s extremely unlikely that your research topic will be completely novel and that there’ll be absolutely no existing theory that relates to it. If that’s the case, the most likely explanation is that you just haven’t reviewed enough literature yet! So, make sure that you take the time to review and digest the seminal sources.

Need a helping hand?

A conceptual framework is typically a visual representation (although it can also be written out) of the expected relationships and connections between various concepts, constructs or variables. In other words, a conceptual framework visualises how the researcher views and organises the various concepts and variables within their study. This is typically based on aspects drawn from the theoretical framework, so there is a relationship between the two.

Quite commonly, conceptual frameworks are used to visualise the potential causal relationships and pathways that the researcher expects to find, based on their understanding of both the theoretical literature and the existing empirical research . Therefore, the conceptual framework is often used to develop research questions and hypotheses .

Let’s look at an example of a conceptual framework to make it a little more tangible. You’ll notice that in this specific conceptual framework, the hypotheses are integrated into the visual, helping to connect the rest of the document to the framework.

As you can see, conceptual frameworks often make use of different shapes , lines and arrows to visualise the connections and relationships between different components and/or variables. Ultimately, the conceptual framework provides an opportunity for you to make explicit your understanding of how everything is connected . So, be sure to make use of all the visual aids you can – clean design, well-considered colours and concise text are your friends.

Theoretical framework vs conceptual framework

As you can see, the theoretical framework and the conceptual framework are closely related concepts, but they differ in terms of focus and purpose. The theoretical framework is used to lay down a foundation of theory on which your study will be built, whereas the conceptual framework visualises what you anticipate the relationships between concepts, constructs and variables may be, based on your understanding of the existing literature and the specific context and focus of your research. In other words, they’re different tools for different jobs , but they’re neighbours in the toolbox.

Naturally, the theoretical framework and the conceptual framework are not mutually exclusive . In fact, it’s quite likely that you’ll include both in your dissertation or thesis, especially if your research aims involve investigating relationships between variables. Of course, every research project is different and universities differ in terms of their expectations for dissertations and theses, so it’s always a good idea to have a look at past projects to get a feel for what the norms and expectations are at your specific institution.

Want to learn more about research terminology, methods and techniques? Be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach blog . Alternatively, if you’re looking for hands-on help, have a look at our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research process, step by step.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

23 Comments

Thank you for giving a valuable lesson

good thanks!

VERY INSIGHTFUL

thanks for given very interested understand about both theoritical and conceptual framework

I am researching teacher beliefs about inclusive education but not using a theoretical framework just conceptual frame using teacher beliefs, inclusive education and inclusive practices as my concepts

good, fantastic

great! thanks for the clarification. I am planning to use both for my implementation evaluation of EmONC service at primary health care facility level. its theoretical foundation rooted from the principles of implementation science.

This is a good one…now have a better understanding of Theoretical and Conceptual frameworks. Highly grateful

Very educating and fantastic,good to be part of you guys,I appreciate your enlightened concern.

Thanks for shedding light on these two t opics. Much clearer in my head now.

Simple and clear!

The differences between the two topics was well explained, thank you very much!

Thank you great insight

Superb. Thank you so much.

Hello Gradcoach! I’m excited with your fantastic educational videos which mainly focused on all over research process. I’m a student, I kindly ask and need your support. So, if it’s possible please send me the PDF format of all topic provided here, I put my email below, thank you!

I am really grateful I found this website. This is very helpful for an MPA student like myself.

I’m clear with these two terminologies now. Useful information. I appreciate it. Thank you

I’m well inform about these two concepts in research. Thanks

I found this really helpful. It is well explained. Thank you.

very clear and useful. information important at start of research!!

Wow, great information, clear and concise review of the differences between theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Thank you! keep up the good work.

thank you so much. Educative and realistic.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

The Ultimate Guide to Qualitative Research - Part 1: The Basics

• Introduction and overview
• What is qualitative research?
• What is qualitative data?
• Examples of qualitative data
• Qualitative vs. quantitative research
• Mixed methods
• Qualitative research preparation
• Theoretical perspective
• Theoretical framework
• Literature reviews
• Research question
• Conceptual framework
• Introduction

Revisiting theoretical frameworks

Revisiting conceptual frameworks, differences between conceptual and theoretical frameworks, examples of theoretical and conceptual frameworks, developing frameworks for your study.

• Data collection
• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research
• Case studies
• Ethnographical research
• Ethical considerations
• Confidentiality and privacy
• Power dynamics
• Reflexivity

Conceptual vs. theoretical framework

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks are both essential components of research, guiding and structuring the research. Although they are closely related, the conceptual and theoretical framework in any research project serve distinct purposes and have different characteristics. In this section, we provide an overview of the key differences between theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks are foundational components of any research study. They each play a crucial role in guiding and structuring the research, from the formation of research questions to the interpretation of results .

While both the theoretical and conceptual framework provides a structure for a study, they serve different functions and can impact the research in distinct ways depending on how they are combined. These differences might seem subtle, but they can significantly impact your research design and outcomes, which is why it is important to think through each one of them.

The theoretical framework describes the broader lens through which the researcher views the topic and guides their overall understanding and approach. It connects the theoretical perspective to the data collection and data analysis strategy and offers a structure for organizing and interpreting the collected data.

On the other hand, the conceptual framework describes in detail and connects specific concepts and variables to illustrate potential relationships between them. It serves as a guide for assessing which aspects of the data are relevant and specifying how the research question is being answered. While the theoretical framework outlines how more abstract-level theories shape the study, the conceptual framework operationalizes the empirical observations that can be connected to theory and broader understanding.

Understanding these differences is crucial when designing and conducting your research study. In this chapter, we will look deeper at the distinctions between these types of frameworks, and how they interplay in qualitative research . We aim to provide you with a solid understanding of both, allowing you to effectively utilize them in your own research.

Theoretical frameworks play a central role in research, serving as the bedrock of any investigation. This section offers a refresher on the essential elements and functions of theoretical frameworks in research.

A theoretical framework refers to existing theory, concepts, and definitions that you use to collect relevant data and offer meaningful empirical findings. Providing an overall orientation or lens, it guides your understanding of the research problem and directs your approach to data collection and analysis .

Your chosen theoretical framework directly influences your research questions and methodological choices . It contains specific theories or sets of assumptions drawn from relevant disciplines—such as sociology, psychology, or economics—that you apply to understand your research topic. These existing models and concepts are tools to help you organize and make sense of your data.

The theoretical framework also plays a key role in crafting your research questions and objectives. By determining the theories that are relevant to your research, the theoretical framework shapes the nature and direction of your study. It's essential to note, however, that the theoretical framework's role in qualitative research is not to predict outcomes. Instead, it offers a broader structure to understand and interpret your data, enabling you to situate your findings within the broader academic discourse in a way that makes your research findings meaningful to you and your research audience.

Conceptual frameworks , though related to theoretical frameworks , serve distinct functions within research. This section reexamines the characteristics and functions of conceptual frameworks to provide a better understanding of their roles in qualitative research .

A conceptual framework, in essence, is a system of concepts, assumptions, and beliefs that supports and informs your research. It outlines the specific variables or concepts you'll examine in your study and proposes relationships between them. It's more detailed and specific than a theoretical framework, acting as a contextualized guide for the collection and interpretation of empirical data.

The main role of a conceptual framework is to illustrate the presumed relationships between the variables or concepts you're investigating. These variables or concepts, which you derive from your theoretical framework, are integral to your research questions , objectives, and hypotheses . The conceptual framework shows how you theorize these concepts are related, providing a visual or narrative model of your research.

A study's own conceptual framework plays a vital role in guiding the data collection process and the subsequent analysis . The conceptual framework specifies which data you need to collect and provides a structure for interpreting and making sense of the collected data. For instance, if your conceptual framework identifies a particular variable as impacting another, your data collection and analysis will be geared towards investigating this relationship.

Rigorous research starts with ATLAS.ti

Turn your data into insights easily and efficiently with our intuitive software. Download a free trial of ATLAS.ti.

Though interconnected, theoretical and conceptual frameworks have distinct roles in research and contribute differently to the research. This section will contrast the two in terms of scope, purpose, their role in the research process, and their relationship to the data analysis strategy and research question .

Scope and purpose of theoretical and conceptual frameworks

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks differ fundamentally in their scope. Theoretical frameworks provide a broad and general view of the research problem, rooted in established theories. They explain phenomena by applying a particular theoretical lens. Conceptual frameworks, on the other hand, offer a more focused view of the specific research problem. They explicitly outline the concrete concepts and variables involved in the study and the relationships between them.

While both frameworks guide the research process, they do so in different ways. Theoretical frameworks guide the overall approach to understanding the research problem by indicating the broader conversation the researcher is contributing to and shaping the research questions.

Conceptual frameworks provide a map for the study, guiding the data collection and interpretation process, including what variables or concepts to explore and how to analyze them.

Study design and data analysis

The two types of frameworks relate differently to the research question and design. The theoretical framework often inspires the research question based on previous theories' predictions or understanding about the phenomena under investigation. A conceptual framework then emerges from the research question, providing a contextualized structure for what exactly the research will explore.

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks also play distinct roles in data analysis. Theoretical frameworks provide the lens for interpreting the data, informing what kinds of themes and patterns might be relevant. Conceptual frameworks, however, present the variables concepts and variables and the relationships among them that will be analyzed. Conceptual frameworks may illustrate concepts and relationships based on previous theory, but they can also include novel concepts or relationships that stem from the particular context being studied.

Finally, the two types of frameworks relate differently to the research question and design. The theoretical framework basically differs from the conceptual framework in that it often inspires the research question based on the theories' predictions about the phenomena under investigation. A conceptual framework, on the other hand, emerges from the research question, providing a structure for investigating it.

Using case studies , we can effectively demonstrate the differences between theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Let’s take a look at some real-world examples that highlight the unique role and function of each framework within a research context.

Consider a study exploring the impact of classroom environments on student learning outcomes. The theoretical framework might be grounded in Piaget's theory of cognitive development, which offers a broad lens for understanding how students learn and process information.

Within this theoretical framework, the researcher formulates the conceptual framework. The conceptual framework identifies specific variables to study such as classroom layout, teacher-student ratio, availability of learning materials, and student performance as the dependent variable. It then outlines the expected relationships between these variables, such as proposing that a lower teacher-student ratio and well-equipped classrooms positively impact student performance.

Another study might aim to understand the factors influencing the job satisfaction of employees in a corporate setting. The theoretical framework could be based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, interpreting job satisfaction in terms of fulfilling employees' physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization needs.

From this theoretical perspective, the researcher constructs the conceptual framework, identifying specific variables such as salary (physiological needs), job security (safety needs), teamwork (social needs), recognition (esteem needs), and career development opportunities (self-actualization needs). The conceptual framework proposes relationships among these variables and job satisfaction, such as higher salaries and more recognition being related to higher job satisfaction.

After understanding the unique roles and functions of these types of frameworks, you might ask: How do I develop them for my study? It's essential to remember that it's not a question of choosing one over the other, as both frameworks can and often do coexist within the same research project.

The choice of a theoretical and a conceptual framework often depends on the nature of your research question . If your research question is more exploratory and requires a broad understanding of the problem, a theoretical framework can provide a useful lens for interpretation. However, your conceptual framework may end up looking rather different to previous theory as you collect data and discover new concepts or relationships.

Consider the nature of your research problem as well. If you are studying a well-researched problem and there are established theories about it, using a theoretical framework to interpret your findings in light of these theories might be beneficial. But if your study explores a novel problem or aims to understand specific processes or relationships, developing a conceptual framework that maps these specific elements could prove more effective.

Your research methodology could also inform your choice. If your study is more interpretive and aims to understand people's experiences and perceptions, a theoretical framework can outline broader concepts that are relevant to approaching your study. Your conceptual framework can then shed light on the specific concepts that emerged in your data. By carefully thinking through your theoretical and conceptual frameworks, you can effectively utilize both types of frameworks in your research, ensuring a solid foundation for your study.

Turn data into theory with ATLAS.ti

Use our software for every stage of your research project. Trya free trial of ATLAS.ti today.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is a Theoretical Framework? How to Write It (with Examples) 

Theoretical framework 1,2 is the structure that supports and describes a theory. A theory is a set of interrelated concepts and definitions that present a systematic view of phenomena by describing the relationship among the variables for explaining these phenomena. A theory is developed after a long research process and explains the existence of a research problem in a study. A theoretical framework guides the research process like a roadmap for the research study and helps researchers clearly interpret their findings by providing a structure for organizing data and developing conclusions.   

A theoretical framework in research is an important part of a manuscript and should be presented in the first section. It shows an understanding of the theories and concepts relevant to the research and helps limit the scope of the research.  

Table of Contents

What is a theoretical framework ?  

A theoretical framework in research can be defined as a set of concepts, theories, ideas, and assumptions that help you understand a specific phenomenon or problem. It can be considered a blueprint that is borrowed by researchers to develop their own research inquiry. A theoretical framework in research helps researchers design and conduct their research and analyze and interpret their findings. It explains the relationship between variables, identifies gaps in existing knowledge, and guides the development of research questions, hypotheses, and methodologies to address that gap.  

Now that you know the answer to ‘ What is a theoretical framework? ’, check the following table that lists the different types of theoretical frameworks in research: 3

Developing a theoretical framework in research can help in the following situations: 4

• When conducting research on complex phenomena because a theoretical framework helps organize the research questions, hypotheses, and findings  
• When the research problem requires a deeper understanding of the underlying concepts  
• When conducting research that seeks to address a specific gap in knowledge  
• When conducting research that involves the analysis of existing theories  

Summarizing existing literature for theoretical frameworks is easy. Get our Research Ideation pack  

Importance of a theoretical framework  

The purpose of theoretical framework s is to support you in the following ways during the research process: 2  

• Provide a structure for the complete research process  
• Assist researchers in incorporating formal theories into their study as a guide  
• Provide a broad guideline to maintain the research focus  
• Guide the selection of research methods, data collection, and data analysis  
• Help understand the relationships between different concepts and develop hypotheses and research questions  
• Address gaps in existing literature  
• Analyze the data collected and draw meaningful conclusions and make the findings more generalizable  

Theoretical vs. Conceptual framework  

While a theoretical framework covers the theoretical aspect of your study, that is, the various theories that can guide your research, a conceptual framework defines the variables for your study and presents how they relate to each other. The conceptual framework is developed before collecting the data. However, both frameworks help in understanding the research problem and guide the development, collection, and analysis of the research.  

The following table lists some differences between conceptual and theoretical frameworks . 5

How to write a theoretical framework  

The following general steps can help those wondering how to write a theoretical framework: 2

• Identify and define the key concepts clearly and organize them into a suitable structure.  
• Use appropriate terminology and define all key terms to ensure consistency.  
• Identify the relationships between concepts and provide a logical and coherent structure.  
• Develop hypotheses that can be tested through data collection and analysis.  
• Keep it concise and focused with clear and specific aims.  

Write a theoretical framework 2x faster. Get our Manuscript Writing pack  

Examples of a theoretical framework  

Here are two examples of a theoretical framework. 6,7

Example 1 .   

An insurance company is facing a challenge cross-selling its products. The sales department indicates that most customers have just one policy, although the company offers over 10 unique policies. The company would want its customers to purchase more than one policy since most customers are purchasing policies from other companies.  

Objective : To sell more insurance products to existing customers.  

Problem : Many customers are purchasing additional policies from other companies.  

Research question : How can customer product awareness be improved to increase cross-selling of insurance products?  

Sub-questions: What is the relationship between product awareness and sales? Which factors determine product awareness?  

Since “product awareness” is the main focus in this study, the theoretical framework should analyze this concept and study previous literature on this subject and propose theories that discuss the relationship between product awareness and its improvement in sales of other products.  

Example 2 .

A company is facing a continued decline in its sales and profitability. The main reason for the decline in the profitability is poor services, which have resulted in a high level of dissatisfaction among customers and consequently a decline in customer loyalty. The management is planning to concentrate on clients’ satisfaction and customer loyalty.  

Objective: To provide better service to customers and increase customer loyalty and satisfaction.  

Problem: Continued decrease in sales and profitability.  

Research question: How can customer satisfaction help in increasing sales and profitability?  

Sub-questions: What is the relationship between customer loyalty and sales? Which factors influence the level of satisfaction gained by customers?  

Since customer satisfaction, loyalty, profitability, and sales are the important topics in this example, the theoretical framework should focus on these concepts.  

Benefits of a theoretical framework  

There are several benefits of a theoretical framework in research: 2  

• Provides a structured approach allowing researchers to organize their thoughts in a coherent way.  
• Helps to identify gaps in knowledge highlighting areas where further research is needed.  
• Increases research efficiency by providing a clear direction for research and focusing efforts on relevant data.  
• Improves the quality of research by providing a rigorous and systematic approach to research, which can increase the likelihood of producing valid and reliable results.  
• Provides a basis for comparison by providing a common language and conceptual framework for researchers to compare their findings with other research in the field, facilitating the exchange of ideas and the development of new knowledge.  

Frequently Asked Questions 

Q1. How do I develop a theoretical framework ? 7

A1. The following steps can be used for developing a theoretical framework :  

• Identify the research problem and research questions by clearly defining the problem that the research aims to address and identifying the specific questions that the research aims to answer.
• Review the existing literature to identify the key concepts that have been studied previously. These concepts should be clearly defined and organized into a structure.
• Develop propositions that describe the relationships between the concepts. These propositions should be based on the existing literature and should be testable.
• Develop hypotheses that can be tested through data collection and analysis.
• Test the theoretical framework through data collection and analysis to determine whether the framework is valid and reliable.

Q2. How do I know if I have developed a good theoretical framework or not? 8

A2. The following checklist could help you answer this question:  

• Is my theoretical framework clearly seen as emerging from my literature review?  
• Is it the result of my analysis of the main theories previously studied in my same research field?  
• Does it represent or is it relevant to the most current state of theoretical knowledge on my topic?  
• Does the theoretical framework in research present a logical, coherent, and analytical structure that will support my data analysis?  
• Do the different parts of the theory help analyze the relationships among the variables in my research?  
• Does the theoretical framework target how I will answer my research questions or test the hypotheses?  
• Have I documented every source I have used in developing this theoretical framework ?  
• Is my theoretical framework a model, a table, a figure, or a description?  
• Have I explained why this is the appropriate theoretical framework for my data analysis?  

Q3. Can I use multiple theoretical frameworks in a single study?  

A3. Using multiple theoretical frameworks in a single study is acceptable as long as each theory is clearly defined and related to the study. Each theory should also be discussed individually. This approach may, however, be tedious and effort intensive. Therefore, multiple theoretical frameworks should be used only if absolutely necessary for the study.  

Q4. Is it necessary to include a theoretical framework in every research study?  

A4. The theoretical framework connects researchers to existing knowledge. So, including a theoretical framework would help researchers get a clear idea about the research process and help structure their study effectively by clearly defining an objective, a research problem, and a research question.  

Q5. Can a theoretical framework be developed for qualitative research?  

A5. Yes, a theoretical framework can be developed for qualitative research. However, qualitative research methods may or may not involve a theory developed beforehand. In these studies, a theoretical framework can guide the study and help develop a theory during the data analysis phase. This resulting framework uses inductive reasoning. The outcome of this inductive approach can be referred to as an emergent theoretical framework . This method helps researchers develop a theory inductively, which explains a phenomenon without a guiding framework at the outset.  

Q6. What is the main difference between a literature review and a theoretical framework ?  

A6. A literature review explores already existing studies about a specific topic in order to highlight a gap, which becomes the focus of the current research study. A theoretical framework can be considered the next step in the process, in which the researcher plans a specific conceptual and analytical approach to address the identified gap in the research.  

Theoretical frameworks are thus important components of the research process and researchers should therefore devote ample amount of time to develop a solid theoretical framework so that it can effectively guide their research in a suitable direction. We hope this article has provided a good insight into the concept of theoretical frameworks in research and their benefits.  

References  

• Organizing academic research papers: Theoretical framework. Sacred Heart University library. Accessed August 4, 2023. https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803&p=185919#:~:text=The%20theoretical%20framework%20is%20the,research%20problem%20under%20study%20exists .  
• Salomao A. Understanding what is theoretical framework. Mind the Graph website. Accessed August 5, 2023. https://mindthegraph.com/blog/what-is-theoretical-framework/  
• Theoretical framework—Types, examples, and writing guide. Research Method website. Accessed August 6, 2023. https://researchmethod.net/theoretical-framework/  
• Grant C., Osanloo A. Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.” Administrative Issues Journal : Connecting Education, Practice, and Research; 4(2):12-26. 2014. Accessed August 7, 2023. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1058505.pdf  
• Difference between conceptual framework and theoretical framework. MIM Learnovate website. Accessed August 7, 2023. https://mimlearnovate.com/difference-between-conceptual-framework-and-theoretical-framework/  
• Example of a theoretical framework—Thesis & dissertation. BacherlorPrint website. Accessed August 6, 2023. https://www.bachelorprint.com/dissertation/example-of-a-theoretical-framework/  
• Sample theoretical framework in dissertation and thesis—Overview and example. Students assignment help website. Accessed August 6, 2023. https://www.studentsassignmenthelp.co.uk/blogs/sample-dissertation-theoretical-framework/#Example_of_the_theoretical_framework  
• Kivunja C. Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework: A systematic review of lessons from the field. Accessed August 8, 2023. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1198682.pdf  

Editage All Access is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Editage All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 22+ years of experience in academia, Editage All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $14 a month !    

Related Posts

What is IMRaD Format in Research?

What is a Review Article? How to Write it?

Research Process Guide

• Step 1 - Identifying and Developing a Topic
• Step 2 - Narrowing Your Topic
• Step 3 - Developing Research Questions
• Step 4 - Conducting a Literature Review
• Step 5 - Choosing a Conceptual or Theoretical Framework
• Step 6 - Determining Research Methodology
• Step 6a - Determining Research Methodology - Quantitative Research Methods
• Step 6b - Determining Research Methodology - Qualitative Design
• Step 7 - Considering Ethical Issues in Research with Human Subjects - Institutional Review Board (IRB)
• Step 8 - Collecting Data
• Step 9 - Analyzing Data
• Step 10 - Interpreting Results
• Step 11 - Writing Up Results

Step 5: Choosing a Conceptual or Theoretical Framework

For all empirical research, you must choose a conceptual or theoretical framework to “frame” or “ground” your study. Theoretical and/or conceptual frameworks are often difficult to understand and challenging to choose which is the right one (s) for your research objective (Hatch, 2002). Truthfully, it is difficult to get a real understanding of what these frameworks are and how you are supposed to find what works for your study. The discussion of your framework is addressed in your Chapter 1, the introduction and then is further explored through in-depth discussion in your Chapter 2 literature review.

“Theory is supposed to help researchers of any persuasion clarify what they are up to and to help them to explain to others what they are up to” (Walcott, 1995, p. 189, as cited in Fallon, 2016). It is important to discuss in the beginning to help researchers “clarify what they are up to” and important at the writing stage to “help explain to others what they are up to” (Fallon, 2016).  

What is the difference between the conceptual and the theoretical framework?

Often, the terms theoretical framework and conceptual framework are used interchangeably, which, in this author’s opinion, makes an already difficult to understand idea even more confusing. According to Imenda (2014) and Mensah et al. (2020), there is a very distinct difference between conceptual and theoretical frameworks, not only how they are defined but also, how and when they are used in empirical research.

Imenda (2014) contends that the framework “is the soul of every research project” (p.185). Essentially, it determines how the researcher formulates the research problem, goes about investigating the problem, and what meaning or significance the research lends to the data collected and analyzed investigating the problem.  

Very generally, you would use a theoretical framework if you were conducting deductive research as you test a theory or theories. “A theoretical framework comprises the theories expressed by experts in the field into which you plan to research, which you draw upon to provide a theoretical coat hanger for your data analysis and interpretation of results” (Kivunja, 2018, p.45 ).  Often this framework is based on established theories like, the Set Theory, evolution, the theory of matter or similar pre-existing generalizations like Newton’s law of motion (Imenda, 2014). A good theoretical framework should be linked to, and possibly emerge from your literature review.

Using a theoretical framework allows you to (Kivunja, 2018):

• Increase the credibility and validity of your research
• Interpret meaning found in data collection
• Evaluate solutions for solving your research problem

According to Mensah et al.(2020) the theoretical framework for your research is not a summary of your own thoughts about your research. Rather, it is a compilation of the thoughts of giants in your field, as they relate to your proposed research, as you understand those theories, and how you will use those theories to understand the data collected.

Additionally, Jabareen (2009) defines a conceptual framework as interlinked concepts that together provide a comprehensive  understanding of a phenomenon. “A conceptual framework is the total, logical orientation and associations of anything and everything that forms the underlying thinking, structures, plans and practices and implementation of your entire research project” (Kivunja, 2018, p. 45). You would largely use a conceptual framework when conducting inductive research, as it helps the researcher answer questions that are core to qualitative research, such as the nature of reality, the way things are and how things really work in a real world (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

Some consideration of the following questions can help define your conceptual framework (Kinvunja, 2018):

• What do you want to do in your research? And why do you want to do it?
• How do you plan to do it?
• What meaning will you make of the data?
• Which worldview will you situate your study in? (i.e. Positivist? Interpretist? Constructivist?)

Examples of conceptual frameworks include the definitions a sociologist uses to describe a culture and the types of data an economist considers when evaluating a country’s industry. The conceptual framework consists of the ideas that are used to define research and evaluate data. Conceptual frameworks are often laid out at the beginning of a paper or an experiment description for a reader to understand the methods used (Mensah et al., 2020).

Writing it up

After choosing your framework is to articulate the theory or concept that grounds your study by defining it and demonstrating the rationale for this particular set of theories or concepts guiding your inquiry.  Write up your theoretical perspective sections for your research plan following your choice of worldview/ research paradigm. For a quantitative study you are particularly interested in theory using the procedures for a causal analysis. For qualitative research, you should locate qualitative journal articles that use a priori theory (knowledge that is acquired not through experience) that is modified during the process of research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Also, you should generate or develop a theory at the end of your study. For a mixed methods study which uses a transformative (critical theoretical lens) identify how the lens specifically shapes the research process.                                   

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2 018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.

Fallon, M. (2016). Writing up quantitative research in the social and behavioral sciences. Sense. https://kean.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,url,cpid&custid=keaninf&db=nlebk&AN=1288374&site=ehost-live&scope=site&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_C1

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2 (163-194), 105.

Hatch, J. A. ( 2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. SUNY Press.

Imenda, S. (2014). Is there a conceptual difference between theoretical and conceptual frameworks?  Journal of Social Sciences, 38 (2), 185-195.

Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8 (4), 49-62.

Kivunja, C. ( 2018, December 3). Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework. The International Journal of Higher Education, 7 (6), 44-53. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1198682.pdf  

Mensah, R. O., Agyemang, F., Acquah, A., Babah, P. A., & Dontoh, J. (2020). Discourses on conceptual and theoretical frameworks in research: Meaning and implications for researchers. Journal of African Interdisciplinary Studies, 4 (5), 53-64.

• Last Updated: Jun 29, 2023 1:35 PM
• URL: https://libguides.kean.edu/ResearchProcessGuide

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between a conceptual framework and a theoretical framework.

While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work based on existing research, a conceptual framework allows you to draw your own conclusions, mapping out the variables you may use in your study and the interplay between them.

Frequently asked questions: Dissertation

Dissertation word counts vary widely across different fields, institutions, and levels of education:

• An undergraduate dissertation is typically 8,000–15,000 words
• A master’s dissertation is typically 12,000–50,000 words
• A PhD thesis is typically book-length: 70,000–100,000 words

However, none of these are strict guidelines – your word count may be lower or higher than the numbers stated here. Always check the guidelines provided by your university to determine how long your own dissertation should be.

A dissertation prospectus or proposal describes what or who you plan to research for your dissertation. It delves into why, when, where, and how you will do your research, as well as helps you choose a type of research to pursue. You should also determine whether you plan to pursue qualitative or quantitative methods and what your research design will look like.

It should outline all of the decisions you have taken about your project, from your dissertation topic to your hypotheses and research objectives , ready to be approved by your supervisor or committee.

Note that some departments require a defense component, where you present your prospectus to your committee orally.

A thesis is typically written by students finishing up a bachelor’s or Master’s degree. Some educational institutions, particularly in the liberal arts, have mandatory theses, but they are often not mandatory to graduate from bachelor’s degrees. It is more common for a thesis to be a graduation requirement from a Master’s degree.

Even if not mandatory, you may want to consider writing a thesis if you:

• Plan to attend graduate school soon
• Have a particular topic you’d like to study more in-depth
• Are considering a career in research
• Would like a capstone experience to tie up your academic experience

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation should include the following:

• A restatement of your research question
• A summary of your key arguments and/or results
• A short discussion of the implications of your research

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation shouldn’t take up more than 5–7% of your overall word count.

For a stronger dissertation conclusion , avoid including:

• Important evidence or analysis that wasn’t mentioned in the discussion section and results section
• Generic concluding phrases (e.g. “In conclusion …”)
• Weak statements that undermine your argument (e.g., “There are good points on both sides of this issue.”)

Your conclusion should leave the reader with a strong, decisive impression of your work.

While it may be tempting to present new arguments or evidence in your thesis or disseration conclusion , especially if you have a particularly striking argument you’d like to finish your analysis with, you shouldn’t. Theses and dissertations follow a more formal structure than this.

All your findings and arguments should be presented in the body of the text (more specifically in the discussion section and results section .) The conclusion is meant to summarize and reflect on the evidence and arguments you have already presented, not introduce new ones.

A theoretical framework can sometimes be integrated into a  literature review chapter , but it can also be included as its own chapter or section in your dissertation . As a rule of thumb, if your research involves dealing with a lot of complex theories, it’s a good idea to include a separate theoretical framework chapter.

A literature review and a theoretical framework are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work, a literature review critically evaluates existing research relating to your topic. You’ll likely need both in your dissertation .

A thesis or dissertation outline is one of the most critical first steps in your writing process. It helps you to lay out and organize your ideas and can provide you with a roadmap for deciding what kind of research you’d like to undertake.

Generally, an outline contains information on the different sections included in your thesis or dissertation , such as:

• Your anticipated title
• Your abstract
• Your chapters (sometimes subdivided into further topics like literature review , research methods , avenues for future research, etc.)

When you mention different chapters within your text, it’s considered best to use Roman numerals for most citation styles. However, the most important thing here is to remain consistent whenever using numbers in your dissertation .

In most styles, the title page is used purely to provide information and doesn’t include any images. Ask your supervisor if you are allowed to include an image on the title page before doing so. If you do decide to include one, make sure to check whether you need permission from the creator of the image.

Include a note directly beneath the image acknowledging where it comes from, beginning with the word “ Note .” (italicized and followed by a period). Include a citation and copyright attribution . Don’t title, number, or label the image as a figure , since it doesn’t appear in your main text.

Definitional terms often fall into the category of common knowledge , meaning that they don’t necessarily have to be cited. This guidance can apply to your thesis or dissertation glossary as well.

However, if you’d prefer to cite your sources , you can follow guidance for citing dictionary entries in MLA or APA style for your glossary.

A glossary is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. In contrast, an index is a list of the contents of your work organized by page number.

The title page of your thesis or dissertation goes first, before all other content or lists that you may choose to include.

The title page of your thesis or dissertation should include your name, department, institution, degree program, and submission date.

Glossaries are not mandatory, but if you use a lot of technical or field-specific terms, it may improve readability to add one to your thesis or dissertation. Your educational institution may also require them, so be sure to check their specific guidelines.

A glossary or “glossary of terms” is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. Your glossary only needs to include terms that your reader may not be familiar with, and is intended to enhance their understanding of your work.

A glossary is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. In contrast, dictionaries are more general collections of words.

An abbreviation is a shortened version of an existing word, such as Dr. for Doctor. In contrast, an acronym uses the first letter of each word to create a wholly new word, such as UNESCO (an acronym for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).

As a rule of thumb, write the explanation in full the first time you use an acronym or abbreviation. You can then proceed with the shortened version. However, if the abbreviation is very common (like PC, USA, or DNA), then you can use the abbreviated version from the get-go.

Be sure to add each abbreviation in your list of abbreviations !

If you only used a few abbreviations in your thesis or dissertation , you don’t necessarily need to include a list of abbreviations .

If your abbreviations are numerous, or if you think they won’t be known to your audience, it’s never a bad idea to add one. They can also improve readability, minimizing confusion about abbreviations unfamiliar to your reader.

A list of abbreviations is a list of all the abbreviations that you used in your thesis or dissertation. It should appear at the beginning of your document, with items in alphabetical order, just after your table of contents .

Your list of tables and figures should go directly after your table of contents in your thesis or dissertation.

Lists of figures and tables are often not required, and aren’t particularly common. They specifically aren’t required for APA-Style, though you should be careful to follow their other guidelines for figures and tables .

If you have many figures and tables in your thesis or dissertation, include one may help you stay organized. Your educational institution may require them, so be sure to check their guidelines.

A list of figures and tables compiles all of the figures and tables that you used in your thesis or dissertation and displays them with the page number where they can be found.

The table of contents in a thesis or dissertation always goes between your abstract and your introduction .

You may acknowledge God in your dissertation acknowledgements , but be sure to follow academic convention by also thanking the members of academia, as well as family, colleagues, and friends who helped you.

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

In the discussion , you explore the meaning and relevance of your research results , explaining how they fit with existing research and theory. Discuss:

• Your  interpretations : what do the results tell us?
• The  implications : why do the results matter?
• The  limitation s : what can’t the results tell us?

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

Results are usually written in the past tense , because they are describing the outcome of completed actions.

The results chapter of a thesis or dissertation presents your research results concisely and objectively.

In quantitative research , for each question or hypothesis , state:

• The type of analysis used
• Relevant results in the form of descriptive and inferential statistics
• Whether or not the alternative hypothesis was supported

In qualitative research , for each question or theme, describe:

• Recurring patterns
• Significant or representative individual responses
• Relevant quotations from the data

Don’t interpret or speculate in the results chapter.

To automatically insert a table of contents in Microsoft Word, follow these steps:

• Apply heading styles throughout the document.
• In the references section in the ribbon, locate the Table of Contents group.
• Click the arrow next to the Table of Contents icon and select Custom Table of Contents.
• Select which levels of headings you would like to include in the table of contents.

Make sure to update your table of contents if you move text or change headings. To update, simply right click and select Update Field.

All level 1 and 2 headings should be included in your table of contents . That means the titles of your chapters and the main sections within them.

The contents should also include all appendices and the lists of tables and figures, if applicable, as well as your reference list .

Do not include the acknowledgements or abstract in the table of contents.

The abstract appears on its own page in the thesis or dissertation , after the title page and acknowledgements but before the table of contents .

An abstract for a thesis or dissertation is usually around 200–300 words. There’s often a strict word limit, so make sure to check your university’s requirements.

In a thesis or dissertation, the acknowledgements should usually be no longer than one page. There is no minimum length.

The acknowledgements are generally included at the very beginning of your thesis , directly after the title page and before the abstract .

Yes, it’s important to thank your supervisor(s) in the acknowledgements section of your thesis or dissertation .

Even if you feel your supervisor did not contribute greatly to the final product, you must acknowledge them, if only for a very brief thank you. If you do not include your supervisor, it may be seen as a snub.

In the acknowledgements of your thesis or dissertation, you should first thank those who helped you academically or professionally, such as your supervisor, funders, and other academics.

Then you can include personal thanks to friends, family members, or anyone else who supported you during the process.

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

• Subscribe to journal Subscribe
• Get new issue alerts Get alerts

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

The Distinctions Between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual Framework

Varpio, Lara PhD; Paradis, Elise PhD; Uijtdehaage, Sebastian PhD; Young, Meredith PhD

L. Varpio is professor and associate director of research, Graduate Programs in Health Professions Education in the Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1412-4341 .

E. Paradis is assistant professor, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, scientist, Wilson Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and researcher, Facebook, Menlo Park, California; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9103-4721 .

S. Uijtdehaage is professor and associate director, Graduate Programs in Health Professions Education, Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8598-4683 .

M. Young is associate professor, Institute of Health Sciences Education, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2036-2119 .

Editor’s Note: This article is part of a collection of Invited Commentaries exploring the Philosophy of Science.

Funding/Support: None reported.

Other disclosures: None reported.

Ethical approval: Reported as not applicable.

Disclaimers: The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the United States Department of Defense, or other federal agencies.

Correspondence should be addressed to Lara Varpio, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge Rd., Bethesda, MD 20814; email: [email protected] ; Twitter: @LaraVarpio.

Written work prepared by employees of the Federal Government as part of their official duties is, under the U.S. Copyright Act, a “work of the United States Government” for which copyright protection under Title 17 of the United States Code is not available. As such, copyright does not extend to the contributions of employees of the Federal Government.

Health professions education (HPE) researchers are regularly asked to articulate their use of theory, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks in their research. However, all too often, these words are used interchangeably or without a clear understanding of the differences between these concepts. Further problematizing this situation is the fact that theory , theoretical framework , and conceptual framework are terms that are used in different ways in different research approaches. In this article, the authors set out to clarify the meaning of these terms and to describe how they are used in 2 approaches to research commonly used in HPE: the objectivist deductive approach (from theory to data) and the subjectivist inductive approach (from data to theory). In addition to this, given that within subjectivist inductive research theory , theoretical framework , and conceptual framework can be used in different ways, they describe 3 uses that HPE researchers frequently rely on: fully inductive theory development , fully theory-informed inductive , and theory-informing inductive data analysis.

Researchers working in health professions education (HPE) are often advised to address one, some, or all of the following concepts: theory , theoretical framework , and conceptual framework . For instance, HPE scholars are advised to integrate theory into research. 1–5 Granting bodies ask that a project’s theoretical framework be articulated in funding requests. 6 Review criteria for research reports prompt reviewers to assess whether the study’s conceptual framework is explicitly described and justified. 7 Meeting these mandates requires HPE community members to know the answers to some foundational questions: What is theory ? How is a theory distinct from a theoretical framework ? Does the term conceptual framework refer to something altogether different from a theory or theoretical framework ? Unfortunately, clear answers to these questions are not readily available. After searching the literature, we were disappointed to realize that few publications explicitly answer these questions. Furthermore, those publications that do provide answers rarely pay attention to how definitions can differ across the variety of research approaches represented within HPE scholarship. If HPE scholars are to effectively work with theory , theoretical frameworks , and conceptual frameworks , we need to clarify these terms.

HPE is a vibrant multidisciplinary and paradigmatically eclectic domain where scholars bring their varied disciplinary traditions and vocabularies to the research endeavor. 8–10 Since the terms theory , theoretical framework , and conceptual framework can have different interpretations and applications across paradigms, our eclecticism sometimes finds HPE scholars working at cross-purposes. Indeed, a lack of appreciation of the differences between these terms can have detrimental consequences. Without clarity, we risk falsely assuming shared interpretations and applications of these terms. We risk naively labeling some research designs as faulty, poorly executed, or lacking in rigor, when in fact those designs are employing different paradigmatically informed interpretations of these terms. We also risk impeding our collective efforts to build on the knowledge generated across paradigms. In other words, without clarity, we risk doing consequential harm to our own field. Therefore, in this paper, we set out to clarify the differences and relationships between the terms theory , theoretical framework , and conceptual framework.

There are many ways to articulate these different understandings. For instance, we could offer a historical description of how each term’s definition and application evolved over time; however, this could falsely imply that the more modern descriptions should replace older interpretations. Alternatively, we could frame our descriptions across the qualitative/quantitative divide; however, this dichotomy describes only the type of data being collected rather than usefully informing when and how to use a theory , a theoretical framework , or a conceptual framework . To avoid these and other pitfalls, we constructed a way of describing these terms that highlights the similarities across paradigms but that also respects important paradigmatic differences. We structure this article around 2 approaches to research commonly used in HPE: the objectivist deductive approach and the subjectivist inductive approach. While research exists across a continuum from inductive to deductive, and from subjective to objective, offering descriptions across these continua is beyond the scope of this article. Therefore, we adopt archetypal stances for each approach to make our descriptions more accessible. First, we define the terms theory , theoretical framework , and conceptual framework . Then, we describe how objectivist deductive researchers and subjectivist inductive researchers engage with these terms.

Defining the Terms

In both objectivist deductive and subjectivist inductive research, the term theory holds largely the same meaning. A theory is a set of propositions that are logically related, expressing the relation(s) among several different constructs and propositions. 11 In other words, a theory is an abstract description of the relationships between concepts that help us to understand the world. A theory can be supported by preliminary data or by a vast body of research—the more data supporting the theory, the stronger it becomes.

Theories can be descriptive (i.e., naming and characterizing a phenomenon), explanatory (i.e., clarifying the relationships between phenomena), emancipatory (i.e., articulating the oppression of a people), disruptive (i.e., extending existing knowledge or refuting it), or predictive (i.e., predicting an outcome based on specific inputs). Theories can also have different levels of explanatory power. There are grand theories that are highly abstract and that tend to be concerned with broad natural or social patterns (e.g., Marxist theories of society), middle-range theories that address more specific aspects of human interactions (e.g., actor–network theory), and microtheories that focus on individual-level phenomena (e.g., symbolic interactionism).

There are often multiple theories that inform our understanding of a single phenomenon. For example, there are many theories of human agency (i.e., agency can be defined as the extent to which individuals are able to exert control in their personal and social lives). These theories offer abstract conceptualizations of whether a person has agency, how that agency exists, how it is supported and/or obstructed, and how an individual’s agency exists in a larger social context (e.g., in a team, an organization, or a society). As Varpio et al 12 point out, theorists such as Giddens, Bourdieu, Butler, McNay, and Bandura have all addressed different aspects of agency, each offering different insights into the phenomenon. As this example illustrates, many scholars offer competing theories explaining phenomena. Therefore, HPE researchers must read broadly to select the theory that can best inform their research into a particular phenomenon.

Theoretical framework

A theoretical framework is a logically developed and connected set of concepts and premises—developed from one or more theories—that a researcher creates to scaffold a study. * To create a theoretical framework, the researcher must define any concepts and theories that will provide the grounding of the research, unite them through logical connections, and relate these concepts to the study that is being carried out. 13 In short, a theoretical framework is a reflection of the work the researcher engages in to use a theory in a given study.

Conceptual framework

A conceptual framework is the justification for why a given study should be conducted. The conceptual framework (1) describes the state of known knowledge, usually through a literature review; (2) identifies gaps in our understanding of a phenomenon or problem; and (3) outlines the methodological underpinnings of the research project. It is constructed 14 to answer 2 questions: “Why is this research important?” and “What contributions might these findings make to what is already known?”

How Objectivist Deductive and Subjectivist Inductive Research Approaches Apply These Concepts

While the terms theory , theoretical framework , and conceptual framework share common meanings across different research approaches, the ways in which they are applied vary greatly between objectivist deductive and subjectivist inductive approaches. We developed Figure 1 to illustrate key distinctions and relationships across these terms and their applications.

The objectivist deductive approach to research

Deductive research involves going from general, abstract conceptualizations to observable and measurable data within a specific context. It is a top-down approach. From abstract conceptualizations, a hypothesis is derived and tested. Findings may falsify, support, refine, challenge, or extend the conceptualizations. Paradigms that often use an objectivist deductive approach include positivism 15 and postpositivism. 16

Objectivist deductive research rests on the assumptions that (1) there is an external reality (i.e., a real world that exists independent of the researcher) and (2) reality can be understood by collecting objective, unbiased data about that reality. Research in this approach builds knowledge by developing increasingly better understandings of, and insights into, the causal workings of the world. † One of the most common approaches to objectivist deductive work is the use of experiments—whether in a lab, in a classroom, or naturalistic. Research questions in this approach tend to focus on testing underlying assumptions about how something works by testing a cause-and-effect relationship underpinning a phenomenon.

How objectivist deductive researchers use theory.

When a researcher engages in objectivist deductive research, a theory is generally the starting point for the research project. The theory offers testable components including, for example: the cause-and-effect relationships that can be examined, the concepts that should be operationalized, and the variables that are relevant to control. These testable components are used to generate specific hypotheses which are the foundation for a study. In this approach, a central assumption is that the theory is part of the object of research. In other words, the hypothesis being tested is an aspect of the theory of interest. Thus, the study is simultaneously testing a hypothesis derived from theory and the accompanying theory underlying that hypothesis.

There are 2 key characteristics of theory shared by all research conducted from an objectivist deductive approach: a theory must (1) be testable and (2) be open to being falsified. A good theory, in this approach, typically builds on previous work. A study adds new knowledge by adding another building block of evidence to support, refine, or challenge a theory. This approach to research builds knowledge slowly—incremental studies in programs of theory-oriented work construct ever more refined understandings of phenomena, which allow for better future predictions and/or a more robust theory.

In a purely objectivist deductive approach, a researcher would rarely combine multiple theories in a single study. Starting with multiple theories makes the creation of a single, theory-informed hypothesis difficult. The combination of theories makes it hard to identify the specific causal nature of the relationship under study and would break the chain of inferences available from the progressive testing and refinement of a theory. In an objectivist deductive approach, there is a linear progression that needs to be followed: from theory, to hypothesis development, to data collection, to interpretation of findings, to the refinement of theory or the generation of new causal explanations. The revised or new theory developed through research can become the start of a new study.

How objectivist deductive researchers use a theoretical framework.

The objectivist deductive researcher begins by identifying the theory from which to build the study’s theoretical framework. The researcher puts the theory into action as a theoretical framework by: articulating why the current context is a legitimate area of study for a given theory, shaping the constructs of interest, articulating the specific language and assumptions of the research question, identifying the variables and conditions of interest, and orienting the approach to analysis. This is the work the theoretical framework presents to readers to render a theory operational, testable, and able to be used to predict, test a hypothesis, or explain a phenomenon.

In the objectivist deductive tradition, a theoretical framework is typically constructed before data collection and is fixed—meaning that a theoretical framework is written before the study beings and remains largely unchanged throughout the research process. After choosing a theory, the researcher can construct the theoretical framework that turns the theory into the object of study. Thanks to this work, the study is well positioned to advance knowledge because it puts the theory to the test and unites findings across research contexts. Not surprisingly, then, peer reviewers of objectivist deductive research look for a theoretical framework to be made explicit because the framework shapes the design of the study and describes how the current research joins a lineage of inquiry done using the same theory.

How objectivist deductive researchers use a conceptual framework.

In objectivist deductive research, a conceptual framework typically includes a description of relevant literature, a summary of the relevant theory, an explanation of why this theory could be informative to this context, a specific research question that likely contains a hypothesis, a rationale for the research methodology adopted, and a series of outcomes or variables of interest. A conceptual framework is finalized before the study and is rarely modified once data collection has started.

The subjectivist inductive approach to research

Inductive research involves going from specific data relating to a particular phenomenon to a general or abstract conceptualization of the phenomenon. It is a bottom-up approach (i.e., working from data up to abstract conceptualizations). Subjectivist inductive research does not begin with a hypothesis; instead, this research begins with a desire to understand or explain a particular phenomenon. The researcher collects data of and/or about this phenomenon and searches for patterns across the data to generate an understanding of the phenomenon. Paradigms that often use the subjectivist inductive approach include constructionism 17 and critical theory. 18

Subjectivist inductive research rests on the assumptions that (1) reality is socially and experientially constructed (i.e., reality is an unsteady social construction that exists not because there is a natural, external reality but because individuals and social groups share interpretations and understandings of reality) and (2) to understand these realities, researchers need to explore the meanings constructed by individuals and groups. This means that knowledge is subjective—one person’s understanding of a phenomenon may not be the same as another person’s understanding. By collecting data from a multitude of perspectives, we can gain a richer and more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon. A common approach to subjectivist inductive research involves exploring a phenomenon in a specific context, often via interviews, focus groups, and/or observations. Researchers actively and subjectively construct research findings in collaboration with study participants. ‡ Research questions in this approach explore phenomena or assumptions to increase our understanding of them.

How subjectivist inductive researchers use theory.

In the subjectivist inductive approach, theory not only exists as an abstract description that researchers read and debate, but it can also reside within the researcher as a cognitive frame that shapes his or her thinking and research design choices. In this approach, theory is not stable. It is constantly evolving, informed by researchers’ experience, values, and perceptions. Furthermore, the subjectivist inductive researcher can engage with a single theory or with several theories in a single study or across a program of research.

There are 3 main ways that theory is used by subjectivist inductive researchers. 19 First, theory can be the product of research. Some subjectivist inductive research—notably researchers working in Glaser and Strauss’s grounded theory tradition 20 —generates theory from the data. Thus, theory is not used to inform study design but is the major output of the research project and evolves out of a systematic inductive approach to data analysis. This approach represents the most fully inductive approach to subjectivist inductive research. We label this the fully inductive theory development study design.

Second, one or more theories can inform the entire research process. Here, theory shapes every stage of the research process, including the development of a research question, methodological choices, data collection, data analysis, and study conclusions. 21–23 The theories informing research are articulated at the outset of the investigation, and all parts of the study design are justified in relation to how they align with the theories. In other words, theory is an all-informing conceptualization that permeates all facets of the study. 24 In this approach, the refinement of these existing theories or the development of a new theory may be a major output of the research project. We call this the fully theory-informed inductive study design.

Third, theory can be an interpretive tool. For some researchers, the decision as to which theory or theories will inform the final interpretations of the data is a choice that can only be finalized during the data collection and analysis cycles. The researcher holds many theories in mind when designing the study and engaging in data collection. It is not until data analysis processes are underway that the researcher will determine which theory or theories should shape the final study interpretations and conclusions. Consequently, the researcher may have to modify the study design partway through data analysis when he or she realizes that a particular theory is relevant. For instance, if during early cycles of data collection and analysis the researcher realizes that a particular theory can help elucidate the data, later cycles of data collection and analysis might seek to specifically consider data that will confirm, refute, or offer new insights into the theory. This is not a study design flaw. Instead, it is the result of deep exploration of data that reveals a particular theory to be relevant to the study findings. Here again, development and refinement of theory can come as the end result of the research. We label this the theory-informing inductive data analysis study design.

These 3 ways of engaging with theory are all equally valid. To be rigorous, however, researchers must make an early, explicit decision as to when and how they will use theory in their research. Often, revisions to the theory will be part of the contributions made to knowledge by the research project. Indeed, theoretical contributions are highly valued in inductive research; developing a new theory or challenging, adding to, or refining a preexisting theory is met with high regard.

How subjectivist inductive researchers use a theoretical framework.

To create a theoretical framework, the subjectivist inductive researcher must first decide which of the 3 study designs described above he or she will be using (i.e., fully inductive theory development , fully theory-informed inductive , or theory-informing inductive data analysis ). This decision will guide the development of the theoretical framework, including practical decisions of research design (e.g., the design of interview or focus group questions, study participant selection, the sensitizing concepts [if applicable]).

If using a fully inductive theory development study design, theory will not shape the study design. There is no theoretical framework to develop because there is no theory to build into the structure of the research. Instead, the study will depend on a robustly developed conceptual framework (see below).

If using a fully theory-informed inductive study design, the researcher must decide which theory or theories will be used as the lens and then transform the theory into a framework that explains how theory shapes the research questions, the way the research context is approached, the concepts that underpin the study design, the choice of methodology, the data collection, the interactions with study participants, the analysis processes, and the conclusions drawn. If more than one theory is used, the researcher must also describe how the theories inform each other and how they inform all aspects of the study. This is the work the researcher engages in to demonstrate how theory informs all aspects of the study design. In this design, the researcher develops the theoretical framework before the study is carried out; however, the theoretical framework can be adjusted during the research processes in response to the insights and understandings being developed. For instance, many research questions asked in this study design are broad and open ended (e.g., in a study using sociomateriality theory, a researcher might ask, What is a resident’s experience of interprofessional collaboration in clinical learning environments? ). But as the study develops and insights are generated, the research question might need to be modified to better align with the data that the participants and researcher are cocreating (e.g., realizing that the electronic health record has significant impact on team interactions, the research question might change to ask, What is a resident’s experience of interprofessional collaboration in clinical learning environments as it is negotiated through patients’ electronic health records? ).

If using a theory-informing inductive data analysis study design, the researcher will wait until data analysis is underway to decide which theory or theories can be used to inform data interpretations. The theoretical framework of the study is, therefore, developed during the data analysis processes (which may include cycles of data collection and analysis). When the theory is selected, that choice may impact several aspects of the study. 25 While the theory is selected only when some (or possibly all) data are in hand, the framework can describe how theory shapes the way the research context is approached, the concepts that underpin the evolving study design, the choice of methodology, the data collection, the interactions with study participants, the analysis processes, and the conclusions drawn (e.g., the theory chosen to inform a study using interviews to explore residents’ perception of interprofessional collaboration might highlight the importance of group processes, therefore requiring additional data collection via focus groups to explore group interactions). Not all aspects of the study are shaped by theory in the theory-informing inductive data analysis study design. Instead, only some aspects of the study design are informed by theory. In this design, the theoretical framework offers a description of which elements of the study are theory informed and how they are informed. The researcher thus has to work to translate insights from theory into specific contributions to elements of the theoretical framework and of the research design.

How subjectivist inductive researchers use a conceptual framework.

In a subjectivist inductive approach, the conceptual framework will likely need to evolve during a study as new ideas, insights, and knowledge are developed. As a result, a researcher will often construct a tentative conceptual framework at the beginning of the study, knowing that it will likely need to be adjusted as data transform the researcher’s understanding of the phenomenon. That framework will include a description of relevant literature, a summary of relevant theory (if using fully theory-informed inductive or theory-informing inductive data analysis study designs), an explanation of why the research should be carried out in the selected context, research question(s), and justification for the research methodology selected.

Our descriptions of theory , theoretical framework , and conceptual framework are simplified. To craft these descriptions, we had to wrestle with the foundational elements of research. Despite this effort, the result remains incomplete, undernuanced, and full of compromises. Indeed, descriptions of the use of theory , theoretical frameworks , and conceptual frameworks are usually written in book—rather than article—form, and we consequently needed to abbreviate and distill philosophical arguments at every turn. We explored the similarities and differences across objectivist deductive approaches and subjectivist inductive approaches. Our descriptions of objectivist deductive and subjectivist inductive approaches are not tied to specific paradigms. Instead, these research approaches can be used across paradigms. 26 Our descriptions should act as guideposts for when and how to engage with theory , theoretical frameworks , and conceptual frameworks . The real work of research is negotiating across these terms when we put them into action in our projects.

In this article, we highlight the transformative work that is needed for a theory to appropriately and meaningfully influence research studies that will help deepen our understanding of problems, contexts, and even the theories themselves important to HPE. But, to do this, we need to have a common understanding of the language we use and an appreciation of the different ways these terms can be applied. This language can help us better report the in-depth analytical work involved in research—a theoretical frame work articulates the logic of why we are using a particular theory; a conceptual frame work justifies why this problem/context/phenomenon is relevant to the field. These frameworks represent one of the most challenging aspects of research—turning a hunch, an observation, or a meandering thought into a logical, evidence-informed, theory-refining, impactful, and meaningful argument suitable for peer review and publication.

* For studies that seek to develop theory, these concepts and premises may be taken from a theoretical tradition.

† This is a general description of the objectivist epistemology. It is more nuanced when it is used in individual research paradigms. For example, positivists embrace a radical objectivist epistemology, 15 while postpositivists embrace a relative objectivist epistemology. 16

‡ This is a general description of the subjectivist epistemology. Is it more nuanced when it is used in a specific paradigm. For instance, critical theory embraces a relative subjectivist epistemology, 18 while constructionists adhere to a radical subjectivist epistemology. 17

• Cited Here |
• Google Scholar
• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

Readers Of this Article Also Read

Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations, the positivism paradigm of research, conceptual frameworks to guide research and development (r&d) in health..., the causes of errors in clinical reasoning: cognitive biases, knowledge..., philosophy of science series: harnessing the multidisciplinary edge effect by....

• Privacy Policy

Home » Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Theoretical Framework

Definition:

Theoretical framework refers to a set of concepts, theories, ideas , and assumptions that serve as a foundation for understanding a particular phenomenon or problem. It provides a conceptual framework that helps researchers to design and conduct their research, as well as to analyze and interpret their findings.

In research, a theoretical framework explains the relationship between various variables, identifies gaps in existing knowledge, and guides the development of research questions, hypotheses, and methodologies. It also helps to contextualize the research within a broader theoretical perspective, and can be used to guide the interpretation of results and the formulation of recommendations.

Types of Theoretical Framework

Types of Types of Theoretical Framework are as follows:

Conceptual Framework

This type of framework defines the key concepts and relationships between them. It helps to provide a theoretical foundation for a study or research project .

Deductive Framework

This type of framework starts with a general theory or hypothesis and then uses data to test and refine it. It is often used in quantitative research .

Inductive Framework

This type of framework starts with data and then develops a theory or hypothesis based on the patterns and themes that emerge from the data. It is often used in qualitative research .

Empirical Framework

This type of framework focuses on the collection and analysis of empirical data, such as surveys or experiments. It is often used in scientific research .

Normative Framework

This type of framework defines a set of norms or values that guide behavior or decision-making. It is often used in ethics and social sciences.

Explanatory Framework

This type of framework seeks to explain the underlying mechanisms or causes of a particular phenomenon or behavior. It is often used in psychology and social sciences.

Components of Theoretical Framework

The components of a theoretical framework include:

• Concepts : The basic building blocks of a theoretical framework. Concepts are abstract ideas or generalizations that represent objects, events, or phenomena.
• Variables : These are measurable and observable aspects of a concept. In a research context, variables can be manipulated or measured to test hypotheses.
• Assumptions : These are beliefs or statements that are taken for granted and are not tested in a study. They provide a starting point for developing hypotheses.
• Propositions : These are statements that explain the relationships between concepts and variables in a theoretical framework.
• Hypotheses : These are testable predictions that are derived from the theoretical framework. Hypotheses are used to guide data collection and analysis.
• Constructs : These are abstract concepts that cannot be directly measured but are inferred from observable variables. Constructs provide a way to understand complex phenomena.
• Models : These are simplified representations of reality that are used to explain, predict, or control a phenomenon.

How to Write Theoretical Framework

A theoretical framework is an essential part of any research study or paper, as it helps to provide a theoretical basis for the research and guide the analysis and interpretation of the data. Here are some steps to help you write a theoretical framework:

• Identify the key concepts and variables : Start by identifying the main concepts and variables that your research is exploring. These could include things like motivation, behavior, attitudes, or any other relevant concepts.
• Review relevant literature: Conduct a thorough review of the existing literature in your field to identify key theories and ideas that relate to your research. This will help you to understand the existing knowledge and theories that are relevant to your research and provide a basis for your theoretical framework.
• Develop a conceptual framework : Based on your literature review, develop a conceptual framework that outlines the key concepts and their relationships. This framework should provide a clear and concise overview of the theoretical perspective that underpins your research.
• Identify hypotheses and research questions: Based on your conceptual framework, identify the hypotheses and research questions that you want to test or explore in your research.
• Test your theoretical framework: Once you have developed your theoretical framework, test it by applying it to your research data. This will help you to identify any gaps or weaknesses in your framework and refine it as necessary.
• Write up your theoretical framework: Finally, write up your theoretical framework in a clear and concise manner, using appropriate terminology and referencing the relevant literature to support your arguments.

Theoretical Framework Examples

Here are some examples of theoretical frameworks:

• Social Learning Theory : This framework, developed by Albert Bandura, suggests that people learn from their environment, including the behaviors of others, and that behavior is influenced by both external and internal factors.
• Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs : Abraham Maslow proposed that human needs are arranged in a hierarchy, with basic physiological needs at the bottom, followed by safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization at the top. This framework has been used in various fields, including psychology and education.
• Ecological Systems Theory : This framework, developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner, suggests that a person’s development is influenced by the interaction between the individual and the various environments in which they live, such as family, school, and community.
• Feminist Theory: This framework examines how gender and power intersect to influence social, cultural, and political issues. It emphasizes the importance of understanding and challenging systems of oppression.
• Cognitive Behavioral Theory: This framework suggests that our thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes influence our behavior, and that changing our thought patterns can lead to changes in behavior and emotional responses.
• Attachment Theory: This framework examines the ways in which early relationships with caregivers shape our later relationships and attachment styles.
• Critical Race Theory : This framework examines how race intersects with other forms of social stratification and oppression to perpetuate inequality and discrimination.

When to Have A Theoretical Framework

Following are some situations When to Have A Theoretical Framework:

• A theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research in any discipline, as it provides a foundation for understanding the research problem and guiding the research process.
• A theoretical framework is essential when conducting research on complex phenomena, as it helps to organize and structure the research questions, hypotheses, and findings.
• A theoretical framework should be developed when the research problem requires a deeper understanding of the underlying concepts and principles that govern the phenomenon being studied.
• A theoretical framework is particularly important when conducting research in social sciences, as it helps to explain the relationships between variables and provides a framework for testing hypotheses.
• A theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research in applied fields, such as engineering or medicine, as it helps to provide a theoretical basis for the development of new technologies or treatments.
• A theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research that seeks to address a specific gap in knowledge, as it helps to define the problem and identify potential solutions.
• A theoretical framework is also important when conducting research that involves the analysis of existing theories or concepts, as it helps to provide a framework for comparing and contrasting different theories and concepts.
• A theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research that seeks to make predictions or develop generalizations about a particular phenomenon, as it helps to provide a basis for evaluating the accuracy of these predictions or generalizations.
• Finally, a theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research that seeks to make a contribution to the field, as it helps to situate the research within the broader context of the discipline and identify its significance.

Purpose of Theoretical Framework

The purposes of a theoretical framework include:

• Providing a conceptual framework for the study: A theoretical framework helps researchers to define and clarify the concepts and variables of interest in their research. It enables researchers to develop a clear and concise definition of the problem, which in turn helps to guide the research process.
• Guiding the research design: A theoretical framework can guide the selection of research methods, data collection techniques, and data analysis procedures. By outlining the key concepts and assumptions underlying the research questions, the theoretical framework can help researchers to identify the most appropriate research design for their study.
• Supporting the interpretation of research findings: A theoretical framework provides a framework for interpreting the research findings by helping researchers to make connections between their findings and existing theory. It enables researchers to identify the implications of their findings for theory development and to assess the generalizability of their findings.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research: A well-developed theoretical framework can enhance the credibility of the research by providing a strong theoretical foundation for the study. It demonstrates that the research is based on a solid understanding of the relevant theory and that the research questions are grounded in a clear conceptual framework.
• Facilitating communication and collaboration: A theoretical framework provides a common language and conceptual framework for researchers, enabling them to communicate and collaborate more effectively. It helps to ensure that everyone involved in the research is working towards the same goals and is using the same concepts and definitions.

Characteristics of Theoretical Framework

Some of the characteristics of a theoretical framework include:

• Conceptual clarity: The concepts used in the theoretical framework should be clearly defined and understood by all stakeholders.
• Logical coherence : The framework should be internally consistent, with each concept and assumption logically connected to the others.
• Empirical relevance: The framework should be based on empirical evidence and research findings.
• Parsimony : The framework should be as simple as possible, without sacrificing its ability to explain the phenomenon in question.
• Flexibility : The framework should be adaptable to new findings and insights.
• Testability : The framework should be testable through research, with clear hypotheses that can be falsified or supported by data.
• Applicability : The framework should be useful for practical applications, such as designing interventions or policies.

Advantages of Theoretical Framework

Here are some of the advantages of having a theoretical framework:

• Provides a clear direction : A theoretical framework helps researchers to identify the key concepts and variables they need to study and the relationships between them. This provides a clear direction for the research and helps researchers to focus their efforts and resources.
• Increases the validity of the research: A theoretical framework helps to ensure that the research is based on sound theoretical principles and concepts. This increases the validity of the research by ensuring that it is grounded in established knowledge and is not based on arbitrary assumptions.
• Enables comparisons between studies : A theoretical framework provides a common language and set of concepts that researchers can use to compare and contrast their findings. This helps to build a cumulative body of knowledge and allows researchers to identify patterns and trends across different studies.
• Helps to generate hypotheses: A theoretical framework provides a basis for generating hypotheses about the relationships between different concepts and variables. This can help to guide the research process and identify areas that require further investigation.
• Facilitates communication: A theoretical framework provides a common language and set of concepts that researchers can use to communicate their findings to other researchers and to the wider community. This makes it easier for others to understand the research and its implications.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Figures in Research Paper – Examples and Guide

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Abstract – Writing Guide and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Research Paper Title – Writing Guide and Example

Context of the Study – Writing Guide and Examples

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• MedEdPORTAL

Applying Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks to Health Professions Education Research: An Introductory Workshop

Steven rougas.

1 Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine and Medical Science and Director, Doctoring Program, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University

Andrea Berry

2 Executive Director of Faculty Life, University of Central Florida College of Medicine

S. Beth Bierer

3 Director of Assessment and Evaluation and Professor of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University

Rebecca D. Blanchard

4 Director of Faculty Development, OnlineMedEd, and Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate

Anna T. Cianciolo

5 Associate Professor, Department of Medical Education, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine

Jorie M. Colbert-Getz

6 Assistant Dean of Education Quality Improvement and Associate Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine

Heeyoung Han

7 Associate Professor and Director of Postdoctoral Program, Department of Medical Education, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine

Kaitlin Lipner

8 Second-Year Resident, Department of Emergency Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University

Cayla R. Teal

9 Associate Dean for Assessment and Evaluation and Education Associate Professor of Population Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine

Associated Data

• Workshop Slides.pptx
• Facilitators’ Guide.docx
• Participant Worksheet.docx
• Workshop Evaluation.docx

All appendices are peer reviewed as integral parts of the Original Publication.

Introduction

Literature suggests that the quality and rigor of health professions education (HPE) research can be elevated if the research is anchored in existing theories and frameworks. This critical skill is difficult for novice researchers to master. We created a workshop to introduce the practical application of theories and frameworks to HPE research.

We conducted two 60- to 75-minute workshops, one in 2019 at an in-person national conference and another in 2021 during an online national education conference. After a brief role-play introduction, participants applied a relevant theory to a case scenario in small groups, led by facilitators with expertise in HPE research. The workshop concluded with a presentation on applying the lessons learned when preparing a scholarly manuscript. We conducted a postworkshop survey to measure self-reported achievement of objectives.

Fifty-five individuals participated in the in-person workshop, and approximately 150 people completed the online workshop. Sixty participants (30%) completed the postworkshop survey across both workshops. As a result of participating in the workshop, 80% of participants (32) indicated they could distinguish between frameworks and theories, and 86% (32) could apply a conceptual or theoretical framework to a research question. Strengths of the workshop included the small-group activity, access to expert facilitators, and the materials provided.

The workshop has been well received by participants and fills a gap in the existing resources available to HPE researchers and mentors. It can be replicated in multiple settings to model the application of conceptual and theoretical frameworks to HPE research.

Educational Objectives

By the end of this activity, learners will be able to:

• 1. Describe conceptual and theoretical frameworks commonly used in health professions education research.
• 2. Examine how the selection of a framework affects research design.
• 3. Discuss strategies for presenting results relative to a conceptual or theoretical framework.

Calls for improved rigor in health professions education (HPE) research have often focused on the need to incorporate theoretical and conceptual frameworks in research design, implementation, and reflective critique. 1 , 2 Theories, which explain how/why things are related to each other, and frameworks, which explain where a study originates and the implications on study design, are critical for conducting high-quality HPE research, yet many researchers struggle to apply them. 3 Ideally, conceptual or theoretical frameworks should provide a lens through which to identify gaps in the literature, operationalize constructs, hypothesize relationships, and design appropriate methodology. 4 Frameworks allow researchers to deepen their understanding of how societies, organizations, and people interact 5 and can help HPE researchers engage in the adequate preparation needed for a scholarly inquiry. 6

A robust literature emphasizes the importance of anchoring HPE research in existing theories and frameworks. 7 – 9 Frameworks ideally should be used early to influence the what (content) and the how (methodology) of a research project and then revisited to help situate the results. 10 Recent attention to terminology 11 and application 1 , 12 , 13 has provided additional resources to support HPE researchers. Yet selection and application of a suitable conceptual or theoretical framework are still underutilized, and the lack of such frameworks is a common reason for manuscript rejection in major HPE journals. 14

One reason for poor utilization may be a lack of consensus on how HPE researchers define theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework. 11 Despite references to conceptual and theoretical frameworks in reviews of manuscripts and grant submissions, there is a surprising absence of consistency in how these terms are used. After a review of relevant literature, we agreed upon the following focused definitions to guide our work:

• 1. Theory: an explanation of how/why things are related to each other.
• 2. Theoretical framework: the implications of the theory for study design.
• 3. Conceptual framework: the conceptual heritage (i.e., the central concepts used in a field of study) of the problem to be studied.

Another reason for poor utilization is inconsistent application of these concepts. The volume of theoretical and conceptual frameworks applicable to HPE research can be overwhelming, 15 and researchers often see framework selection as the end product of their effort rather than an initial step. The framework should resonate with the researcher and the conceptual heritage of the project 16 and be used in every part of the research process from development of the research question and methodology to analysis of the results and discussion of study findings. 12 , 13 Researchers often lose sight of this guiding principle once the theory or framework is selected.

A final reason may be the fact that many educators have received minimal training in HPE research, particularly the incorporation of conceptual or theoretical frameworks to guide such work. While faculty development programs have begun to address this need, the majority of such programs still tend to focus on teaching and learning topics. 17 To improve HPE research quality, considerable training in research methods must occur. 18 Though various workshops exist to expose HPE researchers to principles of scholarly writing, 19 method design, 20 statistics, 21 and academic career development, 22 there remains a gap in the knowledge and skills needed to apply conceptual and theoretical frameworks.

As members of the AAMC's Medical Education Scholarship Research and Evaluation (MESRE) section of the Group on Educational Affairs (GEA) who provide mentorship, consultation, and critical review for various HPE research projects locally, regionally, and nationally, we recognized the need for a structured professional development opportunity for novice researchers to learn application of these concepts. The goal of our project was to develop an interactive, case-based workshop to explore the application of conceptual and theoretical frameworks to HPE research.

Workshop Design

We designed this workshop for HPE researchers seeking guidance on how to apply conceptual and theoretical frameworks. The workshop included an introductory video role-play, small-group discussion of a case, and large-group debriefing. Although the case scenario used in the workshop featured educators studying written narrative feedback in undergraduate medical education, the workshop could appeal to any HPE researcher wishing to gain experience with using conceptual and theoretical frameworks. Participants did not need prerequisite knowledge of theories in order to achieve the workshop objectives.

The workshop planners included educators serving on the MESRE steering committee in 2019. All had experience mentoring others on how to use conceptual and theoretical frameworks, and a subset served on HPE journal editorial boards or as peer reviewers. We designed workshop materials and participated in the workshop as a featured speaker and/or small-group facilitator.

We developed the workshop to be offered in person at a conference and later adapted it to be presented virtually. We initially designed the workshop as a 75-minute session but learned, during the second offering, that 60 minutes provided sufficient time to meet the workshop objectives. When offering the workshop in a face-to-face venue, we used a large conference room with projection equipment and internet access to display slides and videos. The conference room had to have enough tables for participants to work in small groups of five to 10. When conducting the session virtually, we selected a platform that enabled the workshop facilitator to assign participants to breakout rooms and permitted small-group facilitators to share their screens with workshop participants.

We had a main facilitator for the workshop and several small-group facilitators for the small-group work. All facilitators reviewed information on situated learning theory (SLT), as this theory was used in the workshop case scenario. Facilitators also needed experience with using theory to inform the elaboration of research questions, the design of research projects, and the interpretation of research findings. Ideally, facilitators had experience with publishing peer-reviewed manuscripts including conceptual or theoretical frameworks and came from any HPE field. While it would be possible to run the workshop without all these essential skills, we highly recommend recruiting small-group facilitators with them. We also advise having at least one facilitator for every 10 workshop participants. The lesson plan and timeline for the workshop are outlined in Table 1 .

Preworkshop Preparation

We conducted a training session (approximately 45–60 minutes) with small-group facilitators prior to the workshop to review the workshop slides ( Appendix A ) and facilitation strategies for the case discussion ( Appendix B ).

Introduction (2 Minutes)

When feasible, participants were asked to introduce themselves at the beginning of the workshop. Following introductions, the workshop's learning objectives were presented. We kept the workshop overview short, as the first video vignette contextualized the workshop topic.

Video Vignette 1 (5 Minutes)

After introducing the session objectives, the main facilitator played a recorded role-play ( Appendix A , slide 4) demonstrating a conversation between a mentor and mentee about the importance of selecting a theory to guide the design of a research project. This case scenario provided participants with an authentic example emphasizing the importance of selecting an appropriate theory to publish a research project in HPE journals.

Define Key Terms (2 Minutes)

The main facilitator proceeded to define the key terms—conceptual framework, theory, and theoretical framework—mentioned in the role-play ( Appendix A , slides 5–6). Participants may not have fully recognized the distinction between a theoretical framework and conceptual framework at this point in the workshop.

Video Vignette 2 (3 Minutes)

The main facilitator showed a second recording of the role-play ( Appendix A , slide 7) to illustrate how theory contributes to the interpretation of key findings and, after the video, discussed how one's point of view could frame the ways in which one examined problems ( Appendix A , slides 8–11). Building upon the earlier case vignette scenario, the main facilitator presented a worked example to demonstrate how the theory of planned behavior could apply to the feedback study featured in the video vignette ( Appendix A , slides 12–13).

Small-Group Activity (25–30 Minutes)

Participants formed small groups of five to 10 (or joined breakout rooms) for a 30-minute small-group activity designed to apply a different theory to the case scenario. Small-group facilitators began the session by reviewing the key features of SLT summarized on the participant worksheet ( Appendix C ). Subsequently, small-group facilitators guided the small groups to think about how the research question provided could be refined using SLT and helped them consider how SLT could guide research design including study participants, setting, data sources, and data collection strategies. Before the small-group activity concluded, each small-group facilitator asked about any remaining questions or tips the participants wanted to share with the larger group and recorded these responses for subsequent large-group discussion.

Debriefing and Wrap-up (12 Minutes)

The main facilitator reconvened all small groups and reviewed guiding questions participants had discussed during the small-group activity. Small-group facilitators presented the remaining questions and tips their groups had identified. The main facilitator then concluded by presenting a journal editor's discussion of how these concepts applied to manuscripts and editorial review ( Appendix A , slides 15–19). Participants completed a workshop evaluation ( Appendix D ) at the end of the session.

Workshop Evaluation and Analysis

We developed the workshop evaluation ( Appendix D ) to assess the workshop's effectiveness and gather information to improve the workshop. For effectiveness questions, participants used a 3-point scale (“was able to do prior to workshop,” “am able to do as a result of the workshop,” and “unable to perform”) to rate their ability to perform workshop objectives. The workshop evaluation included four open-ended items (“What are the key points/messages you will take away?”, “How will you use them?”, “What did or did not work well and why?”, and “Please provide us with any additional comments about the session”) to identify strengths of the workshop as well as areas for improvement. For the virtual session, we also asked participants to rate their level of engagement with the large-group and breakout-room components. We calculated frequencies for scaled items using Microsoft Excel and analyzed written comments for major themes. We were particularly interested in determining the percentage of participants who could meet each workshop objective as a result of the workshop versus those who could not meet the objective; therefore, we included only those who selected these options in the denominator of the frequency calculation. Those who could meet an objective prior to the workshop were excluded from the calculations, as our goal was to guide those who lacked a skill prior to attending the workshop. We used a paper evaluation form for the face-to-face offering and an electronic form for the virtual session. We also included an item on engagement for the virtual offering, as there were fewer cues provided to facilitators in the online setting.

The workshop was delivered in person at Learn Serve Lead: the AAMC Annual Meeting in November 2019 and virtually at the GEA Regional Spring Meeting in April 2021. Workshop participants were medical school staff, faculty, and administrators. Fifty-five attendees participated in the in-person workshop, and approximately 150 participants participated in the virtual workshop. The postworkshop survey was completed by 26 individuals from the in-person session (47%) and 34 from the virtual session (23%).

Table 2 provides the frequency of participants’ self-reported ability to perform the workshop objectives relative to not being able to perform them. As a result of participating in the workshop, 80% of the included participants (32) indicated they could distinguish between conceptual frameworks and theories, 86% (32) could apply a conceptual or theoretical framework to a research question, 79% (34) could analyze how the selection of a conceptual or theoretical framework impacts research design, and 68% (27) could evaluate the results of a study through the lens of a conceptual or theoretical framework ( Figure ).

Participant comments on what did and did not work well and why were categorized by workshop elements, and frequencies for each element were computed based on terms referring to strengths or areas for improvement. The majority of comments highlighted strengths of the workshop, including the small-group/breakout activity (12 participants), having expert facilitators (nine participants), the role-play (seven participants), and the handouts (seven participants). Other positive aspects were the large-group discussion (four participants), use of examples (four participants), and time for questions (two participants). Participants felt the small-group activity, expert facilitators, and role-playing worked well because they were active, hands-on activities. A few participants mentioned areas for improvement, including small-group variability (seven participants), additional terms needing definitions (four participants), overall complexity of the topic (two participants), and wanting more resources (two participants).

Thirty-four virtual workshop participants rated the overall engagement of the large-group presentation and small-group (breakout-room) discussion. The large-group presentation was rated as highly engaging (53%, 18) or engaging (35%, 12) by 88% of participants. The small-group discussion was rated as highly engaging (71%, 24) or engaging (9%, 3) by 80% of participants.

This workshop enabled participants to work in small groups with a facilitator to apply a theory to an example research question and discuss the implications of the effort. The workshop was well received by participants, who mostly reported self-improvement regarding each of the learning objectives and valued the small-group activity, work with facilitators, and observation of the role-play. For facilitators, the workshop offered a unique opportunity to focus teaching on the application of a theoretical or conceptual framework, separate from other aspects of HPE research mentorship. The materials included here provide an accessible avenue for HPE research champions to engage novice researchers at their own institutions in a skill that is challenging to learn and to teach.

Our reflections presented valuable insight on the preparation and execution of a workshop designed to teach about a complex and typically unfamiliar topic. While careful selection of a facilitator and thoughtful preparation of materials generally result in better experiences for learners, in this workshop, those details are particularly important.

The workshop has been designed for novice HPE researchers. As a result, learner questions can be oversimplified, while the answers are nuanced. Facilitators must be able to navigate these conversations as well as hold reasonable goals for the development of learners on this complex topic. Appropriate facilitators for this workshop include those who are comfortable using frameworks in their own research and coaching/mentoring others. Being familiar with more than one theory or conceptual framework that could apply to the case scenario is particularly valuable, as the ability to compare and contrast frameworks is helpful for answering questions and reframing complex answers in an accessible way. Conducting the workshop virtually may assist in recruiting qualified small-group facilitators from other departments or institutions. Prior to each session, facilitators should meet virtually to discuss the facilitators’ guide ( Appendix B ). This allows for discussion of the case vignette and consensus on how to approach potential questions or roadblocks.

We found that small groups struggling to address the discussion questions often did not spend an adequate amount of time exploring SLT in the beginning of the small-group activity. Though we provided a paragraph of text and references describing the theory ( Appendices B and C ), a visual schema could simplify some of the connections and give novice researchers a clearer, more succinct way into the conversation. One potential approach is to use some of the small-group time to develop the schema with participants.

Similarly, comparing the application of one theory to another provides insight into how a study can be viewed through multiple lenses. While many of our facilitators employed this approach, it proved challenging given the timing. One potential approach is to use the theory of planned behavior (reviewed in the introductory slides, Appendix A ) as the comparative theory since it has already been referenced.

The small-group exercise was rated the most valuable. Discussions and pacing varied due to participants’ knowledge and comfort with speaking up and facilitators’ ability to manage the conversation. Therefore, we recommend ensuring adequate time for completing the small-group activity. Specifically, we recommend facilitators be mindful of how much time is allotted to reviewing the theory compared to the amount allotted for the discussion. We suggest sending out the background information on SLT in advance, so that participants have a chance to review the key information prior to the workshop.

We also suggest tailoring the description of the workshop and learning objectives in order to invite the appropriate audience. This may mean novice researchers who have engaged with research or who are currently planning research. Participants do not need to have the same level of knowledge entering the workshop, but because of the emphasis on small-group discussion, wide variation in participants’ knowledge may result in some not obtaining the insight they need to meet the learning objectives.

A common refrain from workshop participants was how to select the right answers to the discussion questions rather than trying to understand how the theory selected impacted the research question. This likely stemmed from a common misconception that there was only one right theory or framework for a research study. Confronting this expectation early in the session (in both the introduction and the small-group activity) is key.

Workshops are inherently limiting in that they can accommodate only a small number of learners. However, given the complexity of this topic, the small number of learners may improve the experience, as conversation can be guided towards specific learner gaps.

This workshop has additional limitations; however, with thoughtful preparation, they can be addressed to ensure a valuable learning experience. First, the workshop requires strong facilitators, which limits workshop size for institutions without access to experienced facilitators. Second, the amount of time needed to complete the workshop requires facilitators to pay careful attention to workshop timing. Third, small-group experiences can vary considerably with facilitator expertise and familiarity with SLT. Thoughtful recruitment and training of facilitators, perhaps relying on experienced facilitators to train new ones, will maximize participant benefit.

Finally, the evaluation data we collected postsession did not adequately account for knowledge or skills that participants had prior to the workshop. While the anecdotal feedback was that most participants were not very knowledgeable or skilled, a pre/post design would have helped clarify this issue. The rating scale forced participants to mark effectiveness items as being performable either prior to or as a result of the workshop. This did not take into account that some participants had prior knowledge or skill and still benefited from the workshop, making interpretation of the responses less clear. Additionally, the evaluation response rate was low, especially for the virtual session, and may not represent the perspectives of all participants.

This workshop has the potential to increase the application of theories and frameworks in HPE research. Frameworks are helpful to organize studies in the context of a greater conversation but are difficult to learn outside of formal educational programs. The workshop enables novice HPE researchers to explore how they might begin integrating frameworks into their work and why doing so is important.

The workshop provides scaffolding for HPE research mentors to introduce frameworks to novice and emerging researchers, and the materials included constitute a valuable reference. In addition, workshops like this one provide support and structure for institutions with few HPE research mentors. Future directions should focus on increasing accessibility of this information to more HPE researchers through the creation of an interactive, online session and a searchable repository of theories and frameworks commonly used in HPE research.

Disclosures

None to report.

Funding/Support

Prior presentations.

Rougas S, Berry A, Bierer B, et al. Practical approaches to applying conceptual and theoretical frameworks to medical education research: a MESRE session. Presented at: Learn Serve Lead: the AAMC Annual Meeting; November 8–12, 2019; Phoenix, AZ.

Rougas S, Berry A, Bierer B, et al. Practical approaches to applying conceptual and theoretical frameworks to medical education research. Presented virtually at: Group on Educational Affairs Regional Spring Meeting; April 20–22, 2021.

Ethical Approval

Reported as not applicable.

• Translation

Conceptual framework vs. Theoretical framework – and constructing each

By charlesworth author services.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 25 February, 2022

The terms ‘conceptual framework’ and ‘theoretical framework’ are commonly used in referring to the overall structure that shapes a research project. However, there are subtle differences between the two. This article sets out to clarify these differences along with providing pointers on how to go about constructing each framework.

Let’s begin by seeing the difference between a concept and a theory.

Concept vs. theory

• A concept is an idea that has been formally developed and organised.
• A theory is a set of concepts, models, principles, definitions etc. that make sense of a phenomenon by determining relationships among variables. Theories are established and validated by experiments and evidence. 

Purpose of conceptual framework

A conceptual framework is like a roadmap for your study, helping you visualise your research project and put it into action. It defines the relevant variables for your study and maps out how they might relate to each other. 

Conceptual frameworks have different uses in different types of studies.

• In quantitative studies , a conceptual framework might be used to determine survey questions or data points, or to generate a hypothesis for explanations and predictions.
• In qualitative studies , a conceptual framework might be used to provide a working hypothesis or a set of research questions , or to identify or explore categories in descriptive research.

Purpose of theoretical framework

A theoretical framework introduces and describes the theory/theories underpinning the research problem . Thus, theoretical frameworks support research by describing and/or drawing from relevant theoretical aspects obtained in previous work.

• In master’s research, there might be one or two theoretical frameworks.
• For a PhD , which warrants original research that provides a substantial contribution of new knowledge, three or more theoretical frameworks might be involved.

Conceptual vs. theoretical framework

Here’s a summary of the key differences between the two frameworks.

Constructing a conceptual framework

A conceptual framework is created before you start your experiments . It may be in a written or diagrammatic format , representing expected relationships between variables. You can even combine or modify existing frameworks. 

Constructing a theoretical framework

• Read and review the literature to identify long-standing themes and the main concern(s) for the inquiry.
• List all constructs and variables and consider how the variables are related to a theory. 

Conceptual and theoretical frameworks: Example

Suppose you want to investigate if nutmeg finches visiting bird feeders in cities have better fitness than those in the wild. You will develop a conceptual framework outlining the variables to study and how you expect them to relate to each other (see Figure 1). 

Your conceptual framework may include a theoretical framework as well: say, you want to relate the observed phenomena with certain ecological theories. In the example in Figure 1, the ‘optimal search theory’ and ‘optimal foraging theory’ provide a lens through which the variables should be explored.

Figure 1. Example of a conceptual framework for a fictional study about the fitness of nutmeg finches visiting bird feeders versus those foraging in the wild.

It is important to develop these frameworks in the early stages of your study to guide your thinking and enable you to visualise linkages between various concepts and theories. A framework can make research findings more meaningful, providing a solid foundation for the study.

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928. 

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Scientific Editing Services

Sign up – stay updated.

We use cookies to offer you a personalized experience. By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

Theoretical Framework vs Conceptual Framework (Differences and Similarities)

Many people while making researches especially for the first time get caught up in the steps to making a good impression in the theoretical and conceptual framework of the study. Often times, students find it difficult to differentiate between theoretical and conceptual framework. Today, you will be exposed to the meaning of theoretical and conceptual framework and how to write a good theoretical and conceptual framework. You will also see the differences and similarities of theoretical and conceptual framework. Let's begin by looking at their meaning.

What is Theoretical Framework?

Theoretical framework simply states the theory aspect of your work, the existing, tested and viable theories backing up your current research. So to say, theoretical framework is a collection of interrelated theories which guides your research work.

What is Conceptual Framework?

A conceptual framework is what informs your readers on what to expect and know from your research. It defines the relevant variables for your study and maps out how they relate to each other. A conceptual framework is constructed before collecting data and often represented in a visual format. You should construct a conceptual framework before you begin collecting data.

Now to it's similarities.

Similarities Between Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Framework.

Both theoretical framework and conceptual framework have these in common:

• They point to the reliability of the study from the previous research findings and theories.
• Both explain the future course of the research study justifying the reliability of the study.
• Both are used to understand a research problem and guide the development, collection and analysis of the research.
• They both show the relationship between ideas  and theories  and how they relate to the study.

Knowing these similarities, let's look at their differences.

Differences Between Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Framework.

So having looked at the similarities and differences  between the theoretical framework and the conceptual framework, a few tips on writing a good framework wouldn't hurt. To make a good framework, follow these steps:

Tips on Writing a Good Theoretical Framework.

• Examine your research problem.
• Consider the key variables in your research.
• Review past related literature to find answers to your research question.
• List the constructs and variables that might be relevant to your study.

Tips on Writing a Good Conceptual Framework.

• After selecting a topic for your research, carry out a literature review.
• Try to understand what research has already been done on the subject matter and contribute.
• Look for the specific variables explained in the literature and examine the relationship between them.
• Ensure your thesis contributes and fills in a gap in knowledge.
• Create your conceptual framework ; it can be in the form of a flowchart, mind map or concept map and explain thereafter.

So there you go, with this knowledge, you are good to go!

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 22, Issue 2
• Integration of a theoretical framework into your research study
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Roberta Heale 1 ,
• Helen Noble 2
• 1 Laurentian University , School of Nursing , Sudbury , Ontario , Canada
• 2 Queens University Belfast , School of Nursing and Midwifery , Belfast , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Roberta Heale, School of Nursing, Laurentian University, Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, P3E2C6, Canada; rheale{at}laurentian.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2019-103077

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Often the most difficult part of a research study is preparing the proposal based around a theoretical or philosophical framework. Graduate students ‘…express confusion, a lack of knowledge, and frustration with the challenge of choosing a theoretical framework and understanding how to apply it’. 1 However, the importance in understanding and applying a theoretical framework in research cannot be overestimated.

The choice of a theoretical framework for a research study is often a reflection of the researcher’s ontological (nature of being) and epistemological (theory of knowledge) perspective. We will not delve into these concepts, or personal philosophy in this article. Rather we will focus on how a theoretical framework can be integrated into research.

The theoretical framework is a blueprint for your research project 1 and serves several purposes. It informs the problem you have identified, the purpose and significance of your research demonstrating how your research fits with what is already known (relationship to existing theory and research). This provides a basis for your research questions, the literature review and the methodology and analysis that you choose. 1 Evidence of your chosen theoretical framework should be visible in every aspect of your research and should demonstrate the contribution of this research to knowledge. 2

What is a theory?

A theory is an explanation of a concept or an abstract idea of a phenomenon. An example of a theory is Bandura’s middle range theory of self-efficacy, 3 or the level of confidence one has in achieving a goal. Self-efficacy determines the coping behaviours that a person will exhibit when facing obstacles. Those who have high self-efficacy are likely to apply adequate effort leading to successful outcomes, while those with low self-efficacy are more likely to give up earlier and ultimately fail. Any research that is exploring concepts related to self-efficacy or the ability to manage difficult life situations might apply Bandura’s theoretical framework to their study.

Using a theoretical framework in a research study

Example 1: the big five theoretical framework.

The first example includes research which integrates the ‘Big Five’, a theoretical framework that includes concepts related to teamwork. These include team leadership, mutual performance monitoring, backup behaviour, adaptability and team orientation. 4 In order to conduct research incorporating a theoretical framework, the concepts need to be defined according to a frame of reference. This provides a means to understand the theoretical framework as it relates to a specific context and provides a mechanism for measurement of the concepts.

In this example, the concepts of the Big Five were given a conceptual definition, that provided a broad meaning and then an operational definition, which was more concrete. 4 From here, a survey was developed that reflected the operational definitions related to teamwork in nursing: the Nursing Teamwork Survey (NTS). 5 In this case, the concepts used in the theoretical framework, the Big Five, were the used to develop a survey specific to teamwork in nursing.

The NTS was used in research of nurses at one hospital in northeastern Ontario. Survey questions were grouped into subscales for analysis, that reflected the concepts of the Big Five. 6 For example, one finding of this study was that the nurses from the surgical unit rated the items in the subscale of ’team leadership' (one of the concepts in the Big Five) significantly lower than in the other units. The researchers looked back to the definition of this concept in the Big Five in their interpretation of the findings. Since the definition included a person(s) who has the leadership skills to facilitate teamwork among the nurses on the unit, the conclusion in this study was that the surgical unit lacked a mentor, or facilitator for teamwork. In this way, the theory of teamwork was presented through a set of concepts in a theoretical framework. The Theoretical Framework (TF)was the foundation for development of a survey related to a specific context, used to measure each of the concepts within the TF. Then, the analysis and results circled back to the concepts within the TF and provided a guide for the discussion and conclusions arising from the research.

Example 2: the Health Decisions Model

In another study which explored adherence to intravenous chemotherapy in African-American and Caucasian Women with early stage breast cancer, an adapted version of the Health Decisions Model (HDM) was used as the theoretical basis for the study. 7 The HDM, a revised version of the Health Belief Model, incorporates some aspects of the Health Belief Model and factors relating to patient preferences. 8 The HDM consists of six interrelated constituents that might predict how well a person adheres to a health decision. These include sociodemographic, social interaction, experience, knowledge, general and specific health beliefs and patient preferences, and are clearly defined. The HDM model was used to explore factors which might influence adherence to chemotherapy in women with breast cancer. Sociodemographic, social interaction, knowledge, personal experience and specific health beliefs were used as predictors of adherence to chemotherapy.

The findings were reported using the theoretical framework to discuss results. The study found that delay to treatment, health insurance, depression and symptom severity were predictors to starting chemotherapy which could potentially be adapted with clinical interventions. The findings from the study contribute to the existing body of literature related to cancer nursing.

Example 3: the nursing role effectiveness model

In this final example, research was conducted to determine the nursing processes that were associated with unexpected intensive care unit admissions. 9 The framework was the Nursing Role Effectiveness Model. In this theoretical framework, the concepts within Donabedian’s Quality Framework of Structure, Process and Outcome were each defined according to nursing practice. 10 11  Processes defined in the Nursing Role Effectiveness Model were used to identify the nursing process variables that were measured in the study.

A theoretical framework should be logically presented and represent the concepts, variables and relationships related to your research study, in order to clearly identify what will be examined, described or measured. It involves reading the literature and identifying a research question(s) while clearly defining and identifying the existing relationship between concepts and theories (related to your research questions[s] in the literature). You must then identify what you will examine or explore in relation to the concepts of the theoretical framework. Once you present your findings using the theoretical framework you will be able to articulate how your study relates to and may potentially advance your chosen theory and add to knowledge.

• Kalisch BJ ,
• Parent M , et al
• Strickland OL ,
• Dalton JA , et al
• Eraker SA ,
• Kirscht JP ,
• Lightfoot N , et al
• Harrison MB ,
• Laschinger H , et al

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Patient and public involvement Not required.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Theories, theoretical and conceptual frameworks, models and constructs: Limiting research outcomes through misconceptions and misunderstandings

Contributing to knowledge or theory is generally a standard requirement for research and doctoral studies. Whether that contribution should be from a research, policy or practice perspective is often not specifically stated as a requirement, yet one or all are certainly possible. A doctoral study (or indeed any research study) is usually quite firmly cast or framed within a form of theoretical or conceptual framework. Yet, even the definition, selection and formulation of a framework that is appropriate and that can inform a study throughout its various phases and stages is sometimes considered a ‘doctoral or research challenge’ in itself. This paper will argue that the way models, frameworks or theories - all of which in this current paper are collectively termed underpinnings - are conceived and used could well determine whether, how and to what extent a thesis or research study might contribute to a wider knowledge base. The paper offers a theoretical strategic analysis of the issue. It will explore what a conceptual or theoretical framework for a doctoral or wider research study is, what role or roles it can take, and whether, how and to what extent a study might contribute to knowledge or theory. The paper will conclude with ways to question approaches to roles of conceptual or theoretical underpinnings that do not limit the potential of a thesis or study to contribute to theory. Keywords: theories; theoretical frameworks; conceptual frameworks; models; research studies; underpinning constructs Part of the Special Issue Debating the status of ‘theory’ in technology enhanced learning research

1. Introduction

This initial section asks what a conceptual or theoretical framework for a research study might be. The ways that universities define a doctoral study’s contribution to knowledge or theory can vary quite widely. The United Kingdom (UK) Quality Assurance Agency (2014, p.30) states that a student for a doctoral degree should demonstrate “the creation and interpretation of new knowledge, through original research or other advanced scholarship… at the forefront of an academic discipline or area of professional practice”. This statement clearly supports new knowledge contribution that could be in professional or policy fields as well as in the research field. It is not surprising then, perhaps, that different universities might state different requirements in this respect. For example, in the UK, Lancaster University’s regulations for a doctoral thesis state that, “A successful candidate for the degree of PhD shall show convincing evidence of the capacity to pursue scholarly research or scholarship in his or her field of study... The results of this research shall then be embodied in a thesis which makes an original contribution to knowledge” (Lancaster University, 2018, p.3). However, a much more detailed description is given by Manchester Metropolitan University, UK, stating that, “Doctorates are awarded for creating, interpreting and communicating knowledge that extends the forefront of a discipline or of professional practice, through original research and critical thinking” (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2019, n.p.). It is clear from these different statements that the latter institution is clearly supporting a focus of developing knowledge that can be research, policy or practice focused. From a theoretical or conceptual perspective, this means that the underpinning in the latter case might be founded on a conception, framework or model that could be policy or practice based, rather than it necessarily being research based.

Underpinnings (a term used throughout this paper to collectively include models, frameworks and theories) for research can take a number of different forms. Indeed, distinctions between different forms of underpinnings might provide a quite different conceptual or theoretical basis for a study – if differences between models, conceptual frameworks, theoretical frameworks or theories are considered (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). These different forms of underpinnings can all arise from previous published research, but they can arise from and have quite different contextual bases. In general, the contexts of the four different forms arising from previous studies that are described in the research literature can be outlined (Passey, 2019), and will be defined in the remainder of this paper, as:

a model holds for a given case or stated population, arising from context-specific research, often indicating main features of influence or contribution;

a conceptual framework tends to be more flexible and descriptive, as it usually identifies factors or criteria that have influence on a particular field within the more major features, which might be, for example, social learning, discovery learning, or experiential learning;

a theoretical framework arises from outcomes beyond a single study, based on one or more theories, which might be, for example, social constructivism, constructionism, or behaviourism; while

a theory considers a broader and deeper concern or context, suggesting the detail of what might be more general, beyond one or a number of contexts.

This distinction between different forms of underpinnings is fundamentally important, as it can determine the applicability of any choice of underpinning to a specific study. For example, if a model has been developed from research in one context, then whether it could be applied in another different context is in itself a significant question. Additionally, if a model is gained from a limited context and range of participants, whether using such a model as it stands would then limit the findings of another piece of research just to the major features of influence that have been identified is another notable question. These concerns form some of the basis of the debate that has arisen when thinking about approaches that might be taken with case study research, where the focus is on a real-life context, where the “case will be complex and bounded… with the analysis undertaken seeking to be holistic” (Tight, 2017, p.17). Considering whether outcomes from those cases have potential or wider applicability, and how any wider generalisation might be viewed and gained, can be a key question. Indeed, in the context where a model from a single case is used, where only major features of influence are identified, there is the question of whether taking an alternative grounded theory approach, defined as “a general abstract theory of a process, action or interaction grounded in the views of the participants in a study” (Creswell, 2009, p.243), might not release opportunity that would not be offered when using an existing model. Indeed, this concern might also similarly apply if major features of influence are only used even when a framework or conception is adopted as an underpinning for a research study.

In the context of technology enhanced learning, it is perhaps pertinent to think about distinctions of different forms of underpinning constructs (a term used in this paper to indicate how ideas can be formulated through conceptions that may be subjective or believed or even imaged or imaginary) through a number of examples (shown in Table 1). These examples will be illustrated and discussed subsequently, in terms of their context, scope and potential interpretation.

Table 1: Examples of forms of underpinning constructs

In terms of models, three are offered as examples in Table 1. The origin of these models is quite different, but they all relate to the field of technologies (in the widest sense). The first of these, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) of Davis (1989) is a very well-known model, yet it is often incorrectly cited as being a theory. The original TAM was indeed a model, and Davis stated this quite clearly in the title he gave to it. As a model, it provides a structure and a set of features; in this form, using this as an underpinning for a research study is clearly attractive, as it provides clear hooks for both developing research questions and for analysing research evidence. However, it should certainly be recognised that it has limitations if and when it is to be considered for use as a fundamental or strong underpinning to a study, as it has no theoretical credibility as it stands. Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers, 2003) is also often incorrectly cited as a theory – yet Rogers was clear in his original description in calling it a model (or process). It is often used in its model form as a research instrument for conceptualising or analysing stages of diffusion or implementation, without referring to the important text that contextualises and surrounds more descriptive factors that detail the model further. The third model, Pathways to Implementing Change (Corbett & Rossman, 1989) was also described as a model by the authors. But, as in the two preceding examples, the surrounding text that the authors provide offers crucially important factors that offer additional details within its major features. These factors enable this model to be more adequately considered for the purposes of underpinning a study (or elements of it). In all of these three cases, while these models might provide for a complete underpinning to a study, studies that have used these models have tended to apply them to elements of studies, concerned often with the elements of data collection and data analysis.

In terms of conceptual frameworks, three examples are shown in Table 1. The Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) is a well-known and well-used framework in technology enhanced learning research. Despite its widespread use, and the fact that the framework is supported by descriptions of the elements of that framework, some researchers have noted that the descriptions are what they describe as being somewhat vague, not allowing easy analysis of their outcome data. As such, it is found that this framework provides a conceptual base, and it is in this form that researchers have tended to use this for their own studies. The second example, Discovery Learning, described by Bruner (1961) for example, has not been classed as a theory, or as a model. Rather, it is presented as a concept, or a practice that is based upon certain principles. As such, and using those principles, it is possible to use this as a framework, but it is not constituted as a theory. The third example, Experiential Learning, in a paper by Kolb (1984) is described as a model that is then elaborated and proposed as a theory. Certainly, given the level of elaboration, experiential learning is undoubtedly provided as a framework, and is in itself underpinned by a concept of learning. Whilst it could be used as theory, therefore, it is certainly possible to use it as a conceptual framework.

In terms of theoretical frameworks, two examples are offered. The first, Social Creative Constructionism (Passey et al., 2019), is a theoretical framework developed from an analysis of a number of existing theories and frameworks, including Social Constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978) and Constructionism (Papert, 1986). As these two existing theories and frameworks do not accommodate and provide for a contemporary perspective on the development of young people with creative uses of digital technologies, the creation of an integrated theoretical framework through analysis of earlier and more contemporary theories and frameworks sought to address this gap. This example illustrates that underpinnings do not need to be ‘taken off the shelf’, and indeed that underpinnings need to be questioned in terms of their applicability. Rather, underpinnings should be selected carefully or even developed to relate to contexts and circumstances. The second example, Human Motivation, was a theoretical framework that was developed by Maslow (1943), based upon a number of existing theories. This framework is perhaps best recognised through what has been called Maslow’s model of a hierarchy of needs, and this is often the form in which the theoretical framework is used in research studies. The creation and use of this model for underpinning research has been strongly questioned (Bridgman, Cummings, & Ballard, 2019); again, the background theories that led to this framework contextualise it in important ways.

For theories, four examples are listed. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003) was developed through a series of models arising initially from TAM. Following reviews of research using TAM and using subsequent models that were developed, not only did the major features of TAM become expanded, but additional factors and influences were identified and integrated. With wider application in a range of contexts, this level of applicability was considered strong enough to posit the framework as a theory. TAM started out with a much more focused view from the individual user’s perspective, while UTAUT viewed acceptance and use from a wider range of social and societal influences on the individual. UTAUT, therefore, can provide a wider and more detailed contextual view if used as an underpinning for a research study. The same holds true for the second example, the theory of Social Constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), in that it was posited on the basis of a wide range of perspectives that had been tested in different contexts over time. This theory considers the role of social influences on learning, as well as the earlier cognitive influences that had been identified, so considers external dimensions on learning in addition to the internal dimensions; as a consequence, the theory is not limited to internal cognitive features alone. Piaget’s (1952) theory of cognitive constructivism, based on a more focused exploration of cognitive features, and taking a more developmental approach to learning, is more limited in terms of its accommodation of social influences (especially when the very limited range of originating participants that led to the findings of the research are considered – in this case, Piaget’s three children and children of some of his colleagues). The third example, the theory of Constructionism (Papert, 1986), was based on Piaget’s theory, but took into account influences of the handling and creating of artefacts by learners. Within a context of digital technologies, this theory, therefore, tends to relate strongly to learning contexts where artefacts are involved, as is the case within contemporary situations of digital technology use. However, as discussed earlier, the forms of digital technology that were used at the time of Papert’s development of the theory were not developed to the same extent in terms of communication uses, or how programming could be used to create the current width of technological outputs by the user. Taking another earlier theory, the fourth example, the theory of Behaviourism (Skinner, 1953), is often now not taken as a serious contender for theoretical underpinning of research studies. Yet, a focal feature of that theory, operant conditioning, undoubtedly arises in contemporary situations – such as the response to stimuli by social media users from received emails or WhatsApp messages, for example.

From the discussion of the different forms of underpinning presented above, one point that emerges is a shift in the parts of the research process that might be supported by models to those that might be supported by theories. Across the four forms of underpinnings, there tends to be an identifiable shift in focus towards elements of the entire research approach and design. This movement concerns the ways that the different forms might be applied to elements of a research study - from ways that models might support the underpinning of elements such as data collection and analysis, to the ways that theories might support the overall underpinning of approaches and research position or stance taken.

2. Role or roles of underpinning theories or conceptions

The ways that models, frameworks or theories might support a research study (as discussed above), relate to conclusions and discussions that have been drawn from other research literature. For example, Oliver (2002) identified different ways that theories (rather than all conceptual or theoretical underpinnings) can be conceived, and how they might be used in research. When each of these different ways is considered from a critical perspective, they give rise to different questions about implications arising. As an example, for a theory, some implications and questions arising are outlined in Table 2 (using Oliver’s four ways to use theory – as a tool, as a principle, for building, and for using – shown in the left-hand column).

Table 2: Role or roles a theory can take, and implications arising

Linked to these implications and questions arising, some common myths also need to be considered when choosing and using an underpinning (going beyond considering only a theory) in a study:

A model, conceptual or theoretical framework or theory is independent of its originating context. Well, this is not true, of course – but if an underpinning is dependent on an originating context, then what are the implications for a study that is being undertaken within another context? To what extent can that underpinning be of value or appropriate or relevant in that new context? For example, Piaget’s theory of cognitive constructivism (1952) was based on observation of his children and those of some of his colleagues. Clearly, the theory relates, therefore, to a specific cultural group in a specific temporal, social and societal setting. The application of this theory to other quite different contexts clearly needs to be questioned, rather than unquestionably accepted.

A theory should not be questioned. Of course, this is certainly not true – and if a theory is to be questioned, then what are the implications for how a study is to be set up? In essence, if to contribute to theory is an outcome of a study, as is often stated for doctoral studies, for example, then how can the theory that underpins the study be framed in such a way as to enable ‘new’ theory to arise? If the theory that is used only takes those features and factors that are already identified by an existing literature into account, and this drives the data collection and analysis, then to what extent is it enabling only the same theory to be re-identified, (albeit perhaps in a different context), rather than questioning or adding to it?

Taking further forward the idea of implications arising from the roles that underpinning theory might take, it is possible to consider what the form of contribution of a research study might be in each case. Table 3 begins to explore how role and contribution might be viewed in terms of linkage or relationship.

Table 3: Roles of underpinning theory and relationship to contribution to knowledge

The questions raised in Table 3 are certainly not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, they should be taken as examples of the forms of questions that can be asked if there are implications that are identified when using a theory in specific contexts or ways. How these questions relate to other forms of underpinnings also need to be considered carefully in any specific research context.

3. Choosing one or more underpinnings for a study

It is perfectly feasible, of course, to select more than one model, framework, concept or theory to underpin a research study. In the context of marketing strategy, Varadarajan (2019) considers reasons and identifies trends in adopting single or multiple–theory approaches in this research field over time, as well as discussing outcomes and implications arising from taking specific approaches. It is certainly possible to take a multi-theory approach even if a study does not seek to develop a new model, framework, concept or theory from a number that exist already. Whilst some researchers come with fairly well-developed ideas of models, frameworks, concepts or theories that align with their own concerns, approaches and position as a researcher, other researchers do not start with this stance, but recognise the possibility and values that different models, frameworks, concepts and theories might bring to their research endeavour. In this latter case, it is more likely that a researcher is concerned with thinking through the study to be undertaken, and identifying methodological stance and approach, and how this might benefit from the use of one or more models, frameworks, concepts and theories. Some researchers might argue that a combination can be conflicting, or would argue for adoption of a single underpinning framework that conceptualises the basis of the study (for example, Passey, 2010) or for a single theory building approach to support wider generalisability (for example, Eisenhardt, 1989). On the other hand, others would argue a different case, that multi-theory approaches provide for a better sense of situational contexts (for example, Berman, 2013), and establish how more than one form of underpinning would be associated, related and of value. In research, strength of argument often determines possibility in these respects.

For example, can it be argued that both behaviourism and social constructivism could be used as forms of underpinning in a single study? It might at first appear that these two theories are incompatible – that behaviourism is concerned with responses arising from stimuli through operant conditioning, while social constructivism is concerned with the way the learner engages with the external environment, learning through social interaction. It might be inferred, therefore, that behaviourism is defined as learning that is driven through conditioned response - what has become associated in certain ways with passive learning, or ‘drill and practice’ approaches. For social constructivism, this might be defined in terms of the learner exercising control over learning through engagement and interaction with the environment (what has become associated in other ways with active learning approaches). Ertmer and Newby (1993) provide a useful discussion about the relationship and differences between behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism. They state that “we have consciously chosen not to advocate one theory over the others, but to stress instead the usefulness of being well versed in each. This is not to suggest that one should work without a theory” (p.62). From a learner’s perspective, they also quote Drucker’s statement (cited in Snelbecker, 1983, p.203): “These old controversies have been phonies all along. We need the behaviorist’s triad of practice/reinforcement/feedback to enlarge learning and memory. We need purpose, decision, values, understanding—the cognitive categories—lest learning be mere behavioral activities rather than action” (p. 203).

The question that we are left with, then, is perhaps more concerned with why and how we would want to include and integrate more than one form of underpinning. In the case above, social constructivism can be argued as a contextual approach to learning, whilst behaviourism can be argued as a (short- or long-term) response to learning. A note of caution here is to say that considering single or multi-theory approaches should not be confused with taking multi- or mixed-methods approaches. Multi- or mixed-methods approaches are concerned with the gathering and forms of data, and with how questions about reliability and generalisability - or credibility - might be addressed. Multi- or mixed-methods provide evidence to inform research questions, whereas single or multi-theory approaches provide the underpinning and conceptual basis of the study or key elements of it.

4. Overall research design and approach, and relationship of underpinnings

One way to consider the reasons why theoretical or conceptual underpinnings might be used, and the practice of how, is to explore different elements of a study, and how they are related. For this purpose, five elements will be considered: ontological and epistemological position, methodological approach, methodological design, data collection methods, and data analysis methods.

Taking each one of these in turn, initially, ontological and epistemological position are concerned with the stance of the researcher. Ontology has been described as “the study of being” (Crotty, 1998, p.10). This clearly “raises basic questions about the nature of reality and the nature of the human being in the world” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p.183). Ontological position, therefore, can take a view that reality exists independently outside consciousness, or that reality exists only in the interpretation that individual consciousness brings to it. These different positions then tend to lean towards a view of reality that is either objective (a world that can be positively identified) or subjective (a world that is perceived as being different by different individuals). From a research perspective, it is then a question of how evidence can be gathered to support either one of these positions. Epistemology has, in that context, been described as “a way of understanding and explaining how I know what I know” (Crotty, 1998, p.3). Denzin and Lincoln (2005) explore this further, considering associations between the knower and the knowledge, and they ask a crucial question: “how do I know the world?” (p.183). Epistemology in a research context is concerned with making sense of our world through a methodological approach, where the researcher is aware of their ontological and epistemological position, or they are aware of the possibility to associate with one position or another, according to the nature of the study being undertaken. For any research study, underpinnings clearly need to accommodate the position or stance taken with regard to ontology and epistemology.

Methodological approaches should then be related to ontological and epistemological position. There are different ways in which methodological approaches and philosophical paradigms can be defined and categorised. For example, Kivunja and Kuyini (2017) explore four categories – positivist, interpretivist/constructivist, critical/transformative, and pragmatic. In this paper, three methodological approaches will be explored in the context of relationship to underpinnings, but it should be noted that these are selected as examples, and do not represent the entirety of possibilities within the field. The first of these approaches is post-positivism. Although this paradigm (approach) is often related to an objectivist position, it usually takes a more critical realist perspective, in that identifying an absolute truth is not possible (Letourneau & Allen, 2006). Rather than taking a position that objectivism can lead to truth, post-positivism is concerned with how to research in order to move closer to truth. There is also a recognition here that knowledge can be questioned, and that such critical realist perspectives through objective study can enable a movement towards truth. The second paradigm (approach) considered here is interpretivism. Often related to a more subjectivist position, it is usually recognised that knowledge is highly contextual, in terms of relationship through participants (either individual or groups) to, for example, time, place, culture and external or internal factors. Hence, interpretivism considers the importance of multiple meanings. The meanings of human experiences are a focal concern for researchers taking this approach (Fossey, Harvey, McDermott & Davidson, 2002). The third paradigm (approach) considered here is constructionism. This approach is concerned with the relationship of the interpreter with what is being interpreted (Crotty, 1998). The interpreter, rather than taking an unconnected view, considers the context strongly, in terms of external and internal influences (Charmaz, 2006). The influence of the context is taken into consideration in this approach, and it is recognised that this can affect interpretation. In this way, knowledge is considered to be a construct rather than providing a truth; knowledge through interpretation is itself a construct rather than something to be identified. The recognition or choice of even these three different paradigms (approaches) can clearly influence the appropriateness of any underpinning conceptual or theoretical framework that might be chosen.

Methodological design is concerned with the structural and overarching scope and practices of a research study. It is not possible in this paper to discuss all methodological designs – that is covered far more effectively in texts dedicated to that arena (for example, Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007; Creswell, 2014). For the purposes of this paper, three examples will be highlighted – case study, phenomenography, and design-based research. In terms of a case study design, as Harrison, Birks, Franklin and Mills (2017) state, case study “has a practical versatility in its agnostic approach… case study research can be orientated from a realist or positivist perspective where the researcher holds the view that there is one single reality, which is independent of the individual and can be apprehended, studied and measured, through to a relativist or interpretivist perspective” (n.p.). Alignment with an epistemological and ontological position or stance, therefore, is more concerned with the strength of argument made to demonstrate that alignment, rather than alignment arising from a simple choice of known appropriateness. Taking a phenomenographic design, the alignment that is possible here is more distinctive. Richardson (1999) posits that phenomenography aligns with “realist” interpretation. Indeed, Marton, a key leader in developing this form of methodological design, stated that the aim of this design is to identify different conceptions of reality (Marton, 1986). If these conceptions are constructed by those using or associated with a phenomenon, then this focus aligns with “constructionism”. By comparison, with a design-based methodological design, the alignment is again not necessarily distinctive. Cross (1999) discussed three concerns with design-based research – design epistemology, design praxeology, and design phenomenology. In terms of design epistemology, Cross referred to “designerly ways of knowing”, which was defined as the ways that designers think about design (Cross, 1999; Cross, 2007). He referred to design praxiology as practices and processes in creating outcomes, while for design phenomenology this was concerned with the connection of a phenomenon created with the users. Whilst it could be possible to argue alignment with a post-positivistic approach, it could also be argued that a constructionist approach could be taken. Here again, the alignment is concerned with form and strength of argument and discussion, rather than it being determined by a distinct alignment of the methodological design itself.

So far, concerns about choice and application of forms of underpinning that are related to the discussions above tend to focus on theoretical or conceptual underpinnings, through theories or frameworks. However, when data collection methods are considered, whilst underpinnings need to associate with those same background philosophies, there is some scope to look to how other forms of underpinnings might work in addition to those already considered and selected. Taking a case study design as an example, forms of data collection that are suggested by key researchers in this field, such as Yin (2003), Stake (1995) or Merriam (1998), cover multiple forms. These might include interviews, observations, questionnaires, artefacts and relevant background documents. However, interview questions, observation details to be identified, questions in a questionnaire, artefacts to be collected and specific background documents that might be relevant, can be informed by an appropriate underpinning model, framework or conception that aligns with the wider theoretical and philosophical stance of the study. In the case of a study looking at implementation of a digital technology, for example, TAM (Davis, 1989) or UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) might well provide a model or framework for this purpose.

An underpinning construct used to support or inform data collection might also apply to data analysis methods. Taking the example of a case study informed by the UTAUT framework (Venkatesh et al., 2003), it would be just as appropriate to use this framework for data analysis. Indeed, researchers have used such frameworks to undertake both qualitative analyses and quantitative analyses. For example, Abualbasal, Abu-Shanab and Al-Quraan (2016) undertook a quantitative analysis using the UTAUT framework within a case study of use of Microsoft Project by students, while Biljon and Renaud (2008) undertook a qualitative study using the UTAUT framework with a case study exploring applicability to senior mobile telephone users. So, although the same framework was used, it was clear that it was used in a quite different way in each of these studies; the role of the framework was quite different (see Table 3), and this means that the ontological and epistemological position, methodological approach and deign could also be quite different.

In a single study, if different models, frameworks or theories are chosen, then they must, of course, align, so that their relationship is understood, and so that they align paradigmatically. An example to illustrate this is shown in Table 4.

Table 4: An example of multiple forms of underpinning constructs for a study

The example shown in Table 4 is, on the one hand, complex in terms of the number of underpinning conceptions and theories that are involved, but on the other hand, it indicates the degree of concern that is needed when developing a proposal for a research study that is based through a particular and identified epistemological and ontological position. Alignment of theoretical and conceptual underpinning is important, how it is argued is important, the way it might then contribute to the literature and future research is to some extent determined, but none of this invalidates the possibility of questioning elements of underpinnings that are involved. During and at the end of a study, it is still possible to ask questions about the efficacy of underpinning theories and conceptions, and their relationship to findings at a methodological level.

Table 5 offers some further examples of how studies that have been undertaken over the past few years in the field of technology enhanced learning (TEL) have been underpinned by models, frameworks or theories.

Table 5: Examples of studies in TEL that have used a range of underpinning constructs

As can be seen from Table 5, using models, frameworks or theories to underpin research studies neither involves a singular approach, nor is it necessarily a simple choice. In all these cases, the use of models, frameworks and theories has been argued by the authors, and relates to their specific studies and the needs of that research. In the case of Almpanis (2015), for example, it was the argument for epistemological and ontological position that formulated the argument for subsequent uses of underpinning models and frameworks to support the research methods of data collection and analysis. In the case of Topol (2016), it was the argument arising from a concern for understanding the philosophical underpinning that led to subsequent uses of models and frameworks for the research design. By contrast, Essam (2019) and Kotsovoulou (2020) focused the majority of their argument on the underpinnings of their research design and methods.

Reading the range of research studies that are listed in Table 5, it is clear that at doctoral level, and for theses, a great deal of detail and associated word count is devoted to the description and argument associated with enabling the reader to understand their choices and uses of model, framework, conceptual or theoretical underpinnings. Journal articles, whilst commonly considered to be a main source of research background, do not usually provide for this same level of detail and allow for a word count that can be devoted to this element or level of description. It could be argued that this might be a reason why so many journal articles do not give so much attention to the detailed discussion and description of this element, and, consequently, appear to be devoid of conceptual or theoretical underpinnings. Some journals do specifically aim their paper selection and focus on conceptual and theory development, and on theoretical concerns, such as Theory and Research in Education (Sage Journals, n.d.), or Educational Theory (Wiley, 2020). In the field of technology enhanced learning, there are authors who focus strongly on theoretical concerns, and draw attention to the importance of developing scholarship more fundamentally in this direction (for example, Oliver, 2002; Bennett & Oliver, 2011).

5. How a study might contribute to knowledge or theory

Going back to the original discussion about contributions to research, policy and practice, the question remains as to what contribution a study can make when it is based on theoretical and conceptual underpinnings. A part of this contribution must, of course, come from addressing a gap in the literature – but to what extent that gap is related to or reliant on theoretical or conceptual underpinnings is an important question to ask. Certainly, Bennett and Oliver (2011) argue that contribution can come from more focused studies that explore the very nature of underpinning theoretical conceptions of technology enhanced learning. Whilst it is possible to see how contributions could arise, it is also important to consider how the use of underpinnings might lead to limitations. Passey (2019), for example, argues that the concept of technology enhanced learning itself has not been developed in contemporary contexts and that this in itself is a potential limitation to understanding how underpinnings can be appropriately considered and selected. One way to consider these concerns (although it should be recognised that this is not the only way that this could be done), is as follows.

For a model, contributions to research knowledge might be either understanding how the model might apply to other contexts (as in Tam, 2014, for example), or understanding whether the elements in the model apply, the extent to which they apply, or whether some should be added or amended. Contributions to policy or practice knowledge might be understanding how the model applies to a specific policy or practice area not previously researched, or understanding how the model supports specific actors involved in policy or practitioner actions and decisions. In some circumstances, a model might not be found to be highly applicable, and whilst this can in itself be a contribution rather than a limitation, a study might provide evidence that the model is more contextual than had been initially considered. Alternatively, in some cases, the model might limit the factors that are considered, so that others that are pertinent are not recognised – so, data collection and analysis methods need to accommodate for the possibility of drawing out additional factors that go beyond those in the initial model or framework. In the field of research in technology enhanced learning, contributions that can arise from and limitations that apply to the use of underpinning models is of particular importance. As technologies continue to be developed, their functionality shifts over time, their uses shift over time, and the ways they are integrated into social practices shift over time. This means that models arising from research in one technological and temporal context need to be regularly checked for applicability to other contexts. The way in which the TAM (Davis, 1989) was checked and developed into the UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) shows how an initial concern with identifying user acceptance (of temporal importance in the 1980s) was shifted to a later concern on identifying use within social practices (of greater concern in the 2000s). In this regard, if research studies that are undertaken continue to focus on challenges that are linked to temporality and focus on matters of technological development and their outcomes rather than on longer-term patterns of development that apply to social and societal concerns, then applicability is likely to be focused much more on a ‘new’ technology than it would be on the movement to a contemporary social practice.

For a conceptual framework, the same contributions as those in the point above could apply. For contributions to policy or practice knowledge, giving recommendations to those in policy or practice, based on the findings of the research using the conceptual framework might also apply (as was the case in McDowell, 2018, for example). Not in this case, but it is always worth noting that a chosen framework might similarly limit the factors that are considered, so that others that are pertinent are not recognised. Again, data collection and analysis methods need to accommodate for the possibility of drawing out additional factors that go beyond those in the initial framework (as in Alenezi, 2014, for example). In the field of research in technology enhanced learning, contributions that can arise from the use of underpinning conceptual frameworks may address some of the limitations of using models for underpinning purposes. A conceptual framework can be used in a time-bounded way, but it can be used in ways that also consider shifts and developments over time. It might be argued that understanding a shift over time might offer a more predictive possibility in terms of outcomes. For technology enhanced learning, therefore, this could mean that whilst a model might offer ideas for implementation into practice over a short time period (if it is contextually bounded), a conceptual framework might offer a wider policy and practice perspective that would enable predictions applying to implementation and uses over longer projected periods of time. An example of this form of predictive potential would be the case of networked learning. Findley (1988) developed initial concepts of Collaborative Networked Learning in a seminal research project. The term and concept have endured, nevertheless, over time and context. Nearly 20 years later, Goodyear, Banks, Hodgson and McConnell (2004) clarified and defined the concept in terms of educational practices. Nearly 20 years after that, the concept is still pertinent, and applicability in contemporary contexts is regularly researched, revisited and applied - for example, in the practices used to support doctoral student engagement on programmes at Lancaster University in the Department of Educational Research (2020).

For a theoretical framework, the same contributions as those in the point above could apply. For contributions to research knowledge, understanding how the different theories that provide the basis for the theoretical framework work together, or offering a potentially different methodological approach that uses the theoretical framework, might also apply (as in Topol, 2016, for example). The framework might again limit the factors that are considered, so that others that are pertinent are not recognised, implying that data collection and analysis methods should accommodate for the possibility of drawing out additional factors that go beyond those in the initial framework. The ways that the different theoretical elements relate should undoubtedly be questioned as a part of the study, and one way to address this would be through the research questions, which might include one that explores the relationship of the different theoretical elements within the study approach taken. In the field of research in technology enhanced learning, contributions that can arise from the use of underpinning theoretical frameworks may similarly potentially address some of the limitations of using conceptual frameworks for underpinning purposes. While conceptual frameworks offer longer-term perspectives compared to models, they can also be limited in terms of wider social context. Networked learning, for example, is aligned to the context of learning and education. A theoretical framework can go beyond a single context, and cover wider social practices. Ngai, Tao and Moon (2015), for example, explored how previous research into social media and its applications had been underpinned by theory. Contextually, their review and findings went beyond a single subject context, but their conclusions nevertheless highlighted important areas for further research. The authors stated that “important areas, such as organization orientation, social power, cultural differences, and impacts of social media, have not received sufficient research attention” (p.42). In terms of the focus of their contribution, this was clearly focused as a research contribution. If they had been seeking a practice or policy contribution, their research questions, selection of literature, and specificity of context would have been quite different, and this might well have led them to take a focus underpinned more at a model or conceptual level (see Kotsovoulou, 2020, for example).

For a theory, the same contributions as those in the point above that relate to a conceptual framework could similarly apply. Additionally, for contributions to research knowledge, understanding whether the features in the theory apply, or whether some features should be added or amended could also apply. If the theory is not questioned as a part of the study, its applicability to that context will not be questioned. To address this limitation, research questions should include one that explores the validity of the theory within the study context. In the field of research in technology enhanced learning, contributions that can arise from the use of theories may similarly address some of the limitations of using theoretical frameworks for underpinning purposes. Bower (2019), for example, develops and argues the case for adopting technology-mediated learning theory, basing this contemporary theory on a wide variety of background frameworks and prior theories. Theories of this form provide the widest forms of contextual underpinnings, but at the same time, those theories can still be based on limited geographic and cultural contexts (see Lee, 2018, for example).

Forms of contribution from research clearly relate to the ways that models, frameworks or theories are applied within the overall research study and design. In the example in Table 4, social constructivism as an ontological and epistemological position might be considered at the end of the study in terms of how far or at what levels it is matched or applied, whereas contextual constructivism could perhaps be more questioned as to its validity within the study, and whether there were strengths or weaknesses related to its use. In the same example, regarding the use of self-determination theory and self-theories of motivation, the ways that these are linked, the appropriateness of their use, and whether any features or factors emerged that would be particularly highlighted, added or redundant, could certainly add to a theoretical contribution, related to the context of the study.

When considering contribution, limitations should be considered in terms of the ways that theory and other underpinnings are used. Going back to the categorisation of uses of theory by Oliver (2012), limitations vary according to intended use, whether it is intended that theory be used as a tool, a principle, whether it is intended for theory building, or for theory using. From this categorisation, using theory for theory building is clearly the most likely to avoid limitations of theoretical contribution (see Bower, 2019, for example).

6. Conclusions

The key conclusion that arises from the discussion and argument presented in this paper is that choice of underpinning and choice of role that models, frameworks or theories play can both provide for and potentially limit the opportunity for a study to question and, therefore, to develop theory as a contribution arising from that study. The role of questioning and argument (criticality) is paramount in addressing these concerns.

When considering using models, conceptual and theoretical frameworks, and theories to underpin a research study, to avoid limitations when considering appropriate underpinnings, the analysis from this paper highlights and recommends:

For any underpinning considered, its status from the originating research should be identified and recognised. From this understanding, an appropriate focus through research questions, design and methods can draw out particular areas of contribution, which can be different in each of the cases for a model, framework or theory. This is particularly important for research in technology enhanced learning as the field is relatively new, so many models, frameworks or theories are often taken from different contexts. For example, Kim and Hannafin (2011) explored the appropriateness of the basis of constructs of problem-solving and scaffolding (both developed outside the technology enhanced learning field) when they studied the scaffolding of problem-solving in technology enhanced learning environments.

Similarly, the context from which any underpinning is generated should be identified and recognised. Questions about applicability within other contexts, and in the context of a specific study, should be raised. For example, Lytras, Sarirete and Damiani (2020) explored technology-enhanced learning from a transformative perspective, but as this was in the context of higher education, how far their model would apply to training, compulsory or vocational education sectors is not clear.

Criticality is a key concept that should be applied as much to models, frameworks and theories as it is to the focal concern or the problem of the study to be investigated itself. This criticality should apply through a study’s research questions and methods as much as through any review of literature or previous research. For example, how far does Laurillard’s conversational framework (2002) enable the practice of teacher professional development in creating e-books for reluctant readers to be assessed as effective by an observer?

Epistemological and ontological stance within a study may shape the choice and role(s) of models, frameworks and theories. This does not eliminate a concern to question how those with other epistemological and ontological stances might still gain in terms of contribution arising from a study that is based on a specific stance and appropriate underpinnings. For example, how far do the findings of a study about uses of social media to support peer learning through an interpretivist approach enable recommendations to be viewed as feasible by policy makers with positivist stances?

Methodological design that is underpinned by appropriate models, frameworks or theories does not mean that the design itself cannot be questioned. Critical questioning of methodological design (underpinned by appropriate models, frameworks or theories) can lead to developments that contribute to research in major ways. For example, Collins, Joseph and Bielaczyc (2004) questioned whether a methodological approach using design research, underpinned by pragmatism, was appropriate and could be developed for analysing evaluative needs to support developments such as communities of learners. Similarly, Wang and Collins (2005) questioned appropriateness and future challenges in using a design-based research approach in developing technology-enhanced learning environments.

Research questions should be framed in ways that allow alternative ways to view factors and features relating to underpinning models, frameworks or theories. Finding contextual matches, shifts, amendments or additions can all offer important contributions to the field. For example, Varga-Atkins (2019) used research questions that allowed her study to identify an additional element to Shulman’s underpinning concept of signature pedagogies (2005a), in the form of signature assessments.

Contributions to policy and practice should be considered in the context of underpinning models, frameworks or theories. The generation of recommendations to policy and practice can be important contributions in themselves, which can evolve from research findings that have been underpinned by previous policy or practice. For example, Alenezi (2013), by reviewing underpinning concepts in a Saudi context, was able to offer recommendations for policy that aligned specifically with that context.

Concerns for underpinning of our studies through an appropriate conceptual and theoretical base can present a challenge for us as researchers. It is clear that our research knowledge in the areas of epistemological and ontological positions, methodological approaches and design, research data collection and analysis methods, have all relied upon critical perspectives by previous researchers through their published works. Taking models, frameworks and theories for granted will only limit our ultimate knowledge; we must be prepared to question these from the inside (when and during use) as well as from the outside (before we use them).

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the PhD students I have supervised over the years, who have all, in their own ways, thoughtfully considered, selected and used models, frameworks, and theories to underpin their studies. Through their concerns and initiatives, I have gained insight into this area. Doctoral studies should always offer contribution to knowledge, and the students I have supervised have never failed to provide that for me. I am delighted to have had chance to acknowledge their work in this paper. My thanks also to the reviewers of this paper; their insights and careful reading have undoubtedly added to the finished product.

About the author

Don Passey , Centre for Technology Enhanced Learning, Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University, United Kingdom.

Don is Professor of Technology Enhanced Learning in the Department of Educational Research at Lancaster University, UK, and an Honorary Professor of the Institutes of Education and of Information Technology at Amity University, Uttar Pradesh, India. He is a current staff member of the Centre for Technology Enhanced Learning in the Department of Educational Research, and was a previous director and co-director of the Centre. He is currently the Director of Studies for the Doctoral Programme in e-Research and Technology Enhanced Learning. His research investigates how digital technologies support learning and teaching. Recent studies have explored innovative and inclusive practices, in and outside educational institutions and classrooms, in off-site, home and community settings. His findings have informed policy and practice, for international institutions and groups, government departments and agencies, regional and local authorities, companies and corporations. His publications span theoretical as well as empirical studies, and the methodological approaches he adopts widely range across bespoke mixed methods. He is currently chair of the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) Technical Committee on Education, has chaired a number of international conferences in his academic field, and is the recipient of Outstanding Service and Silver Core Awards from IFIP for his international contributions to his field in education.

Email : [email protected]

ORCID : 0000-0002-9205-502X

Article information

Article type: Full paper, double-blind peer review.

Publication history: Received: 01 June 2020. Revised: 22 June 2020. Accepted: 22 June 2020. Published: 24 June 2020.

Cover image: LTDatEDU via Pixabay.

Abualbasal, W., Abu-Shanab, E., & Al-Quraan, H. (2016). Dynamic Analysis of UTAUT: The Case of Microsoft Project Management Software. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies. 11 , 40-54. DOI: 10.4018/IJWLTT.2016070104

Aimard, V. (2011). Overview of the potential of e-Learning for Higher Education . Retrieved from http://www.vie.unu.edu/file/get/3029

Alenezi, A. (2013). A teacher perspective of ICT integration in Saudi Arabia secondary schools as a possible alternative to western ICT integration. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Alenezi, F. (2014). The Integration of ICT within Teaching and Learning Environments in Education Faculties in Saudi Universities: Challenges and Potential for Change. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Almpanis, T. (2015). Staff development needs of academic staff involved in blended and online course delivery in higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.

AlOkailly, R. (2019). Moving Towards Flexible Ubiquitous Agnostic Design (FUAD) Framework from an Informed View of Lecturers’ Practices. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Alwani, A.E.S. & Soomro, S. (2010). Barriers to effective use of information technology in science education at Yanbu Kingdom of Saudi Arabia : E-Learning Experiences and Future. Retrieved from http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/barriers-to-effective-use-ofinformation-technology-in-science-education-at-yanbu-kingdom-of-saudi-a

Anderson, T. (2004). Toward a Theory of Online Learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.). Theory and Practice of Online Learning (pp.33-60). Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Bennett, S., & Oliver, M. (2011). Talking back to theory : the missed opportunities in learning technology research. Research in Learning Technology, 19 (3), 179–189.

Berman, J. (2013). Utility of a conceptual framework within doctoral study: A researcher’s reflections. Issues in Educational Research, 23 (1), 1–18.

Biljon, J. & Renaud, K. (2008). A Qualitative Study of the Applicability of Technology Acceptance Models to Senior Mobile Phone Users. In I.-Y. Song et al. (Eds.). ER Workshops 2008, LNCS 5232, (pp. 228–237). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag .

Bower, M. (2019). Technology-mediated learning theory. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (3), 1035–1048.

Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., & Ballard, J. (2019). Who Built Maslow’s Pyramid? A History of the Creation of Management Studies’ Most Famous Symbol and Its Implications for Management Education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 18 (1), 81–98.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge , MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J.S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review , 31 , 21-32.

Campo, S. (2013). Device Neutral Assignments: DNA for BYOD. Retrieved from https://www.smore.com/r0um-deviceneutral-assignments

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cobern, W. (1991). Contextual Constructivism: The Impact of Culture on the Learning and Teaching of Science . Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338488.pdf

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.

Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2010). Ubiquitous Learning: An Agenda for Educational Transformation. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.). Ubiquitous Learning . Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Corbett, H. & Rossman, G.B. (1989). Three Paths to Implementing Change: A Research Note. Curriculum Inquiry , 19 (2), 164-179.

Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design Research: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (1), 15-42.

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design Issues, 15 (2), 5–10. DOI: 10.2307/1511837

Cross, N. (2007). Forty years of design research. Design Studies, 28 (1), 1–4. DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2006.11.004

Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process . London: Sage.

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly , 13 (3), 319-340.

Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research . Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.). Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp.1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.

Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development . Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Educational Research Lancaster University. (2020). Study for a PhD in Educational Research. Retrieved from https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/educational-research/study/phd/#

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532–550.

Engeström, Y. & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5 (1), 1–24.

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14 , 133-156.

Essam, R. (2019). A professional development programme for supporting teachers in the design, development, and implementation of Technology Enhanced Learning activities for teaching Arabic as a foreign language. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Felder, R.M. & Soloman, B.A. (1993). Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire (ILS) . Retrieved from https://www.webtools.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/

Findley, C.A. (1988). Collaborative Networked Learning: On-line Facilitation and Software Support. Burlington, MA: Digital Equipment Corporation.

Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36 , 717-732.

Gibson, J.J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research . Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glynn, S.M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2009). Science Motivation Questionnaire: Construct validation with nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 46 (2), 127–146.

Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in Research on Networked Learning . London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Grant, C. & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house”. Connecting Education, Practice and Research , 4 (2), 12–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9

Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., & Hopkins, D. (Eds.). (2010). Second International Handbook of Educational Change. Part 1 . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017). Case Study Research: Foundations and Methodological Orientations. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research , 18 (1), Art. 19. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1701195

Haythornthwaite, C. & Andrews, R. (2011) E-learning theory and practice. London: Sage.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (translated by J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson). Oxford: Blackwell.

JISC. (2017). Building digital capability: The six elements defined. Retrieved from http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/6611/1/JFL0066F_DIGIGAP_MOD_IND_FRAME.PDF

Katz, E., Blumler, J.G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.). The uses of mass communications: current perspectives on gratifications research (pp.19–32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kim, M.C. & Hannafin, M.J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56 (2), 403-417.

Kirkpatrick, D.L. & Kirkpatrick, J.D. (2007). Implementing the four levels: A practical guide for effective evaluation of training programs . San Francisco, CA: Koehler Publishers Inc.

Kivunja, C. & Kuyini, A.B. (2017). Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6 (5), 26-41.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kotsovoulou, M. (2020). Exploring student perceptions about the use of visual programming environments, their relation to student learning styles and their impact on student motivation in undergraduate introductory programming modules. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Kwon, T. & Zmud, R. (1987) Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation . In R. Hirshheim (Ed.). Critical issues in information systems research . New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Lai, C.H., Yang, J.C., Chen, F.C., Ho, C.W., & Chan, T.W. (2007). Affordances of mobile technologies for experiential learning: the interplay of technology and pedagogical practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 23 (4), 326-337.

Lambrecht, H. (2015). Tackling low learning outcomes in South Africa: The contribution from informal mobile learning. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Lancaster University. (2018). Manual of Academic Regulations and Procedures 2018-29: Postgraduate Research Regulations (Applicable from October 2018) . Lancaster: Academic Standards and Quality, Lancaster University.

Laurillard, D. (1999). A conversational framework for individual learning applied to the “learning organisation” and the “learning society”. Systems Research and Behavioral Science , 16 (2), 113–122.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies ( 2nd ed.). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, C. (2018). Assessing the uses and impacts of Facebook for teaching and learning in classroom education contexts in Malaysian universities. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Letourneau, N. & Allen, M. (2006). Post-positivistic critical multiplism: A beginning dialogue. In W.K. Cody (Ed.). Philosophical and theoretical perspectives for advanced nursing practice (pp. 221-231). Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Lytras, M., Sarirete, A., & Damiani, E. (2020). Technology-enhanced learning research in higher education: A transformative education primer. Computers in Human Behavior, 109. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563220301035

MacDonald, I. (2018). Innovative online computer supported collaborative assessment: the influence of learning approach and intensity of use on outcomes for healthcare undergraduates in a single university setting. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Manchester Metropolitan University. (2019). Study: Postgraduate Study – PhD (Doctor of Philosophy). Retrieved from https://www2.mmu.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/course/phd-doctor-of-philosophy/?start=2019

Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography - A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21 (3), 28-49. Reprinted in R.R. Sherman & W.B. Webb (Eds.). Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods (pp.141-161). London: Falmer Press.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4), 370-96.

McDowell, J. (2018). The Whole World In Their Hands: An investigation of the influence of mobile technologies on learner engagement of primary school children in outdoor settings. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017–1054.

Ngai, E.W.T., Tao, S.S.C., & Moon, K.K-L. (2015). Social media research: Theories, constructs, and conceptual frameworks. International Journal of Information Management, 35 (1), 33-44.

Oliver, M. (2002). JISM special issue on theory for learning technologies: Editorial. Journal of Interactive Multimedia Education , 9 . Art. 8. Retrieved from https://jime.open.ac.uk/articles/10.5334/2002-9/

Ertmer, P.A. & Newby, T.J. (1993). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly , 6 (4), 50–72.

Papert, S. (1986). Constructionism: A New Opportunity for Elementary Science Education . Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Laboratory, Epistemology and Learning Group.

Passey, D. (2010). Mobile learning in school contexts: Can teachers alone make it happen? IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies , 3 (1), 68-81.

Passey, D. (2014). Inclusive technology enhanced learning . New York, NY: Routledge.

Passey, D. (2019). Technology‐enhanced learning: Rethinking the term, the concept and its theoretical background. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (3), 972-986. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12783

Passey, D., Dagienė, V., Atieno, L., & Baumann, W. (2019). Computational Practices, Educational Theories, and Learning Development. Problemos , 2018 (Suppl.), 24-38.

Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children (translated by M. Cook). New York, NY: International University Press.

Pintrich, P.R. & de Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning Components of Classroom Academic Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology , 82 (1), 33–40.

Pruet, P., Ang, C.S., & Farzin, D. (2016). Understanding tablet computer usage among primary school students in underdeveloped areas: Students’ technology experience, learning styles and attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior , 55 , 1131-1144.

QAA. (2014). UK Quality Code for Higher Education - Part A: Setting and Maintaining Academic Standards . The Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Ravenscroft, A., Wegerif, R., & Hartley, J. (2007). Reclaiming thinking: dialectic, dialogic and learning in the digital age. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series, Series II, Issue 5, 39-57.

Richardson, J.T.E. (1999). The Concepts and Methods of Phenomenographic Research. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 53-82.

Rikala, J. & Kankaanranta, M. (2014). The Nature Tour mobile learning application. Implementing the mobile application in Finnish early childhood education settings. In CSEDU 2014: 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education . Barcelona, Spain: SCITEPRESS-Science and Technology Publications.

Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Roulstone, A. (1998). Enabling technology. Disabled people, work and new technology . Buckingham: Open University Press.

Ryan, A. & Tilbury, D. (2013). Flexible Pedagogy: new pedagogical ideas . Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/flexible-pedagogies-newpedagogical-ideas

Sage Journals. (n.d.). Theory and Research in Education. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/aims-scope/TRE

Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. (2013). Laurillard’s conversational framework for instruction. Retrieved from http://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/~instructtech/lol/laurillard/

Salmon, G. (2003). E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. London: Routledge Falmer.

Scanlon, E., Blake, C., Issroff, K. & Lewin, C. (2006). Evaluating learning technologies: frameworks and case studies. International Journal of Learning Technology , 2 (2-3), 243–263.

Sen, A. (2016). Study and Evaluation of Active and Multimodal Practical Learning in a Novel Technology-Enhanced Anatomy Learning Laboratory. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Shulman, L. (2005a). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus , 134 , 52-59.

Shulman, L.S. (2005b). Pedagogies of uncertainty. Liberal Education , 91 (2), 18–25.

Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior . New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Snelbecker, G. (1983). Learning theory, instructional theory, and psychoeducational design . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tam, R. (2014). An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption, diffusion and use of web-based learning technologies: a single case study in higher education. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Tight, M. (2017). Understanding Case Study Research: Small-scale Research with Meaning . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Topol, R. (2016). Manipulating affordances in practice: A hermeneutic phenomenological study of mobility impairment and uses of digital technologies in work. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Varadarajan, R. (2019). Theoretical underpinnings of research in strategic marketing: a commentary. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47, 30–36.

Varga-Atkins, T. (2019). Designing curricula to develop digitally capable professionals in engineering and management - the case in two UK universities. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, F.D., & Davis, G.B. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly , 27 , 425-478.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, F. & Hannafin, M.J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53 , 5–23.

Wiley. (2020). Educational Theory. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/17415446

Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zimmerman, H.T. & Land, S.M. (2014). Facilitating place-based learning in outdoor informal environments with mobile computers. TechTrends , 58 (1), 77-83.

• Publishing information

Theoretical Framework

Ai generator.

In the realm of academic and research endeavors, a theoretical framework stands as a guiding beacon, offering structure and direction to studies across various disciplines. Rooted in the amalgamation of elements , characteristics, and observations , a theoretical framework provides researchers with a roadmap to navigate the intricate landscape of their subject matter. This article delves into the depths of theoretical frameworks, shedding light on their definition, crafting process, and their role in research. By the end of this guide, you’ll be equipped with the knowledge to draft a robust theoretical framework that forms the cornerstone of your scholarly pursuits.

1. Literature Review Example

• Google Docs

2. Theoretical Research Framework

Size: 139 KB

3. Thesis Theoretical Framework

4. Qualitative Research Theoretical Framework

Size: 38 KB

5. Conceptual Framework Diagram

6. Quantitative Research Theoretical Framework

Size: 92 KB

7. Theoretical Framework for Customer Satisfaction

Size: 539 KB

8. Education Theoretical Framework

Size: 476 KB

9. Design Theoretical Framework

Size: 506 KB

10. Nursing Theoretical Framework

Size: 125 KB

11. Study of Theoretical Framework

12. Experimental Theoretical Framework

13. Academic Performance of Theoretical Framework

Size: 610 KB

14. Grounded Theory of Theoretical Framework

Size: 242 KB

15. Literature Review Theoretical Framework

Size: 664 KB

16. Perception Theoretical Framework

Size: 132 KB

17. Input Process Output Theoretical Framework

Size: 129 KB

18. Social media Theoretical Framework

Size: 356 KB

19. Paradigm Theoretical Framework

Size: 66 KB

20. Hypothesis Theoretical Framework

21. Introduction Theoretical Framework

22. Time Management for Theoretical Framework

Size: 779 KB

23. Theoretical Framework of Customer Loyalty

24. Architecture Theoretical Framework

25. Theoretical Framework of Marketing

Size: 632 KB

26. Mental Health Theoretical Framework

Size: 195 KB

27. Conceptual Theoretical Framework

Size: 172 KB

28. Depression of Theoretical Framework

29. Sleep Deprivation of Theoretical Framework

Size: 659 KB

30. Theoretical Framework on Consumer Behavior

Size: 218 KB

What is a Theoretical Framework?

A theoretical framework is a conceptual structure that underpins research, outlining the fundamental principles, assumptions, and concepts that shape a study’s approach. It serves as a lens through which researchers view their subject matter, helping to frame the research questions, identify variables, and establish the relationships between them. A well-constructed theoretical framework not only enhances the clarity and coherence of a study but also provides a rationale for the chosen methodologies and interpretations.

How to Draft a Theoretical Framework

Embarking on the journey of constructing a theoretical framework requires a systematic approach that incorporates precision and critical thinking. The following step-by-step guide will assist you in creating a robust theoretical framework for your research, guiding you through each pivotal stage.

Step 1: Identifying the Objective:

At the heart of any theoretical framework lies a clear objective. Define the purpose of your research and the specific problem you aim to address. This step sets the stage for the subsequent construction of your framework, helping you stay focused and aligned with your research goals.

Step 2: Exploring Existing Theories and Concepts:

Delve into the existing body of knowledge within your field. Identify relevant theories, concepts, and themes that resonate with your research objective. By building upon established frameworks, you enhance the credibility and depth of your theoretical foundation.

Step 3: Establishing Relationships and Correlations:

The strength of a theoretical framework lies in its ability to establish meaningful connections. Determine the relationships and correlations between the variables and concepts you’ve identified. This step involves discerning patterns, analogies , and logical linkages that contribute to a cohesive framework.

Step 4: Defining Key Elements and Characteristics:

Assemble the key elements and characteristics that constitute your theoretical framework. Define the variables, constructs, and operational definitions that will shape your study. Ensure that these components align harmoniously to present a comprehensive and coherent structure.

How do I cite a theoretical framework in my research?

When referencing a theoretical framework in your work, follow the citation style specified by your academic institution or publisher. Typically, you would attribute the original source and provide appropriate credit within your text and bibliography.

Can I modify an existing theoretical framework to suit my study?

Absolutely. Adapting an existing theoretical framework to align with your research objectives is a common practice. However, ensure that any modifications made retain the integrity of the original framework while addressing the unique aspects of your study.

Are theoretical frameworks limited to quantitative research?

No, theoretical frameworks are essential for both quantitative and qualitative research. While they may manifest differently in each approach, their role in providing a structured foundation remains consistent.

In the intricate tapestry of research, a theoretical framework emerges as a guiding thread that weaves together concepts, variables, and relationships. By diligently crafting a theoretical framework, researchers illuminate the path toward deeper understanding and meaningful insights. As you embark on your scholarly endeavors, remember that a well-constructed theoretical framework not only elevates the quality of your work but also contributes to the ever-evolving tapestry of human knowledge.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

The SPIRIT Action Framework: A structured approach to selecting and testing strategies to increase the use of research in policy

Affiliations.

• 1 Sax Institute, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 2 School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 3 Research Unit for Research Utilisation, University of St Andrews, Scotland, United Kingdom. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 4 Sax Institute, Sydney, Australia; School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 5 Sax Institute, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 6 School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 7 NSW Ministry of Health, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 8 School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 9 Sax Institute, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 10 University of Western Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 11 School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• PMID: 26004208
• DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.05.009

The recent proliferation of strategies designed to increase the use of research in health policy (knowledge exchange) demands better application of contemporary conceptual understandings of how research shapes policy. Predictive models, or action frameworks, are needed to organise existing knowledge and enable a more systematic approach to the selection and testing of intervention strategies. Useful action frameworks need to meet four criteria: have a clearly articulated purpose; be informed by existing knowledge; provide an organising structure to build new knowledge; and be capable of guiding the development and testing of interventions. This paper describes the development of the SPIRIT Action Framework. A literature search and interviews with policy makers identified modifiable factors likely to influence the use of research in policy. An iterative process was used to combine these factors into a pragmatic tool which meets the four criteria. The SPIRIT Action Framework can guide conceptually-informed practical decisions in the selection and testing of interventions to increase the use of research in policy. The SPIRIT Action Framework hypothesises that a catalyst is required for the use of research, the response to which is determined by the capacity of the organisation to engage with research. Where there is sufficient capacity, a series of research engagement actions might occur that facilitate research use. These hypotheses are being tested in ongoing empirical work.

Keywords: Action framework; Knowledge exchange; Research use.

Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• A modified action framework to develop and evaluate academic-policy engagement interventions. Mäkelä P, Boaz A, Oliver K. Mäkelä P, et al. Implement Sci. 2024 Apr 12;19(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s13012-024-01359-7. Implement Sci. 2024. PMID: 38610039 Free PMC article.
• Development and validation of SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research): a measure of policymakers' capacity to engage with and use research. Brennan SE, McKenzie JE, Turner T, Redman S, Makkar S, Williamson A, Haynes A, Green SE. Brennan SE, et al. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Jan 17;15(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0162-8. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017. PMID: 28095915 Free PMC article.
• Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks. Jardine C, Hrudey S, Shortreed J, Craig L, Krewski D, Furgal C, McColl S. Jardine C, et al. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003 Nov-Dec;6(6):569-720. doi: 10.1080/10937400390208608. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003. PMID: 14698953 Review.
• Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review. Chilcott J, Tappenden P, Rawdin A, Johnson M, Kaltenthaler E, Paisley S, Papaioannou D, Shippam A. Chilcott J, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2010 May;14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. doi: 10.3310/hta14250. Health Technol Assess. 2010. PMID: 20501062 Review.
• Policymakers' experience of a capacity-building intervention designed to increase their use of research: a realist process evaluation. Haynes A, Brennan S, Redman S, Williamson A, Makkar SR, Gallego G, Butow P. Haynes A, et al. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Nov 23;15(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0234-4. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017. PMID: 29169364 Free PMC article.
• Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Health Insurance Coverage: If, How, and When? An Integrated Knowledge Translation (iKT) Delphi Key Informant Analysis. Frank HE, Albanese A, Sun S, Saadeh F, Johnson BT, Elwy AR, Loucks EB. Frank HE, et al. Mindfulness (N Y). 2024;15(5):1220-1233. doi: 10.1007/s12671-024-02366-x. Epub 2024 May 17. Mindfulness (N Y). 2024. PMID: 38817538 Free PMC article.
• Exploring evidence use and capacity for health services management and planning in Swiss health administrations: A mixed-method interview study. Baumann A, Wyss K. Baumann A, et al. PLoS One. 2024 May 8;19(5):e0302864. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302864. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 38718022 Free PMC article.
• What is context in knowledge translation? Results of a systematic scoping review. Schmitt T, Czabanowska K, Schröder-Bäck P. Schmitt T, et al. Health Res Policy Syst. 2024 Apr 29;22(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s12961-024-01143-5. Health Res Policy Syst. 2024. PMID: 38685073 Free PMC article. Review.
• From bench to policy: a critical analysis of models for evidence-informed policymaking in healthcare. Jabali SH, Yazdani S, Pourasghari H, Maleki M. Jabali SH, et al. Front Public Health. 2024 Mar 26;12:1264315. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1264315. eCollection 2024. Front Public Health. 2024. PMID: 38596514 Free PMC article. Review.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Related information

• Cited in Books

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Elsevier Science

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Author Biographies
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Barriers and facilitators to binge-watching using the theoretical domains framework.

Share and Cite

Kwok, A.; Younas, F.; Gutman, L.M.; Vlaev, I. Barriers and Facilitators to Binge-Watching Using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Encyclopedia 2024 , 4 , 1250-1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia4030081

Kwok A, Younas F, Gutman LM, Vlaev I. Barriers and Facilitators to Binge-Watching Using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Encyclopedia . 2024; 4(3):1250-1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia4030081

Kwok, Ally, Fatima Younas, Leslie Morrison Gutman, and Ivo Vlaev. 2024. "Barriers and Facilitators to Binge-Watching Using the Theoretical Domains Framework" Encyclopedia 4, no. 3: 1250-1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia4030081

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 1230 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals