theoretical and conceptual framework in quantitative research

Theoretical vs Conceptual Framework

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

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

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

Overview: Theoretical vs Conceptual

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

• Theoretical vs conceptual: which one should I use?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

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

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

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

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

Theoretical framework vs conceptual framework

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

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

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

Psst... there’s more!

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

21 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.

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.21(3); Fall 2022

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers

Julie a. luft.

† Department of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124

Sophia Jeong

‡ Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

Robert Idsardi

§ Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004

Grant Gardner

∥ Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Associated Data

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and delineate the purpose of each in the educational research process. We describe what biology education researchers should consider as they conduct literature reviews, identify theoretical frameworks, and construct conceptual frameworks. Clarifying these different components of educational research studies can be helpful to new biology education researchers and the biology education research community at large in situating their work in the broader scholarly literature.

INTRODUCTION

Discipline-based education research (DBER) involves the purposeful and situated study of teaching and learning in specific disciplinary areas ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Studies in DBER are guided by research questions that reflect disciplines’ priorities and worldviews. Researchers can use quantitative data, qualitative data, or both to answer these research questions through a variety of methodological traditions. Across all methodologies, there are different methods associated with planning and conducting educational research studies that include the use of surveys, interviews, observations, artifacts, or instruments. Ensuring the coherence of these elements to the discipline’s perspective also involves situating the work in the broader scholarly literature. The tools for doing this include literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks. However, the purpose and function of each of these elements is often confusing to new education researchers. The goal of this article is to introduce new biology education researchers to these three important elements important in DBER scholarship and the broader educational literature.

The first element we discuss is a review of research (literature reviews), which highlights the need for a specific research question, study problem, or topic of investigation. Literature reviews situate the relevance of the study within a topic and a field. The process may seem familiar to science researchers entering DBER fields, but new researchers may still struggle in conducting the review. Booth et al. (2016b) highlight some of the challenges novice education researchers face when conducting a review of literature. They point out that novice researchers struggle in deciding how to focus the review, determining the scope of articles needed in the review, and knowing how to be critical of the articles in the review. Overcoming these challenges (and others) can help novice researchers construct a sound literature review that can inform the design of the study and help ensure the work makes a contribution to the field.

The second and third highlighted elements are theoretical and conceptual frameworks. These guide biology education research (BER) studies, and may be less familiar to science researchers. These elements are important in shaping the construction of new knowledge. Theoretical frameworks offer a way to explain and interpret the studied phenomenon, while conceptual frameworks clarify assumptions about the studied phenomenon. Despite the importance of these constructs in educational research, biology educational researchers have noted the limited use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks in published work ( DeHaan, 2011 ; Dirks, 2011 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). In reviewing articles published in CBE—Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) between 2015 and 2019, we found that fewer than 25% of the research articles had a theoretical or conceptual framework (see the Supplemental Information), and at times there was an inconsistent use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Clearly, these frameworks are challenging for published biology education researchers, which suggests the importance of providing some initial guidance to new biology education researchers.

Fortunately, educational researchers have increased their explicit use of these frameworks over time, and this is influencing educational research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. For instance, a quick search for theoretical or conceptual frameworks in the abstracts of articles in Educational Research Complete (a common database for educational research) in STEM fields demonstrates a dramatic change over the last 20 years: from only 778 articles published between 2000 and 2010 to 5703 articles published between 2010 and 2020, a more than sevenfold increase. Greater recognition of the importance of these frameworks is contributing to DBER authors being more explicit about such frameworks in their studies.

Collectively, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks work to guide methodological decisions and the elucidation of important findings. Each offers a different perspective on the problem of study and is an essential element in all forms of educational research. As new researchers seek to learn about these elements, they will find different resources, a variety of perspectives, and many suggestions about the construction and use of these elements. The wide range of available information can overwhelm the new researcher who just wants to learn the distinction between these elements or how to craft them adequately.

Our goal in writing this paper is not to offer specific advice about how to write these sections in scholarly work. Instead, we wanted to introduce these elements to those who are new to BER and who are interested in better distinguishing one from the other. In this paper, we share the purpose of each element in BER scholarship, along with important points on its construction. We also provide references for additional resources that may be beneficial to better understanding each element. Table 1 summarizes the key distinctions among these elements.

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

This article is written for the new biology education researcher who is just learning about these different elements or for scientists looking to become more involved in BER. It is a result of our own work as science education and biology education researchers, whether as graduate students and postdoctoral scholars or newly hired and established faculty members. This is the article we wish had been available as we started to learn about these elements or discussed them with new educational researchers in biology.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

A literature review is foundational to any research study in education or science. In education, a well-conceptualized and well-executed review provides a summary of the research that has already been done on a specific topic and identifies questions that remain to be answered, thus illustrating the current research project’s potential contribution to the field and the reasoning behind the methodological approach selected for the study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). BER is an evolving disciplinary area that is redefining areas of conceptual emphasis as well as orientations toward teaching and learning (e.g., Labov et al. , 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Nehm, 2019 ). As a result, building comprehensive, critical, purposeful, and concise literature reviews can be a challenge for new biology education researchers.

Building Literature Reviews

There are different ways to approach and construct a literature review. Booth et al. (2016a) provide an overview that includes, for example, scoping reviews, which are focused only on notable studies and use a basic method of analysis, and integrative reviews, which are the result of exhaustive literature searches across different genres. Underlying each of these different review processes are attention to the s earch process, a ppraisa l of articles, s ynthesis of the literature, and a nalysis: SALSA ( Booth et al. , 2016a ). This useful acronym can help the researcher focus on the process while building a specific type of review.

However, new educational researchers often have questions about literature reviews that are foundational to SALSA or other approaches. Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section addresses such questions broadly while providing general guidance for writing a narrative literature review that evaluates the most pertinent studies.

The literature review process should begin before the research is conducted. As Boote and Beile (2005 , p. 3) suggested, researchers should be “scholars before researchers.” They point out that having a good working knowledge of the proposed topic helps illuminate avenues of study. Some subject areas have a deep body of work to read and reflect upon, providing a strong foundation for developing the research question(s). For instance, the teaching and learning of evolution is an area of long-standing interest in the BER community, generating many studies (e.g., Perry et al. , 2008 ; Barnes and Brownell, 2016 ) and reviews of research (e.g., Sickel and Friedrichsen, 2013 ; Ziadie and Andrews, 2018 ). Emerging areas of BER include the affective domain, issues of transfer, and metacognition ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Many studies in these areas are transdisciplinary and not always specific to biology education (e.g., Rodrigo-Peiris et al. , 2018 ; Kolpikova et al. , 2019 ). These newer areas may require reading outside BER; fortunately, summaries of some of these topics can be found in the Current Insights section of the LSE website.

In focusing on a specific problem within a broader research strand, a new researcher will likely need to examine research outside BER. Depending upon the area of study, the expanded reading list might involve a mix of BER, DBER, and educational research studies. Determining the scope of the reading is not always straightforward. A simple way to focus one’s reading is to create a “summary phrase” or “research nugget,” which is a very brief descriptive statement about the study. It should focus on the essence of the study, for example, “first-year nonmajor students’ understanding of evolution,” “metacognitive prompts to enhance learning during biochemistry,” or “instructors’ inquiry-based instructional practices after professional development programming.” This type of phrase should help a new researcher identify two or more areas to review that pertain to the study. Focusing on recent research in the last 5 years is a good first step. Additional studies can be identified by reading relevant works referenced in those articles. It is also important to read seminal studies that are more than 5 years old. Reading a range of studies should give the researcher the necessary command of the subject in order to suggest a research question.

Given that the research question(s) arise from the literature review, the review should also substantiate the selected methodological approach. The review and research question(s) guide the researcher in determining how to collect and analyze data. Often the methodological approach used in a study is selected to contribute knowledge that expands upon what has been published previously about the topic (see Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation, 2013 ). An emerging topic of study may need an exploratory approach that allows for a description of the phenomenon and development of a potential theory. This could, but not necessarily, require a methodological approach that uses interviews, observations, surveys, or other instruments. An extensively studied topic may call for the additional understanding of specific factors or variables; this type of study would be well suited to a verification or a causal research design. These could entail a methodological approach that uses valid and reliable instruments, observations, or interviews to determine an effect in the studied event. In either of these examples, the researcher(s) may use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods methodological approach.

Even with a good research question, there is still more reading to be done. The complexity and focus of the research question dictates the depth and breadth of the literature to be examined. Questions that connect multiple topics can require broad literature reviews. For instance, a study that explores the impact of a biology faculty learning community on the inquiry instruction of faculty could have the following review areas: learning communities among biology faculty, inquiry instruction among biology faculty, and inquiry instruction among biology faculty as a result of professional learning. Biology education researchers need to consider whether their literature review requires studies from different disciplines within or outside DBER. For the example given, it would be fruitful to look at research focused on learning communities with faculty in STEM fields or in general education fields that result in instructional change. It is important not to be too narrow or too broad when reading. When the conclusions of articles start to sound similar or no new insights are gained, the researcher likely has a good foundation for a literature review. This level of reading should allow the researcher to demonstrate a mastery in understanding the researched topic, explain the suitability of the proposed research approach, and point to the need for the refined research question(s).

The literature review should include the researcher’s evaluation and critique of the selected studies. A researcher may have a large collection of studies, but not all of the studies will follow standards important in the reporting of empirical work in the social sciences. The American Educational Research Association ( Duran et al. , 2006 ), for example, offers a general discussion about standards for such work: an adequate review of research informing the study, the existence of sound and appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and appropriate conclusions that do not overstep or underexplore the analyzed data. The Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation (2013) also offer Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development that can be used to evaluate collected studies.

Because not all journals adhere to such standards, it is important that a researcher review each study to determine the quality of published research, per the guidelines suggested earlier. In some instances, the research may be fatally flawed. Examples of such flaws include data that do not pertain to the question, a lack of discussion about the data collection, poorly constructed instruments, or an inadequate analysis. These types of errors result in studies that are incomplete, error-laden, or inaccurate and should be excluded from the review. Most studies have limitations, and the author(s) often make them explicit. For instance, there may be an instructor effect, recognized bias in the analysis, or issues with the sample population. Limitations are usually addressed by the research team in some way to ensure a sound and acceptable research process. Occasionally, the limitations associated with the study can be significant and not addressed adequately, which leaves a consequential decision in the hands of the researcher. Providing critiques of studies in the literature review process gives the reader confidence that the researcher has carefully examined relevant work in preparation for the study and, ultimately, the manuscript.

A solid literature review clearly anchors the proposed study in the field and connects the research question(s), the methodological approach, and the discussion. Reviewing extant research leads to research questions that will contribute to what is known in the field. By summarizing what is known, the literature review points to what needs to be known, which in turn guides decisions about methodology. Finally, notable findings of the new study are discussed in reference to those described in the literature review.

Within published BER studies, literature reviews can be placed in different locations in an article. When included in the introductory section of the study, the first few paragraphs of the manuscript set the stage, with the literature review following the opening paragraphs. Cooper et al. (2019) illustrate this approach in their study of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). An introduction discussing the potential of CURES is followed by an analysis of the existing literature relevant to the design of CUREs that allows for novel student discoveries. Within this review, the authors point out contradictory findings among research on novel student discoveries. This clarifies the need for their study, which is described and highlighted through specific research aims.

A literature reviews can also make up a separate section in a paper. For example, the introduction to Todd et al. (2019) illustrates the need for their research topic by highlighting the potential of learning progressions (LPs) and suggesting that LPs may help mitigate learning loss in genetics. At the end of the introduction, the authors state their specific research questions. The review of literature following this opening section comprises two subsections. One focuses on learning loss in general and examines a variety of studies and meta-analyses from the disciplines of medical education, mathematics, and reading. The second section focuses specifically on LPs in genetics and highlights student learning in the midst of LPs. These separate reviews provide insights into the stated research question.

Suggestions and Advice

A well-conceptualized, comprehensive, and critical literature review reveals the understanding of the topic that the researcher brings to the study. Literature reviews should not be so big that there is no clear area of focus; nor should they be so narrow that no real research question arises. The task for a researcher is to craft an efficient literature review that offers a critical analysis of published work, articulates the need for the study, guides the methodological approach to the topic of study, and provides an adequate foundation for the discussion of the findings.

In our own writing of literature reviews, there are often many drafts. An early draft may seem well suited to the study because the need for and approach to the study are well described. However, as the results of the study are analyzed and findings begin to emerge, the existing literature review may be inadequate and need revision. The need for an expanded discussion about the research area can result in the inclusion of new studies that support the explanation of a potential finding. The literature review may also prove to be too broad. Refocusing on a specific area allows for more contemplation of a finding.

It should be noted that there are different types of literature reviews, and many books and articles have been written about the different ways to embark on these types of reviews. Among these different resources, the following may be helpful in considering how to refine the review process for scholarly journals:

• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book addresses different types of literature reviews and offers important suggestions pertaining to defining the scope of the literature review and assessing extant studies.
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This book can help the novice consider how to make the case for an area of study. While this book is not specifically about literature reviews, it offers suggestions about making the case for your study.
• Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge. This book offers guidance on writing different types of literature reviews. For the novice researcher, there are useful suggestions for creating coherent literature reviews.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

As new education researchers may be less familiar with theoretical frameworks than with literature reviews, this discussion begins with an analogy. Envision a biologist, chemist, and physicist examining together the dramatic effect of a fog tsunami over the ocean. A biologist gazing at this phenomenon may be concerned with the effect of fog on various species. A chemist may be interested in the chemical composition of the fog as water vapor condenses around bits of salt. A physicist may be focused on the refraction of light to make fog appear to be “sitting” above the ocean. While observing the same “objective event,” the scientists are operating under different theoretical frameworks that provide a particular perspective or “lens” for the interpretation of the phenomenon. Each of these scientists brings specialized knowledge, experiences, and values to this phenomenon, and these influence the interpretation of the phenomenon. The scientists’ theoretical frameworks influence how they design and carry out their studies and interpret their data.

Within an educational study, a theoretical framework helps to explain a phenomenon through a particular lens and challenges and extends existing knowledge within the limitations of that lens. Theoretical frameworks are explicitly stated by an educational researcher in the paper’s framework, theory, or relevant literature section. The framework shapes the types of questions asked, guides the method by which data are collected and analyzed, and informs the discussion of the results of the study. It also reveals the researcher’s subjectivities, for example, values, social experience, and viewpoint ( Allen, 2017 ). It is essential that a novice researcher learn to explicitly state a theoretical framework, because all research questions are being asked from the researcher’s implicit or explicit assumptions of a phenomenon of interest ( Schwandt, 2000 ).

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks are one of the most contemplated elements in our work in educational research. In this section, we share three important considerations for new scholars selecting a theoretical framework.

The first step in identifying a theoretical framework involves reflecting on the phenomenon within the study and the assumptions aligned with the phenomenon. The phenomenon involves the studied event. There are many possibilities, for example, student learning, instructional approach, or group organization. A researcher holds assumptions about how the phenomenon will be effected, influenced, changed, or portrayed. It is ultimately the researcher’s assumption(s) about the phenomenon that aligns with a theoretical framework. An example can help illustrate how a researcher’s reflection on the phenomenon and acknowledgment of assumptions can result in the identification of a theoretical framework.

In our example, a biology education researcher may be interested in exploring how students’ learning of difficult biological concepts can be supported by the interactions of group members. The phenomenon of interest is the interactions among the peers, and the researcher assumes that more knowledgeable students are important in supporting the learning of the group. As a result, the researcher may draw on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning and development that is focused on the phenomenon of student learning in a social setting. This theory posits the critical nature of interactions among students and between students and teachers in the process of building knowledge. A researcher drawing upon this framework holds the assumption that learning is a dynamic social process involving questions and explanations among students in the classroom and that more knowledgeable peers play an important part in the process of building conceptual knowledge.

It is important to state at this point that there are many different theoretical frameworks. Some frameworks focus on learning and knowing, while other theoretical frameworks focus on equity, empowerment, or discourse. Some frameworks are well articulated, and others are still being refined. For a new researcher, it can be challenging to find a theoretical framework. Two of the best ways to look for theoretical frameworks is through published works that highlight different frameworks.

When a theoretical framework is selected, it should clearly connect to all parts of the study. The framework should augment the study by adding a perspective that provides greater insights into the phenomenon. It should clearly align with the studies described in the literature review. For instance, a framework focused on learning would correspond to research that reported different learning outcomes for similar studies. The methods for data collection and analysis should also correspond to the framework. For instance, a study about instructional interventions could use a theoretical framework concerned with learning and could collect data about the effect of the intervention on what is learned. When the data are analyzed, the theoretical framework should provide added meaning to the findings, and the findings should align with the theoretical framework.

A study by Jensen and Lawson (2011) provides an example of how a theoretical framework connects different parts of the study. They compared undergraduate biology students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups over the course of a semester. Jensen and Lawson (2011) assumed that learning involved collaboration and more knowledgeable peers, which made Vygotsky’s (1978) theory a good fit for their study. They predicted that students in heterogeneous groups would experience greater improvement in their reasoning abilities and science achievements with much of the learning guided by the more knowledgeable peers.

In the enactment of the study, they collected data about the instruction in traditional and inquiry-oriented classes, while the students worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. To determine the effect of working in groups, the authors also measured students’ reasoning abilities and achievement. Each data-collection and analysis decision connected to understanding the influence of collaborative work.

Their findings highlighted aspects of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning. One finding, for instance, posited that inquiry instruction, as a whole, resulted in reasoning and achievement gains. This links to Vygotsky (1978) , because inquiry instruction involves interactions among group members. A more nuanced finding was that group composition had a conditional effect. Heterogeneous groups performed better with more traditional and didactic instruction, regardless of the reasoning ability of the group members. Homogeneous groups worked better during interaction-rich activities for students with low reasoning ability. The authors attributed the variation to the different types of helping behaviors of students. High-performing students provided the answers, while students with low reasoning ability had to work collectively through the material. In terms of Vygotsky (1978) , this finding provided new insights into the learning context in which productive interactions can occur for students.

Another consideration in the selection and use of a theoretical framework pertains to its orientation to the study. This can result in the theoretical framework prioritizing individuals, institutions, and/or policies ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Frameworks that connect to individuals, for instance, could contribute to understanding their actions, learning, or knowledge. Institutional frameworks, on the other hand, offer insights into how institutions, organizations, or groups can influence individuals or materials. Policy theories provide ways to understand how national or local policies can dictate an emphasis on outcomes or instructional design. These different types of frameworks highlight different aspects in an educational setting, which influences the design of the study and the collection of data. In addition, these different frameworks offer a way to make sense of the data. Aligning the data collection and analysis with the framework ensures that a study is coherent and can contribute to the field.

New understandings emerge when different theoretical frameworks are used. For instance, Ebert-May et al. (2015) prioritized the individual level within conceptual change theory (see Posner et al. , 1982 ). In this theory, an individual’s knowledge changes when it no longer fits the phenomenon. Ebert-May et al. (2015) designed a professional development program challenging biology postdoctoral scholars’ existing conceptions of teaching. The authors reported that the biology postdoctoral scholars’ teaching practices became more student-centered as they were challenged to explain their instructional decision making. According to the theory, the biology postdoctoral scholars’ dissatisfaction in their descriptions of teaching and learning initiated change in their knowledge and instruction. These results reveal how conceptual change theory can explain the learning of participants and guide the design of professional development programming.

The communities of practice (CoP) theoretical framework ( Lave, 1988 ; Wenger, 1998 ) prioritizes the institutional level , suggesting that learning occurs when individuals learn from and contribute to the communities in which they reside. Grounded in the assumption of community learning, the literature on CoP suggests that, as individuals interact regularly with the other members of their group, they learn about the rules, roles, and goals of the community ( Allee, 2000 ). A study conducted by Gehrke and Kezar (2017) used the CoP framework to understand organizational change by examining the involvement of individual faculty engaged in a cross-institutional CoP focused on changing the instructional practice of faculty at each institution. In the CoP, faculty members were involved in enhancing instructional materials within their department, which aligned with an overarching goal of instituting instruction that embraced active learning. Not surprisingly, Gehrke and Kezar (2017) revealed that faculty who perceived the community culture as important in their work cultivated institutional change. Furthermore, they found that institutional change was sustained when key leaders served as mentors and provided support for faculty, and as faculty themselves developed into leaders. This study reveals the complexity of individual roles in a COP in order to support institutional instructional change.

It is important to explicitly state the theoretical framework used in a study, but elucidating a theoretical framework can be challenging for a new educational researcher. The literature review can help to identify an applicable theoretical framework. Focal areas of the review or central terms often connect to assumptions and assertions associated with the framework that pertain to the phenomenon of interest. Another way to identify a theoretical framework is self-reflection by the researcher on personal beliefs and understandings about the nature of knowledge the researcher brings to the study ( Lysaght, 2011 ). In stating one’s beliefs and understandings related to the study (e.g., students construct their knowledge, instructional materials support learning), an orientation becomes evident that will suggest a particular theoretical framework. Theoretical frameworks are not arbitrary , but purposefully selected.

With experience, a researcher may find expanded roles for theoretical frameworks. Researchers may revise an existing framework that has limited explanatory power, or they may decide there is a need to develop a new theoretical framework. These frameworks can emerge from a current study or the need to explain a phenomenon in a new way. Researchers may also find that multiple theoretical frameworks are necessary to frame and explore a problem, as different frameworks can provide different insights into a problem.

Finally, it is important to recognize that choosing “x” theoretical framework does not necessarily mean a researcher chooses “y” methodology and so on, nor is there a clear-cut, linear process in selecting a theoretical framework for one’s study. In part, the nonlinear process of identifying a theoretical framework is what makes understanding and using theoretical frameworks challenging. For the novice scholar, contemplating and understanding theoretical frameworks is essential. Fortunately, there are articles and books that can help:

• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book provides an overview of theoretical frameworks in general educational research.
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (2), 020101-1–020101-13. This paper illustrates how a DBER field can use theoretical frameworks.
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 . This paper articulates the need for studies in BER to explicitly state theoretical frameworks and provides examples of potential studies.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage. This book also provides an overview of theoretical frameworks, but for both research and evaluation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework is a description of the way a researcher understands the factors and/or variables that are involved in the study and their relationships to one another. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to articulate the concepts under study using relevant literature ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ) and to clarify the presumed relationships among those concepts ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Conceptual frameworks are different from theoretical frameworks in both their breadth and grounding in established findings. Whereas a theoretical framework articulates the lens through which a researcher views the work, the conceptual framework is often more mechanistic and malleable.

Conceptual frameworks are broader, encompassing both established theories (i.e., theoretical frameworks) and the researchers’ own emergent ideas. Emergent ideas, for example, may be rooted in informal and/or unpublished observations from experience. These emergent ideas would not be considered a “theory” if they are not yet tested, supported by systematically collected evidence, and peer reviewed. However, they do still play an important role in the way researchers approach their studies. The conceptual framework allows authors to clearly describe their emergent ideas so that connections among ideas in the study and the significance of the study are apparent to readers.

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

Including a conceptual framework in a research study is important, but researchers often opt to include either a conceptual or a theoretical framework. Either may be adequate, but both provide greater insight into the research approach. For instance, a research team plans to test a novel component of an existing theory. In their study, they describe the existing theoretical framework that informs their work and then present their own conceptual framework. Within this conceptual framework, specific topics portray emergent ideas that are related to the theory. Describing both frameworks allows readers to better understand the researchers’ assumptions, orientations, and understanding of concepts being investigated. For example, Connolly et al. (2018) included a conceptual framework that described how they applied a theoretical framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) to their study on teaching programs for doctoral students. In their conceptual framework, the authors described SCCT, explained how it applied to the investigation, and drew upon results from previous studies to justify the proposed connections between the theory and their emergent ideas.

In some cases, authors may be able to sufficiently describe their conceptualization of the phenomenon under study in an introduction alone, without a separate conceptual framework section. However, incomplete descriptions of how the researchers conceptualize the components of the study may limit the significance of the study by making the research less intelligible to readers. This is especially problematic when studying topics in which researchers use the same terms for different constructs or different terms for similar and overlapping constructs (e.g., inquiry, teacher beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, or active learning). Authors must describe their conceptualization of a construct if the research is to be understandable and useful.

There are some key areas to consider regarding the inclusion of a conceptual framework in a study. To begin with, it is important to recognize that conceptual frameworks are constructed by the researchers conducting the study ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Maxwell, 2012 ). This is different from theoretical frameworks that are often taken from established literature. Researchers should bring together ideas from the literature, but they may be influenced by their own experiences as a student and/or instructor, the shared experiences of others, or thought experiments as they construct a description, model, or representation of their understanding of the phenomenon under study. This is an exercise in intellectual organization and clarity that often considers what is learned, known, and experienced. The conceptual framework makes these constructs explicitly visible to readers, who may have different understandings of the phenomenon based on their prior knowledge and experience. There is no single method to go about this intellectual work.

Reeves et al. (2016) is an example of an article that proposed a conceptual framework about graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. The authors used existing literature to create a novel framework that filled a gap in current research and practice related to the training of graduate teaching assistants. This conceptual framework can guide the systematic collection of data by other researchers because the framework describes the relationships among various factors that influence teaching and learning. The Reeves et al. (2016) conceptual framework may be modified as additional data are collected and analyzed by other researchers. This is not uncommon, as conceptual frameworks can serve as catalysts for concerted research efforts that systematically explore a phenomenon (e.g., Reynolds et al. , 2012 ; Brownell and Kloser, 2015 ).

Sabel et al. (2017) used a conceptual framework in their exploration of how scaffolds, an external factor, interact with internal factors to support student learning. Their conceptual framework integrated principles from two theoretical frameworks, self-regulated learning and metacognition, to illustrate how the research team conceptualized students’ use of scaffolds in their learning ( Figure 1 ). Sabel et al. (2017) created this model using their interpretations of these two frameworks in the context of their teaching.

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

A conceptual framework should describe the relationship among components of the investigation ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). These relationships should guide the researcher’s methods of approaching the study ( Miles et al. , 2014 ) and inform both the data to be collected and how those data should be analyzed. Explicitly describing the connections among the ideas allows the researcher to justify the importance of the study and the rigor of the research design. Just as importantly, these frameworks help readers understand why certain components of a system were not explored in the study. This is a challenge in education research, which is rooted in complex environments with many variables that are difficult to control.

For example, Sabel et al. (2017) stated: “Scaffolds, such as enhanced answer keys and reflection questions, can help students and instructors bridge the external and internal factors and support learning” (p. 3). They connected the scaffolds in the study to the three dimensions of metacognition and the eventual transformation of existing ideas into new or revised ideas. Their framework provides a rationale for focusing on how students use two different scaffolds, and not on other factors that may influence a student’s success (self-efficacy, use of active learning, exam format, etc.).

In constructing conceptual frameworks, researchers should address needed areas of study and/or contradictions discovered in literature reviews. By attending to these areas, researchers can strengthen their arguments for the importance of a study. For instance, conceptual frameworks can address how the current study will fill gaps in the research, resolve contradictions in existing literature, or suggest a new area of study. While a literature review describes what is known and not known about the phenomenon, the conceptual framework leverages these gaps in describing the current study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). In the example of Sabel et al. (2017) , the authors indicated there was a gap in the literature regarding how scaffolds engage students in metacognition to promote learning in large classes. Their study helps fill that gap by describing how scaffolds can support students in the three dimensions of metacognition: intelligibility, plausibility, and wide applicability. In another example, Lane (2016) integrated research from science identity, the ethic of care, the sense of belonging, and an expertise model of student success to form a conceptual framework that addressed the critiques of other frameworks. In a more recent example, Sbeglia et al. (2021) illustrated how a conceptual framework influences the methodological choices and inferences in studies by educational researchers.

Sometimes researchers draw upon the conceptual frameworks of other researchers. When a researcher’s conceptual framework closely aligns with an existing framework, the discussion may be brief. For example, Ghee et al. (2016) referred to portions of SCCT as their conceptual framework to explain the significance of their work on students’ self-efficacy and career interests. Because the authors’ conceptualization of this phenomenon aligned with a previously described framework, they briefly mentioned the conceptual framework and provided additional citations that provided more detail for the readers.

Within both the BER and the broader DBER communities, conceptual frameworks have been used to describe different constructs. For example, some researchers have used the term “conceptual framework” to describe students’ conceptual understandings of a biological phenomenon. This is distinct from a researcher’s conceptual framework of the educational phenomenon under investigation, which may also need to be explicitly described in the article. Other studies have presented a research logic model or flowchart of the research design as a conceptual framework. These constructions can be quite valuable in helping readers understand the data-collection and analysis process. However, a model depicting the study design does not serve the same role as a conceptual framework. Researchers need to avoid conflating these constructs by differentiating the researchers’ conceptual framework that guides the study from the research design, when applicable.

Explicitly describing conceptual frameworks is essential in depicting the focus of the study. We have found that being explicit in a conceptual framework means using accepted terminology, referencing prior work, and clearly noting connections between terms. This description can also highlight gaps in the literature or suggest potential contributions to the field of study. A well-elucidated conceptual framework can suggest additional studies that may be warranted. This can also spur other researchers to consider how they would approach the examination of a phenomenon and could result in a revised conceptual framework.

It can be challenging to create conceptual frameworks, but they are important. Below are two resources that could be helpful in constructing and presenting conceptual frameworks in educational research:

• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter 3 in this book describes how to construct conceptual frameworks.
• Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book explains how conceptual frameworks guide the research questions, data collection, data analyses, and interpretation of results.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are all important in DBER and BER. Robust literature reviews reinforce the importance of a study. Theoretical frameworks connect the study to the base of knowledge in educational theory and specify the researcher’s assumptions. Conceptual frameworks allow researchers to explicitly describe their conceptualization of the relationships among the components of the phenomenon under study. Table 1 provides a general overview of these components in order to assist biology education researchers in thinking about these elements.

It is important to emphasize that these different elements are intertwined. When these elements are aligned and complement one another, the study is coherent, and the study findings contribute to knowledge in the field. When literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are disconnected from one another, the study suffers. The point of the study is lost, suggested findings are unsupported, or important conclusions are invisible to the researcher. In addition, this misalignment may be costly in terms of time and money.

Conducting a literature review, selecting a theoretical framework, and building a conceptual framework are some of the most difficult elements of a research study. It takes time to understand the relevant research, identify a theoretical framework that provides important insights into the study, and formulate a conceptual framework that organizes the finding. In the research process, there is often a constant back and forth among these elements as the study evolves. With an ongoing refinement of the review of literature, clarification of the theoretical framework, and articulation of a conceptual framework, a sound study can emerge that makes a contribution to the field. This is the goal of BER and education research.

Supplementary Material

• Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning . OD Practitioner , 32 ( 4 ), 4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, M. (2017). The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4 ). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381411 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (2014). Setting the stage . In Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes, M. E., Brownell, S. E. (2016). Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0243 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boote, D. N., Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher , 34 ( 6 ), 3–15. 10.3102/0013189x034006003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology . Studies in Higher Education , 40 ( 3 ), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y. G., Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0039 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel discoveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Education research in the biological sciences: A nine decade review (Paper commissioned by the NAS/NRC Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline Based Education Research) . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Mee ting2_commissioned_papers_page.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 ( 2 ), 020101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirks, C. (2011). The current status and future direction of biology education research . Paper presented at: Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, 18–19 October (Washington, DC). Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_071087 [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association . Educational Researcher , 35 ( 6 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 ( 2 ), ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-12-0222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galvan, J. L., Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315229386 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gehrke, S., Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education . American Educational Research Journal , 54 ( 5 ), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghee, M., Keels, M., Collins, D., Neal-Spence, C., Baker, E. (2016). Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf
• Jensen, J. L., Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 1 ), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolpikova, E. P., Chen, D. C., Doherty, J. H. (2019). Does the format of preclass reading quizzes matter? An evaluation of traditional and gamified, adaptive preclass reading quizzes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 ( 1 ), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., Sato, B. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lysaght, Z. (2011). Epistemological and paradigmatic ecumenism in “Pasteur’s quadrant:” Tales from doctoral research . In Official Conference Proceedings of the Third Asian Conference on Education in Osaka, Japan . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://iafor.org/ace2011_offprint/ACE2011_offprint_0254.pdf
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems . Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., Stal, D. (2008). Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 ( 2 ), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change . Science Education , 66 ( 2 ), 211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravitch, S. M., Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., Thompson, R. J. Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions . Human Resource Development Review , 8 ( 1 ), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodrigo-Peiris, T., Xiang, L., Cassone, V. M. (2018). A low-intensity, hybrid design between a “traditional” and a “course-based” research experience yields positive outcomes for science undergraduate freshmen and shows potential for large-scale application . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 4 ), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-11-0248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabel, J. L., Dauer, J. T., Forbes, C. T. (2017). Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer keys and reflection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 ( 3 ), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbeglia, G. C., Goodridge, J. A., Gordon, L. H., Nehm, R. H. (2021). Are faculty changing? How reform frameworks, sampling intensities, and instrument measures impact inferences about student-centered teaching practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 20 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-11-0259 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism . In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sickel, A. J., Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Examining the evolution education literature with a focus on teachers: Major findings, goals for teacher preparation, and directions for future research . Evolution: Education and Outreach , 6 ( 1 ), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-23 [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd, A., Romine, W. L., Correa-Menendez, J. (2019). Modeling the transition from a phenotypic to genotypic conceptualization of genetics in a university-level introductory biology context . Research in Science Education , 49 ( 2 ), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9626-2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system . Systems Thinker , 9 ( 5 ), 2–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziadie, M. A., Andrews, T. C. (2018). Moving evolution education forward: A systematic analysis of literature to identify gaps in collective knowledge for teaching . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0190 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• 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

Data Interpretation – Process, Methods and...

Research Paper Title – Writing Guide and Example

Research Summary – Structure, Examples and...

Research Paper Outline – Types, Example, Template

Conceptual Framework – Types, Methodology and...

Figures in Research Paper – Examples and Guide

Frequently asked questions

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

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

Frequently asked questions: Dissertation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a stronger dissertation conclusion , avoid including:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t interpret or speculate in the results chapter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ask our team

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

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

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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.

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

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

Revisiting theoretical frameworks

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

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

Conceptual vs. theoretical framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rigorous research starts with ATLAS.ti

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

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

Scope and purpose of theoretical and conceptual frameworks

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

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

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

Study design and data analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turn data into theory with ATLAS.ti

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

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

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

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

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

Table of Contents

What is a theoretical framework ?  

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

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

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

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

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

Importance of a theoretical framework  

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

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

Theoretical vs. Conceptual framework  

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

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

How to write a theoretical framework  

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

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

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

Examples of a theoretical framework  

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

Example 1 .   

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

Objective : To sell more insurance products to existing customers.  

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

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

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

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

Example 2 .

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

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

Problem: Continued decrease in sales and profitability.  

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

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

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

Benefits of a theoretical framework  

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions 

Q1. How do I develop a theoretical framework ? 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References  

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

Researcher.Life 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 Researcher.Life 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 21+ years of experience in academia, Researcher.Life 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 $17 a month !    

Related Posts

Take Top AI Tools for Researchers for a Spin with the Editage All Access 7-Day Pass!

Thesis Defense: How to Ace this Crucial Step

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

An easily understandable definition of a theoretical framework.

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

Does every research have a 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.

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

Level of Detail

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, phd thesis types: monograph and collection of articles, the 11 best ai tools for academic writing, minimalist writing for a better thesis, a guide to industry-funded research: types, examples & getting started.

Research Process Guide

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

Step 5: Choosing a Conceptual or Theoretical Framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing it up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Chapter 1: Home
• Narrowing Your Topic
• Problem Statement
• Purpose Statement

Defining The Conceptual Framework

Making a conceptual framework, conceptual framework for dmft students, conceptual framework guide, example frameworks, additional framework resources.

• Student Experience Feedback Buttons
• Theoretical Framework
• Quantitative Research Questions This link opens in a new window
• Qualitative Research Questions This link opens in a new window
• Qualitative & Quantitative Research Support with the ASC This link opens in a new window
• Library Research Consultations This link opens in a new window

What is it?

• The researcher’s understanding/hypothesis/exploration of either an existing framework/model or how existing concepts come together to inform a particular problem. Shows the reader how different elements come together to facilitate research and a clear understanding of results.
• Informs the research questions/methodology (problem statement drives framework drives RQs drives methodology)
• A tool (linked concepts) to help facilitate the understanding of the relationship among concepts or variables in relation to the real-world. Each concept is linked to frame the project in question.
• Falls inside of a larger theoretical framework (theoretical framework = explains the why and how of a particular phenomenon within a particular body of literature).
• Can be a graphic or a narrative – but should always be explained and cited
• Can be made up of theories and concepts

What does it do?

• Explains or predicts the way key concepts/variables will come together to inform the problem/phenomenon
• Gives the study direction/parameters
• Helps the researcher organize ideas and clarify concepts
• Introduces your research and how it will advance your field of practice. A conceptual framework should include concepts applicable to the field of study. These can be in the field or neighboring fields – as long as important details are captured and the framework is relevant to the problem. (alignment)

What should be in it?

• Variables, concepts, theories, and/or parts of other existing frameworks

How to make a conceptual framework

• With a topic in mind, go to the body of literature and start identifying the key concepts used by other studies. Figure out what’s been done by other researchers, and what needs to be done (either find a specific call to action outlined in the literature or make sure your proposed problem has yet to be studied in your specific setting). Use what you find needs to be done to either support a pre-identified problem or craft a general problem for study. Only rely on scholarly sources for this part of your research.
• Begin to pull out variables, concepts, theories, and existing frameworks explained in the relevant literature.
• If you’re building a framework, start thinking about how some of those variables, concepts, theories, and facets of existing frameworks come together to shape your problem. The problem could be a situational condition that requires a scholar-practitioner approach, the result of a practical need, or an opportunity to further an applicational study, project, or research. Remember, if the answer to your specific problem exists, you don’t need to conduct the study.
• The actionable research you’d like to conduct will help shape what you include in your framework. Sketch the flow of your Applied Doctoral Project from start to finish and decide which variables are truly the best fit for your research.
• Create a graphic representation of your framework (this part is optional, but often helps readers understand the flow of your research) Even if you do a graphic, first write out how the variables could influence your Applied Doctoral Project and introduce your methodology. Remember to use APA formatting in separating the sections of your framework to create a clear understanding of the framework for your reader.
• As you move through your study, you may need to revise your framework.
• Note for qualitative/quantitative research: If doing qualitative, make sure your framework doesn’t include arrow lines, which could imply causal or correlational linkages.
• Conceptural and Theoretical Framework for DMFT Students This document is specific to DMFT students working on a conceptual or theoretical framework for their applied project.
• Conceptual Framework Guide Use this guide to determine the guiding framework for your applied dissertation research.

Let’s say I’ve just taken a job as manager of a failing restaurant. Throughout the first week, I notice the few customers they have are leaving unsatisfied. I need to figure out why and turn the establishment into a thriving restaurant. I get permission from the owner to do a study to figure out exactly what we need to do to raise levels of customer satisfaction. Since I have a specific problem and want to make sure my research produces valid results, I go to the literature to find out what others are finding about customer satisfaction in the food service industry. This particular restaurant is vegan focused – and my search of the literature doesn’t say anything specific about how to increase customer service in a vegan atmosphere, so I know this research needs to be done.

I find out there are different types of satisfaction across other genres of the food service industry, and the one I’m interested in is cumulative customer satisfaction. I then decide based on what I’m seeing in the literature that my definition of customer satisfaction is the way perception, evaluation, and psychological reaction to perception and evaluation of both tangible and intangible elements of the dining experience come together to inform customer expectations. Essentially, customer expectations inform customer satisfaction.

I then find across the literature many variables could be significant in determining customer satisfaction. Because the following keep appearing, they are the ones I choose to include in my framework: price, service, branding (branched out to include physical environment and promotion), and taste. I also learn by reading the literature, satisfaction can vary between genders – so I want to make sure to also collect demographic information in my survey. Gender, age, profession, and number of children are a few demographic variables I understand would be helpful to include based on my extensive literature review.

Note: this is a quantitative study. I’m including all variables in this study, and the variables I am testing are my independent variables. Here I’m working to see how each of the independent variables influences (or not) my dependent variable, customer satisfaction. If you are interested in qualitative study, read on for an example of how to make the same framework qualitative in nature.

Also note: when you create your framework, you’ll need to cite each facet of your framework. Tell the reader where you got everything you’re including. Not only is it in compliance with APA formatting, but also it raises your credibility as a researcher. Once you’ve built the narrative around your framework, you may also want to create a visual for your reader.

See below for one example of how to illustrate your framework:

If you’re interested in a qualitative study, be sure to omit arrows and other notations inferring statistical analysis. The only time it would be inappropriate to include a framework in qualitative study is in a grounded theory study, which is not something you’ll do in an applied doctoral study.

A visual example of a qualitative framework is below:

Some additional helpful resources in constructing a conceptual framework for study:

• Problem Statement, Conceptual Framework, and Research Question. McGaghie, W. C.; Bordage, G.; and J. A. Shea (2001). Problem Statement, Conceptual Framework, and Research Question. Retrieved on January 5, 2015 from http://goo.gl/qLIUFg
• Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions, and Procedure
• https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/conceptual-framework/
• https://www.projectguru.in/developing-conceptual-framework-in-a-research-paper/

Conceptual Framework Research

A conceptual framework is a synthetization of interrelated components and variables which help in solving a real-world problem. It is the final lens used for viewing the deductive resolution of an identified issue (Imenda, 2014). The development of a conceptual framework begins with a deductive assumption that a problem exists, and the application of processes, procedures, functional approach, models, or theory may be used for problem resolution (Zackoff et al., 2019). The application of theory in traditional theoretical research is to understand, explain, and predict phenomena (Swanson, 2013). In applied research the application of theory in problem solving focuses on how theory in conjunction with practice (applied action) and procedures (functional approach) frames vision, thinking, and action towards problem resolution. The inclusion of theory in a conceptual framework is not focused on validation or devaluation of applied theories. A concise way of viewing the conceptual framework is a list of understood fact-based conditions that presents the researcher’s prescribed thinking for solving the identified problem. These conditions provide a methodological rationale of interrelated ideas and approaches for beginning, executing, and defining the outcome of problem resolution efforts (Leshem & Trafford, 2007).

The term conceptual framework and theoretical framework are often and erroneously used interchangeably (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). Just as with traditional research, a theory does not or cannot be expected to explain all phenomenal conditions, a conceptual framework is not a random identification of disparate ideas meant to incase a problem. Instead it is a means of identifying and constructing for the researcher and reader alike an epistemological mindset and a functional worldview approach to the identified problem.

Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). 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

Imenda, S. (2014). Is There a Conceptual Difference between Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks? Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi/Journal of Social Sciences, 38(2), 185.

Leshem, S., & Trafford, V. (2007). Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 44(1), 93–105. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1080/14703290601081407

Swanson, R. (2013). Theory building in applied disciplines . San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Zackoff, M. W., Real, F. J., Klein, M. D., Abramson, E. L., Li, S.-T. T., & Gusic, M. E. (2019). Enhancing Educational Scholarship Through Conceptual Frameworks: A Challenge and Roadmap for Medical Educators . Academic Pediatrics, 19(2), 135–141. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/j.acap.2018.08.003

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Alignment
• Next: Theoretical Framework >>
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 2:48 PM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/c.php?g=1006886

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

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

BUILDING THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS FOR QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH REPORT IN EDUCATION

The paradigm shift in the conduct and the contents of research reports in universities has continued to create challenges to many researchers. In recent times the gradual obligatory and academic demands to include theoretical and conceptual frameworks in every quantitative research reports have been described by many students as addition to research rigors. In some cases some supervisors may find it difficult to guide their students. However it may appear, the importance of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in quantitative research reports cannot be overlooked because research variables depend largely on existing theories and interrelated concepts. This paper therefore reviewed and suggested how theoretical and conceptual frameworks can be developed for quantitative research reports. The paper also made attempt to give clearer views on the conceptualization of theories, variables, models, constructs, and concepts, theoretical and conceptual frameworks. The components of theoretical and conceptual frameworks for quantitative research reports were presented, and attempts were made to show how the frameworks are applied in a research. It was therefore concluded that theoretical and conceptual frameworks are necessary and useful ingredients of a sound quantitative research report. Recommendations were made, one of which was that both frameworks should be used simultaneously in every quantitative research report.

Related Papers

Zubair Naeem

Katrin Niglas

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences

Brian Mumba

How do we decide whether to use a quantitative or qualitative methodology for our study? Quantitative and qualitative research (are they a dichotomy or different ends on a continuum?). How do we analyse and write the results of a study for the research article or our thesis? Further questions can be asked such as; is the paradigm same as research design? How can we spot a paradigm in our research article? Although the questions are answered quietly explicitly, the discussion on the paradigm and research design remains technical. This can be evidenced by the confusion that people still face in differentiating between a paradigm, methodology, approach and design when doing research. The confusion is further worsened by the quantitative versus qualitative research dichotomies. This article addresses quantitative and qualitative research while discussing scientific research paradigms from educational measurement and evaluation perspective.

Monika Jakubicz

Interdisciplinary Research: Collaborative Insights

Pongsakorn Limna , Dr. Sutithep Siripipattanakul , Tamonwan Sitthipon

In the past few decades, educational practices have changed drastically, particularly regarding how information and learning are delivered and processed. Education research frequently employs quantitative methods. Quantitative education research provides numerical data that can prove or disprove a theory, and administrators can easily share the quantitative findings with other academics and districts. While the study may be based on relative sample size, educators and researchers can extrapolate the results from quantitative data to predict outcomes for larger student populations and groups. Educational research has a long history of utilising measurement and statistical methods. Commonly quantitative methods encompass a variety of statistical tests and instruments. Educators and students could transition to the digital era and research-based knowledge, including quantitative research in advanced higher education, as the technology has advanced. The quantitative research methods in education emphasise basic group designs for research and evaluation, analytic methods for exploring relationships between categorical and continuous measures, and statistical analysis procedures for group design data. The essential is to evaluate quantitative analysis and provide the research process, sampling techniques, the advantages and disadvantages of quantitative research in the article.

Darrell M Hull , Robin Henson , Cynthia S. Williams

How doctoral programs train future researchers in quantitative methods has important implications for the quality of scientifically based research in education. The purpose of this article, therefore, is to examine how quantitative methods are used in the literature and taught in doctoral programs. Evidence points to deficiencies in quantitative training and application in several areas: (a) methodological reporting problems, (b) researcher misconceptions and inaccuracies, (c) overreliance on traditional methods, and (d) a lack of coverage of modern advances. An argument is made that a culture supportive of quantitative methods is not consistently available to many applied education researchers. Collective quantitative proficiency is defined as a vision for a culture representative of broader support for quantitative methodology (statistics, measurement, and research design).

This paper discusses the importance of conceptualisation in quantitative research. It explains in simple terms what conceptualisation entails, and indicates where and how the researcher should apply the techniques of conceptualisation. The paper has been prompted by the recurring challenges higher degree students and early career researchers face in enabling the readers of their research reports (dissertations or theses) to gain a common understanding of what they have written about. Problems with this have caused some dissertations or theses to be rejected for reporting on something other than what the candidate purports to have studied. In this paper, conceptualisation is examined as a multi-dimensional concept, starting with the process of forming concepts that describe the identified research problem, and proceeding to the derivation of agreed-on meanings of concepts, as well as the operationalisation of study variables, in order to avoid ambiguity and misinterpretation in a res...

Elock E Shikalepo

Conducting educational research involves various stages, with an interdependence and inter-relationship which can be both iterative and progressive in nature. One of these stages is the review of literature sources related to the focus of the research. Reviewing related literature involves tracing, examining, critiquing, evaluating and eventually recommending various forms of contents to the intents of the research based on the content’s typicality, relevance, correctness and appropriateness to what the research intends to achieve. The main variables as stated in the title of the research, the research questions, the research objectives and the hypotheses, dictates the literature sources to review. Reviewing literature focuses on the existing related topics that bear relevance to the title of the research and through which reviewing, appropriate theories can be picked up as the review of related topics and phrases goes on. As soon as the related topics are reviewed and main points noted, the reviewing process proceeds to review the theories underpinning the study. Some of these theories would have been established while reviewing the related topics and can now gain momentum, while other theories can now be generated considering the title, research questions, research objectives and findings of the topics reviewed and discussed earlier. Reviewing related topics generates main points of arguments, solutions, gaps and propositions. Similarly, reviewing theories does produce the same set of corresponding or contrasting agreements, gaps and propositions. Despite reviewing different sources of literature, it is the same research at hand, with same objectives and same methodological layout. Hence, a need to shape a strategic, literature direction for the research by consolidating the key findings of the different sources reviewed, in view of the intents of the research. The process of consolidating the multiplicity of key literature findings relevant to the research into a whole single unit, with one standpoint revealing the strategic literature direction for the research, is called constructing a conceptual framework. The end product of this construction is the conceptual framework, which is the informed and consolidated results presented narratively or schematically, revealing the strategic position of the study in relation to what exists in literature.

Flanny Alamparambil

HANDBOOK MANUAL IN EDUCATION RESEARCH FOR STUDENTS: A Guide to Practical Approach to Research Problems

Delight O Idika

Research in the behavioural science is usually a systematic and comprehensive study of a problem with a view to tackling the problem and making broad and reasonable advance to the frontiers of human knowledge. The major thrust of researches done in social science and behavioural science or humanities as often being referred is to understand, predict, control and change human behaviours (which are not only complex but keep varying and making appearance in different settings) on certain issues and problems. To achieve these goals, certain laid down step-wise procedures must be followed. These are embedded in the research process. This is the reason why such investigations are said to be scientific though not studied the way the natural or physical sciences are done in a controlled environment (laboratory); this will be discussed in the course of this manual.

Loading Preview

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

RELATED PAPERS

International Journal of Research

Enas Abuhamda , Islam Asim Ismail

Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education

Ibtesam Hussein

Sandra Mathison

Adesoji Oni

Lorenzo D Baber

Clement Ali

Quality & Quantity

Mansoor Niaz

Moses Adeleke ADEOYE

UNICAF University - Zambia

Ivan Steenkamp

Ruddy Lesmana

Iffatul Muna

BRIJENDRA GAUTAM

dessy angraini

The Cyprus Journal of Sciences

Kakia Avgousti

ShaherBano Sharif

Issues in Educational Research

Noella Mackenzie

Ridwan Osman

Frances Chumney

Leslie Gail Roman

Christopher Halter

khadidja Hammoudi

Jeanette Berman

Journal of African Interdisciplinary Studies

Ronald Mensah

•   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
• 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

Proposition and application of a conceptual model for risk management in rural areas: rural basic sanitation safety plan (rbssp).

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. rbssp conceptual model (cm rbssp ), 2.1.1. first phase, 2.1.2. second phase.

• Fundamental principles that will be the basis for plan preparation;
• RBSSP steps, which will demonstrate their logical sequence;
• Objective that will explain the purpose of the each stage;
• List of actions with activity sequence, and how they should be performed in order to achieve the objective;
• Instruments that will be used to perform the listed actions;
• Products that must be obtained at each stage end of RBSSP;
• Implementation of a summary figure, instrument used to facilitate the visualization of the steps, and the general structure of the RBSSP.

2.1.3. Third Phase

2.2. case study, 3.1. rbssp conceptual model (cm rbssp ), 3.1.1. first phase, 3.1.2. second phase, 3.1.3. third phase, 3.2. case study, 4. discussion, 4.1. rbssp conceptual model (cm rbssp ), 4.1.1. phase 1.1, 4.1.2. phase 1.2, 4.1.3. phase 1.3, 4.1.4. second phase, 4.1.5. third phase, 4.2. case study, 5. conclusions.

• The WSP and SSP frameworks consist of multiple steps and must include phases for diagnosis, risk assessment, management plans and continuous improvement phases, which are relevant for any safety plan methodology.
• A methodology for the preparation of safety plans for rural areas, related to basic sanitation, can be used as it is or adapted, depending on the local reality, such as cultural, economic, regulatory and community involvement aspects. However, there is a gap in the adaptation process. The methodology adaptation to rural settlements and to include the four components of basic sanitation remains a gap in the literature, which evidences the importance of RBSSP.
• It is possible to develop a comprehensive safety plan that integrates water supply, sewage, solid waste management and rainwater management in rural settlements. This plan should be based on the principles of basic sanitation, ensuring that all steps are applied to these four services.
• The methodology for the preparation of RBSSP must address specific and/or greater impact issues, such as the community representation team for its preparation, and the expanded concept of health application connected to each one of the basic sanitation services (water supply, sewage, solid waste management and rainwater management), which differentiates it from urban areas.
• Community participation, involvement and empowerment must be considered in RBSSP methodology, as these are factors of greater relevance in its implementation, specially to ensure the connection between the four components of basic sanitation and because most of these services are provided by the population.
• It is important that RBSSP fundamental principles are explicit and are used during its preparation, implementation and for decision-making. This can strengthen the implementation of RBSSP, ensuring that it focuses on the most important issues in rural basic sanitation.
• The necessary tools for the preparation of RBSSP, such as risk assessment methodologies and management plans, must be applied considering RBSSP fundamental principles.
• The application simulation of the conceptual model showed that it is necessary to adapt the actions, to apply appropriate methods and techniques developed for the rural area, as a way to properly prepare RBSSP, according to the scenario. After conducting the case study, the final RBSSP framework consists of six fundamental principles, six steps, and twenty actions to be implemented in any type of rural settlement.

Supplementary Materials

Author contributions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Agência Nacional De Águas e Saneamento Básico (Brasil). ODS 6 no Brasil: Visão da ANA Sobre os Indicadores , 2nd ed.; (SDG 6 in Brazil: ANA´s Vision about Indicatros); ANA: Brasília, Brazil, 2022; 212p. Available online: https://metadados.snirh.gov.br/geonetwork/srv/api/records/c93c5670-f4a7-4de6-85cf-c295c3a15204/attachments/ODS6_Brasil_ANA_2ed_digital_simples.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023).
• Brasil. Lei nº. 14.026, de 15 de julho de 2020 (Law n. 14,026). In Atualiza o Marco Legal do Saneamento Básico ; Diário Oficial da União: Brasília, Brazil, 2020. Available online: https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/lei-n-14.026-de-15-de-julho-de-2020-267035421 (accessed on 2 October 2022).
• Rodriguez-Alvarez, M.S.; Gutiérrez-López, A.; Iribarnegaray, M.A.; Weir, M.H.; Seghezzo, L. Long-Term Assessment of a Water Safety Plan (WSP) in Salta, Argentina. Water 2022 , 14 , 2948. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Murei, A.; Mogane, B.; Mothiba, D.P.; Mochware, O.T.W.; Sekgobela, J.M.; Mudau, M.; Musumuvhi, N.; Khabo-Mmekoa, C.M.; Moropeng, R.C.; Momba, M.N.B. Barriers to Water and Sanitation Safety Plans in Rural Areas of South Africa—A Case Study in the Vhembe District, Limpopo Province. Water 2022 , 14 , 1244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vinti, G.; Bauza, V.; Clasen, T.; Tudor, T.; Zurbrugg, C.; Vaccari, M. Health risks of solid waste management practices in rural Ghana: A semi-quantitative approach toward a solid waste safety plan. Environ. Res. 2023 , 216 , 114728. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pan American Health Organization—PAHO. Environmental Gradients and Health Inequalities in the Americas: Access to Water and Sanitation as Determinants of Health ; PAHO: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; Available online: https://iris.paho.org/bitstream/handle/10665.2/31404/9789275119136-eng.pdf (accessed on 3 February 2023).
• Prüss-Ustün, A.; Wolf, J.; Bartram, J.; Clasen, T.; Cumming, O.; Freeman, M.C.; Gordon, B.; Hunter, P.R.; Medlicott, K.; Johnston, R. Burden of disease from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene for selected adverse health outcomes: An updated analysis with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2019 , 222 , 765–777. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Brasil. Lei n. 8.080, de 19 de Setembro de 1990 (Law n. 8,080) ; Diário Oficial da União: Brasília, Brazil, 1990; p. 18055, Seção 1. Available online: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8080.htm (accessed on 1 October 2022).
• Rand, E.C.; Foster, T.; Sami, E.; Sammy, E. Review of water safety planning processes and options for improved climate resilient infrastructure in Vanuatu. Water Pract. Technol. 2022 , 17 , 675. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lane, K.; Megan, F.; Toni, S.; Stoddart, A. Exploring the use of a sanitation safety plan framework to identify key hazards in first nations wastewater systems. Water 2021 , 13 , 1454. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pundir, S.; Singh, R.; Singh, P.; Kandari, V. Risk assessment and water safety planning for rural water supply in Uttarakhand, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021 , 193 , 795–812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Souter, R.T.; Ruuska, D.; Pene, S.; Benjamin, C.; Funubo, S.; Beal, C.D.; Sanderson, R.; Batikawai, S.; Ravai, A.; Antoinette-Wickham, T.; et al. Strengthening rural community water safety planning in Pacific Island countries: Evidence and lessons from Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and Fiji. J. Water Health 2024 , 22 , 467–486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• World Health Organization—WHO. Water Safety Plans: Training Package ; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012; Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/water-safety-plans-training-package (accessed on 29 December 2022).
• World Health Organization—WHO. Sanitation Safety Planning: Manual for Safe Use and Disposal of Wastewater, Greywater and Excreta ; WHO Library: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/171753/9789241549240_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 29 December 2022).
• World Health Organization—WHO. A Field Guide to Improving Small Drinking-Water Supplies: Water Safety Planning for Rural Communities ; WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2022; Available online: https://wsportal.org/resource/a-field-guide-to-improving-small-drinking-water-supplies-water-safety-planning-for-rural-communities/ (accessed on 25 January 2023).
• Bartram, J.; Corrales, L.; Davison, A.; Dreere, D.; Drury, D.; Gordon, B.; Howard, G.; Rinehold, A.; Stevens, M. Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-By-Step Risk Management for Drinking-Water Suppliers ; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009; Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241562638 (accessed on 1 October 2020).
• Brasil. Elaboração de Projeto de Melhoria Habitacional Para o Controle da Doença de Chagas ; Governo Federal: Brasília, Brazil, 2013; 54p. Available online: https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/melhoria_habitacional_chagas.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2021).
• String, G.; Lantagne, D. A systematic review of outcomes and lessons learned from general, rural, and country-specific Water Safety Plan implementations. Water Sci. Technol.-Water Supply 2016 , 16 , 1580–1594. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sutherland, D.; Payden. Observations and lessons learnt from more than a decade of water safety planning in SouthEast Asia. WHO South-East Asia J. Public Health 2017 , 6 , 27–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alazaiza, M.Y.D.; Albahnasawi, A.; Al Maskari, T.; Nassani, D.E. Benefits, challenges and success factors of water safety plan implementation: A review. Global NEST J. 2022 , 24 , 414–425. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fagundes, I.C.; Marques, G.F. Identification of potential hazards in rural alternative collective water supply solutions for the preparation of Water Safety Plans: An adaptation proposal. Eng. Sanit. Ambient. 2024 , 29 , e20220197. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yehia, A.G.; Mehany, M.A.S.; Fareed, A.M.; El-sayed, W.H.; Taman, M.S. The role of water safety plan (WSP) to enhance the compatibility in water sector, Egypt. World Water Policy 2024 , 10 , 524–552. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mcmeekin, N.; Wu, O.; Germeni, E.; Briggs, A. How methodological frameworks are being developed: Evidence from a scoping review. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2020 , 20 , 173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zare, F.; Elsawah, S.; Bagheri, A.; Nabavi, E.; Jakeman, A.J. Improved integrated water resource modelling by combining DPSIR and system dynamics conceptual modelling techniques. J. Environ. Manag. 2019 , 246 , 27–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zavala, E.; King, S.E.; Sawadogo-Lewis, T.; Roberson, T. Leveraging water, sanitation and hygiene for nutrition in low- and middle-income countries: A conceptual framework. Matern. Child Nutr. 2021 , 17 , e13202. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balaei, B.; Wilkinson, S.; Potangaroa, R.; Hassami, N.; Alavi-Shoshtari, M. Developing a Framework for Measuring Water Supply Resilience. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2018 , 19 , 04018013. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Howard, G.; Nijhawan, A.; Flint, A.; Baidya, M.; Pregnolato, M.; Ghimire, A.; Poudel, M.; Lo, E.; Sharma, S.; Mengustu, B.; et al. The how tough is WASH framework for assessing the climate resilience of water and sanitation. npj Clean Water 2021 , 4 , 39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiménez, A.; Saikia, P.; Giné, R.; Avello, P.; Leten, J.; Lymer, B.L.; Schneider, K.; Ward, R. Unpacking water governance: A framework for practitioners. Water 2020 , 12 , 827. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, W.; Kalonji, G.; Chen, C.; Zheng, I.M.H. A three-staged framework for measuring water supply resilience in rural China based on PLS-SEM. Sci. Rep. 2022 , 12 , 4323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scalize, P.S. Diagnóstico Técnico-Participativo da Comunidade João de Deus–Silvânia–2018 (Technical-Participatory Diagnosis of the João de Deus Community–Silvânia City-2018) ; Cegraf UFG: Goiânia, Brazil, 2020; Available online: https://sanrural.ufg.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/DTP_JOAO_DE_DEUS.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023).
• Bezerra, N.R.; Baracho, R.O.; Oliveira, T.L.d.; Scalize, P.S. Technique proposal and application for risk assessment in collective basic sanitation system in rural areas. Environ. Forum Alta Paul. 2022 , 18 , 1–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scalize, P.S.; Bezerra, N.R.; Baracho, R.O. Safety index of individual basic sanitation systems in rural area. Environ. Forum Alta Paul. 2022 , 18 , 56–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davison, A.; Howard, G.; Stevens, M.; Callan, P.; Fewtrell, L.; Deere, D.; Bartram, J. Water Safety Plans: Managing Drinking-Water Quality from Catchment to Consumer ; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organization—WHO. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality: Fourth Edition Incorporating the First Addendum ; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017; Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549950 (accessed on 29 December 2022).
• World Health Organization—WHO. Guidelines on Sanitation and Health ; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018; Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241514705 (accessed on 29 December 2022).
• Associação Brasileira De Normas Técnicas-ABNT. ABNT/NBR/ISO/IEC 31.000: Gestão de Riscos–Diretrizes (Risk Management-Guidelines). Rio de Janeiro. 2018. Available online: https://www.normas.com.br/visualizar/abnt-nbr-nm/28977/abnt-nbriso31000-gestao-de-riscos-diretrizes (accessed on 14 December 2022).
• Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Programa Nacional de Saneamento Rural (National Rural Sanitation Program) ; Funasa: Brasília, Brazil, 2019; 260p, ISBN 978-85-7346-065-0. Available online: www.funasa.gov.br/documents/20182/38564/MNL_PNSR_2019.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2022).
• Brasil. Portaria Ministério da Saúde/Gabinete do Ministro GM/MS n. 888, de 04 de maio de 2021 (Ministry of Health Ordinance) ; Diário Oficial da União: Brasília, Brazil, 2021; p. 127, seção 1. Available online: https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/portaria-gm/ms-n-888-de-4-de-maio-de-2021-318461562 (accessed on 14 December 2022).
• Brasil. Lei nº. 11.445, de 05 de Janeiro de 2007 (Law n. 11.445) ; Diário Oficial da União: Brasília, Brazil, 8 January 2007. Available online: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2007/lei/l11445.htm (accessed on 1 October 2022).
• World Health Organization—WHO; International Water Association—IWA. Global Status Report on Water Safety Plans: A Review of Proactive Risk Assessment and Risk Management Practices to Ensure the Safety of Drinking-Water ; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/255649 (accessed on 29 December 2022).
• Corrêa, R.F.M.; Ventura, K.S. Plano de Segurança da Água: Modelo conceitual para monitoramento de riscos à contaminação de água em comunidades rurais (Water Safety Plan: Conceptual model for monitoring risks to water contamination in rural communities). Eng. Sanit. Ambient. 2021 , 26 , 369–379. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, H.; Smith, C.D.; Cohen, A.; Wang, L.; Li, Z.; Zhang, X.; Zhong, G.; Zhang, R. Implementation of water safety plans in China: 2004–2018. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2020 , 223 , 106–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ye, B.; Chen, Y.; Li, Y.; Li, H.; Yang, L.; Wang, W. Risk assessment and water safety plan: Case study in Beijing, China. J. Water Health 2015 , 13 , 510–521. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Perrier, E.; Kot, M.; Castleden, H.; Gagnon, G.A. Drinking water safety plans: Barriers and bridges for small systems in Alberta, Canada. Water Policy 2014 , 16 , 1140–1154. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumpel, E.; Delaire, C.; Peletz, R.; Kisiangani, J.; Rinehold, A.; De France, J.; Sutherland, D.; Khush, R. Measuring the Impacts of Water Safety Plans in the Asia-Pacific Region. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018 , 15 , 1223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rondi, L.; Sorlini, S.; Collivignarelli, M.C. Water safety plan: An approach to reduce drinking water contamination in a rural area of Senegal. Procedia Environ. Sci. Eng. Manag. 2014 , 1 , 53–57. Available online: https://www.procedia-esem.eu/pdf/issues/2014/no1/10_Luca_14.pdf (accessed on 3 February 2023).
• Souza, P.F.d.; Burgess, J.E.; Swart, M.; Naidoo, V.; Blanckenberg, A. Web enablement of a Water Safety Plan via the municipal-based electronic Water Quality Management System (eWQMS). Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2011 , 11 , 568–577. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hasan, T.J.; Hicking, A.; David, J. Empowering rural communities: Simple Water Safety Plans. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2011 , 11 , 309–317. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khatri, N.R.; Heijnen, H. Keeping drinking water safe: Adopting water safety plans in rural Nepal. Waterlines 2011 , 30 , 212–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McMillan, A. A pilot community water safety plan in Nepal for point sources with household water treatment. Waterlines 2011 , 30 , 189–202. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24686572 (accessed on 2 January 2023). [ CrossRef ]
• Mahmud, S.G.; Shamsuddin, S.A.J.; Ahmed, M.F.; Davison, A.; Deere, D.; Howard, G. Development and implementation of water safety plans for small water supplies in Bangladesh: Benefits and lessons learned. J. Water Health 2007 , 5 , 585–597. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rondi, L.; Sorlini, S.; Collivignarelli, M.C. Sustainability of Water Safety Plans Developed in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability 2015 , 7 , 11139–11159. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barrington, D.; Fuller, K.; McMillan, A. Water safety planning: Adapting the existing approach to community-managed systems in rural Nepal. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2013 , 3 , 392–401. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bazgir, A.B.; Mohammadi, H.; Pirsaraei, S.R.A. Risk assessment of drinking water supply and distribution system of Zanjan City from Tahm dam using water safety plan. Desalination Water Treat. 2020 , 207 , 213–220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• String, G.M.; Singleton, R.I.; Mirindi, P.N.; Lantagne, D.S. Operational research on rural, community-managed Water Safety Plans: Case study results from implementations in India, DRC, Fiji, and Vanuatu. Water Res. 2020 , 170 , 115288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• White, P.; Badu, I.R.; Shrestha, P. Achieving sustainable water supply through better institutions, design innovations and Water Safety Plans-an experience from Nepal. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2015 , 5 , 625–631. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lane, K.; Stoddart, A.K.; Gagnon, G.A. Water safety plans as a tool for drinking water regulatory frameworks in Arctic communities. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018 , 25 , 32988–33000. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Greaves, F. Piloting a community process for water safety plans. Waterlines 2011 , 30 , 223–231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Australia-South Australia Government. Safe Drinking Water Act 2011–Part 3: Risk Management Plans. Available online: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/SAFE%20DRINKING%20WATER%20ACT%202011/CURRENT/2011.16.UN.PDF (accessed on 2 February 2023).
• World Health Organization—WHO. Assessing Microbial Safety of Drinking-Water: Improving Approaches and Methods ; WHO Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003; Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9241546301 (accessed on 3 February 2023).
• Winkler, M.S.; Jackson, D.; Sutherland, D.; Payden; Lim, J.M.U.; Srikantaiah, V.; Fuhrimann, S.; Medlicott, K. Sanitation safety planning as a tool for achieving safely managed sanitation systems and safe use of wastewater. WHO South-East Asia J. Public Health 2017 , 6 , 34–40. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/329620 (accessed on 2 February 2023). [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vieira, J.M.P.; Morais, C. Planos de Segurança da Água para Consumo Humano em Sistemas Públicos de Abastecimento (Water Safety Plans for Human Consumption in Public Supply Systems) ; Instituto Regulador de Águas e Resíduos/Universidade do Minho: Braga, Portugal, 2005; Available online: http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/4609 (accessed on 25 January 2023).
• Vieira, J.M.P. Water Safety Plan Implementation in Portugal. J. Water Health 2011 , 9 , 107–116. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Roeger, A.; Tavares, A.F. Water safety plans by utilities: A review of research on implementation. Util. Policy 2018 , 53 , 15–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• World Health Organization—WHO. Bangladesh ; WHO Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011; Available online: http://www.searo.who.int/entity/water_sanitation/bangladesh_wsp.pdf?ua=1 (accessed on 30 April 2018).
• United Nations—UN. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 28 July 2010: 64/292. In The Human Right to Water and Sanitation ; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2010; Available online: https://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml (accessed on 30 April 2018).
• Aleixo, B.; Pena, J.L.; Heller, L.; Rezende, S. Infrastructure is a necessary but insufficient condition to eliminate inequalities in access to water: Research of a rural community intervention in Northeast Brazil. Sci. Total Environ. 2019 , 652 , 1445–1455. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Riswan, M. Community Participation and Rural Water Supply System: Policy and Practice in Developing Countries. KALAM–Int. J. Fac. Arts Cult. South East. Univ. Sri Lanka 2021 , 14 , 675–683. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brasil. Caderno Metodológico Para ações de Educação Ambiental e Mobilização Social em Saneamento (Methodological Book for Environmental Education Actions and Social Mobilization in Sanitation) ; Ministério das Cidades: Brasília, Brazil, 2009. Available online: https://www.conder.ba.gov.br/sites/default/files/2018-08/Caderno%20metodol%C3%B3gico%20para%20a%C3%A7%C3%B5es%20de%20educa%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20ambiental%20e%20mobiliza%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20social%20em%20saneamento.PDF (accessed on 1 October 2022).
• Brasil. Orientações metodológicas para programa de educação ambiental em saneamento para pequenos municípios. In Caderno de Orientações-Caderno I ; UEFS, Funasa: Brasília, Brazil, 2014. Available online: http://www.funasa.gov.br/site/wp-content/files_mf/orient_ed_sa_caderno1.pdf. (accessed on 1 October 2022).
• Kwangware, J.; Mayo, A.; Hoko, Z. Sustainability of donor-funded rural water supply and sanitation projects in Mbire District, Zimbabwe. Phys. Chem. Earth 2014 , 76 , 134–139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wijayanti, G.M.; Yanfika, H.; Asmara, M.; Perdana, R.; Rahmat, A. Strategy for the provision of drinking water and environmental sanitation based on the community in Sidodadi Village, Pesawaran Regency. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science ; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 739. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rubinger, S.D.; Rezende, S.C.; Heller, L. Discursos dissonantes: A comunicação entre técnicos e a população como fator para a participação social. In Participação e Controle Social em Saneamento Básico: Conceitos, Potencialidades e Limites (Participation and Social Control in Basic Sanitation: Concepts, Potentialities and Limits) ; Heller, L., Aguiar, M.M.d., Rezende, S.C., Eds.; Editora UFMG: Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2016; 319p. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al Djono, T.P.; Daniel, D. The effect of community contribution on the functionality of rural water supply programs in Indonesia. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2022 , 19 , 100822. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kayser, G.; Loret, J.F.; Setty, K.; Blaudin De Thé, C.; Martin, J.; Puigdomenech, C.; Bartram, J. Water safety plans for water supply utilities in China, Cuba, France, Morocco and Spain: Costs, benefits, and enabling environment elements. Urban Water J. 2019 , 16 , 277–288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bereskie, T.; Haider, H.; Rodriguez, M.J.; Sadiq, R. Framework for continuous performance improvement in small drinking water systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2017 , 1 , 1405–1414. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barnes, C. Safe Drinking Water for All: A Status Update on Walkerton´s Legacy, 20 Years after Release of Inquiry Reports ; Canadian Environmental Law Association: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2020; Available online: https://cela.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/1490-Safe-Drinking-Water-for-All-Walkerton-Inquiry-Status-Report-Aug2022.pdf (accessed on 25 February 2023).
• World Health Organization—WHO. Basic Documents: Forty-Ninth Edition (Including Amendments Adopted up to 31 May 2019) ; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; Available online: https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf (accessed on 29 December 2022).
• Bizuneh, H.; Getnet, F.; Meressa, B.; Tegene, Y.; Worku, G. Factors associated with diarrheal morbidity among under-five children in Jigjiga town, Somali Regional State, eastern Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. BMC Pediatr. 2017 , 17 , 182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dey, N.C.; Parvez, M.; Islam, M.R.; Mistry, S.K.; Levine, D.I. Effectiveness of a community-based water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) intervention in reduction of diarrhoea among under-five children: Evidence from a repeated cross-sectional study (2007–2015) in rural Bangladesh. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2019 , 222 , 1098–1108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Soboksa, N.E.; Gari, S.; Hailu, A.; Alemu, B. Association between microbial water quality, sanitation and hygiene practices and childhood diarrhea in Kersa and Omo Nada districts of Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. PLoS ONE 2020 , 15 , e0229303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Torlesse, H.; Cronin, A.A.; Sebayang, S.K.; Nandy, R. Determinants of stunting in Indonesian children: Evidence from a cross-sectional survey indicate a prominent role for the water, sanitation and hygiene sector in stunting reduction. BMC Public Health 2016 , 16 , 669. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• World Health Organization. A Practical Guide to Auditing Water Safety Plans ; WHO: New York, NY, USA, 2015; 85p, Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241509527 (accessed on 25 January 2022).
• Baum, R.; Bartram, J. A systematic literature review of the enabling environment elements to improve implementation of water safety plans in high-income countries. J. Water Health 2018 , 16 , 14–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tsitsifli, S.; Tsoukalas, D.S. Water Safety Plans and HACCP implementation in water utilities around the world: Benefits, drawbacks and critical success factors. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021 , 28 , 18837–18849. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kot, M.; Castleden, H.; Gagnon, G.A. The human dimension of water safety plans: A critical review of literature and information gaps. Environ. Rev. 2015 , 23 , 24–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wahaab, R.A.; Elsayed, W.H.; Ibrahiem, M.S.; Hasballah, A.F. Application of Water Safety Plans to Improve Desalination Water Supply at Matrouh Governorate, Egypt. Egypt. J. Chem. 2021 , 64 , 6749–6759. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pinheiro, R.V.N.; Chagas, I.M.; Basso, R.E.; Nóbrega, J.N.; Bezerra, N.R.; Scalize, P.S. Proposition and application of a method for the characterization of rural areas in the census sectors from the sanitation point of view. Environ. Forum Alta Paul. 2022 , 18 , 67–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bezerra, N.R. Application of the Delphi technique to validate the methods to be used in the system on a web platform for the implementation of a water safety plan. Rev. Eletrôn. Gestão Tecnol. Ambient. 2018 , 6 , 29–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nijhawan, A.; Jain, P.; Sargaonkar, A.; Labhasetwar, P.K. Implementation of water safety plan for a large-piped water supply system. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2014 , 186 , 5547–5560. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brasil. Plano de Segurança da Água: Garantindo a Qualidade e Promovendo a Saúde: Um Olhar do SUS (Water Safety Plan: Ensuring Quality and Promoting Health: A View from SUS) ; Ministério da Saúde: Brasília, Brazil, 2012. Available online: https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/plano_seguranca_agua_qualidade_sus.pdf (accessed on 3 February 2023).
• Schwelein, S.; Cronk, R.; Bartram, J. Indicators for Monitoring Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene: A Systematic Review of Indicator Selection Methods. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016 , 13 , 333. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cassivi, A.; Tilley, E.; Waygood, E.O.D.; Dorea, C. Evaluating self-reported measures and alternatives to monitor access to drinking water: A case study in malawi. Sci. Total Environ. 2021 , 750 , 141516. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Turman-Bryant, N.; Clasen, T.F.; Frankhauser, K.; Thomas, E.A. Measuring progress towards sanitation and hygiene targets: A critical review of monitoring methodologies and technologies. Waterlines 2022 , 41 , 5–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Baracho, R.O.; Bezerra, N.R.; Scalize, P.S. Proposition and Application of a Conceptual Model for Risk Management in Rural Areas: Rural Basic Sanitation Safety Plan (RBSSP). Resources 2024 , 13 , 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13070090

Baracho RO, Bezerra NR, Scalize PS. Proposition and Application of a Conceptual Model for Risk Management in Rural Areas: Rural Basic Sanitation Safety Plan (RBSSP). Resources . 2024; 13(7):90. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13070090

Baracho, Rafaella Oliveira, Nolan Ribeiro Bezerra, and Paulo Sérgio Scalize. 2024. "Proposition and Application of a Conceptual Model for Risk Management in Rural Areas: Rural Basic Sanitation Safety Plan (RBSSP)" Resources 13, no. 7: 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13070090

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 228 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals