theoretical framework and conceptual framework in thesis

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

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 are the Best Research Funding Sources

Inductive vs. Deductive Research Approach

Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks for Thesis Studies: What you must know

A theoretical framework is a conceptual model that provides a systematic and structured way of thinking about a research problem or question. It helps to identify key variables and the relationships between them and to guide the selection and interpretation of data. Theoretical frameworks draw on existing theories and research and can be used to develop new hypotheses or test existing ones. They provide a foundation for research design, data collection, and analysis and can help to ensure that research is relevant, rigorous, and coherent. Theoretical frameworks are common in many disciplines, including social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities, and are essential for building knowledge and advancing understanding in a field.

This article explains the importance of frameworks in a thesis study and the differences between conceptual frameworks and theoretical frameworks. It provides guidelines on how to write a thesis framework, definitions of variable types, and examples of framework types.

What is a research framework and why do I need one?

When planning your thesis study, you need to justify your research and explain its design to your readers. This is called the research framework.

When planning your thesis study, you need to justify your research and explain its design to your readers. This is called the research framework. Think of it as the foundation of a building. A good building needs a strong foundation. Similarly, your research needs to be supported by reviewing and explaining the existing knowledge in the field, describing how your research study will fit within or contribute to the existing literature (e.g., it could challenge or test an existing theory or address a knowledge gap), and informing the reader how your study design aligns with your thesis question or hypothesis.

Important components of the framework are a literature review of recent studies associated with your thesis topic as well as theories/models used in your field of research. The literature review acts as a filtering tool to select appropriate thesis questions and guide data collection, analysis, and interpretation of your findings. Think broadly! Apart from reviewing relevant published papers in your field of research, also explore theories that you have come across in your undergraduate courses, other published thesis studies, encyclopedias, and handbooks.

There are two types of research frameworks: theoretical and conceptual .

What is a conceptual framework?

A conceptual framework is a written or visual representation that explains the study variables and their relationships with each other. The starting point is a literature review of existing studies and theories about your topic.

Steps to develop a conceptual framework

• Clarify your study topic by identifying and defining key concepts in your thesis problem statement and thesis question. Essentially, your thesis should address a knowledge gap.
• Perform a literature review to provide a background to interpret and explain the study findings. Also, draw on empirical knowledge that you have gained from personal experience.
• Identify crucial variables from the literature review and your empirical knowledge, classify them as dependent or independent variables, and define them.
• Brainstorm all the possible factors that could affect each dependent variable.
• Propose relationships among the variables and determine any associations that exist between all variables.
• Use a flowchart or tree diagram to present your conceptual framework.

Types of variables

When developing a conceptual framework, you will need to identify the following:

• Independent variables
• Dependent variables
• Moderating variables
• Mediating variables
• Control variables

First, identify the independent (cause) and dependent (effect) variables in your study. Then, identify variables that influence this relationship, such as moderating variables, mediating variables, and control variables. A moderating variable changes the relationship between independent and dependent variables when its value increases or decreases. A mediating variable links independent and dependent variables to better explain the relationship between them. A control variable could potentially impact the cause-and-effect relationship but is kept constant throughout the study so that its effects on the findings/outcomes can be ruled out.

Example of a conceptual framework

You want to investigate the hours spent exercising (cause) on childhood obesity (effect).

Now, you need to consider moderating variables that affect the cause-and-effect relationship. In our example, the amount of junk food eaten would affect the level of obesity.

Next, you need to consider mediating variables. In our example, the maximum heart rate during exercise would affect the child’s weight.

Finally, you need to consider control variables. In this example, because we do not want to investigate the role of age in obesity, we can use this as a control variable. Thus, the study subjects would be children of a specific age (e.g., aged 6–10 years).

What is a theoretical framework?

A theoretical framework provides a general framework for data analysis. It defines the concepts used and explains existing theories and models in your field of research.

A theoretical framework provides a general framework for data analysis. It defines the concepts used and explains existing theories and models in your field of research. It also explains any assumptions that were used to inform your approach and your choice of specific rationales. Theoretical frameworks are often used in the fields of social sciences.

Purpose of a theoretical framework

• Test and challenge existing theories
• Establish orderly connections between observations and facts
• Predict and control situations
• Develop hypotheses

Steps to develop a theoretical framework

• Identify and define key concepts in your thesis problem statement and thesis question.
• Explain and evaluate existing theories by writing a literature review that describes the concepts, models, and theories that support your study.
• Choose the theory that best explains the relationships between the key variables in your study.
• Explain how your research study fills a knowledge gap or fits into existing studies (e.g., testing if an established theory applies to your thesis context).
• Discuss the relevance of any theoretical assumptions and limitations.

A thesis topic can be approached from a variety of angles, depending on the theories used.

• In psychology, a behavioral approach would use different methods and assumptions compared with a cognitive approach when treating anxiety.
• In literature, a book could be analyzed using different literary theories, such as Marxism or poststructuralism.

Structuring a theoretical framework

The structure of a theoretical framework is fluid, and there are no specific rules that need to be followed, as long as it is clearly and logically presented.

The theoretical framework is a natural extension of your literature review. The literature review should identify gaps in the field of your research, and reviewing existing theories will help to determine how these can be addressed. The structure of a theoretical framework is fluid, and there are no specific rules that need to be followed, as long as it is clearly and logically presented. The theoretical framework is sometimes integrated into the literature review chapter of a thesis, but it can also be included as a separate chapter, depending on the complexity of the theories.

Example of a theoretical framework

The sales staff at Company X are unmotivated and struggling to meet their monthly targets. Some members of the management team believe that this could be achieved by implementing a comprehensive product-training program, but others believe that introducing a sales commission structure will help.

Company X is not achieving their monthly sales targets

To increase monthly sales.

Research question:

How can Company X motivate their sales team to achieve its monthly sales targets?

Sub-questions:

• Why do the sales staff feel unmotivated?
• What is the relationship between motivation and monetary rewards?
• Do the sales staff feel that they have sufficient product knowledge?

Theoretical framework:

A literature search will need to be performed to understand the background of the many different theories of motivation in psychology. For example, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (basic human needs—physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization—have to be fulfilled before one can live up to their true potential), Vroom’s Theory of Expectancy (people decide upon their actions based on the outcomes they expect), and Locke’s Goal-Setting Theory (goals are a key driver of one’s behavior). These theories would need to be investigated to determine which would be the best approach to increase the motivation of the sales staff in Company X so that the monthly sales targets are met.

A robust conceptual or theoretical framework is crucial when writing a thesis/dissertation. It defines your research gap, identifies your approach, and guides the interpretation of your results.

A thesis is the most important document you will write during your academic studies. For professional thesis editing and thesis proofreading services, check out Enago's Thesis Editing service s for more information.

Editor’s pick

Get free updates.

Subscribe to our newsletter for regular insights from the research and publishing industry!

What type of framework is used in the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) domain? +

Theoretical frameworks are typically used in the HSS domain, while conceptual frameworks are used in the Sciences domain.

What is the difference between mediating versus moderating variables? +

The difference between mediators and moderators can be confusing. A moderating variable is unaffected by the independent variable and can increase or decrease the strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. A mediating variable is affected by the independent variable and can explain the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. T he statistical correlation between the independent and dependent variables is higher when the mediating variable is excluded.

What software should I use to present my conceptual framework? +

The software program Creately provides some useful templates that can help you get started. Other recommended programs are SmartDraw , Inkscape , and diagrams.net .

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.

• 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

Thesis Format – Templates and Samples

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Topics – Ideas and Examples

Purpose of Research – Objectives and Applications

Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing...

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• What Is a Conceptual Framework? | Tips & Examples

What Is a Conceptual Framework? | Tips & Examples

Published on August 2, 2022 by Bas Swaen and Tegan George. Revised on March 18, 2024.

A conceptual framework illustrates the expected relationship between your variables. It defines the relevant objectives for your research process and maps out how they come together to draw coherent conclusions.

Keep reading for a step-by-step guide to help you construct your own conceptual framework.

Table of contents

Developing a conceptual framework in research, step 1: choose your research question, step 2: select your independent and dependent variables, step 3: visualize your cause-and-effect relationship, step 4: identify other influencing variables, frequently asked questions about conceptual models.

A conceptual framework is a representation of the relationship you expect to see between your variables, or the characteristics or properties that you want to study.

Conceptual frameworks can be written or visual and are generally developed based on a literature review of existing studies about your topic.

Your research question guides your work by determining exactly what you want to find out, giving your research process a clear focus.

However, before you start collecting your data, consider constructing a conceptual framework. This will help you map out which variables you will measure and how you expect them to relate to one another.

In order to move forward with your research question and test a cause-and-effect relationship, you must first identify at least two key variables: your independent and dependent variables .

• The expected cause, “hours of study,” is the independent variable (the predictor, or explanatory variable)
• The expected effect, “exam score,” is the dependent variable (the response, or outcome variable).

Note that causal relationships often involve several independent variables that affect the dependent variable. For the purpose of this example, we’ll work with just one independent variable (“hours of study”).

Now that you’ve figured out your research question and variables, the first step in designing your conceptual framework is visualizing your expected cause-and-effect relationship.

We demonstrate this using basic design components of boxes and arrows. Here, each variable appears in a box. To indicate a causal relationship, each arrow should start from the independent variable (the cause) and point to the dependent variable (the effect).

It’s crucial to identify other variables that can influence the relationship between your independent and dependent variables early in your research process.

Some common variables to include are moderating, mediating, and control variables.

Moderating variables

Moderating variable (or moderators) alter the effect that an independent variable has on a dependent variable. In other words, moderators change the “effect” component of the cause-and-effect relationship.

Let’s add the moderator “IQ.” Here, a student’s IQ level can change the effect that the variable “hours of study” has on the exam score. The higher the IQ, the fewer hours of study are needed to do well on the exam.

Let’s take a look at how this might work. The graph below shows how the number of hours spent studying affects exam score. As expected, the more hours you study, the better your results. Here, a student who studies for 20 hours will get a perfect score.

But the graph looks different when we add our “IQ” moderator of 120. A student with this IQ will achieve a perfect score after just 15 hours of study.

Below, the value of the “IQ” moderator has been increased to 150. A student with this IQ will only need to invest five hours of study in order to get a perfect score.

Here, we see that a moderating variable does indeed change the cause-and-effect relationship between two variables.

Mediating variables

Now we’ll expand the framework by adding a mediating variable . Mediating variables link the independent and dependent variables, allowing the relationship between them to be better explained.

Here’s how the conceptual framework might look if a mediator variable were involved:

In this case, the mediator helps explain why studying more hours leads to a higher exam score. The more hours a student studies, the more practice problems they will complete; the more practice problems completed, the higher the student’s exam score will be.

Moderator vs. mediator

It’s important not to confuse moderating and mediating variables. To remember the difference, you can think of them in relation to the independent variable:

• A moderating variable is not affected by the independent variable, even though it affects the dependent variable. For example, no matter how many hours you study (the independent variable), your IQ will not get higher.
• A mediating variable is affected by the independent variable. In turn, it also affects the dependent variable. Therefore, it links the two variables and helps explain the relationship between them.

Control variables

Lastly,  control variables must also be taken into account. These are variables that are held constant so that they don’t interfere with the results. Even though you aren’t interested in measuring them for your study, it’s crucial to be aware of as many of them as you can be.

A mediator variable explains the process through which two variables are related, while a moderator variable affects the strength and direction of that relationship.

A confounding variable is closely related to both the independent and dependent variables in a study. An independent variable represents the supposed cause , while the dependent variable is the supposed effect . A confounding variable is a third variable that influences both the independent and dependent variables.

Failing to account for confounding variables can cause you to wrongly estimate the relationship between your independent and dependent variables.

Yes, but including more than one of either type requires multiple research questions .

For example, if you are interested in the effect of a diet on health, you can use multiple measures of health: blood sugar, blood pressure, weight, pulse, and many more. Each of these is its own dependent variable with its own research question.

You could also choose to look at the effect of exercise levels as well as diet, or even the additional effect of the two combined. Each of these is a separate independent variable .

To ensure the internal validity of an experiment , you should only change one independent variable at a time.

A control variable is any variable that’s held constant in a research study. It’s not a variable of interest in the study, but it’s controlled because it could influence the outcomes.

A confounding variable , also called a confounder or confounding factor, is a third variable in a study examining a potential cause-and-effect relationship.

A confounding variable is related to both the supposed cause and the supposed effect of the study. It can be difficult to separate the true effect of the independent variable from the effect of the confounding variable.

In your research design , it’s important to identify potential confounding variables and plan how you will reduce their impact.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Swaen, B. & George, T. (2024, March 18). What Is a Conceptual Framework? | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 19, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/conceptual-framework/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

Independent vs. dependent variables | definition & examples, mediator vs. moderator variables | differences & examples, control variables | what are they & why do they matter, what is your plagiarism score.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Theoretical Framework
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical bounded assumptions or predictions of behavior. The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study. The theoretical framework encompasses not just the theory, but the narrative explanation about how the researcher engages in using the theory and its underlying assumptions to investigate the research problem. It is the structure of your paper that summarizes concepts, ideas, and theories derived from prior research studies and which was synthesized in order to form a conceptual basis for your analysis and interpretation of meaning found within your research.

Abend, Gabriel. "The Meaning of Theory." Sociological Theory 26 (June 2008): 173–199; Kivunja, Charles. "Distinguishing between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual Framework: A Systematic Review of Lessons from the Field." International Journal of Higher Education 7 (December 2018): 44-53; Swanson, Richard A. Theory Building in Applied Disciplines . San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers 2013; Varpio, Lara, Elise Paradis, Sebastian Uijtdehaage, and Meredith Young. "The Distinctions between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual Framework." Academic Medicine 95 (July 2020): 989-994.

Importance of Theory and a Theoretical Framework

Theories can be unfamiliar to the beginning researcher because they are rarely applied in high school social studies curriculum and, as a result, can come across as unfamiliar and imprecise when first introduced as part of a writing assignment. However, in their most simplified form, a theory is simply a set of assumptions or predictions about something you think will happen based on existing evidence and that can be tested to see if those outcomes turn out to be true. Of course, it is slightly more deliberate than that, therefore, summarized from Kivunja (2018, p. 46), here are the essential characteristics of a theory.

• It is logical and coherent
• It has clear definitions of terms or variables, and has boundary conditions [i.e., it is not an open-ended statement]
• It has a domain where it applies
• It has clearly described relationships among variables
• It describes, explains, and makes specific predictions
• It comprises of concepts, themes, principles, and constructs
• It must have been based on empirical data [i.e., it is not a guess]
• It must have made claims that are subject to testing, been tested and verified
• It must be clear and concise
• Its assertions or predictions must be different and better than those in existing theories
• Its predictions must be general enough to be applicable to and understood within multiple contexts
• Its assertions or predictions are relevant, and if applied as predicted, will result in the predicted outcome
• The assertions and predictions are not immutable, but subject to revision and improvement as researchers use the theory to make sense of phenomena
• Its concepts and principles explain what is going on and why
• Its concepts and principles are substantive enough to enable us to predict a future

Given these characteristics, a theory can best be understood as the foundation from which you investigate assumptions or predictions derived from previous studies about the research problem, but in a way that leads to new knowledge and understanding as well as, in some cases, discovering how to improve the relevance of the theory itself or to argue that the theory is outdated and a new theory needs to be formulated based on new evidence.

A theoretical framework consists of concepts and, together with their definitions and reference to relevant scholarly literature, existing theory that is used for your particular study. The theoretical framework must demonstrate an understanding of theories and concepts that are relevant to the topic of your research paper and that relate to the broader areas of knowledge being considered.

The theoretical framework is most often not something readily found within the literature . You must review course readings and pertinent research studies for theories and analytic models that are relevant to the research problem you are investigating. The selection of a theory should depend on its appropriateness, ease of application, and explanatory power.

The theoretical framework strengthens the study in the following ways :

• An explicit statement of  theoretical assumptions permits the reader to evaluate them critically.
• The theoretical framework connects the researcher to existing knowledge. Guided by a relevant theory, you are given a basis for your hypotheses and choice of research methods.
• Articulating the theoretical assumptions of a research study forces you to address questions of why and how. It permits you to intellectually transition from simply describing a phenomenon you have observed to generalizing about various aspects of that phenomenon.
• Having a theory helps you identify the limits to those generalizations. A theoretical framework specifies which key variables influence a phenomenon of interest and highlights the need to examine how those key variables might differ and under what circumstances.
• The theoretical framework adds context around the theory itself based on how scholars had previously tested the theory in relation their overall research design [i.e., purpose of the study, methods of collecting data or information, methods of analysis, the time frame in which information is collected, study setting, and the methodological strategy used to conduct the research].

By virtue of its applicative nature, good theory in the social sciences is of value precisely because it fulfills one primary purpose: to explain the meaning, nature, and challenges associated with a phenomenon, often experienced but unexplained in the world in which we live, so that we may use that knowledge and understanding to act in more informed and effective ways.

The Conceptual Framework. College of Education. Alabama State University; Corvellec, Hervé, ed. What is Theory?: Answers from the Social and Cultural Sciences . Stockholm: Copenhagen Business School Press, 2013; Asher, Herbert B. Theory-Building and Data Analysis in the Social Sciences . Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1984; Drafting an Argument. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Kivunja, Charles. "Distinguishing between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual Framework: A Systematic Review of Lessons from the Field." International Journal of Higher Education 7 (2018): 44-53; Omodan, Bunmi Isaiah. "A Model for Selecting Theoretical Framework through Epistemology of Research Paradigms." African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies 4 (2022): 275-285; Ravitch, Sharon M. and Matthew Riggan. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research . Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2017; Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006; Jarvis, Peter. The Practitioner-Researcher. Developing Theory from Practice . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1999.

Strategies for Developing the Theoretical Framework

I.  Developing the Framework

Here are some strategies to develop of an effective theoretical framework:

• Examine your thesis title and research problem . The research problem anchors your entire study and forms the basis from which you construct your theoretical framework.
• Brainstorm about what you consider to be the key variables in your research . Answer the question, "What factors contribute to the presumed effect?"
• Review related literature to find how scholars have addressed your research problem. Identify the assumptions from which the author(s) addressed the problem.
• List  the constructs and variables that might be relevant to your study. Group these variables into independent and dependent categories.
• Review key social science theories that are introduced to you in your course readings and choose the theory that can best explain the relationships between the key variables in your study [note the Writing Tip on this page].
• Discuss the assumptions or propositions of this theory and point out their relevance to your research.

A theoretical framework is used to limit the scope of the relevant data by focusing on specific variables and defining the specific viewpoint [framework] that the researcher will take in analyzing and interpreting the data to be gathered. It also facilitates the understanding of concepts and variables according to given definitions and builds new knowledge by validating or challenging theoretical assumptions.

II.  Purpose

Think of theories as the conceptual basis for understanding, analyzing, and designing ways to investigate relationships within social systems. To that end, the following roles served by a theory can help guide the development of your framework.

• Means by which new research data can be interpreted and coded for future use,
• Response to new problems that have no previously identified solutions strategy,
• Means for identifying and defining research problems,
• Means for prescribing or evaluating solutions to research problems,
• Ways of discerning certain facts among the accumulated knowledge that are important and which facts are not,
• Means of giving old data new interpretations and new meaning,
• Means by which to identify important new issues and prescribe the most critical research questions that need to be answered to maximize understanding of the issue,
• Means of providing members of a professional discipline with a common language and a frame of reference for defining the boundaries of their profession, and
• Means to guide and inform research so that it can, in turn, guide research efforts and improve professional practice.

Adapted from: Torraco, R. J. “Theory-Building Research Methods.” In Swanson R. A. and E. F. Holton III , editors. Human Resource Development Handbook: Linking Research and Practice . (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 1997): pp. 114-137; Jacard, James and Jacob Jacoby. Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists . New York: Guilford, 2010; Ravitch, Sharon M. and Matthew Riggan. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research . Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2017; Sutton, Robert I. and Barry M. Staw. “What Theory is Not.” Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (September 1995): 371-384.

Structure and Writing Style

The theoretical framework may be rooted in a specific theory , in which case, your work is expected to test the validity of that existing theory in relation to specific events, issues, or phenomena. Many social science research papers fit into this rubric. For example, Peripheral Realism Theory, which categorizes perceived differences among nation-states as those that give orders, those that obey, and those that rebel, could be used as a means for understanding conflicted relationships among countries in Africa. A test of this theory could be the following: Does Peripheral Realism Theory help explain intra-state actions, such as, the disputed split between southern and northern Sudan that led to the creation of two nations?

However, you may not always be asked by your professor to test a specific theory in your paper, but to develop your own framework from which your analysis of the research problem is derived . Based upon the above example, it is perhaps easiest to understand the nature and function of a theoretical framework if it is viewed as an answer to two basic questions:

• What is the research problem/question? [e.g., "How should the individual and the state relate during periods of conflict?"]
• Why is your approach a feasible solution? [i.e., justify the application of your choice of a particular theory and explain why alternative constructs were rejected. I could choose instead to test Instrumentalist or Circumstantialists models developed among ethnic conflict theorists that rely upon socio-economic-political factors to explain individual-state relations and to apply this theoretical model to periods of war between nations].

The answers to these questions come from a thorough review of the literature and your course readings [summarized and analyzed in the next section of your paper] and the gaps in the research that emerge from the review process. With this in mind, a complete theoretical framework will likely not emerge until after you have completed a thorough review of the literature .

Just as a research problem in your paper requires contextualization and background information, a theory requires a framework for understanding its application to the topic being investigated. When writing and revising this part of your research paper, keep in mind the following:

• Clearly describe the framework, concepts, models, or specific theories that underpin your study . This includes noting who the key theorists are in the field who have conducted research on the problem you are investigating and, when necessary, the historical context that supports the formulation of that theory. This latter element is particularly important if the theory is relatively unknown or it is borrowed from another discipline.
• Position your theoretical framework within a broader context of related frameworks, concepts, models, or theories . As noted in the example above, there will likely be several concepts, theories, or models that can be used to help develop a framework for understanding the research problem. Therefore, note why the theory you've chosen is the appropriate one.
• The present tense is used when writing about theory. Although the past tense can be used to describe the history of a theory or the role of key theorists, the construction of your theoretical framework is happening now.
• You should make your theoretical assumptions as explicit as possible . Later, your discussion of methodology should be linked back to this theoretical framework.
• Don’t just take what the theory says as a given! Reality is never accurately represented in such a simplistic way; if you imply that it can be, you fundamentally distort a reader's ability to understand the findings that emerge. Given this, always note the limitations of the theoretical framework you've chosen [i.e., what parts of the research problem require further investigation because the theory inadequately explains a certain phenomena].

The Conceptual Framework. College of Education. Alabama State University; Conceptual Framework: What Do You Think is Going On? College of Engineering. University of Michigan; Drafting an Argument. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Lynham, Susan A. “The General Method of Theory-Building Research in Applied Disciplines.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 4 (August 2002): 221-241; Tavallaei, Mehdi and Mansor Abu Talib. "A General Perspective on the Role of Theory in Qualitative Research." Journal of International Social Research 3 (Spring 2010); Ravitch, Sharon M. and Matthew Riggan. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research . Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2017; Reyes, Victoria. Demystifying the Journal Article. Inside Higher Education; Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006; Weick, Karl E. “The Work of Theorizing.” In Theorizing in Social Science: The Context of Discovery . Richard Swedberg, editor. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2014), pp. 177-194.

Writing Tip

Borrowing Theoretical Constructs from Other Disciplines

An increasingly important trend in the social and behavioral sciences is to think about and attempt to understand research problems from an interdisciplinary perspective. One way to do this is to not rely exclusively on the theories developed within your particular discipline, but to think about how an issue might be informed by theories developed in other disciplines. For example, if you are a political science student studying the rhetorical strategies used by female incumbents in state legislature campaigns, theories about the use of language could be derived, not only from political science, but linguistics, communication studies, philosophy, psychology, and, in this particular case, feminist studies. Building theoretical frameworks based on the postulates and hypotheses developed in other disciplinary contexts can be both enlightening and an effective way to be more engaged in the research topic.

CohenMiller, A. S. and P. Elizabeth Pate. "A Model for Developing Interdisciplinary Research Theoretical Frameworks." The Qualitative Researcher 24 (2019): 1211-1226; Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Undertheorize!

Do not leave the theory hanging out there in the introduction never to be mentioned again. Undertheorizing weakens your paper. The theoretical framework you describe should guide your study throughout the paper. Be sure to always connect theory to the review of pertinent literature and to explain in the discussion part of your paper how the theoretical framework you chose supports analysis of the research problem or, if appropriate, how the theoretical framework was found to be inadequate in explaining the phenomenon you were investigating. In that case, don't be afraid to propose your own theory based on your findings.

Yet Another Writing Tip

What's a Theory? What's a Hypothesis?

The terms theory and hypothesis are often used interchangeably in newspapers and popular magazines and in non-academic settings. However, the difference between theory and hypothesis in scholarly research is important, particularly when using an experimental design. A theory is a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural world. Theories arise from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested assumptions that are widely accepted [e.g., rational choice theory; grounded theory; critical race theory].

A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study. For example, an experiment designed to look at the relationship between study habits and test anxiety might have a hypothesis that states, "We predict that students with better study habits will suffer less test anxiety." Unless your study is exploratory in nature, your hypothesis should always explain what you expect to happen during the course of your research.

The key distinctions are:

• A theory predicts events in a broad, general context;  a hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a specified set of circumstances.
• A theory has been extensively tested and is generally accepted among a set of scholars; a hypothesis is a speculative guess that has yet to be tested.

Cherry, Kendra. Introduction to Research Methods: Theory and Hypothesis. About.com Psychology; Gezae, Michael et al. Welcome Presentation on Hypothesis. Slideshare presentation.

Still Yet Another Writing Tip

Be Prepared to Challenge the Validity of an Existing Theory

Theories are meant to be tested and their underlying assumptions challenged; they are not rigid or intransigent, but are meant to set forth general principles for explaining phenomena or predicting outcomes. Given this, testing theoretical assumptions is an important way that knowledge in any discipline develops and grows. If you're asked to apply an existing theory to a research problem, the analysis will likely include the expectation by your professor that you should offer modifications to the theory based on your research findings.

Indications that theoretical assumptions may need to be modified can include the following:

• Your findings suggest that the theory does not explain or account for current conditions or circumstances or the passage of time,
• The study reveals a finding that is incompatible with what the theory attempts to explain or predict, or
• Your analysis reveals that the theory overly generalizes behaviors or actions without taking into consideration specific factors revealed from your analysis [e.g., factors related to culture, nationality, history, gender, ethnicity, age, geographic location, legal norms or customs , religion, social class, socioeconomic status, etc.].

Philipsen, Kristian. "Theory Building: Using Abductive Search Strategies." In Collaborative Research Design: Working with Business for Meaningful Findings . Per Vagn Freytag and Louise Young, editors. (Singapore: Springer Nature, 2018), pp. 45-71; Shepherd, Dean A. and Roy Suddaby. "Theory Building: A Review and Integration." Journal of Management 43 (2017): 59-86.

• << Previous: The Research Problem/Question
• Next: 5. The Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 13, 2024 12:57 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Theoretical vs. conceptual frameworks: Simple definitions and an overview of key differences

Understanding the differences between theoretical and conceptual frameworks in research, including thesis writing, can be challenging. Therefore, here are easy-to-understand explanations and definitions of both theoretical and conceptual frameworks, along with frequently asked questions and a detailed comparison. Additionally, a helpful comparison table of key differences will help you grasp the distinction between theoretical and conceptual frameworks once and for all.

An easily understandable definition of a theoretical framework

In academic papers, the literature review section is sometimes even labeled as the ‘theoretical framework.’ This practice underscores the foundational role of existing theories and academic research in shaping theoretical frameworks.

Once we understand what a theory is, a theoretical framework becomes easy to define:

A theoretical framework can be defined as the general principles or rules that can be applied to understand and explain your research topic.

We build a theoretical framework for our research by identifying relevant theories and presenting existing knowledge on the topic.

Does every research have a theoretical framework?

What is the scope of a theoretical framework in research, how do i develop a theoretical framework.

Developing a theoretical framework involves thoroughly reviewing discussions on your research topic, usually through a literature review. Explore the theories that scholars employ to explain phenomena related to your research, and look for patterns in their findings. This can aid in establishing general principles or rules that may also be applicable to your specific topic.

An easily understandable definition of a conceptual framework

A conceptual framework is like a practical version of a theoretical framework. It’s closely related to a theoretical model but gives a more focused explanation of what you will study, zooming in on several key concepts and variables.

Therefore, in academic language, it is often stated that a conceptual framework operationalizes the general principles of theoretical frameworks. Operationalizing refers to the process of turning abstract concepts or variables into more concrete, measurable terms.

Does every research have a conceptual framework?

Every research project includes a conceptual framework, but some researchers emphasize it more clearly. In thesis writing, for example, the conceptual framework is often prominently featured. This is sometimes done in a conceptual model—a visual representation of the concepts and variables being studied. However, some researchers choose not to explicitly mention it. Nonetheless, as a student at any level, it’s beneficial to clearly explain your conceptual framework.

Do you develop a conceptual model for both quantitative and qualitative research?

What is the relationship between a conceptual framework and a theoretical framework, key differences between theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

In research, frameworks play crucial roles in guiding studies, but they differ in various aspects. Nonetheless, it is imperative to bear the following in mind:

Though distinct, conceptual and theoretical frameworks are not mutually exclusive; rather, they complement each other in the research process.

Theoretical frameworks encapsulate abstract principles in a field, providing an overarching view of established theories that guide research. This is often achieved through a comprehensive review of existing academic literature and research findings within the field of study. Conversely, conceptual frameworks adopt a more hands-on approach, emphasizing practicality and specificity. They engage in the operationalization of abstract concepts, translating them into measurable variables tailored to the particulars of a given study.

Level of Detail

Theoretical frameworks provide a big-picture perspective, offering an overview of fundamental principles in a field. On the other hand, conceptual frameworks offer a detailed roadmap, guiding researchers on how to translate abstract concepts into practical variables for their study.

Application

Master academia, get new content delivered directly to your inbox, the best ai tools for academic paraphrasing: tested and ranked, how to harness theoretical and conceptual frameworks for groundbreaking research, related articles, first meeting with your dissertation supervisor: what to expect, better thesis writing with the pomodoro® technique, the importance of sleep for efficient thesis writing, 5 inspiring phd thesis acknowledgement examples.

• Library databases
• Library website

Theories and Frameworks: Introduction

Theoretical & conceptual frameworks.

The terms theoretical framework and conceptual framework are often used interchangeably to mean the same thing. Although they are both used to understand a research problem and guide the development, collection, and analysis of research, it's important to understand the difference between the two. When working on coursework or dissertation research, make sure to clarify what is being asked and any specific course or program requirements. 

Theoretical framework 

A theoretical framework is a single formal theory. When a study is designed around a theoretical framework, the theory is the primary means in which the research problem is understood and investigated. Although theoretical frameworks tend to be used in quantitative studies, you will also see this approach in qualitative research.  

Conceptual framework

A conceptual framework includes one or more formal theories (in part or whole) as well as other concepts and empirical findings from the literature. It is used to show relationships among these ideas and how they relate to the research study. Conceptual frameworks are commonly seen in qualitative research in the social and behavioral sciences, for example, because often one theory cannot fully address the phenomena being studied.

Investigate theory

Identifying and learning about theories requires a different search strategy than other types of research. Even though the steps are different, you will still use many of the same skills and tools you’ve used for other library research.

• psychology:  human development, cognition, personality, motivation
• sociology:  social change, race, class, gender
• business:  leadership, management
• health:  patient care, well-being, environment
• course textbooks
• encyclopedias and handbooks
• credible websites

Theory in doctoral research

Identifying a theory that aligns with your dissertation or doctoral study takes time. It’s never too early to start exploratory research. The process of identifying an appropriate theory can seem daunting, so try breaking down the process into smaller steps.

• your theory courses
• completed dissertations and doctoral studies
• the scholarly literature on your topic
• Keep a list of theories and take notes on how and why they were used.
• Identify and learn more about relevant theories.
• Locate influential and seminal works  related to those theories.
• Next Page: Discover Theories
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

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

• Current Issue
• Journal Archive
• Current Call

Search form

Building a Dissertation Conceptual and Theoretical Framework: A Recent Doctoral Graduate Narrates Behind the Curtain Development

Dr. Jordan Tegtmeyer

This article examines the development of conceptual and theoretical frameworks through the lens of one doctoral student’s qualitative dissertation. Using Ravitch and Carl’s (2021) conceptual framework guide, each key component is explored, using my own dissertation as an example. Breaking down each framework section step-by-step, my journey illustrates the iterative process that conceptual framework development requires. While not every conceptual framework is developed in the same way, this iterative approach allows for the production of a robust and sound conceptual framework.

Introduction

While progressing on my doctoral journey I struggled to learn, and then navigate, what it meant to do quality academic research. While I had worked in higher education for over 15 years when I entered into my doctoral program in Higher Education at Penn, and had earned multiple master’s degrees, I felt wholly unprepared to complete a dissertation. It felt, at first, beyond my reach. Now that I have completed the dissertation, my hope is to pay it forward by sharing reflections on the process as a guide to help other researchers navigate the development of a robust conceptual and theoretical framework for their own dissertations.

My journey into this doctoral inquiry began before I even realized it. I entered the program with a strong idea of what I wanted to study but no “academic” frameworks to help me chart the journey. Little did I know that that is in fact what conceptual frameworks do, they help guide you from early ideation to a finalized study. The turning point in my own learning, let’s call it an epiphany of sorts, happened in a qualitative research methods course that introduced Ravitch and Carl’s Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological. I was introduced to the basic concepts needed to turn my own research ideas into actionable research questions. While this was not the only source to guide me on this journey, conversations with peers and professionals, other courses and independent studies also moved me along, it was reading this text that gave me the academic terminology and frameworks I needed to build a robust and rigorous dissertation research design.

To guide the development of strong conceptual and theoretical frameworks I use Ravitch and Carl’s (2021) components of a conceptual framework graphic (p. 38) below:

Using this visual of the framework as a guide, I share how I developed and used theoretical frameworks in a case study dissertation and how the development of my conceptual framework played out in my study. 

Building a Dissertation Study

For context, I describe my dissertation study to bridge the theoretical with the reality of my dissertation. Seeing these ideas and terms applied in a real-world context should provide some guidance on how to address them in the construction of your own conceptual framework.

My dissertation study examined gender equity in college sports, specifically examining institutional characteristics and their potential impact on Title IX compliance. Using case study research, I examined two institutions and then contrasted them to see if there were particular characteristics about those institutions that made them more likely to comply with Title IX’s three-part test. Overall, the study found that there are some institutional characteristics that impact Title IX compliance.

The evolution of a research idea into a study design is useful for understanding the impact that developing a conceptual framework has on this work. Adding the academic structure required to go from idea to fully realized conceptual framework is integral to a sound study. Going into the doctoral program I had a couple of broad ideas I wanted to bring together in a formal study. I knew I wanted to study college sports for a number of reasons including that I am a huge sports fan working in higher education who wanted to better understand the college sports context. I also wanted to integrate issues of gender disparities into my work to better understand disparities around athletic participation between the sexes as outlined by Title IX legislation. For me, the goal was  to bring these broad topics and interests together. Turning these topics into a problem my study could address was critical. Once I made this shift to problem statement, it became about transitioning from problem to research questions from which I could use to drive the potential study.

Understanding this evolution, from a research idea into a study design, is important as it speaks to the understanding the two are not the same. A researcher has to work through an iterative process in order to take a research idea, and through developing their study’s conceptual framework, turn it into a study. Starting with research interests you are passionate about is important, but it is only the first step in a journey to a high-quality research study. For me this meant understanding what made my ideas important and how they could be studied. Why was gender equity in college sports important and what was causing the inequities in athletic participation between the genders? Say a bit more on this–how did you do this?

Developing Guiding Research Questions        

I began with the Ravitch and Carl (2021) conceptual framework diagram as a guide, starting with the research questions positioned at the top. It's important to note that the development of research questions is an active and iterative process that evolves and changes over time. Looking back at notes I took throughout my dissertation journey, I found at least a dozen different iterations of my own research questions. Looking back at the evolution of my own research question, allowed me to see just how iterative of a process this really is. Second, developing research questions is largely about whittling down your broad ideas and interests into something that is scoped in such a way as to be doable.

For me, I started with these broad areas of interest and whittled them down from there, focusing and iterating. Next, I sought to understand the goals of my study and who the intended audiences were (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). I knew I wanted to develop something that was useful for practitioners. Being a higher education practitioner myself, I wanted something people in the field could use and learn from. Knowing this was extremely important to developing the study’s research questions since it helped me to map them onto the goals and audiences I imagined for the study.

The research questions should address the problem you are trying to solve and why it's important (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). For me, the goal was to explore what was causing gender athletic participation inequities and how that fit into broader gender disparities in higher education and the country .

My final research questions show how far they had come from my topics of interest.

• What is the relationship between gender and varsity participation opportunities in collegiate sports?
• What is the relationship of institutional characteristics to gender equity in collegiate sports participation?

Additional questions related to institutional characteristics are:

• What is the range and variation of institutional characteristics among schools that are in compliance with the three-part test of Title IX?
• How do contextual factors mediate their compliance?

At first these questions focused on understanding gender disparities in regards to athletic participation opportunities in college sports. I sought to understand the extent of the disparities and which institutions had them. From there I wanted to understand potential institutional characteristics that could serve as predictors of Title IX compliance. For this, I wanted to explore the impact general institutional characteristics like, undergraduate gender breakdown, might have on creating potential difficulties with navigating Title IX compliance. It was important to investigate the similarities and differences between the two cases in my study. This would help inform whether there were unique things about each institution that were having an effect on Title IX compliance at that institution. This was about understanding what is happening at each of the cases and the reason I chose the methodological approach I did.

Developing Study Goals

A study’s goals are the central part of the conceptual framework as they help turn an interest or concern into a research study. Goal mapping for a study is this process that maps out, or theoretically frames the key goals of the study (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). The study’s goals come from many different sources including personal and professional goals, prior research, existing theory, and a researcher’s own thoughts, interests, and values (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). In my dissertation study, it was a combination of all of those things, although I didn’t realize it at first. The truth is, I didn’t realize I was building conceptual and theoretical frameworks at the time, but in fact I was incrementally building up to them. I talked with experts, advisors, my professors, mentors, academic peers and practitioners to slowly build my own contextual understanding of the research questions, theory, and methodology along the way.

The study goals for my dissertation emerged from multiple vantage points. I thought it was senseless that after 50 years of Title IX, schools were still ignoring the law (willfully or not). Some of the best athletes I’ve known have been women, including my sister. This gave me an appreciation for women’s sports at an early age. From a practitioner-scholar’s standpoint, I didn’t see anything that was usable in “real life.” At least nothing that didn’t require a law degree or extensive knowledge of the law, something most people do not have. I had also come across Charles Kennedy’s 2007 Gender Equity Scorecard in a prior class that gave me the idea for the compliance model. This study was designed to measure schools’ compliance with various aspects of Title IX, but only examined the proportionality requirement of the three-part test (Kennedy, 2007). This was a good start because it provided a template from which to assess compliance when examining gender equity in college sports but helped me to see the need for an easy-to-understand model that covered all aspects of the three-part test that practitioners could use on their own campuses. As a way to better understand Title IX compliance among institutions I then built the compliance model that addressed the entire three-part test with a lawyer friend and used it to do an almost test run of the sampling.

Lastly, as I refined my topic, there seemed to be something missing from the literature. This missing piece gave me the idea for merging the theoretical and the practical dimensions of Title IX compliance within the context of college athletics. A compliance model, using a legal and statutory approach but also grounded in theory, that could be used by practitioners in real life. This model could then help researchers understand why Title IX non-compliance was still an issue today. For me and my study, applying this model to publicly available data, helped to understand why women athletes are not getting their fair share of athletic participation opportunities guaranteed by a law passed over 50 years ago. This process of having to seek out data, taught me the continued need for a proactive approach to measuring compliance with all the participation aspects of Title IX.

Understanding Contexts of the Work

Understanding the contexts of your intended study is critical as it helps set the stage for your study’s position in the real world. Knowing the actual setting of your study and its context are important as it speaks to the micro contexts. The who and what aspects of that setting are central to your research. It is this context within the context that helps us understand the aspects that influence what we study and how we frame the study (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). At the micro level, my study sought to focus on the institutional structures and workings of two universities. I chose case study research because it allowed me to focus on those two institutions, and that was very intentional, as I wanted to understand their specific institutional structures and their potential impacts on Title IX compliance.

Understanding the macro level contexts impacting my study was also important. It is the combination of social, historical, national, international, and global level contexts that create the conditions in which your study is conducted. As Ravitch and Carl (2021) state it is these broad contexts “that shape society and social interactions, influence the research topic, and affect the structure and conditions of the settings and the lives of the people at the center of your research and you” (p. 52). This has two important implications for conceptual framework development. First, it is important to investigate and thoroughly understand the setting of the study that reflects the conditions as lived by the stakeholders (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). As you design your study it is important to consider what’s happening in that moment and how your study is situated in a specific moment in time which impacts both the context and setting of your study but also how you come to view and approach it (Ravitch & Carl, 2021).

For my dissertation, understanding college sports and higher education in the broadest sense was important when thinking about the macro contexts influencing my study. Things like: how does the NCAA and conferences play a role in this area? How does higher education handle gender equity in college sports as it relates to the missions of the institutions? And even more broadly, how does this study fit into broader societal structures regarding equality? Given everything that was going on in college sports at the time (issues at the NCAA’s women’s basketball tournament, volleyball, softball), the contexts illustrated the broader need for understanding this issue in that moment of time. This illuminates the importance of taking the time to understand the different contexts impacting your study and why they are important.

Researcher Reflexivity

When thinking about social identity and positionality, it is vital to understand that the researcher is viewed as a vital part of the study itself, the primary instrument and filter of interpretation (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). Positionality refers to the researcher’s role and social identity in relationship to the context and setting of the research. I think of this as what we as researchers bring to the table—who we are and what we know and how that impacts what we do and how we do it. Understanding how these aspects of oneself all interact and make me who I am, while also understanding my potential impact on my research is critical to a strong conceptual framework.

For my study, I worried about my positionality in particular: my gender and my fandom. I was worried my various identities would influence my approach negatively in ways I would be unaware of. I, someone who identifies as male, wanted to be taken seriously while addressing a gender equity issue from a privileged gender position. I also didn’t want to overlook or discount anything because of who I am and how I viewed the world of college sports. This illuminates the importance of understanding one’s identities and their potential impact on the study. There were numerous ways I addressed this through the study including engaging my critical inquiry group, drafting memos, and using a researcher interview to elicit self-reflection.

Theoretical Framework Development

When working through the development of a theoretical framework within a conceptual framework, one must account for the integration of formal theory and the use of the literature review. Formal theory is those established theories that come together to create the frame for your research questions. The researcher must seek out formal theories to help understand what they are studying and why they are studying it (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). Ravitch & Carl said this best, “the theoretical framework is how you weave together or integrate existing bodies of literature…to frame the topic, goals, design, and findings of your specific study” (p. 58).

It is important to point out that the process of creating a theoretical framework is separate from a literature review. The theoretical framework does impact the literature review and the literature review impacts it, but they are separate. You may discover theories that strengthen your theoretical framework as you review literature, and you may seek out theories to validate a hypothesis you have related to your study. This is important because your formal theories do not encompass all the theories related to your topic, but the specific theories that bind your study together and give it structure.

For my study, formal theories ended up being an equity-equality framework developed by Espinoza (2007) and a structuralism-subordination framework derived from Chamallas (1994). The equity-equality framework was used to address what I had seen as confusion between the two terms, using them interchangeably, when reviewing literature examining Title IX. I wanted to understand if the confusion about the terms, equity and equality, led to a misunderstanding about the true intent of Title IX and intercollegiate athletics. For the structuralism-subordination framework, I wanted to understand if there were institutional structures that institutions had built that led to the subordination of women. I also wanted to understand if those structures manifest themselves in ways that hinder institutions’ Title IX compliance, leaving women without the participation opportunities required by law.

Both of these formal theories had an impact on and were impacted by my literature review. The structuralism-subordination framework was discovered after my initial review of Title IX literature, while the equity-equality framework was needed to reflect inconsistencies in the use of those terms in texts reviewed for the literature review. These formal theories also helped me refine my research questions and the purpose of my study. The formal theories impact on the different aspects of my conceptual framework then required me to refine and redefine by literature in order to incorporate their impact. This understanding of formal theory as the framework to construct a study is central to constructing a robust theoretical framework.

What helped me arrive at these theories in the great morass of theories was Title IX’s application to college sports, feminist scholar’s work related to college sports, and the use and misuse of the equity and equality in the literature.

Naming Tacit Theories

It is not just your role as the researcher that impacts your study, it is also all the informal ways in which we understand the world. We all have working hypotheses, assumptions, or conceptualizations about why things occur and how they operate (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). This is a result of how we were raised and socialized which has a direct impact on the ways that we see our work and the contexts in which it takes place. For me as the researcher for this study, three tacit theories emerged upon examination through memos and dialogic engagement with peers and advisors, described in the next section. One, was related to what I call, college sports fandom or the ESPN culture. For me, I grew up on ESPN as did many of my friends. We got most of our sports news through these mediums and it greatly impacted how we viewed and thought of college sports. The problem with this is that ESPN has helped propagate many false narratives and misconceptions about college sports. A few examples include: big time college sports and programs make money (most do not), men’s sports are more popular than women’s (men get the majority of airtime), and college sports make a lot of money (where it gets its “money” is not where you think). There was also the continual sexualization and diminishment of women athletes.

Family dynamics also played a major role in my sports fandom and its importance. Sports were big in my family as most members played but we also watched a lot together. It was a bonding mechanism for us. For our family, my sister was our best athlete. This meant attending a lot of her games which led to an appreciation of women’s sports at an early age. Lastly, I had a general lack of knowledge around gender equity in college sports, mostly related to my fandom described above. I didn’t develop a true understanding until graduate school when I went out of my way to do deep dives into the topic whenever I could. This process of self-discovery and reflection with my own tacit theories teaches the importance of examining oneself, our socialization and its impact on your research. The dissertation reflection process was cathartic, it brought together these various strands of my identity, history, and interests and helped me to identify and then reckon with my unconscious biases, assumptions, and drivers.

Structured Reflexivity and Dialogic Engagement

I relied on structured reflexivity and dialogic engagement as my main reflexivity strategy, reflecting on my research through purposeful engagement with others a lot throughout my study. I went back and forth many times between different aspects of my conceptual framework as “new” information was discovered. Sometimes this reflexivity was planned, for example, after completing one part of my conceptual framework I would review other aspects to consider the impact. This would help me to ensure the potential impact of this new information was assessed against all parts of the conceptual framework. Other times it was completely spontaneous such as an illuminating reading or discovery would spark me to think about a piece of conceptual framework differently and adjust. In one particular moment, I came across some conflicting information during one of the cases that required me to rethink aspects of my entire conceptual framework. This conflicting information indicated another approach to measuring Title IX compliance which was at conflict with mine. I met with various members of my critical inquiry group to decide on a path forward and then wrote a memo outlining what happened and the decision made. This incident caused me to not only conduct dialogic engagement but also structured reflexivity as I reviewed all aspects of my conceptual framework to ensure everything still made sense as it was structured given the new information.

The key structured reflexivity mechanisms I used in my study were memos, a critical inquiry group, a researcher interview and case reports. Each of these proved to be an invaluable resource when navigating the construction of my conceptual framework. I used different kinds of memos to highlight key decisions which were useful later when writing my dissertation.

My critical inquiry group, composed of college sports experts, peers, women’s rights advocates, Title IX consultants and lawyers, had multiple functions throughout my study. They challenged me on assumptions and decision making, helped me work through challenges and served as sounding boards to bounce ideas off of. My researcher interview, which is when the researcher is interviewed to pull out tacit knowledge and assumptions, was particularly useful as it allowed for a non-biased critique to focus on process, procedure, and theory (both the theoretical and conceptual). My interviewer also called out my tacit theories and biases which were helpful in structuring that section of my conceptual framework. Lastly, I used case reports as a way to summarize my cases individually in their own distinct process guaranteeing each received a deep dive. This also allowed me to make refinements after the first case and also helped lay the groundwork for a cross-case analysis. The entire process taught me that having these structured mechanisms adds validation points and reflection opportunities from which I could refine my work.

Methodological Approach and Research Methods

For any researcher the methodological approach is guided by the study’s research questions. This section is also partly shaped and derived from the conceptual framework. For some, they will arrive at the methodological approach that best fits their study along the way, picking it up from other pieces of their conceptual framework. For others, the approach is clear from the beginning and drives some of their conceptual framework decision making. For me, I arrived at my methodological approach as it became clear as my conceptual framework developed. As I worked through the interactions of my research questions, informed by my developing conceptual framework, it became clear that case study research was the right methodological approach for my study.

The methodological approach I chose for my dissertation was case study research, which made sense given that the primary goal was to gain a clear understanding of the “how” and “why” of each case, which is especially important when examining the two cases in this study (Yin, 2018). Understanding the complexities and contextual circumstances of Title IX cases is especially crucial given its real-world impact on universities (Yin, 2018). The in-depth focus of case study research allowed for a much richer understanding of the potential impacts of institutional and athletics department characteristics impacting Title IX compliance today (Yin, 2018).

I used a multi-case approach because I wanted to compare and contrast one school that was “good” at Title IX compliance and one that was not. Each case was completed separately for a deep dive and better understanding using thematic analysis for the data analysis. After each case report was completed, themes were reviewed. After both cases were completed a cross-case analysis was done to compare and contrast the cases using the themes derived from each case. For the data collection process, I used the following: archival records and documents including meeting minutes and institutional reports, memos for data collection and data analysis, dialogic engagement, and a researcher interview. My learning throughout the dissertation process illuminates the importance and generative value of using a methodological approach that aligns with the goals of the study and is guided by the research questions.

Key Takeaways

If you remember anything from this, please remember these three things:

• Developing a conceptual framework is an iterative process. It will feel like you are constantly making changes. That’s ok. That’s what good research is, constantly evolving and getting better. My research questions looked nothing like what they started as. They evolved and were informed by newer and better research over time. That is what this process is meant to do, make your research better as you move along.
• When you get a new piece of information, use it to inform the next part of your process and refine the last. You should use each new finding or insight to refine your work and inform the next piece.
• Engage your classmates and professors for guidance. You have access to incredible resources in these two populations, use them to help you along the way. And of course, be a resource to them as well. I can’t remember how many times I sought out a classmate who shared something insightful in class to find out more information. You are surrounded by smart, motivated people, who want you to succeed, actively use that support system.

Parting Wisdom

My last bits of wisdom as you are embarking on this journey are meant to serve as things that I wish I had known at the beginning that I wanted to be sure others knew too.

• First and foremost, love your topic. I cannot stress this enough. You are going to be spending a lot of time and investing a lot of energy in it, you should love it. That’s not to say you won’t be frustrated, tired and “over it” at times, but at the end of the day you should love it.
• Second, use your classmates as a resource and be a resource to them. Although they aren’t likely to know your topic as in-depth as you do, they can offer valuable insights, largely because they are not you. You can “stress test” your ideas, research questions, frameworks or just have a fresh set of eyes on your work. You should be the same for them as it only makes your own work stronger as well. Reciprocity is key.
• Third, don’t be afraid to ask questions. The old adage is true, there are no dumb questions. Ask all of your questions, in whatever manner you are comfortable doing so, just be sure to ask them. You’ll find that once you give them air, they do get answered and the path gets that much more clear.
• Fourth, don’t be afraid to admit possible mistakes or confusions and ask for help mid-concern. No one is perfect and mistakes happen. Acknowledging those mistakes sooner rather than later can only make your work stronger. I had a setback towards the end of my dissertation that at first froze me and I didn’t know what to do. It was only after I acknowledged the mistake and talked with my advisor and critical inquiry group that I could come up with a path forward. My work was better and stronger because of the help I received, even though in the moment I felt vulnerable fessing up.
• Fifth, memos are your best friends. I cannot stress this enough. I wish I could go back and tell myself this at the very beginning of my journey to chart more at that stage. Documenting decision making, mistakes, rationales, conversations and anything else of even possible importance to your methods is invaluable when you get to the writing stage. Being able to refer to those documents and reflect on them makes your methods more specific and your dissertation stronger.
• Sixth, know when to stop. This is especially true during your literature review. There is so much material out there, you will never read it all. Take that in. Knowing when you should stop and move on is extremely important. For me, I read about 2 months too long and it set me behind. I still had huge stacks of reading that I could have done but pulling more and more sources from more and more readings was a never-ending path. Get what you need, cover your ground, trust yourself to call it when it's covered. Ask people if you can stop if you aren’t sure.

Finally, and this may feel challenging, let yourself enjoy the ride! Parts will be smooth, others bumpy. By the end you will be tired, burnt out and just want to be done. But stop along the way and enjoy the moments of learning and connection. Those middle of the night texting sessions with your classmates about some obstacle or interesting article you found do matter. Those coffees with professors discussing your topic (and your passion for it) stay with you. Those classes with other really smart and engaged classmates continue to teach you. I can tell you that, looking back almost a year after defending, I miss it all. You will never have this moment in your life again, try to enjoy it.

Chamallas, M. (1994). Structuralist and cultural domination theories meet Title VII: Some contemporary influences. Michigan Law Review , 92(8), 2370–2409.

Espinoza, O. (2007). Solving the equity-equality conceptual dilemma: A new model for analysis of the educational process. Educational Research , 49(4), 343–363.

Kennedy, C. L. (2007). The Gender Equity Scorecard V. York, PA. Retrieved from  http://ininet.org/the-gender-equity-scorecard-v.html .

Ravitch S. M. & Carl, M. N. (2021). Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological. (2nd Ed.). Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.

Articles in this Volume

[tid]: building a dissertation conceptual and theoretical framework: a recent doctoral graduate narrates behind the curtain development, [tid]: family income status in early childhood and implications for remote learning, [tid]: the theater of equity, [tid]: including students with emotional and behavioral disorders: case management work protocol, [tid]: loving the questions: encouraging critical practitioner inquiry into reading instruction, [tid]: supporting the future: mentoring pre-service teachers in urban middle schools, [tid]: embracing diversity: immersing culturally responsive pedagogy in our school systems, [tid]: college promise programs: additive to student loan debt cancellation, [tid]: book review: critical race theory in education: a scholar's journey. gloria ladson-billings. teachers college press, 2021, 233 pp., [tid]: inclusion census: how do inclusion rates in american public schools measure up, [tid]: in pursuit of revolutionary rest: liberatory retooling for black women principals, [tid]: “this community is home for me”: retaining highly qualified teachers in marginalized school communities, [tid]: a conceptual proposition to if and how immigrants' volunteering influences their integration into host societies.

Report accessibility issues and request help

Copyright 2024 The University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education's Online Urban Education Journal

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

Example Theoretical Framework of a Dissertation or Thesis

Published on 8 July 2022 by Sarah Vinz . Revised on 10 October 2022.

Your theoretical framework defines the key concepts in your research, suggests relationships between them, and discusses relevant theories based on your literature review .

A strong theoretical framework gives your research direction, allowing you to convincingly interpret, explain, and generalise from your findings.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Sample problem statement and research questions, sample theoretical framework, your theoretical framework, frequently asked questions about sample theoretical frameworks.

Your theoretical framework is based on:

• Your problem statement
• Your research questions
• Your literature review

To investigate this problem, you have zeroed in on the following problem statement, objective, and research questions:

• Problem : Many online customers do not return to make subsequent purchases.
• Objective : To increase the quantity of return customers.
• Research question : How can the satisfaction of the boutique’s online customers be improved in order to increase the quantity of return customers?

The concepts of ‘customer loyalty’ and ‘customer satisfaction’ are clearly central to this study, along with their relationship to the likelihood that a customer will return. Your theoretical framework should define these concepts and discuss theories about the relationship between these variables.

Some sub-questions could include:

• What is the relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction?
• How satisfied and loyal are the boutique’s online customers currently?
• What factors affect the satisfaction and loyalty of the boutique’s online customers?

As the concepts of ‘loyalty’ and ‘customer satisfaction’ play a major role in the investigation and will later be measured, they are essential concepts to define within your theoretical framework .

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Below is a simplified example showing how you can describe and compare theories. In this example, we focus on the concept of customer satisfaction introduced above.

Customer satisfaction

Thomassen (2003, p. 69) defines customer satisfaction as ‘the perception of the customer as a result of consciously or unconsciously comparing their experiences with their expectations’. Kotler and Keller (2008, p. 80) build on this definition, stating that customer satisfaction is determined by ‘the degree to which someone is happy or disappointed with the observed performance of a product in relation to his or her expectations’.

Performance that is below expectations leads to a dissatisfied customer, while performance that satisfies expectations produces satisfied customers (Kotler & Keller, 2003, p. 80).

The definition of Zeithaml and Bitner (2003, p. 86) is slightly different from that of Thomassen. They posit that ‘satisfaction is the consumer fulfillment response. It is a judgement that a product or service feature, or the product of service itself, provides a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment.’ Zeithaml and Bitner’s emphasis is thus on obtaining a certain satisfaction in relation to purchasing.

Thomassen’s definition is the most relevant to the aims of this study, given the emphasis it places on unconscious perception. Although Zeithaml and Bitner, like Thomassen, say that customer satisfaction is a reaction to the experience gained, there is no distinction between conscious and unconscious comparisons in their definition.

The boutique claims in its mission statement that it wants to sell not only a product, but also a feeling. As a result, unconscious comparison will play an important role in the satisfaction of its customers. Thomassen’s definition is therefore more relevant.

Thomassen’s Customer Satisfaction Model

According to Thomassen, both the so-called ‘value proposition’ and other influences have an impact on final customer satisfaction. In his satisfaction model (Fig. 1), Thomassen shows that word-of-mouth, personal needs, past experiences, and marketing and public relations determine customers’ needs and expectations.

These factors are compared to their experiences, with the interplay between expectations and experiences determining a customer’s satisfaction level. Thomassen’s model is important for this study as it allows us to determine both the extent to which the boutique’s customers are satisfied, as well as where improvements can be made.

Figure 1 Customer satisfaction creation 

Of course, you could analyse the concepts more thoroughly and compare additional definitions to each other. You could also discuss the theories and ideas of key authors in greater detail and provide several models to illustrate different concepts.

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.

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.

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 .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Vinz, S. (2022, October 10). Example Theoretical Framework of a Dissertation or Thesis. Scribbr. Retrieved 19 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/example-theoretical-framework/

Is this article helpful?

Sarah's academic background includes a Master of Arts in English, a Master of International Affairs degree, and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. She loves the challenge of finding the perfect formulation or wording and derives much satisfaction from helping students take their academic writing up a notch.

Other students also liked

What is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, dissertation & thesis outline | example & free templates, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Designing theoretical and conceptual framework Contributions to thesis writing evaluation

the key argument of this paper is that both conceptual and theoretical frameworks serve different purposes and they are different-conceptually, methodologically and with regard to the scope of their application. conceptual framework is the researcher's idea on how the research problem will have to be explored.

Related Papers

Journal of African Interdisciplinary Studies

Ronald Mensah

This article critically discusses, the relationship between conceptual framework and theoretical framework drawing on their differences and similarities. The article has made it very clear that whereas the theoretical framework is drawn from the existing theoretical literature that you review about your research topic, a conceptual framework is a much broader concept that encompasses practically all aspects of your research. The latter refers to the entire conceptualisation of your research project. It is the big picture, or vision, comprising the totality of research. Methodologically, the paper used systematic and experiential literature review to draw supporting scholarly literature by authorities in the field and made inferences, sound reasonings and logical deductions from these authorities. The primary aim of this paper is to help researchers and students to understand the convergence and the divergence of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in order to appropriately be applied in research and academic writing discourses. Understanding the conceptual framework affects research in many ways. For instance, it assists the researcher in identifying and constructing his/her worldview on the phenomenon to be investigated. Also, it is the simplest way through which a researcher presents his/her asserted remedies to the milieu he/she has created. In addition, this accentuates the reasons why a research topic is worth studying, the assumptions of a researcher, the scholars he/she agrees with and disagrees with and how he/she conceptually grounds his/her approach. Paying attention, to the theoretical framework and its impact on research, it can be mentioned that theoretical framework provides a structure for what to look for in the data, for how you think of how what you see in the data fits together, and helps you to discuss your findings more clearly, in light of what existing theories say. It helps the researcher to make connections between the abstract and concrete elements observed in the data. In conclusion, both theoretical framework and conceptual framework are good variables which are used to inform a study to arrive at logical findings and conclusions. It is therefore recommended by researchers that; a good theoretical framework should be capable of informing the concepts in a research work.

Jeanette Berman

The author of this paper provides an example of a conceptual framework that supported her doctoral study and written dissertation in the field of educational psychology. The study was carried out prior to the more recent explicit emphasis on conceptual frameworks in postgraduate research texts and academic literature. The instigation for the development of an explicit conceptual framework was a change in supervisors and their need to be meaningfully included in the journey of the student. The conceptual framework supported the explanation of the multiple theoretical frameworks and literature base, as well as the professional educational context of the study. It also explicitly responded to the literature search in each area, clearly articulating theory and practice in school curriculum and assessment. This in turn supported the definition of research themes and research questions, and the research methodology (data gathering and analysis), from which the meaningful consideration of ...

Sains Insani

Nabilah Abdullah

Constructing a conceptual framework has always been a problem for many postgraduate students. Even though the students are exposed to many different tools as well as guided with 21st-century skills along the process of conducting research, many of them are seeking helps to complete their postgraduate studies in stages. A solid conceptual framework is an output of conducting a literature review. The construction of a conceptual framework involves multiple research skills. To meet the requirement of thesis completion, supervisors are always emphasizing the implementation of these skills as well as finding the best practice while addressing challenges of guiding them to understand and construct a conceptual framework. Meanwhile, the supervisors must get a better picture of how their postgraduate students undergo the process of constructing a conceptual framework from their literature review. Hence, the thesis supervisors need to understand a better way for helping them to achieve the ...

Abey Dubale

Dayana Mastura, FCCA(UK), MBA

Otolaryngology online

Balasubramanian Thiagarajan

This book has been authored with PhD scholars in mind. The author believes that this would be a good starting point for these scholars. The following chapters have been included: Chapters: 1. Introduction to Thesis Writing 2. Choosing a Topic and Developing a Thesis Statement 3. Conducting Literature Review 4. Methodology and Data Collection 5. Writing the Introduction and Background of Your Thesis 6. Presenting Your Findings and Analysis 7. Writing the Discussion and Conclusion of Your Thesis 8. Formatting and Structuring Your Thesis 9. Referencing and Citations 10. Defending Your Thesis: Preparing for the Viva Voce 11. Revising and Editing Your Thesis 12. Time Management and Staying on Track 13. Overcoming Writer's Block and Staying Motivated 14. Using Technology and Tools to Enhance Your Thesis Writing Process 15. Publishing Your Thesis and Next Steps. 16. Data visualization 17. Statistical tools This book also contains tips about choosing an ideal thesis topic. It also warns the student about the various pitfalls involved in choosing a research topic. The topic on referencing citations would be very useful for even a novice researcher. This book also introduces the researcher to the myriad of software tools that are available to the scholar. Using these software tools would make the life of the researcher that much easier.

Ewnetu Tamene

The impetus of this paper is the irreplaceable role yet confusing use of the term " conceptual framework " in research literature. Even though, there is a consensus among scholars of various field of study that conceptual framework is essential element of research endeavors, yet it is used interchangeably with theoretical framework, that create confusion. As a PhD student on the pre-proposal work, this makes me more anxious. Then my intent is to explore its conceptual meaning and purposes by bringing together similar meanings from different scholars with a view to shed some light on its understanding and its use in research. Hence, in attempting to address this, the following key terms; Concept, conceptual framework research design and theoretical framework are defined briefly as to help decipher the conceptual ties among them and illuminate the conceptual meaning and purpose of conceptual framework. The schematic representation of conceptual framework is developed based on the conceptual meaning provided by scholars. In doing this it is attempted to show conceptual meaning of conceptual framework in relation to research design, paradigms and philosophical assumptions that delineate it from theoretical framework. Conceptual framework serves essential role in inductive research design, while theoretical framework serves similar role in deductive research design.

Martin Otundo Richard

ABSTRACT A number of researchers either in scientific, social or academic researchers have found it difficult to differentiate between the theoretical and conceptual framework and their importance. This is a simple overview of the basic differences and some similarities between the theoretical and conceptual framework that is aimed at helping the learners and other researchers get a fast grasp of what can help them use the two effectively in their studies. A summary has been provided at the last part of the document that can aid one get the required information in his or her research.

Njinga & Sepé Journal

REVISTA (JOURNAL) NJINGA e SEPE (ISSN:2764-1244)

The primary objective of this research paper is to introduce a conceptual framework that can serve as a guide for research development in the Field of languages and applied linguistics, particularly in the context of teaching at higher education. This conceptual framework was devised by doctoral students during the early stages of their research. One of the key aims of the conceptual framework is to help Doctorate students grasp the significance of having a well-defined conceptual framework in research. It enables them to understand how a conceptual framework serves as a foundation for their studies and helps them organize and structure their research effectively. Furthermore, the research paper emphasizes the importance of critically evaluating existing conceptual frameworks in modern research. By engaging in this critical analysis, Doctorate students can identify the strengths and weaknesses of different frameworks and gain insights into how to develop a more comprehensive and dynamic conceptual framework. Another crucial aspect covered in the research paper is the assessment of the impact of a conceptual framework on research outcomes. This text highlights the importance of understanding how a conceptual framework affects research and its outcomes. It states that a research paper aims to provide guidelines for creating and utilizing a conceptual framework, specifically for Doctorate students. The paper includes explanatory texts that explain the theory behind the framework, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of its principles and concepts. Overall, the text presents a conceptual framework for research development in languages and applied linguistics, particularly in the context of teaching at a Higher education.

Serafin Talisayon

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Prof Shosh Leshem , Vernon Trafford

Elock E Shikalepo

Dr Dare E Ajayi

Scientific Research Publishing: Creative Education

Dr. Qais Faryadi

Journal of Educational and Social Research

Uduak I Ekpoh

The Educational Review, USA

maria Fareed

Mary Gardiner

zalma zalma

Dr. Ibrahim Suliman

English for Specific Purposes

Arianne Esguerra

Althea Amor Galdo

Maximus Sefotho , Maximus Monaheng Sefotho (PhD)

Aliya Ahmed

David Kritz

Digital journalism

stephen reese

Scientific Research Publishing: Creative Education.

International Journal of Scientific Research and Management

manoah muchanga

Damtew W Berku

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

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

The role of 4ir-5ir leadership-management in the adoption of formal methods.

1. Introduction

Research questions and objective, 2. materials and methods, 2.1. the use of qualitative propositions.

• Content propositions indicated by pCi for i ∈ {1, 2, 3, …}. A content proposition indicates attributes of building blocks of a framework and is looked upon as the attributes or descriptions of the contents of an entity in the framework.
• Association propositions indicated by pAj , j ∈ {1, 2, 3, …}. An association proposition indicates an association among two or more entities in the framework and is reminiscent of hypotheses in quantitative work but viewed qualitatively.

2.2. Ethical Clearance

3.1. formal methods.

• Proposition pC1a : The efficient use of FMs for system development necessitates the training of developers in discrete mathematics and logic to produce a formal specification.
• Proposition pA1 : raining offered to employees may be technical for developers or managerial for upper management.
• Proposition pC2a : o facilitate the training of developers, a formal specification language selected from algebraic, process-based, and model-based approaches should exhibit relative simplicity, yet be expressive.
• Proposition pA2a : formal specification is associated with choices among one or more specification styles.

3.2. Fourth-Fifth Industrial Revolution (4IR-5IR)

• Proposition pC3 : prominent 4IR technologies include, amongst others, the IIoT, AR, C/EC, Printing 4.0, blockchain, and (generative) AI, of which AI may be the most prominent in guiding the path for FMs usage as a technology.
• Proposition pC4 : a Gartner–Hype™ cycle could be used to predict the industry’s uptake of FMs. Coupled with this would be predictions on the post-adoption use of FMs, i.e., the sustainable use of FMs.

3.2.1. Quality 4.0

• Proposition pC5 : in moving from the 4IR to the 5R, humans should play a central role in the 4IR-5IR structures. ❖ Regarding robots as leaders, their ethical behaviour is paramount.
• Proposition pC6a : having observed leadership in a prominent 4IR structure, management’s support of FMs may be at the executive or cross-functional level.
• Proposition pC7 : modern 4IR frameworks, depicted as semi-structured diagrams, may still exhibit ambiguity that could be addressed through FMs.

3.2.2. FMs in the 4IR

• Proposition pC1b : The efficient use of FMs for system development necessitates the following: ❖ Developers should be trained in discrete mathematics and logic to produce a formal specification. ❖ Software tool usage should be included in FM courses. ❖ Attention should be paid to the role of the 4IR in promoting FMs.

3.2.3. Towards the 5IR

• Proposition pC1c : the efficient use of FMs for system development necessitates the following: ❖ Developers should be trained in discrete mathematics and logic to produce a formal specification. ❖ Software tools supporting a high level of user experience to leapfrog into the 5IR should be included in FM courses. ❖ Attention should be paid to the role of the 4IR in promoting FMs.

3.3. Leadership Perspectives

• Proposition pC6b : having observed leadership in a prominent 4IR structure, management’s support of FMs may be at the executive or cross-functional level to facilitate FMs adoption: ❖ A transformational style with elements of consultative, participative, and adaptive styles may be preferred. ❖ To facilitate the buy-in of team members, a servant leadership style should be preferred over an autocratic style.

Leadership in the 4IR

• Proposition pC8a : 4IR-5IR leaders should embody the leadership aspects of curiosity, learning agility, and a general leadership mindset.
• Proposition pC8 : 4IR-5IR leaders, either robots or humans, should embody the leadership aspects of curiosity, learning agility, and a general leadership mindset. In addition to a conducive leadership mindset, 4IR-5IR leaders should perform the following: ❖ Exert influence and inspire subordinates and peers. ❖ Possess a learning agility linked to curiosity. ❖ Stimulate the acquisition and creation of knowledge. ❖ Be innovative, both regarding technical (4IR) aspects and commercialisation. ❖ Underwrite ethical behaviour towards colleagues, human or otherwise. ❖ Maintain transactional leadership and move towards transformational leadership, embedding the consultative, participative, adaptive, and servant leadership styles.
• Proposition pC9 : maturity models for Leadership 4.0 frameworks ought to be enhanced for the 5IR and collectively adopted as part of 4IR-5IR FMs.

3.4. Pitfalls of Formal Specification

• Proposition pC10 : FMs may elicit ambiguities in semi-formal 4IR structures, yet they may incur other challenges, such as combining definitions and operations.

3.5. Technology Adoption

• Proposition pC11 : FMs may be viewed as a technology isomorphic to AI in the 4IR, making available to FM developers the advantages of the 4IR and the various technology adoption models and frameworks.
• Proposition pA3 : governors and management ought to embrace the opportunities and technologies offered by the 4IR and, therefore, FMs as a technology.
• Proposition pA4 : 4IR-IR technologies coupled with technology adoption structures inform the use of FMs as a viable 4IR-5IR technology.
• Proposition pC12 : FMs’ adoption for reliable system development should be guided by underlying policies, legislation, and standards, including the emerging FMBoK and company-specific standards. ❖ The company should furthermore embark on a strategy for FMs adoption.
• Proposition pA5 : legislation governs using 4IR-5IR technologies and determines the training offered to a company’s FM practitioners, management, and governors.
• Proposition pC13 : the initial adoption of FMs for reliable system development should support the ongoing, post-adoption use of these techniques in line with sustainable FM use.

3.6. Governance as Leadership-Management

• Before setting out on FM usage: ❖ Determine the return on investment (ROI). In this regard, FMs’ success stories [ 19 ], e.g., the IBM CICS successes [ 35 , 63 ], should be studied. ❖ Conduct a thorough risk analysis. ❖ Liaise with early adopters of FMs.
• Employ the services of (1) an FMs expert and (2) one or more consultants.
• Decide which phase(s) of the software development life cycle (SDLC) could be formalised.
• Augment traditional processes with FMs; do not replace all the traditional processes.
• Invest in good support tools for FMs. The support tools should not be harder to use than the FM itself. An example is the tedious use of Even-B/Rodin in discharging proof obligations arising from set-theoretic specifications [ 12 ].
• Proposition pC14 : before adopting FMs, the management and developers should perform the following: ❖ Conduct a thorough risk analysis and determine the return on investment (ROI). ❖ Investigate and study former successes of FMs. ❖ Liaise with early adopters of FMs.
• Proposition pC1 : the efficient use of FMs for system development necessitates the following: ❖ Developers should be trained in discrete mathematics and logic to produce a formal specification. ❖ Software tool usage should be included in FM courses. ❖ Attention should be paid to the role of the 4IR in promoting FMs. ❖ FMs experts and consultants should form part of the training programme. ❖ Formal academic and industry-related qualifications are required for FMs experts. ❖ Professional status should be available for FMs practitioners, and attractive remuneration packages should be offered.
• Proposition pC15 : IT governors and company stakeholders should decide which part(s) of the SDLC could be augmented or replaced with FMs. Plausibly, not all traditional processes should be replaced (cf. Stidolph and Whitehead [ 26 ] for relevant pointers).
• Proposition pC2b : To facilitate the training of FMs developers, a formal specification language selected from algebraic, process-based, and model-based approaches should exhibit relative simplicity yet be expressive. Coupled herewith is the adoption of good support tools to facilitate FMs’ development.
• Proposition pC2 : The following would facilitate the training of FM developers: ❖ A formal specification language selected from algebraic, process-based, and model-based approaches should exhibit relative simplicity, yet be expressive. ❖ Functional support tools for the requirements definition, formal specification, and subsequent transformation (refinement) into a correct system should be adopted.
• Proposition pA2 : a formal specification is associated with choices among the following: ❖ One or more specification styles. ❖ Tool support regarding automated, interactive, or hybrid reasoning. ❖ Transformation into a correct system.
• Proposition pC16 : owing to possible risk and ROI considerations, adopting FMs for system development would be a governance, i.e., a leadership-management (L-M) function, rather than an IT management function.
• Proposition pC6 : as supported by a prominent 4IR structure, management’s support of FM adoption may be at the executive or cross-functional level: ❖ A transformational style with elements of consultative, participative, and adaptive styles may be preferred. ❖ To facilitate the buy-in of team members, a servant leadership style should be preferred over an autocratic style. ❖ Employee freedom and the organisational culture of the ICT section should be considered when adopting FMs.

3.7. Conceptual Framework

4. discussion, 5. related work, 6. conclusions, 6.1. advancing theoretical knowledge, 6.2. practical implications, 6.3. limitations, 6.4. future work, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Atadoga, A.; Umoga, U.J.; Lottu, O.A.; Sodiya, E.O. Tools, techniques, and trends in sustainable software engineering: A critical review of current practices and future directions. World J. Adv. Eng. Technol. Sci. 2024 , 11 , 231–239. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gobov, D.; Sokolovskiy, N. An Association Rule Mining for Selection Requirement Elicitation and Analysis Techniques in IT Projects. In Software, System, and Service Engineering ; KKIO 2023. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing; Jarzębowicz, A., Luković, I., Przybyłek, A., Staroń, M., Ahmad, M.O., Ochodek, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; Volume 499, pp. 82–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ho, L.C.X.; Esche, M.; Nischwitz, M.; Meyer, R.; Glesner, S. A Proposal for Functional Software Identification Using Risk-Based Continuous Quality Control. In Software, System, and Service Engineering ; KKIO 2023. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing; Jarzębowicz, A., Luković, I., Przybyłek, A., Staroń, M., Ahmad, M.O., Ochodek, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; Volume 499, pp. 3–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hnatkowska, B.; Zabawa, P. A Reusability-Oriented Use-Case Model: Textual Specification Language. In Software, System, and Service Engineering ; KKIO 2023. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing; Jarzębowicz, A., Luković, I., Przybyłek, A., Staroń, M., Ahmad, M.O., Ochodek, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; Volume 499, pp. 35–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalla, D.; Smith, N.; Samaah, F.; Kuraku, S. Study and Analysis of Chat GPT and its Impact on Different Fields of Study. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Res. Technol. 2023 , 8 . Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4402499 (accessed on 29 July 2024).
• Bulatović, V.; Mirović, I.; Kaurin, T. Analyzing Grammarly software for corrective feedback: Teacher’s perspective on affordances, limitations and implementation. Focus ELT J. 2024 , 6 , 74–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nzeako, G.; Okeke, C.D.; Akinsanya, M.O.; Popoola, O.A.; Chukwurah, E.G. Security paradigms for IoT in telecom networks: Conceptual challenges and solution pathways. Eng. Sci. Technol. J. 2024 , 5 , 1606–1626. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• United Nations (UN). Sustainable Development: The 17 Goals. n.d. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 25 July 2024).
• Qbatch. Is 2024 The Year of Software Development Crisis? Available online: https://qbatch.com/blog/software-development-crisis/ (accessed on 27 July 2024).
• Buthelezi, M.P.; van der Poll, J.A.; Ochola, E.O. Ambiguity as a Barrier to Information Security Policy Compliance: A Content Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 15–17 December 2016; pp. 1360–1367, ISBN 1-60132-447-2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bollin, A. Metrics for quantifying evolutionary changes in Z specifications. J. Softw. Evol. Process 2013 , 25 , 1027–1059. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ackermann, J.G.; van der Poll, J.A. Reasoning Heuristics for the Theorem-Proving Platform Rodin/Event-B. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI’20), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 16–18 December 2020; pp. 1800–1806. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Enderton, H.B. Elements of Set Theory ; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1977. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, J.; Liu, S. Requirements-related fault prevention during the transformation from formal specifications to programs. IET Softw. 2023 , 17 , 316–332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Larson, B.R.; Chalin, P.; Hatcliff, J. BLESS: Formal specification and verification of behaviors for embedded systems with software. In NASA Formal Methods Symposium ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 276–290. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luckcuck, M.; Farrell, M.; Dennis, L.A.; Dixon, C.; Fisher, M. Formal specification and verification of autonomous robotic systems: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 2019 , 52 , 1–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borkowski, M.H.; Vazou, N.; Jhala, R. Mechanizing Refinement Types. ACM Program. Lang. 2024 , 8 , 2099–2188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nwafor, M.C.; Okezie, C.C.; Azubogu, A.C.O. Design and Implementation of a Multi-Layered Security Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System for Mission Critical Applications. Afr. J. Comp. ICT 2018 , 11 , 71–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nemathaga, A.; van der Poll, J.A. Adoption of Formal Methods in the Commercial World. In Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication and Information Technology (CCIT 2019), Birmingham, UK, 23–24 April 2019; pp. 75–84, ISBN 978-1-63248-169-6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Woodcock, J.C.P. Structuring specifications in Z. Softw. Eng. J. 1987 , 4 , 51–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.; Chan, F.; Hu, P.; Brown, S. Extending the Two-Stage Information Systems Continuance Model: Incorporating UTAUT Predictors and the Role of Context. Inf. Syst. J. 2011 , 21 , 527–555. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• DePietro, R.; Wiarda, E.; Fleischer, M. The context for change: Organization, technology and environment. In The Processes of Technological Innovation ; Tornatzky, L.G., Fleischer, M., Eds.; Lexington Books: Lexington, MA, USA, 1990; pp. 151–175. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chihande, M.K. Post-Adoption Framework for Continued Use of Generalised Audit Software in Southern African SOEs. Ph.D. Thesis, Graduate School of Business Leadership (SBL), University of South Africa (Unisa), Pretoria, South Africa, 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kwiotkowska, A.; Gajdzik, B.; Wolniak, R.; Vveinhardt, J.; Gębczyńska, M. Leadership Competencies in Making Industry 4.0 Effective: The Case of Polish Heat and Power Industry. Energies 2021 , 14 , 4338. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van der Poll, J.A. A Research Agenda for Embedding 4IR Technologies in the Leadership Management of Formal Methods. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI’22), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 14–16 December 2022; pp. 1845–1850. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stidolph, D.C.; Whitehead, J. Managerial Issues for the Consideration and Use of Formal Methods. In International Symposium of Formal Methods Europe (FME) ; Gnesi, S., Araki, K., Mandrioli, D., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2003; pp. 8–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van der Poll, J.A. Problematizing the Adoption of Formal Methods in the 4IR–5IR Transition. Appl. Syst. Innov. 2022 , 5 , 127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van der Poll, J.A.; Van der Poll, H.M. Assisting Postgraduate Students to Synthesise Qualitative Propositions to Develop a Conceptual Framework. Journal for New Generation Sciences (JNGS) 2023 , 21 , 146–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saunders, M.N.K.; Lewis, P.; Thornhill, A. Research Methods for Business Students , 9th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2024. [ Google Scholar ]
• Häring, I. Semi-Formal Modeling of Multi-technological Systems I: UML. In Technical Safety, Reliability and Resilience ; Springer: Singapore, 2021; ISBN 978-981-33-4272-9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stengers, I. Putting Problematization to the Test of Our Present. Theory Cult. Soc. 2021 , 38 , 71–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gleirscher, M.; van de Pol, J.; Woodcock, J. A Manifesto for Applicable Formal Methods. Softw. Syst. Model. 2023 , 22 , 1737–1749. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Albright, T. Why ERP Solutions Are Business Mission Critical, Converge Technology + Business. 25 April 2019. Available online: https://convergetechmedia.com/erp-solutions/ (accessed on 2 August 2024).
• Garavel, H.; Maurice, H.; ter Beek, M.H.; van de Pol, J. The 2020 Expert Survey on Formal Methods. In Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems; FMICS 2020 ; Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS); ter Beek, M.H., Ničković, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 12327, pp. 3–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lincoln, P.; Martin, W.; Scherlis, W. Formal Methods at Scale 2019 Workshops Report. Computing-Enabled Networked Physical Systems (CNPS) & Interagency Working Group (IWG). 2022. Available online: https://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/Formal-Methods-at-Scale-Workshops-Report.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2024).
• Nambiar, A.; Mundra, D. An overview of data warehouse and data lake in modern enterprise data management. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2022 , 6 , 132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wilander, K.O. Soundness in verification of algebraic specifications with OBJ. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 2008 , 74 , 112–114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roggenbach, M.; Shaikh, S.A.; Cerone, A. The Process Algebra CSP. In Formal Methods for Software Engineering ; Texts in Theoretical Computer Science; An EATCS Series; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; ISBN 978-3-030-38800-3. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spivey, J.M. Understanding Z: A Specification Language and its Formal Semantics ; University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2008; ISBN 9780521054140. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwab, K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution ; Crown Publishing Group: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dagada, R. The Advancement of 4IR Technologies and Increasing Cyberattacks in South Africa. South. Afr. J. Secur. 2024 , 1–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bayode, A.; van der Poll, J.A.; Ramphal, R.R. 4th Industrial Revolution: Challenges and Opportunities in the South African Context. In Proceedings of the Conference on Science, Engineering and Waste Management (SETWM-19), Johannesburg, South Africa, 18–19 November 2019; pp. 174–180. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grabowska, S.; Saniuk, S.; Gajdzik, B. Industry 5.0: Improving humanization and sustainability of Industry 4.0. Scientometrics 2022 , 127 , 3117–3144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dongol, B.; Dubois, C.; Hallerstede, S.; Hehner, E.; Morgan, C.; Müller, P.; Ribeiro, L.; Silva, A.; Smith, G.; de Vink, E. On Formal Methods Thinking in Computer Science Education. Form. Asp. Comput. 2024 , 1–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uleanya, C. Scholarly discourse of the fourth industrial revolution (4IR) and education in Botswana: A scoping review. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023 , 28 , 3249–3265. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nelson, T.; Greenman, B.; Prasad, S.; Dyer, T.; Bove, E.; Chen, Q.; Cutting, C.; Del Vecchio, T.; LeVine, S.; Rudner, J.; et al. Forge: A Tool and Language for Teaching Formal Methods. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024 , 8 , 613–641. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simonet, D.V.; Tett, R.P. Five Perspectives on the Leadership–Management Relationship: A Competency-Based Evaluation and Integration. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2013 , 20 , 199–213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jain, V.; Gupta, S.S.; Shankar, K.T.; Bagaria, K.R. A Study on Leadership Management, Principles, Theories, and Educational Management. World J. Engl. Lang. 2022 , 12 , 203–211. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/wjel11/v12y2022i3p203.html (accessed on 30 July 2024). [ CrossRef ]
• Castillo, G.A. The Importance of Adaptive Leadership: Management of Change. Int. J. Nov. Res. Educ. Learn. 2018 , 5 , 100–106. Available online: https://www.noveltyjournals.com/upload/paper/The%20Importance%20of%20Adaptive-1342.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2024).
• Bush, T. Transformational leadership: Exploring common conceptions. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 2018 , 46 , 883–887. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iqbal, A.; Ahmad, M.S.; Nazir, T. Does servant leadership predict innovative behaviour above and beyond transformational leadership? Examining the role of affective commitment and creative self-efficacy. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2023 , 44 , 34–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Motadi, M.S. The impact of leadership 4.0 & contemporary management on organisational performance in the 4IR. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2024 , 13 , 2147–4478. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Okunlola, J.O.; Naicker, S.R.; Uleanya, C. Digital leadership in the fourth industrial revolution enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Cogent Educ. 2024 , 11 , 2317258. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van der Poll, J.A.; Dongmo, C. Problematising the Teaching of Formal Methods (FMs) in Open Distance e-Learning (ODeL). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning in the Digital Age (DigiTAL 2021), Durban, South Africa, 2–3 December 2021; pp. 117–128, ISBN 978-0-620-91827-5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roux, M. Leadership 4.0. In Maturing Leadership: How Adult Development Impacts Leadership ; Reams, J., Ed.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2020; pp. 7–35. ISBN 978-1-78973-402-7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Day, D.V.; Harrison, M.; Halpin, S. An integrative Theory of Leader Development ; The Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trott, P. Innovation Management and New Product Development , 7th ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2020; ISBN 9781292251523. [ Google Scholar ]
• Munsamy, M.A. Digital Leadership Competency Framework in the Era of 4IR. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2022. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10210/503044 (accessed on 25 July 2024).
• Walter, O.M.F.C.; Paladini, E.P.; Henning, H.; Konrath, A.C. Industry 4.0 maturity models: Review and classification as a support for Industry 4.0 implementation. International Joint Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IJCIEOM 2020), 10p. 2020. Available online: https://abepro.org.br/proceedings/artigo.asp?e=icieom&a=2020&c=37251 (accessed on 2 August 2024).
• Chang, A. UTAUT and UTAUT 2: A Review and Agenda for Future Research. Binus J. Publ. 2012 , 13 , 106–114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Malope, E.T.; van der Poll, J.A.; Ncube, O. Digitalisation Practices in South-African State-Owned Enterprises: A Framework for Rapid Adoption of Digital Solutions. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-54), Kauai, HI, USA, 5–8 January 2021; pp. 4590–4599, ISBN 978-0-9981331-4-0. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10125/71174 (accessed on 13 August 2024).
• Formal Methods Wiki: Projects FMBoK. (n.d.). Available online: https://formalmethods.wikia.org/wiki/FMBoK (accessed on 30 May 2024).
• Houston, I.; King, S. CICS project report experiences and results from the use of Z in IBM. In VDM’91 Formal Software Development Methods ; VDM 1991. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS); Prehn, S., Toetenel, W.J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1991; Volume 551. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, M.K.; Jain, S. Leadership management: Principles, models and theories. Glob. J. Manag. Bus. Stud. 2013 , 3 , 309–318. [ Google Scholar ]
• Naidoo, J.; Reddy, S. Embedding Sustainable Mathematics Higher Education in the Fourth Industrial Revolution Era Post-COVID-19: Exploring Technology-Based Teaching Methods. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 9692. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mpofu, Q.; Nemashakwe, P. The role of leadership in adopting the Fourth industrial era technologies in developing economies. Fountain J. Interdiscip. Stud. 2023 , 7 , 41–58. Available online: https://journals.cuz.ac.zw/index.php/fountain/article/view/425 (accessed on 24 July 2024).
• Akokuwebe, M.E.; Idemudia, E.S. A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study of the Prevalence and Determinants of Health Insurance Coverage in Nigeria and South Africa: A Multi-Country Analysis of Demographic Health Surveys. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 1766. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

van der Poll, J.A. The Role of 4IR-5IR Leadership-Management in the Adoption of Formal Methods. Systems 2024 , 12 , 306. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12080306

van der Poll JA. The Role of 4IR-5IR Leadership-Management in the Adoption of Formal Methods. Systems . 2024; 12(8):306. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12080306

van der Poll, John Andrew. 2024. "The Role of 4IR-5IR Leadership-Management in the Adoption of Formal Methods" Systems 12, no. 8: 306. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12080306

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

DEVELOPING A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH: A ROAD MAP FOR ESTABLISHING RELATIONSHIP AND CAUSE-EFFECT IN A PROBLEM OF STUDY. A WORKING EXTRACT FROM A PHD DISSERTATION

• August 2024

• University of Eldoret

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up