conceptual framework of phd thesis

Want to Get your Dissertation Accepted?

Discover how we've helped doctoral students complete their dissertations and advance their academic careers!

Join 200+ Graduated Students

Get Your Dissertation Accepted On Your Next Submission

Get customized coaching for:.

Crafting your proposal,
Collecting and analyzing your data, or
Preparing your defense.

Trapped in dissertation revisions?

Developing a conceptual framework for a quantitative dissertation, published by steve tippins on july 18, 2022 july 18, 2022.

Last Updated on: 2nd February 2024, 02:41 am

Fairly quickly into the dissertation process, you will need to develop a conceptual framework. Perhaps second only to the purpose statement in its importance for your dissertation, the conceptual framework shapes the direction of your research. Think of it this way: if the purpose statement is your target, then the conceptual framework is the arrow that guides you to your intended target.

So how do you tackle such a critical task? Follow the steps outlined in this article to build a strong conceptual framework that will set you up for writing a successful dissertation.

Prerequisites

Before we outline the steps to building a solid conceptual framework, let’s zoom out and remind ourselves where we are in the dissertation process.

Prior to developing your conceptual framework, you will have already chosen your research topic and have developed an appropriate research question or problem statement .

student consulting her professor about Conceptual Framework in her dissertation

Once these prerequisites are met, you are ready to move on to developing a conceptual framework for your dissertation research. Armed with a clear target (your problem statement), next you will take aim at the target by crafting a conceptual framework to effectively guide your research.

How to Create a Conceptual Framework

Step one: conduct a literature review with your topic and problem statement in mind. .

Get familiar with what is being said about your particular area of research. You probably already conducted a preliminary review of the relevant literature when you were brainstorming your topic and narrowing down your area of focus. Now take another closer look to begin noticing themes, key terms, and recurring variables mentioned in the relevant literature.

Step Two: Identify the variables affecting your problem.

Begin to jot down the themes, patterns, and variables you see emerging from the sources related to your dissertation topic . What are the independent and dependent variables of your research problem? What are the extraneous variables that impact the independent variables, such as mediating, moderating, and control variables?

Over 50% of doctoral candidates don’t finish their dissertations.

Be careful here. You want to avoid going down rabbit holes chasing every possible variable. Isolate the key variables you see from the literature as most pertinent to your problem focus . Stick to a few key variables that you can discuss adequately and in an in-depth manner in your dissertation. Too many outliers muddies the waters, making for an unwieldy research process for you and confusion for your readers. Developing a clean, focused conceptual framework will help you focus on the most relevant factors.

Step Three: Identify the relationships between the key variables.

woman with eyeglasses focused on studying in a library

In the process of isolating the key variables impacting your research problem, you will likely have already begun to notice relationships among the variables. What are the causal relationships? What variables have a direct or indirect impact upon another variable? As mentioned in Step Two, be careful here not to chase down too many loosely connected variable relationships. You want to focus on the strongest relationships, the ones most supported by the relevant literature, and the relationships that provide the best insight into your problem statement.

Step Four: Create a visual representation of your conceptual framework.

Once you have a clear picture of the key variables of your research problem and relationships among these variables, you should be able to draw a visual flow chart of the critical components of your research. This visual represents your actual conceptual framework for your research.

The visual representation is usually a diagram, a simple flow chart with the variables in boxes and with arrows showing the flow of relationship among the variables. You could also write out the conceptual framework in outline or narrative format; however, typically a visual representation is the best way to demonstrate the relationship among your variables.

Step Five: Explain your visual representation in narrative form.

woman with headphones working on her dissertation at home

Once you have created your visual representation, explain the flow chart in a paragraph or two. This narrative of your conceptual framework will be included in your dissertation and will sum up the direction of your research. Your readers will quickly grasp the main thrust of your dissertation through this narrative description. The conceptual framework both in its chart form and in its narrative form will keep you on track over the course of your dissertation process , as well.

Simple Conceptual Framework Visual Example

This simplified flow chart provides a basic visual example of a conceptual framework for a research work seeking to analyze the key factor(s) contributing to successful second language acquisition in the classroom.

flow chart describing a conceptual framework

A key contributing factor to a student’s successful acquisition of a second language in a classroom setting is his or her willingness to take risks.

The control factor that ought to be provided by the teacher is the creation of a safe classroom space where enough trust has been built that students are willing to take the risks necessary in order to experiment with the second language.

The problem exists when the student does not feel safe enough to take risks in the language acquisition process, and thus does not succeed in acquiring the desired language skills.

Narrative Explanation of the Example Conceptual Framework

In the above example, we see that successful second language acquisition is the dependent variable or the desired outcome.

Student’s willingness to take risks is an important key independent variable (Other independent variables likely exist, but for example’s sake, we will limit our focus to one independent variable.)

Environment of Trust and Safety is the control variable which has a direct impact on the student’s willingness to take language risks in the classroom and thus affects the student’s success in second language acquisition. Also, this control variable is under the direct control of the classroom teacher.

african american woman with short curly hair reading notes next to her laptop

A conceptual framework lends clarity to your dissertation process. It provides the guidance and structure needed to effectively write a strong dissertation.

Assessing the pertinent literature, identifying the key variables related to your problem statement, and then drawing out the relationships among the variables will lead you to the vital components of your conceptual framework. The last steps involve drawing a simple visual of your basic research components and describing that visual in a narrative format.

Follow these simple steps and writing a successful dissertation will flow naturally from your solidly constructed conceptual framework.

Steve Tippins

Steve Tippins, PhD, has thrived in academia for over thirty years. He continues to love teaching in addition to coaching recent PhD graduates as well as students writing their dissertations. Learn more about his dissertation coaching and career coaching services. Book a Free Consultation with Steve Tippins

female phd student laughing at the laptop

Dissertation

Dissertation memes.

Sometimes you can’t dissertate anymore and you just need to meme. Don’t worry, I’ve got you. Here are some of my favorite dissertation memes that I’ve seen lately. My Favorite Dissertation Memes For when you Read more…

stressed out phd student in front of the computer

Surviving Post Dissertation Stress Disorder

The process of earning a doctorate can be long and stressful – and for some people, it can even be traumatic. This may be hard for those who haven’t been through a doctoral program to Read more…

asian phd student researching on laptop in the library

PhD by Publication

PhD by publication, also known as “PhD by portfolio” or “PhD by published works,” is a relatively new route to completing your dissertation requirements for your doctoral degree. In the traditional dissertation route, you have Read more…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is a conceptual framework?

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

Steps to develop a conceptual framework

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

Types of variables

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

Independent variables
Dependent variables
Moderating variables
Mediating variables
Control variables

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

Example of a conceptual framework

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

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

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

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

What is a theoretical framework?

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

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

Purpose of a theoretical framework

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

Steps to develop a theoretical framework

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

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

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

Structuring a theoretical framework

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

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

Example of a theoretical framework

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

Company X is not achieving their monthly sales targets

To increase monthly sales.

Research question:

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

Sub-questions:

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

Theoretical framework:

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

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

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

Editor’s pick

Get free updates.

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

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

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

What is the difference between mediating versus moderating variables? +

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

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

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

Eureka! When I learnt how to write a theoretical framework

Feb 6, 2019

how to structure a theoretical framework

Have you checked out the rest of The PhD Knowledge Base ? It’s home to hundreds more free resources and guides, written especially for PhD students.

Have you ever had a eureka moment? A moment where something that you’ve misunderstood for ages becomes crystal clear?

I did, about half way through my PhD.

Did I come up with a ground breaking discovery that would revolutionise my field? Did I develop a new theory that would change the way we think about the world?

I finally understood how to write a theoretical framework.

Sound silly? It isn’t.

During the one-on-one PhD coaching sessions I run, the issue of how to write a theory framework comes up more frequently than any other. The theoretical framework is important, but many people find it difficult. I know I struggled with it.

Then someone explained the theory framework to me in such a simple way. Here’s the eureka moment: The theoretical framework is like a toolbox.

Simple, right?

Let me explain. In the literature review you highlighted the problem that needs ‘fixing’. The theoretical framework – the ’toolbox’ – details the theories, propositions, hypotheses (if you’re using them) and concepts – the ’tools’ – that you will use to address or make sense of this problem.

So, your job in a theoretical framework chapter is to discuss in detail what the tools look like, how they behave, how they have been used before, how they relate to one another, how they are relevant to your aims and objectives and what the drawbacks are from using them. The methods chapter then discusses how you will use (operationalise) those tools.

Hello, Doctor…

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Be able to call yourself Doctor sooner with our five-star rated How to Write A PhD email-course. Learn everything your supervisor should have taught you about planning and completing a PhD.

Now half price. Join hundreds of other students and become a better thesis writer, or your money back.

What is a theoretical framework?

In the literature review you highlighted the problem that needs ‘fixing’. The theoretical framework – the ’toolbox’ – details the theories, propositions, hypotheses (if you’re using them) and concepts – the ’tools’ – that you will use to address or make sense of this problem.

The list of potential explanations for why responses differ is enormous.

You could approach this question with a focus on, say, psychology, power, gender, economics, and so on. The best we can typically hope for – and this is particularly true in much of the social sciences – is an interpretation of the truth.

So – and this is important – we use theory to focus our attention on a small sub-set of all potential explanations, on one particular viewpoint.

Now I know I’m getting into messy epistemological and ontological waters here. I am an interpretivist, so I see theory as a ‘lens’ that you apply to make sense of the world. That’s the shape of my toolbox.

But, even if you’re a positivist you still pick and choose theoretical concepts and hypotheses from a range of available options; you just use them in a different way (rather than a lens, they become testable propositions, or measurement tools).

Without a theoretical framework we are left with a potentially endless choice of potential viewpoints, which would make our data collection and analysis and our discussion hugely chaotic.

PhD Literature Review & Theory Framework Survival Pack

Master your lit review & theory framework.

Learn what goes where (and why), and how it all fit together with this free, interactive guide to the PhD literature review and theory framework.

In other words, if we don’t know how to focus our attention, how we can present a coherent explanation?

The theoretical framework is a natural extension of the literature review. The purpose of the literature review, amongst other things, is to highlight gaps and shortcomings with the existing work in your field.

The theoretical framework details the perspective you will take to address that gap and shortcoming.

For example, in my doctoral research, my literature review focused on government responses to climate change and pointed out that there hadn’t been much discussion on local government.

The theoretical framework then made an informed decision to come at it from a particular theoretical perspective (institutional theory, if you’re interested) and then discussed what that theory looks like, highlighting the key concepts and ideas.

In your own research you will also need to make an informed decision about the particular theory you will employ to guide you through the rest of the research.

The theoretical framework is a natural extension of the literature review. The purpose of the literature review, amongst other things, is to highlight gaps and shortcomings with the existing work in your field. The theoretical framework details the perspective you will take to address that gap and shortcoming.

So, the job of the theoretical framework isn’t to repeat the literature review . Instead, think of it as a separate, mini literature review , this time focusing on the theory you will employ. You don’t have to discuss every particular use and discussion of the theoretical position you employ. If you did, you’d quickly run out of space and time.

Remember, your examiners are likely to already be familiar with the theory, meaning that rather than discuss every possible thing that there is to discuss about it, you instead need to discuss how and why the theory has been adapted and adopted to the context of your research.

How to structure a theoretical framework

You need to have a solid grasp of your aims and objectives. These define the space in which your research will sit and your goals when conducting it. You will need to briefly recap these when you start writing your theoretical framework, both to remind the reader and so that you can relate your theory to these overarching aims.
What theory/theories are you using? Here you need to define and explain each theory you draw upon and, in doing so, discuss the leading proponents and applications. This shows that you understand the theory you are going to adopt.
You then need to spend time critically arguing why you are adopting this particular theory. There are a lot of potential theories you could use. Why this one? Importantly, you should relate your choice to the discussions in the literature review and your aims and objectives.
Can the theory/theories be broken down into different schools? Which one are you siding with and why?
A theory contains a number of concepts. Which will you be drawing upon? Why these ones? Have you defined them properly? The way you approach this section will be influenced by your epistemological and ontological perspective and, thus, whether you use hypotheses or not. If you are using hypotheses, you need to state them as such.
How do the concepts relate to your aims and objectives?
Have you clearly stated your ontological and epistemological perspective?
Are you the first to use this particular theory in this particular way? What benefits or drawbacks does that bring?
Can you spot any drawbacks with applying this theory? Does it fail to account for a particular dimension of a phenomenon? Is it difficult to operationalize?
How are your concepts related? Are you using them as hypotheses? Or as a model to make sense of the data? Somewhere in between? Be explicit about how they are all related and what you plan on doing with them.

The goal of writing up a theoretical framework is to tell the reader why you have chosen particular theories, how they relate to the gap in the literature, and how they relate to your aims and objectives.

A short (but necessary) note on ontology and epistemology

How do i choose theories and create my framework.

Unless you are using an inductive methodological approach (where you generate theory from the data), you will likely approach your fieldwork with a theoretical framework in mind. Which theory or theories you choose is, in part, down to your aims and objectives and whether there is a relevant theory available ‘off-the-shelf’ that is appropriate for your needs.

There are generally three strategies that researchers use to develop their theoretical frameworks:

There may be theories in your field that have arisen on the basis of repeated observation and testing and which are widely accepted.
Or, you might find that you need to select concepts from multiple theories and create a novel framework that is unique to your particular context.
A growing and important trend in social research is to adopt an interdisciplinary perspective when trying to understand the social world. This can be achieved by looking beyond the dominant, well-established theories and thinking about how other theories, particularly those from other disciplines or sub-disciplines, can be used.

In any case, you must consider the following when selecting a theory:

Identify your ontological and epistemological beliefs.
List several theories that align with your epistemological position and which can aid your understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.
Engage in literature review around those theories, both to familiarise yourself with them but also to understand their relevance to your study.
Ask yourself how each theory connects to your problem, aims & objectives.
Select the theory or theories that provide more relevant tools for your thesis.

I have more than one theory. What do I do?

Often, you need to combine concepts, hypotheses or ideas from more than one theoretical school. Employing more than one theory is entirely legitimate. I did so in my PhD.

However, you need to consider a few key questions :

Are the theories you are bringing together epistemologically compatible?

Have you discussed each theory in the same level of detail to adequately explain the theory, your justification for its inclusion, its relation to the literature and its potential drawbacks?

What benefits does focusing on more than one theory bring? Perhaps one theory has shortcomings that the other addresses?

What downsides are there to employing more than one theory?

Has anyone else used this combination of theories before you?

The theoretical framework is a tricky section to write, largely because the choice available to you is huge.

But keep that toolbox metaphor in mind.

Each theory contains a number of tools. Your job in the theory framework is to take the tools you need for your project from the most relevant theory/theories and package them up into your own toolbox.

When you’re done, you should see that the theory framework offers:

Structure, by detailing the key concepts, tools and, where relevant, hypotheses
A way to connect to other research
A coherent, joined up set of ideas that structure the writing and help to create an argumentative streak that can run throughout your thesis
An approach that can be reused in additional contexts once you’re done

Along the way, you need to convince the reader that you’ve picked and applied the most appropriate tools possible, given your aims and objectives.

The theoretical framework frames the research. If you build that frame right, your research will shine. If you don’t then you’ll struggle.

If you need expert guidance to structure, plan or write your theory framework you can get in touch for a one-on-one coaching session . It’s like having a personal trainer, but for your PhD.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Knowledge Base
Research paper

What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing

Published on October 14, 2022 by Sarah Vinz . Revised on November 20, 2023 by Tegan George.

A theoretical framework is a foundational review of existing theories that serves as a roadmap for developing the arguments you will use in your own work.

Theories are developed by researchers to explain phenomena, draw connections, and make predictions. In a theoretical framework, you explain the existing theories that support your research, showing that your paper or dissertation topic is relevant and grounded in established ideas.

In other words, your theoretical framework justifies and contextualizes your later research, and it’s a crucial first step for your research paper , thesis , or dissertation . A well-rounded theoretical framework sets you up for success later on in your research and writing process.

Why do you need a theoretical framework, how to write a theoretical framework, structuring your theoretical framework, example of a theoretical framework, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about theoretical frameworks.

Before you start your own research, it’s crucial to familiarize yourself with the theories and models that other researchers have already developed. Your theoretical framework is your opportunity to present and explain what you’ve learned, situated within your future research topic.

There’s a good chance that many different theories about your topic already exist, especially if the topic is broad. In your theoretical framework, you will evaluate, compare, and select the most relevant ones.

By “framing” your research within a clearly defined field, you make the reader aware of the assumptions that inform your approach, showing the rationale behind your choices for later sections, like methodology and discussion . This part of your dissertation lays the foundations that will support your analysis, helping you interpret your results and make broader generalizations .

In literature , a scholar using postmodernist literary theory would analyze The Great Gatsby differently than a scholar using Marxist literary theory.
In psychology , a behaviorist approach to depression would involve different research methods and assumptions than a psychoanalytic approach.
In economics , wealth inequality would be explained and interpreted differently based on a classical economics approach than based on a Keynesian economics one.

To create your own theoretical framework, you can follow these three steps:

Identifying your key concepts
Evaluating and explaining relevant theories
Showing how your research fits into existing research

1. Identify your key concepts

The first step is to pick out the key terms from your problem statement and research questions . Concepts often have multiple definitions, so your theoretical framework should also clearly define what you mean by each term.

To investigate this problem, you have identified and plan to focus on the following problem statement, objective, and research questions:

Problem : Many online customers do not return to make subsequent purchases.

Objective : To increase the quantity of return customers.

Research question : How can the satisfaction of company X’s online customers be improved in order to increase the quantity of return customers?

2. Evaluate and explain relevant theories

By conducting a thorough literature review , you can determine how other researchers have defined these key concepts and drawn connections between them. As you write your theoretical framework, your aim is to compare and critically evaluate the approaches that different authors have taken.

After discussing different models and theories, you can establish the definitions that best fit your research and justify why. You can even combine theories from different fields to build your own unique framework if this better suits your topic.

Make sure to at least briefly mention each of the most important theories related to your key concepts. If there is a well-established theory that you don’t want to apply to your own research, explain why it isn’t suitable for your purposes.

3. Show how your research fits into existing research

Apart from summarizing and discussing existing theories, your theoretical framework should show how your project will make use of these ideas and take them a step further.

You might aim to do one or more of the following:

Test whether a theory holds in a specific, previously unexamined context
Use an existing theory as a basis for interpreting your results
Critique or challenge a theory
Combine different theories in a new or unique way

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.

There are no fixed rules for structuring your theoretical framework, but it’s best to double-check with your department or institution to make sure they don’t have any formatting guidelines. The most important thing is to create a clear, logical structure. There are a few ways to do this:

Draw on your research questions, structuring each section around a question or key concept
Organize by theory cluster
Organize by date

It’s important that the information in your theoretical framework is clear for your reader. Make sure to ask a friend to read this section for you, or use a professional proofreading service .

As in all other parts of your research paper , thesis , or dissertation , make sure to properly cite your sources to avoid plagiarism .

To get a sense of what this part of your thesis or dissertation might look like, take a look at our full example .

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

Survivorship bias
Self-serving bias
Availability heuristic
Halo effect
Hindsight bias
Deep learning
Generative AI
Machine learning
Reinforcement learning
Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

(AI) Tools

Grammar Checker
Paraphrasing Tool
Text Summarizer
AI Detector
Plagiarism Checker
Citation Generator

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

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

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.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Vinz, S. (2023, November 20). What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing. Scribbr. Retrieved September 16, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/theoretical-framework/

Is this article helpful?

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

Other students also liked

What is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Understanding and solving intractable resource governance problems.

Conferences and Talks
Exploring models of electronic wastes governance in the United States and Mexico: Recycling, risk and environmental justice
The Collaborative Resource Governance Lab (CoReGovLab)
Water Conflicts in Mexico: A Multi-Method Approach
Past projects
Publications and scholarly output
Research Interests
Higher education and academia
Public administration, public policy and public management research
Research-oriented blog posts
Stuff about research methods
Research trajectory
Publications
Developing a Writing Practice
Outlining Papers
Publishing strategies
Writing a book manuscript
Writing a research paper, book chapter or dissertation/thesis chapter
Everything Notebook
Literature Reviews
Note-Taking Techniques
Organization and Time Management
Planning Methods and Approaches
Qualitative Methods, Qualitative Research, Qualitative Analysis
Reading Notes of Books
Reading Strategies
Teaching Public Policy, Public Administration and Public Management
My Reading Notes of Books on How to Write a Doctoral Dissertation/How to Conduct PhD Research
Writing a Thesis (Undergraduate or Masters) or a Dissertation (PhD)
Reading strategies for undergraduates
Social Media in Academia
Resources for Job Seekers in the Academic Market
Writing Groups and Retreats
Regional Development (Fall 2015)
State and Local Government (Fall 2015)
Public Policy Analysis (Fall 2016)
Regional Development (Fall 2016)
Public Policy Analysis (Fall 2018)
Public Policy Analysis (Fall 2019)
Public Policy Analysis (Spring 2016)
POLI 351 Environmental Policy and Politics (Summer Session 2011)
POLI 352 Comparative Politics of Public Policy (Term 2)
POLI 375A Global Environmental Politics (Term 2)
POLI 350A Public Policy (Term 2)
POLI 351 Environmental Policy and Politics (Term 1)
POLI 332 Latin American Environmental Politics (Term 2, Spring 2012)
POLI 350A Public Policy (Term 1, Sep-Dec 2011)
POLI 375A Global Environmental Politics (Term 1, Sep-Dec 2011)

Writing theoretical frameworks, analytical frameworks and conceptual frameworks

Three of the most challenging concepts for me to explain are the interrelated ideas of a theoretical framework, a conceptual framework, and an analytical framework. All three of these tend to be used interchangeably. While I find these concepts somewhat fuzzy and I struggle sometimes to explain the differences between them and clarify their usage for my students (and clearly I am not alone in this challenge), this blog post is an attempt to help discern these analytical categories more clearly.

A lot of people (my own students included) have asked me if the theoretical framework is their literature review. That’s actually not the case. A theoretical framework , the way I define it, is comprised of the different theories and theoretical constructs that help explain a phenomenon. A theoretical framework sets out the various expectations that a theory posits and how they would apply to a specific case under analysis, and how one would use theory to explain a particular phenomenon. I like how theoretical frameworks are defined in this blog post . Dr. Cyrus Samii offers an explanation of what a good theoretical framework does for students .

For example, you can use framing theory to help you explain how different actors perceive the world. Your theoretical framework may be based on theories of framing, but it can also include others. For example, in this paper, Zeitoun and Allan explain their theoretical framework, aptly named hydro-hegemony . In doing so, Zeitoun and Allan explain the role of each theoretical construct (Power, Hydro-Hegemony, Political Economy) and how they apply to transboundary water conflict. Another good example of a theoretical framework is that posited by Dr. Michael J. Bloomfield in his book Dirty Gold, as I mention in this tweet:

In Chapter 2, @mj_bloomfield nicely sets his theoretical framework borrowing from sociology, IR, and business-strategy scholarship pic.twitter.com/jTGF4PPymn — Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) December 24, 2017

An analytical framework is, the way I see it, a model that helps explain how a certain type of analysis will be conducted. For example, in this paper, Franks and Cleaver develop an analytical framework that includes scholarship on poverty measurement to help us understand how water governance and poverty are interrelated . Other authors describe an analytical framework as a “conceptual framework that helps analyse particular phenomena”, as posited here , ungated version can be read here .

I think it’s easy to conflate analytical frameworks with theoretical and conceptual ones because of the way in which concepts, theories and ideas are harnessed to explain a phenomenon. But I believe the most important element of an analytical framework is instrumental : their purpose is to help undertake analyses. You use elements of an analytical framework to deconstruct a specific concept/set of concepts/phenomenon. For example, in this paper , Bodde et al develop an analytical framework to characterise sources of uncertainties in strategic environmental assessments.

A robust conceptual framework describes the different concepts one would need to know to understand a particular phenomenon, without pretending to create causal links across variables and outcomes. In my view, theoretical frameworks set expectations, because theories are constructs that help explain relationships between variables and specific outcomes and responses. Conceptual frameworks, the way I see them, are like lenses through which you can see a particular phenomenon.

A conceptual framework should serve to help illuminate and clarify fuzzy ideas, and fill lacunae. Viewed this way, a conceptual framework offers insight that would not be otherwise be gained without a more profound understanding of the concepts explained in the framework. For example, in this article, Beck offers social movement theory as a conceptual framework that can help understand terrorism . As I explained in my metaphor above, social movement theory is the lens through which you see terrorism, and you get a clearer understanding of how it operates precisely because you used this particular theory.

Dan Kaminsky offered a really interesting explanation connecting these topics to time, read his tweet below.

I think this maps to time. Theoretical frameworks talk about how we got here. Conceptual frameworks discuss what we have. Analytical frameworks discuss where we can go with this. See also legislative/executive/judicial. — Dan Kaminsky (@dakami) September 28, 2018

One of my CIDE students, Andres Ruiz, reminded me of this article on conceptual frameworks in the International Journal of Qualitative Methods. I’ll also be adding resources as I get them via Twitter or email. Hopefully this blog post will help clarify this idea!

You can share this blog post on the following social networks by clicking on their icon.

Posted in academia .

Tagged with analytical framework , conceptual framework , theoretical framework .

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – September 28, 2018

7 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post .

Thanks, this had some useful clarifications for me!

I GOT CONFUSED AGAIN!

No need to be confused!

Thanks for the Clarification, Dr Raul. My cluttered mind is largely cleared, now.

Thanks,very helpful

I too was/am confused but this helps 🙂

Thank you very much, Dr.

About Raul Pacheco-Vega, PhD

Find me online.

My Research Output

Google Scholar Profile
Academia.Edu
ResearchGate

My Social Networks

Polycentricity Network

Follow me on Twitter:

Proudly powered by WordPress and Carrington .

Carrington Theme by Crowd Favorite

Theoretical vs Conceptual Framework

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

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.

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.

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.

You Might Also Like:

How To Review & Understand Academic Literature Quickly

Learn how to fast-track your literature review by reading with intention and clarity. Dr E and Amy Murdock explain how.

Dissertation Writing Services: Far Worse Than You Think

Thinking about using a dissertation or thesis writing service? You might want to reconsider that move. Here’s what you need to know.

Triangulation: The Ultimate Credibility Enhancer

Triangulation is one of the best ways to enhance the credibility of your research. Learn about the different options here.

The Harsh Truths Of Academic Research

Dr. Ethar Al-Saraf and Dr. Amy Murdock dive into the darker truths of academic research, so that you’re well prepared for reality.

Dissertation Paralysis: How To Get Unstuck

In this episode of the podcast, Dr. Ethar and Dr. Amy Murdock dive into how to get unstuck when you’re facing dissertation paralysis

📄 FREE TEMPLATES

Research Topic Ideation

Proposal Writing

Literature Review

Methodology & Analysis

Academic Writing

Referencing & Citing

Apps, Tools & Tricks

The Grad Coach Podcast

23 Comments

Thank you for giving a valuable lesson

good thanks!

VERY INSIGHTFUL

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

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

good, fantastic

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

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

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

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

Simple and clear!

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

Thank you great insight

Superb. Thank you so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thank you so much. Educative and realistic.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

Submit Comment

Print Friendly

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

What Is a Conceptual Framework? | Tips & Examples

Published on 4 May 2022 by Bas Swaen and Tegan George. Revised on 18 March 2024.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sample-conceptual-framework-using-an-independent-variable-and-a-dependent-variable

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

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

Moderating variables

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

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

Sample-conceptual-framework-with-a-moderator-variable

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

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

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

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

Mediating variables

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

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

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

Moderator vs mediator

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

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

Control variables

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

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

No. The value of a dependent variable depends on an independent variable, so a variable cannot be both independent and dependent at the same time. It must be either the cause or the effect, not both.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Swaen, B. & George, T. (2024, March 18). What Is a Conceptual Framework? | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 16 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/conceptual-frameworks/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

Mediator vs moderator variables | differences & examples, independent vs dependent variables | definition & examples, what are control variables | definition & examples.

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.


Model	holds for a given case or stated population, identifies major features of influence, arising from context-specific research	Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers, 2003) Pathways to Implementing Change (Corbett & Rossman, 1989)
Conceptual framework	tends to be more flexible and descriptive, as it usually identifies factors or criteria that relate to each of the features of influence in a particular field	Technological, Pedagogical and Content knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) Discovery Learning (Bruner, 1961) Experiential Learning (Kolb, 1984)
Theoretical framework	arises from outcomes beyond a single study, based on one or more theories	Social Creative Constructivism (Passey, Dagienė, Atieno & Baumann, 2019) Human Motivation (Maslow, 1943)
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	Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003) Social Constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978) Constructionism (Papert, 1986) Behaviourism (Skinner, 1953)

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).


theory as tool	If theory is used as a tool, then it may apply to specific elements of a research study. So, as a tool, does this only create a framework for data collection, data analysis, and subsequent discussions and conclusions?
theory as principle	If theory is used as a principle, then how that principle applies across the elements of the study is an important question. As a principle, does theory as a principle provide a framework that can be used to align with and support approach, design and epistemological and ontological positions?
theory building	If theory is used for building, then this might mean that theory is developed without using or applying an existing theory, or it could mean that underpinning theory is used but is built upon or revised. For building, does this imply that it is possible in a study to adopt a grounded theory approach, or that exploring an additional sample or selection of features and influential factors is fundamentally crucial?
theory using	If theory is for using, then where and how will this use be applied within a research study? For using, does this imply that this provides a basis for comparing or contrasting findings, or critiquing the originating framework?

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.


theory as tool	As a tool, does this create a framework for your data collection, data analysis, and subsequent discussions and conclusions?	Does this mean that you are looking for what exists already and for nothing beyond and additional?
theory as principle	As a principle, does this provide a framework that you use for your approach, design and epistemological and ontological positions?	Does this mean that you are limiting the possibilities within a particular epistemological or ontological position, approach or design, so restricting the way that others might use your outcomes?
theory building	For building, does this imply that you will adopt a grounded theory approach, or that your sample or selection is crucial?	Does this mean that you are open to possibilities, but that your use of questions and interpretation of findings will still provide scope for others to question beyond this?
theory using	For using, does this imply that you are comparing or contrasting your findings, or critiquing the originating framework?	Does this mean that you will question, that your main outcomes might not identify new or additional features, but you will offer a different contextual balance?

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.


Focus or title of the study	An evaluative study exploring the motivational benefits arising from uses of digital technologies	Evaluative frameworks, motivational theories of learning, and models of digital technology practices might all be relevant and possible
Ontological and epistemological position	Ontological position is subjective, concerned with the interpretation that individual consciousness brings; epistemological position is constructivist, concerned with individual constructions of reality	Social constructivism as an overarching theoretical conception is possible
Methodological approach	The methodological approach is interpretivist, related to a subjectivist position, particularly concerned with context in different locations, and considering multiple meanings	Contextual constructivism (Cobern, 1991) as a more related theoretical framework could be chosen
Methodological design	From an interpretivist perspective, a multiple case study design will be taken, in order to consider different contexts, and to gather evidence of a subjective nature to consider how motivational benefits are being evaluated at individual and contextual levels	Multiple case study design with evaluative features focusing on educational technologies (Scanlon, Blake, Issroff & Lewin, 2006) could be selected
Data collection methods	Data will be gathered in six different institutional settings, where the same digital technologies are being used, where mixed methods gather evidence about uses - from documentary evidence, observed by the researcher, described by the teacher, and motivation from uses can be evaluated by learners	Evaluation of motivational outcomes are framed through the self-determination theory of Deci and Ryan (2002) and self-theories of Dweck (1999); data gathering instruments are created using these underpinning frames
Data analysis methods	Data are analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively, from interpretivist and subjectivist perspectives	Motivational frames are used as ways to identify forms of motivation, while data are analysed in and across cases

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.


A teacher perspective of ICT integration in Saudi Arabia secondary schools as a possible alternative to western ICT integration (Alenezi, 2013)	Strategic evaluative case study approach	Adoption model (Alwani & Soomro, 2010) Diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers, 2003) Concerns-based adoption model (Hargreaves, Lieberman, Fullan, & Hopkins, 2010) Signature pedagogies concept (Shulman, 2005a)
The Integration of ICT within Teaching and Learning Environments in Education Faculties in Saudi Universities: Challenges and Potential for Change (Alenezi, 2014)	Mixed methods approach	Constructivism (Bruner, 1990) Technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989) Adoption theory of ICT (Kwon & Zmud, 1987) Dialectic and dialogic approaches to learning (Ravenscroft et al., 2007) E-learning theory (Haythornthwaite & Andrews, 2011)
An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption, diffusion and use of web-based learning technologies: a single case study in higher education (Tam, 2014)	Empirical case study	Technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989) Diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers, 2003)
Study and Evaluation of Active and Multimodal Practical Learning in a Novel Technology-Enhanced Anatomy Learning Laboratory (Sen, 2016)	Mixed methods approach case study	Situated cognition (Lave & Wenger, 1991) Social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978) Evaluation framework (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2007)
Tackling low learning outcomes in South Africa: The contribution from informal mobile learning (Lambrecht, 2015)	Case study design	Phenomenography (Marton & Booth, 1997) Activity theory (Engeström, 2001; Engeström & Sannino, 2010)
Staff development needs of academic staff involved in blended and online course delivery in higher education institutions in the United Kingdom (Almpanis, 2015)	Mixed methods approach	Dimensions of e-learning (Aimard, 2011) Model of educational interactions on the semantic web (Anderson, 2004) Five-stage e-tivities model (Salmon, 2003) Laurillard’s conversational framework for instruction (Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota, 2013)
Manipulating affordances in practice: A hermeneutic phenomenological study of mobility impairment and uses of digital technologies in work (Topol, 2016)	Hermeneutic phenomenological study	Affordance theory (Gibson, 1986) Hermeneutic phenomenology (Heidegger, 1962) Social barriers model of disability (Roulstone, 1998)
Assessing the uses and impacts of Facebook for teaching and learning in classroom education contexts in Malaysian universities (Lee, 2018)	Multiple-methodology approach	Uses and gratifications theory (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974) Social constructivist theory (Vygotsky, 1978) Technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989) Conversational framework (Laurillard, 1999)
: An investigation of the influence of mobile technologies on learner engagement of primary school children in outdoor settings (McDowell, 2018)	Design-based methodological approach	Place-based learning (Zimmerman & Land, 2014) Contextualised learning (Rikala & Kankaanranta, 2014) Kinaesthetic learning (Pruet et al., 2016) Constructionist learning (Papert, 1986) Experiential learning (Lai, Yang, Chen, Ho, & Chan, 2007) Child-centred learning (Dewey, 1938)
Designing curricula to develop digitally capable professionals in engineering and management - the case in two UK universities (Varga-Atkins, 2019)	Multiple-case study methodology	Signature pedagogies concept (Shulman, 2005a, 2005b) Digital capability framework (JISC, 2017)
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 (Essam, 2019)	Design-based research	Conversational framework (Laurillard, 2002) Learning elements framework (Passey, 2014)
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 (MacDonald, 2019)	Action research methodology	Grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) Computer supported collaborative learning (Dillenbourg, 1999)
Moving Towards Flexible Ubiquitous Agnostic Design (FUAD) Framework from an Informed View of Lecturers’ Practices (AlOkailly, 2019)	Theory-driven evaluation approach	Flexible pedagogy (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013) Ubiquitous learning (Cope & Kalantzis, 2010) Device neutral assignments (Campo, 2013)
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 (Kotsovoulou, 2020)	Evaluative case study approach	Technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989) Motivated strategies for learning (Pintrich & de Groot, 1990b) Science motivation (Glynn, Taasoobshirazi, & Brickman, 2009)Index of learning styles (Felder & Soloman, 1993)

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

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

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 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

	Literature reviews	Theoretical frameworks	Conceptual frameworks
Purpose	To point out the need for the study in BER and connection to the field.	To state the assumptions and orientations of the researcher regarding the topic of study	To describe the researcher’s understanding of the main concepts under investigation
Aims	A literature review examines current and relevant research associated with the study question. It is comprehensive, critical, and purposeful.	A theoretical framework illuminates the phenomenon of study and the corresponding assumptions adopted by the researcher. Frameworks can take on different orientations.	The conceptual framework is created by the researcher(s), includes the presumed relationships among concepts, and addresses needed areas of study discovered in literature reviews.
Connection to the manuscript	A literature review should connect to the study question, guide the study methodology, and be central in the discussion by indicating how the analyzed data advances what is known in the field.	A theoretical framework drives the question, guides the types of methods for data collection and analysis, informs the discussion of the findings, and reveals the subjectivities of the researcher.	The conceptual framework is informed by literature reviews, experiences, or experiments. It may include emergent ideas that are not yet grounded in the literature. It should be coherent with the paper’s theoretical framing.
Additional points	A literature review may reach beyond BER and include other education research fields.	A theoretical framework does not rationalize the need for the study, and a theoretical framework can come from different fields.	A conceptual framework articulates the phenomenon under study through written descriptions and/or visual representations.

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.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is cbe-21-rm33-g001.jpg

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 ]

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

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

An easily understandable definition of a theoretical framework

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

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

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

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

Does every research have a theoretical framework?

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

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

An easily understandable definition of a conceptual framework

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

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

Does every research have a conceptual framework?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Level of Detail

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

Application

Master academia, get new content delivered directly to your inbox, the best ai tools for academic paraphrasing: tested and ranked, how to harness theoretical and conceptual frameworks for groundbreaking research, related articles, 25 short graduation quotes: inspiration in four words or less, how to write a fantastic thesis introduction (+15 examples), first meeting with your dissertation supervisor: what to expect, phd thesis types: monograph and collection of articles.

An Example of a Conceptual Framework with Statement of the Problem

This article shows an example of a conceptual framework. It demonstrates how a conceptual framework and the corresponding statement of the problem are organized and written in a dissertation. Take a look at how it is done, and try to make one for your paper. You may also use this in your thesis.

Example of a Conceptual Framework

This example of a conceptual framework zeroes in on teachers’ professional development activities by espousing the idea. main argument, or thesis that teachers’ classroom performance is a critical factor for student academic performance. The researcher based her assumption from Weiner’s Attribution Theory that external and internal factors can improve performance.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study is to provide baseline data on in-service training for English, Mathematics, and Science Fourth Year High School teachers from the School Year 2006 up to 2010. Also, a professional development model for teachers is proposed.

Specifically, this study sought answers to the following questions:

Organized Flow of Ideas Characterize a Conceptual Framework

First, it has questions on an inventory of in-service training activities , followed by the feedback . The next question is about teacher factors , then the results of student performance . The last question relates to the development of the enhanced professional development model .

Notice that all of the factors identified in the study serve as input to the final outcome of the study which is the enhanced professional development model. It is easy to conceptualize what the researcher is trying to incorporate in the training design for teachers’ professional development. It is a systematic representation of the intention, direction, and outcome of the study.

Can you make it? Yes, you can!

Research focus: police involvement in kidnapping and extortion, 10 qualities of a successful graduate student, save time using the internet as source of information, about the author, mary g. alvior, phd.

Dr. Mary Gillesania Alvior has PhD in Curriculum Development from West Visayas State University. She earned her Master of Arts in Teaching English from De La Salle University, Manila as Commission on Higher Education (CHED) scholar. As academic advisor, she helps learners succeed in their academic careers by providing them the necessary skills and tips in order to survive in this wobbling financial environment. In 2014, she got involved in the establishment of a language institute in the Middle East, particularly in the use of Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Then she went to Thailand and became a lecturer in the international college and handled English and Graduate Education courses. From 2017 to 2021, she became the Focal Person for the Establishment of a Medical School, Director of Curriculum and Instructional Materials Development Office (CIMDO), Head of BAC Secretariat, Quality Management System (QMS) Leader, and TWG member of the Procurement for Medical Equipment. Currently, she is the coordinator of the Project Management Committee for the Establishment of the Medical School. In spite of numerous tasks, she is into data privacy, quality management system, and space industry.

41 Comments

kindly help me come up with the conceptual framework am doing my research on,effects of tax revenue on economic performance

SimplyEducate.Me Privacy Policy

Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS)

Where to put the theoretical and conceptual framework in thesis?

Most recent answer.

All Answers (10)

Related Publications

Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

IMAGES

4-General conceptual framework of this PhD thesis.
conceptual framework for phd thesis
4. Theoretical framework of the PhD thesis
Theoretical And Conceptual Framework Thesis Sample Pdf
Thesis Theoretical Framework
Phd Thesis Theoretical Framework

VIDEO

Developing Conceptual Framework
Theoretical framework in thesis
Theoretical Framework vs Conceptual Framework
34. Conceptual Framework of Thesis, Part-1 ဆရာတော် Dr. Kundala
A Conceptual Framework for Technology Roadmapping...
How to develop a conceptual model for your PhD research?

COMMENTS

PDF Building a Dissertation Conceptual and Theoretical Framework: A Recent
lens of one doctoral student's qualitative dissertation. Using Ravitch and Carl's (2021) conceptual framework guide, each key component is explored, using my own dissertation as an example. Breaking down each framework section step-by-step, my journey illustrates the iterative process that conceptual framework development requires.
What Is a Conceptual Framework?
Conceptual frameworks are often represented in a visual format and illustrate cause-and-effect relationships. You can start conceptualizing this as you determine your relevant paper, thesis, or dissertation topic. Keep reading for a step-by-step guide to help you construct your own conceptual framework.
PDF Understanding, Selecting, and Integrating a Theoretical Framework in
is an appropriate analogy of the theoretical framework of the dissertation. The theoretical framework is one of the most important aspects in the research process, and a component that is often minimally covered in doctoral coursework. Iqubal described the struggle to identify and prepare the theoretical framework for the dissertation as "the ...
Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation
Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation. Published on October 14, 2015 by Sarah Vinz. Revised on July 18, 2023 by Tegan George. Your theoretical framework defines the key concepts in your research, suggests relationships between them, and discusses relevant theories based on your literature review.
Developing a Conceptual Framework for a Quantitative Dissertation
Last Updated on: 2nd February 2024, 02:41 am Fairly quickly into the dissertation process, you will need to develop a conceptual framework. Perhaps second only to the purpose statement in its importance for your dissertation, the conceptual framework shapes the direction of your research. Think of it this way: if the purpose statement is your target, then the conceptual framework is the arrow ...
Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks for Thesis Studies: What ...
Conclusion. A robust conceptual or theoretical framework is crucial when writing a thesis/dissertation. It defines your research gap, identifies your approach, and guides the interpretation of your results. A thesis is the most important document you will write during your academic studies.
How to write a theoretical framework
The theoretical framework - the 'toolbox' - details the theories, propositions, hypotheses (if you're using them) and concepts - the 'tools' - that you will use to address or make sense of this problem. The list of potential explanations for why responses differ is enormous. You could approach this question with a focus on ...
What Is a Theoretical Framework?
Published on October 14, 2022 by Sarah Vinz. Revised on November 20, 2023 by Tegan George. A theoretical framework is a foundational review of existing theories that serves as a roadmap for developing the arguments you will use in your own work. Theories are developed by researchers to explain phenomena, draw connections, and make predictions.
Writing theoretical frameworks, analytical frameworks and conceptual
A robust conceptual framework describes the different concepts one would need to know to understand a particular phenomenon, without pretending to create causal links across variables and outcomes. In my view, theoretical frameworks set expectations, because theories are constructs that help explain relationships between variables and specific ...
Theoretical vs Conceptual Framework (+ Examples)
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 ...
What Is a Conceptual Framework?
A conceptual framework illustrates the expected relationship between your variables. It defines the relevant objectives for your research process and maps out how they come together to draw coherent conclusions. Tip. You should construct your conceptual framework before you begin collecting your data.
(Pdf) Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks in Research: Conceptual
framework (TF) and conceptual framework (CF) and the d istinctions between t he two. The researcher is required to an chor the work on ei ther a conc eptual f ramework or a theoretical framework.
PDF Distinguishing between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual
and a conceptual framework. Thirdly, the paper makes it clear that whereas every good thesis should have a theoretical framework, every PhD thesis must develop and use one, because of the very important role a theoretical framework plays in the analysis and making meaning of your data. Fourthly, the paper explains how a theoretical
(PDF) Building a Dissertation Conceptual and Theoretical Framework: A
PDF | This article examines the development of conceptual and theoretical frameworks through the lens of one doctoral student's qualitative... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ...
PDF CHAPTER CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS IN RESEARCH distribute
conceptual framework guides every facet of research. In this chapter, we build on that text and the work it builds on and seek to conceptualize the term and highlight the roles and uses of the conceptual framework, as well as the process of developing one, since a conceptual framework is a generative source of thinking, planning, conscious ac.
Theories, theoretical and conceptual frameworks, models and constructs
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 ...
Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks
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. ... On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34 (6), 3-15. 10.3102/0013189x034006003 ...
Theoretical vs. conceptual frameworks: Simple definitions and an
Understanding the differences between theoretical and conceptual frameworks in research, including thesis writing, can be challenging. Therefore, here are easy-to-understand explanations and definitions of both theoretical and conceptual frameworks, along with frequently asked questions and a detailed comparison. Additionally, a helpful comparison table of key differences will help you grasp ...
PDF Utility of a conceptual framework within doctoral study: A ...
Jeanette Berman. University of New England. The author of this paper provides an example of a conceptual framework that supported her doctoral study and written dissertation in the field of educational psychology. The study was carried out prior to the more recent explicit emphasis on conceptual frameworks in postgraduate research texts and ...
An Example of a Conceptual Framework with Statement of the Problem
Example of a Conceptual Framework. This example of a conceptual framework zeroes in on teachers' professional development activities by espousing the idea. main argument, or thesis that teachers' classroom performance is a critical factor for student academic performance. The researcher based her assumption from Weiner's Attribution ...
Where to put the theoretical and conceptual framework in thesis?
A theoretical framework belongs at the start of the literature or at the start of a theme within the literature review. A conceptual framework is based on the findings of the review and often ...
PHD Dissertation Conceptual Framework
The document discusses developing a conceptual framework for a PhD dissertation. It notes that crafting a conceptual framework is inherently challenging as it requires balancing theoretical foundations with practical applications. It also requires integrating existing theories, developing a cohesive framework, and aligning it with the research objectives. Additionally, selecting the most ...
Conceptual Framework in PHD Thesis
Conceptual Framework in Phd Thesis - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. - Crafting a conceptual framework for a PhD thesis is challenging as it requires synthesizing theories, identifying gaps, and formulating hypotheses to guide the research. - Developing a robust conceptual framework is crucial as it lays the foundation for the entire thesis and ...

Want to Get your Dissertation Accepted?

Join 200+ Graduated Students

Get Your Dissertation Accepted On Your Next Submission

Trapped in dissertation revisions?

Prerequisites

How to Create a Conceptual Framework

Step Two: Identify the variables affecting your problem.

Over 50% of doctoral candidates don’t finish their dissertations.

Step Three: Identify the relationships between the key variables.

Step Four: Create a visual representation of your conceptual framework.

Step Five: Explain your visual representation in narrative form.

Simple Conceptual Framework Visual Example

Narrative Explanation of the Example Conceptual Framework

Steve Tippins

Related Posts

Dissertation

Surviving Post Dissertation Stress Disorder

PhD by Publication

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

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

What is a conceptual framework?

Steps to develop a conceptual framework

Types of variables

Example of a conceptual framework

What is a theoretical framework?

Purpose of a theoretical framework

Steps to develop a theoretical framework

Structuring a theoretical framework

Example of a theoretical framework

Research question:

Sub-questions:

Theoretical framework:

Editor’s pick

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

What is the difference between mediating versus moderating variables? +

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

Eureka! When I learnt how to write a theoretical framework

Hello, Doctor…

What is a theoretical framework?

Master your lit review & theory framework.

How to structure a theoretical framework

A short (but necessary) note on ontology and epistemology

I have more than one theory. What do I do?

Share this:

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

The PhD Knowledge Base Categories

Have a language expert improve your writing

What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing

Table of contents

1. Identify your key concepts

2. Evaluate and explain relevant theories

3. Show how your research fits into existing research

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

Writing theoretical frameworks, analytical frameworks and conceptual frameworks

7 Responses

About Raul Pacheco-Vega, PhD

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Follow me on Twitter:

Theoretical vs Conceptual Framework

Overview: Theoretical vs Conceptual

Need a helping hand?

Theoretical framework vs conceptual framework

You Might Also Like:

How To Review & Understand Academic Literature Quickly

Dissertation Writing Services: Far Worse Than You Think

Triangulation: The Ultimate Credibility Enhancer

The Harsh Truths Of Academic Research

Dissertation Paralysis: How To Get Unstuck

23 Comments

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Have a language expert improve your writing

What Is a Conceptual Framework? | Tips & Examples

Table of contents

Moderating variables

Mediating variables

Moderator vs mediator