conceptual and theoretical frameworks in research crawford

Theoretical vs Conceptual Framework

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

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

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

Overview: Theoretical vs Conceptual

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

• Theoretical vs conceptual: which one should I use?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

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

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

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

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

Theoretical framework vs conceptual framework

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

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

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

Psst... there’s more!

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

23 Comments

Thank you for giving a valuable lesson

good thanks!

VERY INSIGHTFUL

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

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

good, fantastic

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

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

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

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

Simple and clear!

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

Thank you great insight

Superb. Thank you so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thank you so much. Educative and realistic.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Research Process Guide

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

Step 5: Choosing a Conceptual or Theoretical Framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing it up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• For educators

Research Design and Methods 1st edition

An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner.

Gary J Burkholder , Kimberley A Cox , ...more

Free shipping on rental returns and more

• eTextbook Instant Access From $47.00

21-day refund guarantee and more

Rent $62.49

Included with your book.

• Feel free to highlight your book
• Free shipping on rental returns

Return within 21 days of the order for any reason.

Total Price: $47.00

List Price: was $ 79.74 your Savings*: $ 32.74

eTextbook $47.00

• Access anytime on connected devices
• Search and highlight directly in your eBook

If you're not satisfied with your eTextbook for any reason, you can cancel the book within 10 days & you will receive a full refund. No cheating! - you can only do this once per eTextbook.

Book Details

Standard Shipping Options

• Standard shipping
• 2-day shipping
• 1-day shipping

Return Policy

• Physical textbooks must be returned within 21 days of ordering
• eTextbooks must be canceled within 10 days of ordering See policy details

Rent 📙Research Design and Methods 1st edition (978-1544342382) today, or search our site for other 📚textbooks by Gary J Burkholder. Every textbook comes with a 21-day "Any Reason" guarantee. Published by Sage Publications, Inc.

Publisher Description

Research Design and Methods: An Applied Guide for the Scholar-Practitioner by Gary J. Burkholder, Kimberley A. Cox, Linda M. Crawford, and John H. Hitchcock, is written for students seeking advanced degrees who want to use evidence-based research to support their practice. This practical and accessible text addresses the foundational concepts of research design and methods; provides a more detailed exploration of designs and approaches popular with graduate students in applied disciplines; covers qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods designs; discusses ethical considerations and quality in research; and provides guidance on writing a research proposal.

Table of Contents

Foreword - Michael Quinn PattonPreface - Gary J. Burkholder, Linda M. Crawford, Kimberley A. Cox, and John H. HitchcockAcknowledgmentsAbout the EditorsAbout the ContributorsPart I: Foundations in Research DesignChapter 1: Introduction to Research - Gary J. BurkholderChapter 2: Philosophical Foundations and the Role of Theory in Research - Gary J. Burkholder and Patricia M. BurbankChapter 3: Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks in Research - Linda M. CrawfordPart II: Research Design and AnalysisChapter 4: Quantitative Research Designs - Kimberley A. CoxChapter 5: Quantitative Analysis - Justus J. RandolphChapter 6: Qualitative Research Designs - Linda M. CrawfordChapter 7: Qualitative Analysis - Paul MihasChapter 8: Mixed Methods Designs and Approaches - Bonnie K. NastasiChapter 9: Mixed Methods Analysis - Sarah E. P. Munce and Anthony J. OnwuegbuziePart III: Data CollectionChapter 10: Interviewing Essentials for New Researchers - Linda M. Crawford and Laura Knight LynnChapter 11: Survey Research - Kimberley A. CoxPart IV: Research Quality and EthicsChapter 12: Quality Considerations - Molly S. Stewart and John H. HitchcockChapter 13: Ethical Considerations - Kimberley A. CoxPart V: Selected Research Designs and ApproachesChapter 14: Phenomenology - Paula DawidowiczChapter 15: Grounded Theory - Annie PezallaChapter 16: Case Study Research - Kurt SchochChapter 17: Program Evaluation - Louis MilanesiChapter 18: Action Research - Craig A. MertlerPart VI: Writing and Disseminating ResearchChapter 19: Critiquing and Synthesizing the Literature - Annie PezallaChapter 20: Writing the Research Proposal - Linda M. Crawford, Gary J. Burkholder, and Kimberley A. CoxChapter 21: Disseminating Research: Cultivating a Healthy Dissemination Attitude Among New Scholars - John H. HitchcockIndex

Popular Textbooks

Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design

John W. Creswell, Cheryl-Anne Poth, Cheryl N. Poth

ISBN-13: 9781506330204

Research Design

John W. Creswell, J. David Creswell

ISBN-13: 9781506386706

The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project

Zina O'Leary

ISBN-13: 9781473952089

How To Do Research

Jane F. Gaultney, Hannah D. (duBreuil) Peach

ISBN-13: 9781483385129

30 Essential Skills for the Qualitative Researcher

John W. Creswell

ISBN-13: 9781452216867

Feminist Methodologies for Critical Researchers

Joey Sprague

ISBN-13: 9781442218727

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

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

Revisiting theoretical frameworks

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

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

Conceptual vs. theoretical framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rigorous research starts with ATLAS.ti

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

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

Scope and purpose of theoretical and conceptual frameworks

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

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

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

Study design and data analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turn data into theory with ATLAS.ti

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Patient Cent Res Rev
• v.11(1); Spring 2024
• PMC11000705

Research Frameworks: Critical Components for Reporting Qualitative Health Care Research

Qualitative health care research can provide insights into health care practices that quantitative studies cannot. However, the potential of qualitative research to improve health care is undermined by reporting that does not explain or justify the research questions and design. The vital role of research frameworks for designing and conducting quality research is widely accepted, but despite many articles and books on the topic, confusion persists about what constitutes an adequate underpinning framework, what to call it, and how to use one. This editorial clarifies some of the terminology and reinforces why research frameworks are essential for good-quality reporting of all research, especially qualitative research.

Qualitative research provides valuable insights into health care interactions and decision-making processes – for example, why and how a clinician may ignore prevailing evidence and continue making clinical decisions the way they always have. 1 The perception of qualitative health care research has improved since a 2016 article by Greenhalgh et al. highlighted the higher contributions and citation rates of qualitative research than those of contemporaneous quantitative research. 2 The Greenhalgh et al. article was subsequently supported by an open letter from 76 senior academics spanning 11 countries to the editors of the British Medical Journal . 3 Despite greater recognition and acceptance, qualitative research continues to have an “uneasy relationship with theory,” 4 which contributes to poor reporting.

As an editor for the Journal of Patient-Centered Research and Reviews , as well as Human Resources for Health , I have seen several exemplary qualitative articles with clear and coherent reporting. On the other hand, I have often been concerned by a lack of rigorous reporting, which may reflect and reinforce the outdated perception of qualitative research as the “soft option.” 5 Qualitative research is more than conducting a few semi-structured interviews, transcribing the audio recordings verbatim, coding the transcripts, and developing and reporting themes, including a few quotes. Qualitative research that benefits health care is time-consuming and labor-intensive, requires robust design, and is rooted in theory, along with comprehensive reporting. 6

What Is “Theory”?

So fundamental is theory to qualitative research that I initially toyed with titling this editorial, “ Theory: the missing link in qualitative health care research articles ,” before deeming that focus too broad. As far back as 1967, Merton 6 warned that “the word theory threatens to become meaningless.” While it cannot be overstated that “atheoretical” studies lack the underlying logic that justifies researchers’ design choices, the word theory is so overused that it is difficult to understand what constitutes an adequate theoretical foundation and what to call it.

Theory, as used in the term theoretical foundation , refers to the existing body of knowledge. 7 , 8 The existing body of knowledge consists of more than formal theories , with their explanatory and predictive characteristics, so theory implies more than just theories . Box 1 9 – 12 defines the “building blocks of formal theories.” 9 Theorizing or theory-building starts with concepts at the most concrete, experiential level, becoming progressively more abstract until a higher-level theory is developed that explains the relationships between the building blocks. 9 Grand theories are broad, representing the most abstract level of theorizing. Middle-range and explanatory theories are progressively less abstract, more specific to particular phenomena or cases (middle-range) or variables (explanatory), and testable.

The Building Blocks of Formal Theories 9

The Importance of Research Frameworks

Researchers may draw on several elements to frame their research. Generally, a framework is regarded as “a set of ideas that you use when you are forming your decisions and judgements” 13 or “a system of rules, ideas, or beliefs that is used to plan or decide something.” 14 Research frameworks may consist of a single formal theory or part thereof, any combination of several theories or relevant constructs from different theories, models (as simplified representations of formal theories), concepts from the literature and researchers’ experiences.

Although Merriam 15 was of the view that every study has a framework, whether explicit or not, there are advantages to using an explicit framework. Research frameworks map “the territory being investigated,” 8 thus helping researchers to be explicit about what informed their research design, from developing research questions and choosing appropriate methods to data analysis and interpretation. Using a framework makes research findings more meaningful 12 and promotes generalizability by situating the study and interpreting data in more general terms than the study itself. 16

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

The variation in how the terms theoretical and conceptual frameworks are used may be confusing. Some researchers refer to only theoretical frameworks 17 , 18 or conceptual frameworks, 19 – 21 while others use the terms interchangeably. 7 Other researchers distinguish between the two. For example, Miles, Huberman & Saldana 8 see theoretical frameworks as based on formal theories and conceptual frameworks derived inductively from locally relevant concepts and variables, although they may include theoretical aspects. Conversely, some researchers believe that theoretical frameworks include formal theories and concepts. 18 Others argue that any differences between the two types of frameworks are semantic and, instead, emphasize using a research framework to provide coherence across the research questions, methods and interpretation of the results, irrespective of what that framework is called.

Like Ravitch and Riggan, 22 I regard conceptual frameworks (CFs) as the broader term. Including researchers’ perspectives and experiences in CFs provides valuable sources of originality. Novel perspectives guard against research repeating what has already been stated. 23 The term theoretical framework (TF) may be appropriate where formal published and identifiable theories or parts of such theories are used. 24 However, existing formal theories alone may not provide the current state of relevant concepts essential to understanding the motivation for and logic underlying a study. Some researchers may argue that relevant concepts may be covered in the literature review, but what is the point of literature reviews and prior findings unless authors connect them to the research questions and design? Indeed, Sutton & Straw 25 exclude literature reviews and lists of prior findings as an adequate foundation for a study, along with individual lists of variables or constructs (even when the constructs are defined), predictions or hypotheses, and diagrams that do not propose relationships. One or more of these aspects could be used in a research framework (eg, in a TF), and the literature review could (and should) focus on the theories or parts of theories (constructs), offer some critique of the theory and point out how they intend to use the theory. This would be more meaningful than merely describing the theory as the “background” to the study, without explicitly stating why and how it is being used. Similarly, a CF may include a discussion of the theories being used (basically, a TF) and a literature review of the current understanding of any relevant concepts that are not regarded as formal theory.

It may be helpful for authors to specify whether they are using a theoretical or a conceptual framework, but more importantly, authors should make explicit how they constructed and used their research framework. Some studies start with research frameworks of one type and end up with another type, 8 , 22 underscoring the need for authors to clarify the type of framework used and how it informed their research. Accepting the sheer complexity surrounding research frameworks and lamenting the difficulty of reducing the confusion around these terms, Box 2 26 – 31 and Box 3 offer examples highlighting the fundamental elements of theoretical and conceptual frameworks while acknowledging that they share a common purpose.

Examples of How Theoretical Frameworks May Be Used

Examples of How Conceptual Frameworks May Be Used

Misconceptions About Qualitative Research

Qualitative research’s “uneasy relationship with theory” 4 may be due to several misconceptions. One possible misconception is that qualitative research aims to build theory and thus does not need theoretical grounding. The reality is that all qualitative research methods, not just Grounded Theory studies focused on theory building, may lead to theory construction. 16 Similarly, all types of qualitative research, including Grounded Theory studies, should be guided by research frameworks. 16

Not using a research framework may also be due to misconceptions that qualitative research aims to understand people’s perspectives and experiences without examining them from a particular theoretical perspective or that theoretical foundations may influence researchers’ interpretations of participants’ meanings. In fact, in the same way that participants’ meanings vary, qualitative researchers’ interpretations (as opposed to descriptions) of participants’ meaning-making will differ. 32 , 33 Research frameworks thus provide a frame of reference for “making sense of the data.” 34

Studies informed by well-defined research frameworks can make a world of difference in alleviating misconceptions. Good qualitative reporting requires research frameworks that make explicit the combination of relevant theories, theoretical constructs and concepts that will permeate every aspect of the research. Irrespective of the term used, research frameworks are critical components of reporting not only qualitative but also all types of research.

Acknowledgments

In memory of Martie Sanders: supervisor, mentor, and colleague. My deepest gratitude for your unfailing support and guidance. I feel your loss.

Conflicts of Interest: None.

• Find My Rep

You are here

Research Design and Methods An Applied Guide for the Scholar-Practitioner

• Gary J. Burkholder - Walden University, USA
• Kimberley A. Cox - Walden University, USA
• Linda M. Crawford - Walden University, USA
• John H. Hitchcock - Abt Associates Inc., USA
• Description
• Author(s) / Editor(s)

Research Design and Methods: An Applied Guide for the Scholar-Practitioner is written for students seeking advanced degrees who want to use evidence-based research to support their practice. This practical and accessible text addresses the foundational concepts of research design and methods; provides a more detailed exploration of designs and approaches popular with graduate students in applied disciplines; covers qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods designs; discusses ethical considerations and quality in research; and provides guidance on writing a research proposal.

Supplements

• Editable, chapter-specific Microsoft® PowerPoint® slides offer you complete flexibility in easily creating a multimedia presentation for your course. 
• Lecture Notes , including Outline and Objectives, which may be used for lecture and/or student handouts.
• Case studies from SAGE Research Methods accompanied by critical thinking/discussion questions.  
• Tables and figures from the printed book are available in an easily-downloadable format for use in papers, hand-outs, and presentations.

“The chapters in this text are logically and clearly organized around levels of understanding that are intuitive and easy to follow. They offer dynamic examples that will keep students engaged. Readers will learn to connect theory and practice, helping them become better researchers, and better consumers of research.”

“ Research Design and Methods: An Applied Guide for the Scholar-Practitioner is a must-read for both new and seasoned researchers. Every topic in the text is comprehensively explained with excellent examples.”

“This text provides clear and concise discussions of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research for the new scholar-practitioner. The use of questioning and visuals affords students the opportunity to make connections and reflect on their learning.”

“The edited nature of this book provides a multitude of rich perspectives from well-respected authors. This book is a must-have for introductory research methods students.”

“This is an excellent read for anyone interested in understanding research, the book provides good clarity and practical examples…. It is a pragmatic book that translates research concepts into practice.”

Clear chapters. Acessible format

It contains most of what I needed for my Research Methods class. Very good book!

Current book looks better to teach.

A user-friendly, relevant, and applicable resource for all scholar-practitioners.

Preview this book

Sample materials & chapters.

3: Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks in Research

16: Applied Research: Action Research

Gary J. Burkholder

Gary J. Burkholder is senior research scholar and senior contributing faculty at Walden University. He graduated from the University of Rhode Island with a PhD in experimental psychology and his MA and BA degrees in psychology; he also earned a Bachelor of Science in engineering degree from the University of Washington. Gary has been on the faculty at Walden University, a distance education institution focused primarily on graduate, scholar-practitioner students, since 2001. He has served in several senior academic and business administration roles at Walden University and other institutions including program director, director of online... More About Author

Kimberley A. Cox

Kimberley A. Cox earned her PhD in social psychology from Claremont Graduate University and her master’s degree in psychology from Pepperdine University. She received her undergraduate education at the University of California, Irvine where she earned a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a bachelor’s degree in criminology, law, and society. For the past 10 years, Kimberley has been a faculty member at Walden University where her work is dedicated to teaching and mentoring future scholar-practitioners. During this time, she has mentored 45 doctoral students to dissertation completion. Kimberley is a past recipient of Walden University’s... More About Author

Linda M. Crawford

Linda M. Crawford, professor emerita at Walden University, received her doctoral degree from the University of Minnesota with emphases in curriculum and educational administration. In her most recent position as director of academic quality and accreditation for Laureate Education, she conducted quality assurance reviews, both domestically and internationally, at institutional, program, certificate, course, and service levels, including reviews for schools in Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, and Switzerland. She also advised institutions extensively on the faculty perspective related to academic initiatives, including development of new faculty... More About Author

John Harrison Hitchcock

John H. Hitchcock, Ph.D. (University at Albany, State University of New York, 2003, Educational Psychology) is an associate professor of Instructional Systems Technology within Indiana University’s School of Education, Bloomington, Indiana, USA. He is also the Director of the Center for Evaluation & Education Policy. Dr. Hitchcock’s research focus is on the use of mixed methods and other types of designs to evaluate interventions and policies that focus on helping students with specialized learning needs. He has served as a principal investigator, methodological lead and content expert for the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) at the... More About Author

Purchasing options

Please select a format:

Order from:

• Buy from SAGE

Related Products

• DOI: 10.7748/nr.21.6.34.e1252
• Corpus ID: 19647373

Use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in qualitative research.

• Published in Nurse Researcher 1 July 2014

199 Citations

The central role of theory in qualitative research, the use of theory in qualitative research: challenges, development of a framework and exemplar., overcoming the difficulties associated with using conceptual and theoretical frameworks in heritage studies, theory and theorising in information science scholarship, nature and purpose of conceptual frameworks in design science.

• Highly Influenced

Constructing conceptual frameworks in social science research

Planning library instruction research: building conceptual models with theoretical frameworks, a theoretical-methodological proposal for the elaboration of theoretical models.

• 10 Excerpts

Research and scholarly methods: Semi‐structured interviews

A conceptual framework to understand teachers' professional dispositions and orientation towards tablet technology in secondary schools, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

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

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

1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1: Examples of forms of underpinning constructs

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

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

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

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

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

2. Role or roles of underpinning theories or conceptions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Choosing one or more underpinnings for a study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. How a study might contribute to knowledge or theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

About the author

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

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

Email : [email protected]

ORCID : 0000-0002-9205-502X

Article information

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

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

Cover image: LTDatEDU via Pixabay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Publishing information