research paper theory

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of Theory and a Theoretical Framework

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

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

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

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

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

The theoretical framework strengthens the study in the following ways :

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

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

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

Strategies for Developing the Theoretical Framework

I.  Developing the Framework

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

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

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

II.  Purpose

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Borrowing Theoretical Constructs from Other Disciplines

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Undertheorize!

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

The key distinctions are:

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

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

Still Yet Another Writing Tip

Be Prepared to Challenge the Validity of an Existing Theory

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: The Research Problem/Question
• Next: 5. The Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Organizing Academic Research Papers: Theoretical Framework

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• How to Manage Group Projects
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Acknowledgements

Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge, within the limits of the critical bounding assumptions. The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study. The theoretical framework introduces and describes the theory which explains why the research problem under study exists.

Importance of Theory

A theoretical framework consists of concepts, together with their definitions, and existing theory/theories that are used for your particular study. The theoretical framework must demonstrate an understanding of theories and concepts that are relevant to the topic of your  research paper and that will relate it to the broader fields of knowledge in the class you are taking.

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

The theoretical framework strengthens the study in the following ways .

• An explicit statement of  theoretical assumptions permits the reader to evaluate them critically.
• The theoretical framework connects the researcher to existing knowledge. Guided by a relevant theory, you are given a basis for your hypotheses and choice of research methods.
• Articulating the theoretical assumptions of a research study forces you to address questions of why and how. It permits you to move from simply describing a phenomenon observed to generalizing about various aspects of that phenomenon.
• Having a theory helps you to identify the limits to those generalizations. A theoretical framework specifies which key variables influence a phenomenon of interest. It alerts you to examine how those key variables might differ and under what circumstances.

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

The Conceptual Framework. College of Education. Alabama State University; Drafting an Argument . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006.

Strategies for Developing the Theoretical Framework

I.  Developing the Framework

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

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

A theoretical framework is used to limit the scope of the relevant data by focusing on specific variables and defining the specific viewpoint (framework) that the researcher will take in analyzing and interpreting the data to be gathered, understanding concepts and variables according to the given definitions, and building knowledge by validating or challenging theoretical assumptions.

II.  Purpose

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

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

*Adapted from: Torraco, R. J. “Theory-Building Research Methods.” In Swanson R. A. and E. F. Holton III , editors. Human Resource Development Handbook: Linking Research and Practice . (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 1997): pp. 114-137; Sutton, Robert I. and Barry M. Staw. “What Theory is Not.” Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (September 1995): 371-384.

Structure and Writing Style

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

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

• What is the research problem/question? [e.g., "How should the individual and the state relate during periods of conflict?"]
• Why is your approach a feasible solution? [I could choose to test Instrumentalist or Circumstantialists models developed among Ethnic Conflict Theorists that rely upon socio-economic-political factors to explain individual-state relations and to apply this theoretical model to periods of war between nations].

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

In writing this part of your research paper, keep in mind the following:

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

The Conceptual Framework. College of Education. Alabama State University; Conceptual Framework: What Do You Think is Going On? College of Engineering. University of Michigan; Drafting an Argument . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Lynham, Susan A. “The General Method of Theory-Building Research in Applied Disciplines.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 4 (August 2002): 221-241; Tavallaei, Mehdi and Mansor Abu Talib. A General Perspective on the Role of Theory in Qualitative Research. Journal of International Social Research 3 (Spring 2010); Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006.

Writing Tip

Borrowing Theoretical Constructs from Elsewhere

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Undertheorize!

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

Still Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

The key distinctions are:

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

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

• << Previous: The Research Problem/Question
• Next: 5. The Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
• URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
• QuickSearch
• Library Catalog
• Databases A-Z
• Publication Finder
• Course Reserves
• Citation Linker
• Digital Commons
• Our Website

Research Support

• Ask a Librarian
• Appointments
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Research Guides
• Databases by Subject
• Citation Help

Using the Library

• Reserve a Group Study Room
• Renew Books
• Honors Study Rooms
• Off-Campus Access
• Library Policies
• Library Technology

User Information

• Grad Students
• Online Students
• COVID-19 Updates
• Staff Directory
• News & Announcements
• Library Newsletter

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

How To Write A Theoretical Research Paper – Tips & Examples

Writing a theoretical research paper might seem tough, but it’s a great way to share your ideas and discoveries. This guide will show you step-by-step how to plan, write, and share your thoughts through a strong research paper.

We’ll give you tips on how to build a clear framework and how to explain your thoughts clearly. You’ll also see examples that help make everything easier to understand.

Whether you’re a student or a researcher, these tips will help you write a paper that’s well-organized and full of good information. Let’s get started and learn how to create a great research paper!

How To Write A Theoretical Research Paper

What is theoretical research.

Theoretical research might sound daunting, but once you dive into its essence, it is simple.

In theoretical research, you focus on creating and exploring theories, models, and frameworks to understand and explain phenomena.

As you do this, you may not necessarily rely on direct observation or data collection.

In theoretical research, everything begins with a hypothesis. This hypothesis acts as a springboard for developing a complete theoretical framework. 

In the context of a research paper, especially in the social sciences, this type of research does not involve direct interaction with the subject of study. Instead, it focuses on the analysis of the research problem through a conceptual lens.

This lens is crafted from existing theory and literature review, which guides the research process meticulously.

The framework you’ve chosen essentially acts as a map, outlining the research questions and the methodology to explore these questions without the immediate need for empirical data.

One might wonder about the practical applications of such research. Theoretical models are not just abstract concepts; they are used to help develop practical solutions and interventions.

In psychology, a theoretical model might be applied to periods of significant social change to predict outcomes and suggest interventions.

Theoretical research can seem isolated from real-world applications, yet it serves as the foundation upon which more practical, or empirical research builds.

Without it, the structure of science would lack depth and fail to reach the heights of innovation and discovery that we see today.

Theoretical vs Empirical Research

Aside from theoretical research, theres also another type of research – empirical. Understanding the differences may help you significantly.

Theoretical research delves deep into concepts and abstracts. Here, you build your study around existing theories, crafting a theoretical framework that drives your inquiry.

In the social sciences, this could mean developing a new hypothesis on the dynamics of social change based on key social science theories from literature.

The theoretical framework serves not just as a guide but as a lens through which you examine your research problem. It’s crafted from thorough literature reviews and is often enriched by engaging with the philosophy of research.

This framework outlines key variables and the relationships among them, setting the stage for potential validation or challenge through empirical methods.

On the other hand, empirical research demands direct interaction with the subject matter through data collection. 

Empirical research seeks to validate the theories posited by your theoretical framework. Here, the focus shifts to practical applications and direct observations, providing concrete answers to your research questions.

Both research types are vital, each feeding into the other:

• Theoretical research frames the questions and potential explanations, while
• Empirical research tests these frameworks against reality. 

Together, they form the complete cycle of the research process, crucial for any scholarly research project.

Writing a theoretical research paper can seem daunting, but with the right approach, you can tackle this intellectually stimulating task with confidence. Here’s a step-by-step guide:

Step 1: Understand Your Research Problem

Your journey begins with a deep understanding of the research problem you are investigating.

This involves identifying the gaps in existing literature and pinpointing the areas that require further exploration. You may want to spend some time reading around, or use AI tools to help simplifying your reading process.

Engage with key theories and recent studies to sharpen your focus. The research problem forms the nucleus of your paper, guiding every subsequent step.

Step 2: Develop a Robust Theoretical Framework

Constructing a theoretical framework is crucial. This framework is the scaffolding of your research, supporting your entire study.

It consists of concepts and theories borrowed from existing literature and uniquely integrated to address your research problem.

Remember, a strong framework not only guides your analysis but also helps explain the relationships among key variables in your study.

Step 3: Literature Review

Your literature review should do more than summarize existing research; it should critically engage with current theories and frameworks, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses.

This section is not just a backdrop; it’s an active participant in shaping your research narrative. Organize it into a logical framework that systematically addresses the research questions posed by your study.

Literature review used to take a long time to complete. With the right tools however, things can be a lot easier:

Step 4: Outline Your Research Design

While theoretical research does not involve empirical data collection, the design of your research is still paramount. Detail the methods you use to construct your theoretical framework.

Discuss the “theory-building research methods” that you applied, such as conceptual analysis or deductive reasoning, which help clarify and test the theoretical assumptions of your study.

Step 5: Develop the Theory or Conceptual Framework

Here’s where you get to argue your point. Present your theoretical or conceptual contributions. Build upon previous research but introduce your innovative perspective.

Support each argument with robust reasoning, examples from pertinent research, and references to foundational texts.

This is also where you validate or challenge theoretical assumptions, demonstrating the novelty and relevance of your framework.

Step 6: Hypothetical Scenarios or Thought Experiments

Illustrate your concepts through hypothetical scenarios or thought experiments.

These are essential for demonstrating how your theoretical model applies to real-world situations or specific periods, even if your paper is purely conceptual.

This step is particularly engaging, as it transforms abstract concepts into tangible insights.

Step 7: Discussion

Analyse the implications of your theoretical developments. How do they: 

• Impact existing theories? or
• What do they mean for future research? 

This part of your paper is crucial for engaging with the scholarly community. It’s where you:

• interpret your findings,
• discuss their significance, and
• propose how they can guide future empirical or theoretical research.

Step 8: Craft Your Discussion Section

The discussion section is your chance to dive deep into the analysis of your theoretical propositions.

Evaluate the strengths and limitations of your framework, discuss its potential applications, and how it challenges or supports existing paradigms.

This section is not just a summary; it’s an insightful discourse that positions your research within the broader academic conversation.

Step 9: Concluding Thoughts

Summarize the key elements of your research, reinforcing the significance of your findings and their implications for further study.

Restate the research problem and reflect on how your work addresses it effectively.

Here, you tie all the sections together, reinforcing the coherence and impact of your theoretical investigation.

Step 10: Reference Section

No academic paper is complete without a thorough reference section. List all the sources you’ve cited throughout your paper.

This is crucial for academic integrity and allows other researchers to trace your intellectual journey. Make sure your referencing follows the specific style guide recommended by your field or university.

There are many AI tools that can help with references , so make sure you leverage technology to help you here.

By following these steps, you ensure that your theoretical research paper is not only structurally sound but also intellectually robust and poised to make a significant contribution to academic knowledge.

Remember, a well-crafted theoretical paper influences ongoing debates and paves the way for new inquiries and methodologies in the field.

Tips When Writing A Theoretical Research Paper

If you are looking to start writing your first theoretical research paper, here are some tips to help make the process easier:

Establish a Robust Theoretical Framework

Your research should start with a solid theoretical framework that consists of concepts and theories relevant to the research problem you are investigating.

If your topic concerns social media’s influence on mental health, you might integrate theories from psychology and communications. This framework not only shapes your study but also helps to interpret your findings.

Conduct a Thorough Literature Review

Dive deep into existing theory and scholarly research, examining studies that both support and contradict your hypothesis.

This comprehensive review not only furnishes you with a nuanced understanding of your topic but also positions your research within the broader academic conversation. 

Formulate Clear Research Questions

Theoretical research thrives on well-defined research questions. These questions should be rooted in the theoretical framework you’ve chosen and aim to explore the key variables and their relationships in your study.

Precision here will guide your entire research process, ensuring that every part of your paper contributes toward answering these questions.

Choose Appropriate Research Methods

Deciding on the right research methods is crucial. Ensure that the techniques you select align well with your theoretical assumptions and research questions, whether you opt for:

• qualitative research,
• intervention research, or
• a mixed methods approach, 

This alignment is necessary to gather valid and reliable data that supports or challenges your theoretical model.

Apply a Conceptual Framework If Needed

Sometimes, a single theoretical framework may not suffice, especially in interdisciplinary research. In such cases, developing a conceptual framework that integrates multiple theories could be more effective.

This approach was applied in a study about the educational split between Southern and Northern Sudan, where political science and educational theory provided a richer understanding of the regional disparities.

Discuss Methodology Transparently

When you write the discussion part of your paper, be transparent about your methodology. Explaining the meaning behind your choice of research design and how it’s used for your particular study adds credibility to your work.

It shows that your research methods and theoretical foundation are not just arbitrarily chosen but are thoughtfully aligned with the overall objectives of your research.

Interpret Results Within the Theoretical Framework

Finally, when presenting your results, always relate them back to the theoretical framework you set out with.

This not only reinforces the relevance of your findings within the academic field but also helps in validating or challenging theoretical assumptions. 

It’s here in the discussion section where you can engage deeply with the framework, proposing modifications or confirming its validity based on your findings.

Theoretical Research Paper: Not Rocket Science

Writing a theoretical research paper requires a meticulous blend of theory, critical thinking, and structured methodology.

By following the outlined steps, from developing a strong theoretical framework to effectively discussing your findings, you equip yourself with the tools to produce insightful and scholarly work.

Remember, the strength of your paper lies in how well you can integrate theory with your analytical insights, paving the way for further research and contributing to your field’s body of knowledge.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

• Library databases
• Library website

Theories and Frameworks: Discover Theories

Where to start.

There are many ways to find theories that are relevant to your coursework and research.

To look for a theory for a discussion post or assignment, these strategies are a good place to start.

• Try searching encyclopedias and books for the concept or subject area you're interested .  Review the entries and look for a section on theories.
• Another strategy is to search scholarly articles on your topic to see what theories are being used in the literature.

Dissertation and Doctoral Studies

Finding a theory for a capstone is a more involved process because the theory must align with your specific research problem. You may find it necessary to use most or all of the search strategies and tools in this guide. 

• A good place to start is by searching your topic in completed dissertations since theory and its alignment with the research problem is often discussed in more depth than in a published research article.
• Encyclopedias, books, and scholarly articles are also useful sources.

Encyclopedias & books

Encyclopedias and handbooks.

Scholarly encyclopedias and handbooks are great places to find information on theories. The Library has two encyclopedia databases: Sage Knowledge and Gale eBooks. 

Try the following search strategies when searching encyclopedias and handbooks. Review the book's table of contents or index for sections on theory.

• Search for the subject area you're interested in such as  education
• Search for the specific concept you're interested in such as  mentoring
• Experiment with different search terms such as  mentoring  or  employee mentoring  or  mentoring theory

The Library also has scholarly books that are available in full text and are another great resource. Search your topic as you would for scholarly articles (one idea/concept per search box). Use the "Advanced search" link and enter your topic in the first search box; in the second search box, experiment with adding  theory OR theories.  

• SAGE Knowledge This database contains encyclopedias and handbooks in over 20 different subject areas.
• Gale eBooks The collection has encyclopedias and specialized reference resources.
• Walden Library Books Find books available in the Walden Library.

Scholarly articles

Searching your topic in the scholarly literature will give you an idea of what theories have been used in the research related to your topic. Take notes on the theories being used so you can investigate them later in more depth. 

Use the Library databases to research theories related to your topic. EXAMPLE: Search articles on mentoring new teachers.  

• Use the drop-down menu to choose the subject related to your topic. EXAMPLE: Education  
• Click on the databases drop-down menu to choose a database related to your search. EXAMPLE: in the Education Databases drop-down menu, choose  Education Source . You may need to log in with your Walden email and password.

• Review the results and browse the subject terms under each article in the results list as well as the article's abstract to identify articles of interest. Browse those articles for potential theories by scanning the introduction, literature review, and sections titled theoretical or conceptual framework.

Dissertations

Similar to searching scholarly articles, searching completed dissertations and doctoral studies related to your topic can help you locate theories that may align with your own research. You can also review their references to see what theories are being used in those articles. Search your topic as you would for scholarly articles (one idea/concept per search box).

• Dissertations & Theses @ Walden University The database contains full text of dissertations and theses written by Walden students.
• ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global The Dissertations and Theses database gives you full text access to over 3 million dissertations and theses from schools and universities around the world, including Walden dissertations. You can choose to search either all the dissertations and theses, or just those created at Walden.

Search dissertations or doctoral studies by degree:

• Quick Answer: How do I find Walden Ph.D. dissertations?
• Quick Answer: What degree codes are used to find completed Walden capstones or dissertations?

Google Scholar

Google Scholar is another option for exploring theories since it searches broadly across publisher's websites, repositories, and other libraries. Remember, you cannot limit to peer review or full text. By using the Walden Library's pre-configured Google Scholar search, you can quickly see which articles are available in the Walden Library.

For example, a theory search in Google Scholar for mentoring first year teachers might look like this: 

• Click  the  Search  button.
• Review the results list for relevant articles. Search terms will be bolded. Articles available online or in the Walden Library will have a link next to the article. Learn about accessing full text articles through the Find @ Walden button.

Learn more about searching Google Scholar

• Google Scholar Library Guide
• Previous Page: Introduction
• Next Page: Learn About a Theory
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

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

Centers and Offices

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

Student Resources

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

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

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

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

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

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

A guide to writing a theoretical research paper

This is a guide to help (my) students to write better papers (as well as better research plans and outlines). If you are a teacher, feel free to use it in any way you like (including "stealing" from it). Feedback would be highly appreciated. If you are a student and you found this guide helpful, feel free to share it with others. This guide is formatted to be printed as an A5 booklet.

Related Papers

Sher Singh Bhakar

Organisation of Book: The book is organized into two parts. Part one starts with thinking critically about research, explains what is (and isn’t) research, explains how to properly use research in your writing to make your points, introduces a series of writing exercises designed to help students to think about and write effective research papers. Instead of explaining how to write a single “research paper,” The Process of Research Writing part of the book breaks down the research process into many smaller and easier-to manage parts like what is a research paper, starting steps for writing research papers, writing conceptual understanding and review of literature, referencing including various styles of referencing, writing research methodology and results including interpretations, writing implications and limitations of research and what goes into conclusions. Part two contains sample research articles to demonstrate the application of techniques and methods of writing good resear...

Marivic Sumagaysay

Stevejobs.education

Dr. David Annan

Very often, little attention is paid to how students have to prepare and understand the processes of conducting research and mostly young scholars struggle in the early stages in the university career about what is required of them and how to present their proposal to their supervisors. Keeping this in mind, the purpose of this guidebook is to offer a critical and practical mind map introduction to research writing to assist researchers in creating an appropriate design for their research studies and to offer the simplest guide of creating a logical orientated research. The book is made using simple graphs to explain what is expected of researchers at each stage of their research writing to enable them to understand if any a missing link when conducting their research. The book is mostly content mind-map and figures to make it easier for the researcher to understand what is expected of them from the stages of their research to completion. It presents the basic tenets of methodological steps so that the researcher can become familiar with how to conduct research and what techniques to use in their choice for research writing.

Dr Dare E Ajayi

The complexities and diversities of human nature and challenges necessitated the need to discover and identify ways to solving and meeting human and academic problem needs. The existence of problems gave rise to the the need for research. The book takes researchers and students through the latest and best research practice through the adoption of simple, adoptable and practicable research models for academic and contemporary research writing.

Journal of Universal College of Medical Sciences

bishal joshi

INTRODUCTION A research paper is a part of academic writing where there is a gathering of information from different sources. It is multistep process. Selection of title is the most important part of research writing. The title which is interesting should be chosen for the research purpose. All the related information is gathered and the title for research is synthesized. After thorough understanding and developing the title, the preliminary outline is made which maintains the logical path for its exploration. After preliminary research, proper research work is started with collection of previous resources which is then organized and important points are noted. Then research paper is written by referring to outlines, notes, articles, journals and books. The research paper should be well structured containing core parts like introduction, material and methods, results and disscussion and important additional parts like title, abstract, references.

Abstract Students sometimes find the general process of writing an empirical research paper to be daunting. Yet, when the process is approached in a systematic way, students can become more comfortable with the writing and standard formatting used in an empirical article. Accordingly, the current paper serves as a template for the budding social scientist.

Kevin O'Donnell

Roohullah Nawandish

Richard Baskas, Ed.D. Candidate

Scientific Research Journal of Clinical and Medical Sciences

Ahmed Alkhaqani

Background: Confusion about elements of a research paper is common among students. The key to writing a good research paper is to know these common elements and their definitions. Maybe find that writing a research paper is not as easy as it seems. There are many parts and steps to the process, and it can be hard to figure out what needs to do and when. Objective: This article aims to teach these common aspects of a research paper to avoid common mistakes while drafting own. Conclusion: Each section of the research paper serves a distinct purpose and highlights a different aspect of the research. However, before starting drafting the manuscript, having a clear understanding of each section's purposes will help avoid mistakes.

RELATED PAPERS

ANÁLISIS TÉCNICO: SISTEMAS AUTOMÁTICOS DE TRADING

Frontiers in Sports and Active Living

Jordan Santos Concejero

arXiv (Cornell University)

Applied Sciences

Anzhela Brago

ISA Transactions

Ratna Ghosh

Ajoy kumar Ray

James Knirk

2011 5th International Power Engineering and Optimization Conference

Usman Aliyu

Soledad Aranda

The European respiratory journal

Mariola Bednorz

The International Journal of Humanities & Social Studies

Philani j Mlilo

PACS2001. Proceedings of the 2001 Particle Accelerator Conference (Cat. No.01CH37268)

Nathan Bultman

African Journal of Biological Sciences

James Muthomi

Experiência. Revista Científica de Extensão

Glenda Dalmau Gómez

Advances in Comparative Survey Methods

Tûba Süzer-Gürtekin

Shaun Bowler

Biomedical Microdevices

Enakshi Bhattacharya

Diagnostic Cytopathology

donald stanley

Jakub Bogucki

Harun Reşit Yazar

Document Engineering

Robert Glushko

RELATED TOPICS

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

Chapter 4 Theories in Scientific Research

As we know from previous chapters, science is knowledge represented as a collection of “theories” derived using the scientific method. In this chapter, we will examine what is a theory, why do we need theories in research, what are the building blocks of a theory, how to evaluate theories, how can we apply theories in research, and also presents illustrative examples of five theories frequently used in social science research.

Theories are explanations of a natural or social behavior, event, or phenomenon. More formally, a scientific theory is a system of constructs (concepts) and propositions (relationships between those constructs) that collectively presents a logical, systematic, and coherent explanation of a phenomenon of interest within some assumptions and boundary conditions (Bacharach 1989). [1]

Theories should explain why things happen, rather than just describe or predict. Note that it is possible to predict events or behaviors using a set of predictors, without necessarily explaining why such events are taking place. For instance, market analysts predict fluctuations in the stock market based on market announcements, earnings reports of major companies, and new data from the Federal Reserve and other agencies, based on previously observed correlations . Prediction requires only correlations. In contrast, explanations require causations , or understanding of cause-effect relationships. Establishing causation requires three conditions: (1) correlations between two constructs, (2) temporal precedence (the cause must precede the effect in time), and (3) rejection of alternative hypotheses (through testing). Scientific theories are different from theological, philosophical, or other explanations in that scientific theories can be empirically tested using scientific methods.

Explanations can be idiographic or nomothetic. Idiographic explanations are those that explain a single situation or event in idiosyncratic detail. For example, you did poorly on an exam because: (1) you forgot that you had an exam on that day, (2) you arrived late to the exam due to a traffic jam, (3) you panicked midway through the exam, (4) you had to work late the previous evening and could not study for the exam, or even (5) your dog ate your text book. The explanations may be detailed, accurate, and valid, but they may not apply to other similar situations, even involving the same person, and are hence not generalizable. In contrast, nomothetic explanations seek to explain a class of situations or events rather than a specific situation or event. For example, students who do poorly in exams do so because they did not spend adequate time preparing for exams or that they suffer from nervousness, attention-deficit, or some other medical disorder. Because nomothetic explanations are designed to be generalizable across situations, events, or people, they tend to be less precise, less complete, and less detailed. However, they explain economically, using only a few explanatory variables. Because theories are also intended to serve as generalized explanations for patterns of events, behaviors, or phenomena, theoretical explanations are generally nomothetic in nature.

While understanding theories, it is also important to understand what theory is not. Theory is not data, facts, typologies, taxonomies, or empirical findings. A collection of facts is not a theory, just as a pile of stones is not a house. Likewise, a collection of constructs (e.g., a typology of constructs) is not a theory, because theories must go well beyond constructs to include propositions, explanations, and boundary conditions. Data, facts, and findings operate at the empirical or observational level, while theories operate at a conceptual level and are based on logic rather than observations.

There are many benefits to using theories in research. First, theories provide the underlying logic of the occurrence of natural or social phenomenon by explaining what are the key drivers and key outcomes of the target phenomenon and why, and what underlying processes are responsible driving that phenomenon. Second, they aid in sense-making by helping us synthesize prior empirical findings within a theoretical framework and reconcile contradictory findings by discovering contingent factors influencing the relationship between two constructs in different studies. Third, theories provide guidance for future research by helping identify constructs and relationships that are worthy of further research. Fourth, theories can contribute to cumulative knowledge building by bridging gaps between other theories and by causing existing theories to be reevaluated in a new light.

However, theories can also have their own share of limitations. As simplified explanations of reality, theories may not always provide adequate explanations of the phenomenon of interest based on a limited set of constructs and relationships. Theories are designed to be simple and parsimonious explanations, while reality may be significantly more complex. Furthermore, theories may impose blinders or limit researchers’ “range of vision,” causing them to miss out on important concepts that are not defined by the theory.

Building Blocks of a Theory

David Whetten (1989) suggests that there are four building blocks of a theory: constructs, propositions, logic, and boundary conditions/assumptions. Constructs capture the “what” of theories (i.e., what concepts are important for explaining a phenomenon), propositions capture the “how” (i.e., how are these concepts related to each other), logic represents the “why” (i.e., why are these concepts related), and boundary conditions/assumptions examines the “who, when, and where” (i.e., under what circumstances will these concepts and relationships work). Though constructs and propositions were previously discussed in Chapter 2, we describe them again here for the sake of completeness.

Constructs are abstract concepts specified at a high level of abstraction that are chosen specifically to explain the phenomenon of interest. Recall from Chapter 2 that constructs may be unidimensional (i.e., embody a single concept), such as weight or age, or multi-dimensional (i.e., embody multiple underlying concepts), such as personality or culture. While some constructs, such as age, education, and firm size, are easy to understand, others, such as creativity, prejudice, and organizational agility, may be more complex and abstruse, and still others such as trust, attitude, and learning, may represent temporal tendencies rather than steady states. Nevertheless, all constructs must have clear and unambiguous operational definition that should specify exactly how the construct will be measured and at what level of analysis (individual, group, organizational, etc.). Measurable representations of abstract constructs are called variables . For instance, intelligence quotient (IQ score) is a variable that is purported to measure an abstract construct called intelligence. As noted earlier, scientific research proceeds along two planes: a theoretical plane and an empirical plane. Constructs are conceptualized at the theoretical plane, while variables are operationalized and measured at the empirical (observational) plane. Furthermore, variables may be independent, dependent, mediating, or moderating, as discussed in Chapter 2. The distinction between constructs (conceptualized at the theoretical level) and variables (measured at the empirical level) is shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1. Distinction between theoretical and empirical concepts

Propositions are associations postulated between constructs based on deductive logic. Propositions are stated in declarative form and should ideally indicate a cause-effect relationship (e.g., if X occurs, then Y will follow). Note that propositions may be conjectural but MUST be testable, and should be rejected if they are not supported by empirical observations. However, like constructs, propositions are stated at the theoretical level, and they can only be tested by examining the corresponding relationship between measurable variables of those constructs. The empirical formulation of propositions, stated as relationships between variables, is called hypotheses . The distinction between propositions (formulated at the theoretical level) and hypotheses (tested at the empirical level) is depicted in Figure 4.1.

The third building block of a theory is the logic that provides the basis for justifying the propositions as postulated. Logic acts like a “glue” that connects the theoretical constructs and provides meaning and relevance to the relationships between these constructs. Logic also represents the “explanation” that lies at the core of a theory. Without logic, propositions will be ad hoc, arbitrary, and meaningless, and cannot be tied into a cohesive “system of propositions” that is the heart of any theory.

Finally, all theories are constrained by assumptions about values, time, and space, and boundary conditions that govern where the theory can be applied and where it cannot be applied. For example, many economic theories assume that human beings are rational (or boundedly rational) and employ utility maximization based on cost and benefit expectations as a way of understand human behavior. In contrast, political science theories assume that people are more political than rational, and try to position themselves in their professional or personal environment in a way that maximizes their power and control over others. Given the nature of their underlying assumptions, economic and political theories are not directly comparable, and researchers should not use economic theories if their objective is to understand the power structure or its evolution in a organization. Likewise, theories may have implicit cultural assumptions (e.g., whether they apply to individualistic or collective cultures), temporal assumptions (e.g., whether they apply to early stages or later stages of human behavior), and spatial assumptions (e.g., whether they apply to certain localities but not to others). If a theory is to be properly used or tested, all of its implicit assumptions that form the boundaries of that theory must be properly understood. Unfortunately, theorists rarely state their implicit assumptions clearly, which leads to frequent misapplications of theories to problem situations in research.

Attributes of a Good Theory

Theories are simplified and often partial explanations of complex social reality. As such, there can be good explanations or poor explanations, and consequently, there can be good theories or poor theories. How can we evaluate the “goodness” of a given theory? Different criteria have been proposed by different researchers, the more important of which are listed below:

• Logical consistency : Are the theoretical constructs, propositions, boundary conditions, and assumptions logically consistent with each other? If some of these “building blocks” of a theory are inconsistent with each other (e.g., a theory assumes rationality, but some constructs represent non-rational concepts), then the theory is a poor theory.
• Explanatory power : How much does a given theory explain (or predict) reality? Good theories obviously explain the target phenomenon better than rival theories, as often measured by variance explained (R-square) value in regression equations.
• Falsifiability : British philosopher Karl Popper stated in the 1940’s that for theories to be valid, they must be falsifiable. Falsifiability ensures that the theory is potentially disprovable, if empirical data does not match with theoretical propositions, which allows for their empirical testing by researchers. In other words, theories cannot be theories unless they can be empirically testable. Tautological statements, such as “a day with high temperatures is a hot day” are not empirically testable because a hot day is defined (and measured) as a day with high temperatures, and hence, such statements cannot be viewed as a theoretical proposition. Falsifiability requires presence of rival explanations it ensures that the constructs are adequately measurable, and so forth. However, note that saying that a theory is falsifiable is not the same as saying that a theory should be falsified. If a theory is indeed falsified based on empirical evidence, then it was probably a poor theory to begin with!
• Parsimony : Parsimony examines how much of a phenomenon is explained with how few variables. The concept is attributed to 14 th century English logician Father William of Ockham (and hence called “Ockham’s razor” or “Occam’s razor), which states that among competing explanations that sufficiently explain the observed evidence, the simplest theory (i.e., one that uses the smallest number of variables or makes the fewest assumptions) is the best. Explanation of a complex social phenomenon can always be increased by adding more and more constructs. However, such approach defeats the purpose of having a theory, which are intended to be “simplified” and generalizable explanations of reality. Parsimony relates to the degrees of freedom in a given theory. Parsimonious theories have higher degrees of freedom, which allow them to be more easily generalized to other contexts, settings, and populations.

Approaches to Theorizing

How do researchers build theories? Steinfeld and Fulk (1990) [2] recommend four such approaches. The first approach is to build theories inductively based on observed patterns of events or behaviors. Such approach is often called “grounded theory building”, because the theory is grounded in empirical observations. This technique is heavily dependent on the observational and interpretive abilities of the researcher, and the resulting theory may be subjective and non -confirmable. Furthermore, observing certain patterns of events will not necessarily make a theory, unless the researcher is able to provide consistent explanations for the observed patterns. We will discuss the grounded theory approach in a later chapter on qualitative research.

The second approach to theory building is to conduct a bottom-up conceptual analysis to identify different sets of predictors relevant to the phenomenon of interest using a predefined framework. One such framework may be a simple input-process-output framework, where the researcher may look for different categories of inputs, such as individual, organizational, and/or technological factors potentially related to the phenomenon of interest (the output), and describe the underlying processes that link these factors to the target phenomenon. This is also an inductive approach that relies heavily on the inductive abilities of the researcher, and interpretation may be biased by researcher’s prior knowledge of the phenomenon being studied.

The third approach to theorizing is to extend or modify existing theories to explain a new context, such as by extending theories of individual learning to explain organizational learning. While making such an extension, certain concepts, propositions, and/or boundary conditions of the old theory may be retained and others modified to fit the new context. This deductive approach leverages the rich inventory of social science theories developed by prior theoreticians, and is an efficient way of building new theories by building on existing ones.

The fourth approach is to apply existing theories in entirely new contexts by drawing upon the structural similarities between the two contexts. This approach relies on reasoning by analogy, and is probably the most creative way of theorizing using a deductive approach. For instance, Markus (1987) [3] used analogic similarities between a nuclear explosion and uncontrolled growth of networks or network-based businesses to propose a critical mass theory of network growth. Just as a nuclear explosion requires a critical mass of radioactive material to sustain a nuclear explosion, Markus suggested that a network requires a critical mass of users to sustain its growth, and without such critical mass, users may leave the network, causing an eventual demise of the network.

Examples of Social Science Theories

In this section, we present brief overviews of a few illustrative theories from different social science disciplines. These theories explain different types of social behaviors, using a set of constructs, propositions, boundary conditions, assumptions, and underlying logic. Note that the following represents just a simplistic introduction to these theories; readers are advised to consult the original sources of these theories for more details and insights on each theory.

Agency Theory. Agency theory (also called principal-agent theory), a classic theory in the organizational economics literature, was originally proposed by Ross (1973) [4] to explain two-party relationships (such as those between an employer and its employees, between organizational executives and shareholders, and between buyers and sellers) whose goals are not congruent with each other. The goal of agency theory is to specify optimal contracts and the conditions under which such contracts may help minimize the effect of goal incongruence. The core assumptions of this theory are that human beings are self-interested individuals, boundedly rational, and risk-averse, and the theory can be applied at the individual or organizational level.

The two parties in this theory are the principal and the agent; the principal employs the agent to perform certain tasks on its behalf. While the principal’s goal is quick and effective completion of the assigned task, the agent’s goal may be working at its own pace, avoiding risks, and seeking self-interest (such as personal pay) over corporate interests. Hence, the goal incongruence. Compounding the nature of the problem may be information asymmetry problems caused by the principal’s inability to adequately observe the agent’s behavior or accurately evaluate the agent’s skill sets. Such asymmetry may lead to agency problems where the agent may not put forth the effort needed to get the task done (the moral hazard problem) or may misrepresent its expertise or skills to get the job but not perform as expected (the adverse selection problem). Typical contracts that are behavior-based, such as a monthly salary, cannot overcome these problems. Hence, agency theory recommends using outcome-based contracts, such as a commissions or a fee payable upon task completion, or mixed contracts that combine behavior-based and outcome-based incentives. An employee stock option plans are is an example of an outcome-based contract while employee pay is a behavior-based contract. Agency theory also recommends tools that principals may employ to improve the efficacy of behavior-based contracts, such as investing in monitoring mechanisms (such as hiring supervisors) to counter the information asymmetry caused by moral hazard, designing renewable contracts contingent on agent’s performance (performance assessment makes the contract partially outcome-based), or by improving the structure of the assigned task to make it more programmable and therefore more observable.

Theory of Planned Behavior. Postulated by Azjen (1991) [5] , the theory of planned behavior (TPB) is a generalized theory of human behavior in the social psychology literature that can be used to study a wide range of individual behaviors. It presumes that individual behavior represents conscious reasoned choice, and is shaped by cognitive thinking and social pressures. The theory postulates that behaviors are based on one’s intention regarding that behavior, which in turn is a function of the person’s attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm regarding that behavior, and perception of control over that behavior (see Figure 4.2). Attitude is defined as the individual’s overall positive or negative feelings about performing the behavior in question, which may be assessed as a summation of one’s beliefs regarding the different consequences of that behavior, weighted by the desirability of those consequences.

Subjective norm refers to one’s perception of whether people important to that person expect the person to perform the intended behavior, and represented as a weighted combination of the expected norms of different referent groups such as friends, colleagues, or supervisors at work. Behavioral control is one’s perception of internal or external controls constraining the behavior in question. Internal controls may include the person’s ability to perform the intended behavior (self-efficacy), while external control refers to the availability of external resources needed to perform that behavior (facilitating conditions). TPB also suggests that sometimes people may intend to perform a given behavior but lack the resources needed to do so, and therefore suggests that posits that behavioral control can have a direct effect on behavior, in addition to the indirect effect mediated by intention.

TPB is an extension of an earlier theory called the theory of reasoned action, which included attitude and subjective norm as key drivers of intention, but not behavioral control. The latter construct was added by Ajzen in TPB to account for circumstances when people may have incomplete control over their own behaviors (such as not having high-speed Internet access for web surfing).

Figure 4.2. Theory of planned behavior

Innovation diffusion theory. Innovation diffusion theory (IDT) is a seminal theory in the communications literature that explains how innovations are adopted within a population of potential adopters. The concept was first studied by French sociologist Gabriel Tarde, but the theory was developed by Everett Rogers in 1962 based on observations of 508 diffusion studies. The four key elements in this theory are: innovation, communication channels, time, and social system. Innovations may include new technologies, new practices, or new ideas, and adopters may be individuals or organizations. At the macro (population) level, IDT views innovation diffusion as a process of communication where people in a social system learn about a new innovation and its potential benefits through communication channels (such as mass media or prior adopters) and are persuaded to adopt it. Diffusion is a temporal process; the diffusion process starts off slow among a few early adopters, then picks up speed as the innovation is adopted by the mainstream population, and finally slows down as the adopter population reaches saturation. The cumulative adoption pattern therefore an S-shaped curve, as shown in Figure 4.3, and the adopter distribution represents a normal distribution. All adopters are not identical, and adopters can be classified into innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards based on their time of their adoption. The rate of diffusion a lso depends on characteristics of the social system such as the presence of opinion leaders (experts whose opinions are valued by others) and change agents (people who influence others’ behaviors).

At the micro (adopter) level, Rogers (1995) [6] suggests that innovation adoption is a process consisting of five stages: (1) knowledge: when adopters first learn about an innovation from mass-media or interpersonal channels, (2) persuasion: when they are persuaded by prior adopters to try the innovation, (3) decision: their decision to accept or reject the innovation, (4) implementation: their initial utilization of the innovation, and (5) confirmation: their decision to continue using it to its fullest potential (see Figure 4.4). Five innovation characteristics are presumed to shape adopters’ innovation adoption decisions: (1) relative advantage: the expected benefits of an innovation relative to prior innovations, (2) compatibility: the extent to which the innovation fits with the adopter’s work habits, beliefs, and values, (3) complexity: the extent to which the innovation is difficult to learn and use, (4) trialability: the extent to which the innovation can be tested on a trial basis, and (5) observability: the extent to which the results of using the innovation can be clearly observed. The last two characteristics have since been dropped from many innovation studies. Complexity is negatively correlated to innovation adoption, while the other four factors are positively correlated. Innovation adoption also depends on personal factors such as the adopter’s risk- taking propensity, education level, cosmopolitanism, and communication influence. Early adopters are venturesome, well educated, and rely more on mass media for information about the innovation, while later adopters rely more on interpersonal sources (such as friends and family) as their primary source of information. IDT has been criticized for having a “pro-innovation bias,” that is for presuming that all innovations are beneficial and will be eventually diffused across the entire population, and because it does not allow for inefficient innovations such as fads or fashions to die off quickly without being adopted by the entire population or being replaced by better innovations.

Figure 4.3. S-shaped diffusion curve

Figure 4.4. Innovation adoption process.

Elaboration Likelihood Model . Developed by Petty and Cacioppo (1986) [7] , the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) is a dual-process theory of attitude formation or change in the psychology literature. It explains how individuals can be influenced to change their attitude toward a certain object, events, or behavior and the relative efficacy of such change strategies. The ELM posits that one’s attitude may be shaped by two “routes” of influence, the central route and the peripheral route, which differ in the amount of thoughtful information processing or “elaboration” required of people (see Figure 4.5). The central route requires a person to think about issue-related arguments in an informational message and carefully scrutinize the merits and relevance of those arguments, before forming an informed judgment about the target object. In the peripheral route, subjects rely on external “cues” such as number of prior users, endorsements from experts, or likeability of the endorser, rather than on the quality of arguments, in framing their attitude towards the target object. The latter route is less cognitively demanding, and the routes of attitude change are typically operationalized in the ELM using the argument quality and peripheral cues constructs respectively.

Figure 4.5. Elaboration likelihood model

Whether people will be influenced by the central or peripheral routes depends upon their ability and motivation to elaborate the central merits of an argument. This ability and motivation to elaborate is called elaboration likelihood . People in a state of high elaboration likelihood (high ability and high motivation) are more likely to thoughtfully process the information presented and are therefore more influenced by argument quality, while those in the low elaboration likelihood state are more motivated by peripheral cues. Elaboration likelihood is a situational characteristic and not a personal trait. For instance, a doctor may employ the central route for diagnosing and treating a medical ailment (by virtue of his or her expertise of the subject), but may rely on peripheral cues from auto mechanics to understand the problems with his car. As such, the theory has widespread implications about how to enact attitude change toward new products or ideas and even social change.

General Deterrence Theory. Two utilitarian philosophers of the eighteenth century, Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, formulated General Deterrence Theory (GDT) as both an explanation of crime and a method for reducing it. GDT examines why certain individuals engage in deviant, anti-social, or criminal behaviors. This theory holds that people are fundamentally rational (for both conforming and deviant behaviors), and that they freely choose deviant behaviors based on a rational cost-benefit calculation. Because people naturally choose utility-maximizing behaviors, deviant choices that engender personal gain or pleasure can be controlled by increasing the costs of such behaviors in the form of punishments (countermeasures) as well as increasing the probability of apprehension. Swiftness, severity, and certainty of punishments are the key constructs in GDT.

While classical positivist research in criminology seeks generalized causes of criminal behaviors, such as poverty, lack of education, psychological conditions, and recommends strategies to rehabilitate criminals, such as by providing them job training and medical treatment, GDT focuses on the criminal decision making process and situational factors that influence that process. Hence, a criminal’s personal situation (such as his personal values, his affluence, and his need for money) and the environmental context (such as how protected is the target, how efficient is the local police, how likely are criminals to be apprehended) play key roles in this decision making process. The focus of GDT is not how to rehabilitate criminals and avert future criminal behaviors, but how to make criminal activities less attractive and therefore prevent crimes. To that end, “target hardening” such as installing deadbolts and building self-defense skills, legal deterrents such as eliminating parole for certain crimes, “three strikes law” (mandatory incarceration for three offenses, even if the offenses are minor and not worth imprisonment), and the death penalty, increasing the chances of apprehension using means such as neighborhood watch programs, special task forces on drugs or gang -related crimes, and increased police patrols, and educational programs such as highly visible notices such as “Trespassers will be prosecuted” are effective in preventing crimes. This theory has interesting implications not only for traditional crimes, but also for contemporary white-collar crimes such as insider trading, software piracy, and illegal sharing of music.

[1] Bacharach, S. B. (1989). “Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation,” Academy of Management Review (14:4), 496-515.

[2] Steinfield, C.W. and Fulk, J. (1990). “The Theory Imperative,” in Organizations and Communications Technology , J. Fulk and C. W. Steinfield (eds.), Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

[3] Markus, M. L. (1987). “Toward a ‘Critical Mass’ Theory of Interactive Media: Universal Access, Interdependence, and Diffusion,” Communication Research (14:5), 491-511.

[4] Ross, S. A. (1973). “The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal’s Problem,” American Economic Review (63:2), 134-139.

[5] Ajzen, I. (1991). “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (50), 179-211.

[6] Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations . New York: The Free Press. Other editions 1983, 1996, 2005.

[7] Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change . New York: Springer-Verlag.

• Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices. Authored by : Anol Bhattacherjee. Provided by : University of South Florida. Located at : http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3/ . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

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
• SAGE Open Med

Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers

Ylona chun tie.

1 Nursing and Midwifery, College of Healthcare Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia

Melanie Birks

Karen francis.

2 College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Australia, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Background:

Grounded theory is a well-known methodology employed in many research studies. Qualitative and quantitative data generation techniques can be used in a grounded theory study. Grounded theory sets out to discover or construct theory from data, systematically obtained and analysed using comparative analysis. While grounded theory is inherently flexible, it is a complex methodology. Thus, novice researchers strive to understand the discourse and the practical application of grounded theory concepts and processes.

The aim of this article is to provide a contemporary research framework suitable to inform a grounded theory study.

This article provides an overview of grounded theory illustrated through a graphic representation of the processes and methods employed in conducting research using this methodology. The framework is presented as a diagrammatic representation of a research design and acts as a visual guide for the novice grounded theory researcher.

Discussion:

As grounded theory is not a linear process, the framework illustrates the interplay between the essential grounded theory methods and iterative and comparative actions involved. Each of the essential methods and processes that underpin grounded theory are defined in this article.

Conclusion:

Rather than an engagement in philosophical discussion or a debate of the different genres that can be used in grounded theory, this article illustrates how a framework for a research study design can be used to guide and inform the novice nurse researcher undertaking a study using grounded theory. Research findings and recommendations can contribute to policy or knowledge development, service provision and can reform thinking to initiate change in the substantive area of inquiry.

Introduction

The aim of all research is to advance, refine and expand a body of knowledge, establish facts and/or reach new conclusions using systematic inquiry and disciplined methods. 1 The research design is the plan or strategy researchers use to answer the research question, which is underpinned by philosophy, methodology and methods. 2 Birks 3 defines philosophy as ‘a view of the world encompassing the questions and mechanisms for finding answers that inform that view’ (p. 18). Researchers reflect their philosophical beliefs and interpretations of the world prior to commencing research. Methodology is the research design that shapes the selection of, and use of, particular data generation and analysis methods to answer the research question. 4 While a distinction between positivist research and interpretivist research occurs at the paradigm level, each methodology has explicit criteria for the collection, analysis and interpretation of data. 2 Grounded theory (GT) is a structured, yet flexible methodology. This methodology is appropriate when little is known about a phenomenon; the aim being to produce or construct an explanatory theory that uncovers a process inherent to the substantive area of inquiry. 5 – 7 One of the defining characteristics of GT is that it aims to generate theory that is grounded in the data. The following section provides an overview of GT – the history, main genres and essential methods and processes employed in the conduct of a GT study. This summary provides a foundation for a framework to demonstrate the interplay between the methods and processes inherent in a GT study as presented in the sections that follow.

Glaser and Strauss are recognised as the founders of grounded theory. Strauss was conversant in symbolic interactionism and Glaser in descriptive statistics. 8 – 10 Glaser and Strauss originally worked together in a study examining the experience of terminally ill patients who had differing knowledge of their health status. Some of these suspected they were dying and tried to confirm or disconfirm their suspicions. Others tried to understand by interpreting treatment by care providers and family members. Glaser and Strauss examined how the patients dealt with the knowledge they were dying and the reactions of healthcare staff caring for these patients. Throughout this collaboration, Glaser and Strauss questioned the appropriateness of using a scientific method of verification for this study. During this investigation, they developed the constant comparative method, a key element of grounded theory, while generating a theory of dying first described in Awareness of Dying (1965). The constant comparative method is deemed an original way of organising and analysing qualitative data.

Glaser and Strauss subsequently went on to write The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (1967). This seminal work explained how theory could be generated from data inductively. This process challenged the traditional method of testing or refining theory through deductive testing. Grounded theory provided an outlook that questioned the view of the time that quantitative methodology is the only valid, unbiased way to determine truths about the world. 11 Glaser and Strauss 5 challenged the belief that qualitative research lacked rigour and detailed the method of comparative analysis that enables the generation of theory. After publishing The Discovery of Grounded Theory , Strauss and Glaser went on to write independently, expressing divergent viewpoints in the application of grounded theory methods.

Glaser produced his book Theoretical Sensitivity (1978) and Strauss went on to publish Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (1987). Strauss and Corbin’s 12 publication Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques resulted in a rebuttal by Glaser 13 over their application of grounded theory methods. However, philosophical perspectives have changed since Glaser’s positivist version and Strauss and Corbin’s post-positivism stance. 14 Grounded theory has since seen the emergence of additional philosophical perspectives that have influenced a change in methodological development over time. 15

Subsequent generations of grounded theorists have positioned themselves along a philosophical continuum, from Strauss and Corbin’s 12 theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism, through to Charmaz’s 16 constructivist perspective. However, understanding how to position oneself philosophically can challenge novice researchers. Birks and Mills 6 provide a contemporary understanding of GT in their book Grounded theory: A Practical Guide. These Australian researchers have written in a way that appeals to the novice researcher. It is the contemporary writing, the way Birks and Mills present a non-partisan approach to GT that support the novice researcher to understand the philosophical and methodological concepts integral in conducting research. The development of GT is important to understand prior to selecting an approach that aligns with the researcher’s philosophical position and the purpose of the research study. As the research progresses, seminal texts are referred back to time and again as understanding of concepts increases, much like the iterative processes inherent in the conduct of a GT study.

Genres: traditional, evolved and constructivist grounded theory

Grounded theory has several distinct methodological genres: traditional GT associated with Glaser; evolved GT associated with Strauss, Corbin and Clarke; and constructivist GT associated with Charmaz. 6 , 17 Each variant is an extension and development of the original GT by Glaser and Strauss. The first of these genres is known as traditional or classic GT. Glaser 18 acknowledged that the goal of traditional GT is to generate a conceptual theory that accounts for a pattern of behaviour that is relevant and problematic for those involved. The second genre, evolved GT, is founded on symbolic interactionism and stems from work associated with Strauss, Corbin and Clarke. Symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective that relies on the symbolic meaning people ascribe to the processes of social interaction. Symbolic interactionism addresses the subjective meaning people place on objects, behaviours or events based on what they believe is true. 19 , 20 Constructivist GT, the third genre developed and explicated by Charmaz, a symbolic interactionist, has its roots in constructivism. 8 , 16 Constructivist GT’s methodological underpinnings focus on how participants’ construct meaning in relation to the area of inquiry. 16 A constructivist co-constructs experience and meanings with participants. 21 While there are commonalities across all genres of GT, there are factors that distinguish differences between the approaches including the philosophical position of the researcher; the use of literature; and the approach to coding, analysis and theory development. Following on from Glaser and Strauss, several versions of GT have ensued.

Grounded theory represents both a method of inquiry and a resultant product of that inquiry. 7 , 22 Glaser and Holton 23 define GT as ‘a set of integrated conceptual hypotheses systematically generated to produce an inductive theory about a substantive area’ (p. 43). Strauss and Corbin 24 define GT as ‘theory that was derived from data, systematically gathered and analysed through the research process’ (p. 12). The researcher ‘begins with an area of study and allows the theory to emerge from the data’ (p. 12). Charmaz 16 defines GT as ‘a method of conducting qualitative research that focuses on creating conceptual frameworks or theories through building inductive analysis from the data’ (p. 187). However, Birks and Mills 6 refer to GT as a process by which theory is generated from the analysis of data. Theory is not discovered; rather, theory is constructed by the researcher who views the world through their own particular lens.

Research process

Before commencing any research study, the researcher must have a solid understanding of the research process. A well-developed outline of the study and an understanding of the important considerations in designing and undertaking a GT study are essential if the goals of the research are to be achieved. While it is important to have an understanding of how a methodology has developed, in order to move forward with research, a novice can align with a grounded theorist and follow an approach to GT. Using a framework to inform a research design can be a useful modus operandi.

The following section provides insight into the process of undertaking a GT research study. Figure 1 is a framework that summarises the interplay and movement between methods and processes that underpin the generation of a GT. As can be seen from this framework, and as detailed in the discussion that follows, the process of doing a GT research study is not linear, rather it is iterative and recursive.

Research design framework: summary of the interplay between the essential grounded theory methods and processes.

Grounded theory research involves the meticulous application of specific methods and processes. Methods are ‘systematic modes, procedures or tools used for collection and analysis of data’. 25 While GT studies can commence with a variety of sampling techniques, many commence with purposive sampling, followed by concurrent data generation and/or collection and data analysis, through various stages of coding, undertaken in conjunction with constant comparative analysis, theoretical sampling and memoing. Theoretical sampling is employed until theoretical saturation is reached. These methods and processes create an unfolding, iterative system of actions and interactions inherent in GT. 6 , 16 The methods interconnect and inform the recurrent elements in the research process as shown by the directional flow of the arrows and the encompassing brackets in Figure 1 . The framework denotes the process is both iterative and dynamic and is not one directional. Grounded theory methods are discussed in the following section.

Purposive sampling

As presented in Figure 1 , initial purposive sampling directs the collection and/or generation of data. Researchers purposively select participants and/or data sources that can answer the research question. 5 , 7 , 16 , 21 Concurrent data generation and/or data collection and analysis is fundamental to GT research design. 6 The researcher collects, codes and analyses this initial data before further data collection/generation is undertaken. Purposeful sampling provides the initial data that the researcher analyses. As will be discussed, theoretical sampling then commences from the codes and categories developed from the first data set. Theoretical sampling is used to identify and follow clues from the analysis, fill gaps, clarify uncertainties, check hunches and test interpretations as the study progresses.

Constant comparative analysis

Constant comparative analysis is an analytical process used in GT for coding and category development. This process commences with the first data generated or collected and pervades the research process as presented in Figure 1 . Incidents are identified in the data and coded. 6 The initial stage of analysis compares incident to incident in each code. Initial codes are then compared to other codes. Codes are then collapsed into categories. This process means the researcher will compare incidents in a category with previous incidents, in both the same and different categories. 5 Future codes are compared and categories are compared with other categories. New data is then compared with data obtained earlier during the analysis phases. This iterative process involves inductive and deductive thinking. 16 Inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning can also be used in data analysis. 26

Constant comparative analysis generates increasingly more abstract concepts and theories through inductive processes. 16 In addition, abduction, defined as ‘a form of reasoning that begins with an examination of the data and the formation of a number of hypotheses that are then proved or disproved during the process of analysis … aids inductive conceptualization’. 6 Theoretical sampling coupled with constant comparative analysis raises the conceptual levels of data analysis and directs ongoing data collection or generation. 6

The constant comparative technique is used to find consistencies and differences, with the aim of continually refining concepts and theoretically relevant categories. This continual comparative iterative process that encompasses GT research sets it apart from a purely descriptive analysis. 8

Memo writing is an analytic process considered essential ‘in ensuring quality in grounded theory’. 6 Stern 27 offers the analogy that if data are the building blocks of the developing theory, then memos are the ‘mortar’ (p. 119). Memos are the storehouse of ideas generated and documented through interacting with data. 28 Thus, memos are reflective interpretive pieces that build a historic audit trail to document ideas, events and the thought processes inherent in the research process and developing thinking of the analyst. 6 Memos provide detailed records of the researchers’ thoughts, feelings and intuitive contemplations. 6

Lempert 29 considers memo writing crucial as memos prompt researchers to analyse and code data and develop codes into categories early in the coding process. Memos detail why and how decisions made related to sampling, coding, collapsing of codes, making of new codes, separating codes, producing a category and identifying relationships abstracted to a higher level of analysis. 6 Thus, memos are informal analytic notes about the data and the theoretical connections between categories. 23 Memoing is an ongoing activity that builds intellectual assets, fosters analytic momentum and informs the GT findings. 6 , 10

Generating/collecting data

A hallmark of GT is concurrent data generation/collection and analysis. In GT, researchers may utilise both qualitative and quantitative data as espoused by Glaser’s dictum; ‘all is data’. 30 While interviews are a common method of generating data, data sources can include focus groups, questionnaires, surveys, transcripts, letters, government reports, documents, grey literature, music, artefacts, videos, blogs and memos. 9 Elicited data are produced by participants in response to, or directed by, the researcher whereas extant data includes data that is already available such as documents and published literature. 6 , 31 While this is one interpretation of how elicited data are generated, other approaches to grounded theory recognise the agency of participants in the co-construction of data with the researcher. The relationship the researcher has with the data, how it is generated and collected, will determine the value it contributes to the development of the final GT. 6 The significance of this relationship extends into data analysis conducted by the researcher through the various stages of coding.

Coding is an analytical process used to identify concepts, similarities and conceptual reoccurrences in data. Coding is the pivotal link between collecting or generating data and developing a theory that explains the data. Charmaz 10 posits,

codes rely on interaction between researchers and their data. Codes consist of short labels that we construct as we interact with the data. Something kinaesthetic occurs when we are coding; we are mentally and physically active in the process. (p. 5)

In GT, coding can be categorised into iterative phases. Traditional, evolved and constructivist GT genres use different terminology to explain each coding phase ( Table 1 ).

Comparison of coding terminology in traditional, evolved and constructivist grounded theory.

Adapted from Birks and Mills. 6

Coding terminology in evolved GT refers to open (a procedure for developing categories of information), axial (an advanced procedure for interconnecting the categories) and selective coding (procedure for building a storyline from core codes that connects the categories), producing a discursive set of theoretical propositions. 6 , 12 , 32 Constructivist grounded theorists refer to initial, focused and theoretical coding. 9 Birks and Mills 6 use the terms initial, intermediate and advanced coding that link to low, medium and high-level conceptual analysis and development. The coding terms devised by Birks and Mills 6 were used for Figure 1 ; however, these can be altered to reflect the coding terminology used in the respective GT genres selected by the researcher.

Initial coding

Initial coding of data is the preliminary step in GT data analysis. 6 , 9 The purpose of initial coding is to start the process of fracturing the data to compare incident to incident and to look for similarities and differences in beginning patterns in the data. In initial coding, the researcher inductively generates as many codes as possible from early data. 16 Important words or groups of words are identified and labelled. In GT, codes identify social and psychological processes and actions as opposed to themes. Charmaz 16 emphasises keeping codes as similar to the data as possible and advocates embedding actions in the codes in an iterative coding process. Saldaña 33 agrees that codes that denote action, which he calls process codes, can be used interchangeably with gerunds (verbs ending in ing ). In vivo codes are often verbatim quotes from the participants’ words and are often used as the labels to capture the participant’s words as representative of a broader concept or process in the data. 6 Table 1 reflects variation in the terminology of codes used by grounded theorists.

Initial coding categorises and assigns meaning to the data, comparing incident-to-incident, labelling beginning patterns and beginning to look for comparisons between the codes. During initial coding, it is important to ask ‘what is this data a study of’. 18 What does the data assume, ‘suggest’ or ‘pronounce’ and ‘from whose point of view’ does this data come, whom does it represent or whose thoughts are they?. 16 What collectively might it represent? The process of documenting reactions, emotions and related actions enables researchers to explore, challenge and intensify their sensitivity to the data. 34 Early coding assists the researcher to identify the direction for further data gathering. After initial analysis, theoretical sampling is employed to direct collection of additional data that will inform the ‘developing theory’. 9 Initial coding advances into intermediate coding once categories begin to develop.

Theoretical sampling

The purpose of theoretical sampling is to allow the researcher to follow leads in the data by sampling new participants or material that provides relevant information. As depicted in Figure 1 , theoretical sampling is central to GT design, aids the evolving theory 5 , 7 , 16 and ensures the final developed theory is grounded in the data. 9 Theoretical sampling in GT is for the development of a theoretical category, as opposed to sampling for population representation. 10 Novice researchers need to acknowledge this difference if they are to achieve congruence within the methodology. Birks and Mills 6 define theoretical sampling as ‘the process of identifying and pursuing clues that arise during analysis in a grounded theory study’ (p. 68). During this process, additional information is sought to saturate categories under development. The analysis identifies relationships, highlights gaps in the existing data set and may reveal insight into what is not yet known. The exemplars in Box 1 highlight how theoretical sampling led to the inclusion of further data.

Examples of theoretical sampling.

Thus, theoretical sampling is used to focus and generate data to feed the iterative process of continual comparative analysis of the data. 6

Intermediate coding

Intermediate coding, identifying a core category, theoretical data saturation, constant comparative analysis, theoretical sensitivity and memoing occur in the next phase of the GT process. 6 Intermediate coding builds on the initial coding phase. Where initial coding fractures the data, intermediate coding begins to transform basic data into more abstract concepts allowing the theory to emerge from the data. During this analytic stage, a process of reviewing categories and identifying which ones, if any, can be subsumed beneath other categories occurs and the properties or dimension of the developed categories are refined. Properties refer to the characteristics that are common to all the concepts in the category and dimensions are the variations of a property. 37

At this stage, a core category starts to become evident as developed categories form around a core concept; relationships are identified between categories and the analysis is refined. Birks and Mills 6 affirm that diagramming can aid analysis in the intermediate coding phase. Grounded theorists interact closely with the data during this phase, continually reassessing meaning to ascertain ‘what is really going on’ in the data. 30 Theoretical saturation ensues when new data analysis does not provide additional material to existing theoretical categories, and the categories are sufficiently explained. 6

Advanced coding

Birks and Mills 6 described advanced coding as the ‘techniques used to facilitate integration of the final grounded theory’ (p. 177). These authors promote storyline technique (described in the following section) and theoretical coding as strategies for advancing analysis and theoretical integration. Advanced coding is essential to produce a theory that is grounded in the data and has explanatory power. 6 During the advanced coding phase, concepts that reach the stage of categories will be abstract, representing stories of many, reduced into highly conceptual terms. The findings are presented as a set of interrelated concepts as opposed to presenting themes. 28 Explanatory statements detail the relationships between categories and the central core category. 28

Storyline is a tool that can be used for theoretical integration. Birks and Mills 6 define storyline as ‘a strategy for facilitating integration, construction, formulation, and presentation of research findings through the production of a coherent grounded theory’ (p. 180). Storyline technique is first proposed with limited attention in Basics of Qualitative Research by Strauss and Corbin 12 and further developed by Birks et al. 38 as a tool for theoretical integration. The storyline is the conceptualisation of the core category. 6 This procedure builds a story that connects the categories and produces a discursive set of theoretical propositions. 24 Birks and Mills 6 contend that storyline can be ‘used to produce a comprehensive rendering of your grounded theory’ (p. 118). Birks et al. 38 had earlier concluded, ‘storyline enhances the development, presentation and comprehension of the outcomes of grounded theory research’ (p. 405). Once the storyline is developed, the GT is finalised using theoretical codes that ‘provide a framework for enhancing the explanatory power of the storyline and its potential as theory’. 6 Thus, storyline is the explication of the theory.

Theoretical coding occurs as the final culminating stage towards achieving a GT. 39 , 40 The purpose of theoretical coding is to integrate the substantive theory. 41 Saldaña 40 states, ‘theoretical coding integrates and synthesises the categories derived from coding and analysis to now create a theory’ (p. 224). Initial coding fractures the data while theoretical codes ‘weave the fractured story back together again into an organized whole theory’. 18 Advanced coding that integrates extant theory adds further explanatory power to the findings. 6 The examples in Box 2 describe the use of storyline as a technique.

Writing the storyline.

Theoretical sensitivity

As presented in Figure 1 , theoretical sensitivity encompasses the entire research process. Glaser and Strauss 5 initially described the term theoretical sensitivity in The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Theoretical sensitivity is the ability to know when you identify a data segment that is important to your theory. While Strauss and Corbin 12 describe theoretical sensitivity as the insight into what is meaningful and of significance in the data for theory development, Birks and Mills 6 define theoretical sensitivity as ‘the ability to recognise and extract from the data elements that have relevance for the emerging theory’ (p. 181). Conducting GT research requires a balance between keeping an open mind and the ability to identify elements of theoretical significance during data generation and/or collection and data analysis. 6

Several analytic tools and techniques can be used to enhance theoretical sensitivity and increase the grounded theorist’s sensitivity to theoretical constructs in the data. 28 Birks and Mills 6 state, ‘as a grounded theorist becomes immersed in the data, their level of theoretical sensitivity to analytic possibilities will increase’ (p. 12). Developing sensitivity as a grounded theorist and the application of theoretical sensitivity throughout the research process allows the analytical focus to be directed towards theory development and ultimately result in an integrated and abstract GT. 6 The example in Box 3 highlights how analytic tools are employed to increase theoretical sensitivity.

Theoretical sensitivity.

The grounded theory

The meticulous application of essential GT methods refines the analysis resulting in the generation of an integrated, comprehensive GT that explains a process relating to a particular phenomenon. 6 The results of a GT study are communicated as a set of concepts, related to each other in an interrelated whole, and expressed in the production of a substantive theory. 5 , 7 , 16 A substantive theory is a theoretical interpretation or explanation of a studied phenomenon 6 , 17 Thus, the hallmark of grounded theory is the generation of theory ‘abstracted from, or grounded in, data generated and collected by the researcher’. 6 However, to ensure quality in research requires the application of rigour throughout the research process.

Quality and rigour

The quality of a grounded theory can be related to three distinct areas underpinned by (1) the researcher’s expertise, knowledge and research skills; (2) methodological congruence with the research question; and (3) procedural precision in the use of methods. 6 Methodological congruence is substantiated when the philosophical position of the researcher is congruent with the research question and the methodological approach selected. 6 Data collection or generation and analytical conceptualisation need to be rigorous throughout the research process to secure excellence in the final grounded theory. 44

Procedural precision requires careful attention to maintaining a detailed audit trail, data management strategies and demonstrable procedural logic recorded using memos. 6 Organisation and management of research data, memos and literature can be assisted using software programs such as NVivo. An audit trail of decision-making, changes in the direction of the research and the rationale for decisions made are essential to ensure rigour in the final grounded theory. 6

This article offers a framework to assist novice researchers visualise the iterative processes that underpin a GT study. The fundamental process and methods used to generate an integrated grounded theory have been described. Novice researchers can adapt the framework presented to inform and guide the design of a GT study. This framework provides a useful guide to visualise the interplay between the methods and processes inherent in conducting GT. Research conducted ethically and with meticulous attention to process will ensure quality research outcomes that have relevance at the practice level.

Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Implications of queer theory for qualitative research.

• Boni Wozolek Boni Wozolek Penn State University, Abington College
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.735
• Published online: 26 April 2019

Queer theory is a tool that can be used to reconsider sociopolitical, historical, and cultural norms and values. Similarly, in qualitative research, queer theory tends to analyze the narratives of LGBTQ+ people and groups in ways that seek to queer everyday experiences. Both the theoretical framework and the narratives collected and analyzed in qualitative research are significant to unpacking business-as-usual in and across sociocultural contexts. This is especially true for systems of schooling, whereby LGBTQ+ people and groups are marginalized through schooling and schools, a process of exclusion that is detrimental to queer youth who are learning in spaces and places specifically designed against their ways of being and knowing. The significance of qualitative research as it meets the framework of queer theory is that it offers a practically and institutionally queered set of voices, perspectives, and understandings with which to think about the everyday in schools. This becomes increasingly important as schooling has historically been a place in which LGBTQ+ students and groups have resided at an intersection, where the sociopolitical and cultural marginalization that keeps the status quo in place crosses with contemporary values that both interrupt and reify such histories.

• Queer theory
• qualitative research
• educational histories
• and pedagogy

Introduction

In 1993 , Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick asked a genre-defining question: “What’s queer?” (p. 8). The complexity behind this inquiry has historical and contemporary implications, particularly as they intersect with educational contexts. Defining “queer” is a task wrought with sociocultural, political, and historical challenges, as Sedgwick and other queer theorists (e.g., Butler, 1990 ; Cohen, 1997 ; Lorde, 1984 ; Halberstam, 1998 ) have argued. For example, even among an open set of possibilities and perspectives that is central to wrestling with definitions, queer theory, and the research that is engendered by and through queerness are not immune to questions of colonization and of co-opting narratives in the name of political agendas that call for equity but narrow the terms under which access is available (Cohen, 1997 ).

The multiplicity of dimensions, differences, and similarities that constitute queerness, its forever-fluid identities and forms, and numerous scholarly lenses answer Sedgwick’s question as a productive knot of possibilities. Within this knot there is a sense of temporality imbued with potential (Muñoz, 2009 ) that reaches through fictional discourses (Butler, 1988 ) and is grounded in everyday challenges. Queer literature is often characterized by theories that press for more fluid “both/and” perspectives, attention to everyday practices and policies that impact queer and questioning peoples, and modes of qualitative research that focus on the methodological opportunities afforded by various constructions of “queering” research practices and possibilities.

Queer theory and its relationship to qualitative research is significant to higher education, sociocultural understandings, and experiences for marginalized populations in schools for at least the following three reasons. First, there is a question about what queerness means, a question that is often unpacked through sociohistorical, contemporary, and self-reflexive lenses. Queerness is therefore one possible way to think about scholarly fields and offer a particular kind of critique of academic understandings. Second, as cis-normative and heteronormative perspectives remain the status quo for norms and values in everyday school culture, queer theory put into practice through qualitative research can serve as a powerful tool with which to shift historical and contemporary understandings in schools and communities. This is an intentional move away from deficit models of queer youth. A moment when research can redefine the image of the wounded queer child and focus on questions of agency within the challenges queer youth face in schools (e.g., Brockenbrough, 2012 ; Carlson & Linville, 2016 ; Wozolek, 2018 ). Finally, because the consequences for such scholarship strongly inform the ways of being and knowing of marginalized youth in schools, implications for this work are similarly significant. In sum, queer theory is therefore not only important to the productive movement of qualitative research and education, but also to questions of equity and access for some of the most vulnerable youth living and learning in schools today.

This article begins by giving a brief historical outline of queer theory. This is important because, as is discussed in the section “ The Contours of Qual, Queer Theory, and Education ,” educational places and spaces are significant to the historical contexts that have informed the field. Next, the article briefly defines the contours of queer theory in qualitative research and education. Then there is an exploration into the implications of queer theory and qualitative research as it is resonant with education. This examination is carried out by specifically looking at three facets: the implications of queer theory for academic understandings, the impact of the field on schools and schooling, and the influence that such theories and ideas have on the everyday lives of students. Finally, the article discusses potential next steps for the field as it continues to act as a bloom space (Stewart, 2010 ) for affective ideas, ideals, and possibilities.

Queered Histories

Queer theory has a rich, longstanding history of voices and perspectives that consistently and continually seek to define, redefine, and trouble the boundaries and borders of its theoretical frameworks and the multiple fields they touch (e.g., Abelove, Barale, & Halperin, 1993 ; Butler, 1990 ; de Lauretis, 1991 ; Halberstam, 1998 , 2011 ; Hall, Jagose, Bebell, & Potter, 2013 ; Johnson, 2016 ; Johnson & Henderson, 2005 ; Sedgwick, 1993 ). In other words, queer theory was not ahistorical prior to 1991 , when Teresa de Lauretis coined the term and thus named the field. In fact, it can be argued that those scholars and scholarship that are widely regarded as foundational were retroactively brought under the umbrella of the burgeoning field now known as queer theory. In short, it was not queer theory but work about queer ways of being and knowing that underscored the field prior to its early nomenclature.

Part of the difficulty in defining queer theory as it relates to qualitative research is that there have always been queer voices in qualitative work. Regardless of what is formally discussed in terms of queer ways of being and knowing (e.g., Gilbert, 2014 ; Sedgwick, 1993 ), whether it is hidden cultures that exist with an undercurrent of queer voices (e.g., Kumashiro, 2002 ; Pinar, 1998 ), or that which is explicitly and implicitly silenced from heteronormative spaces (e.g., Brockenbrough, 2012 ; Lorde, 1984 ; Miller & Rodriguez, 2016 ), queer perspectives and voices have always been, and continue to be, present. Whether they do this, for example, through broad social behaviors in science (e.g., LeVay, 1996 ; Stein & Plummer, 1994 ), or the arts (e.g., Halberstam, 2005 ), queer ideas permeate scholarly fields. In short, a complex web of queer theory has always existed in the form of narratives across qualitative research.

Although these stories are central to the metanarratives of the field, they ultimately belong to people and groups that compose a counterculture that is steeped in sociopolitical challenges and successes. These histories exist across layers of scale, from individual voices to polyvocal cultural understandings (Bakhtin, 1981 ; Gershon, 2018 ). For example, within the United States, queer theory resonates, from Two-Spirit identities (Driskill, Finley, Gilley, & Morgensen, 2011 ) and Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass , to Emily Dickinson’s love poems and Audre Lorde’s essays (Bronski, 2012 ). It has roots that reach from the Mattachine Society, extend to the Stonewall Riots, and are enmeshed with the AIDS epidemic. It is a culture that lives in rock and roll, the glam of the 1970s, and the glitter of Studio 54. Although not always identified as “gay” at the time, these spaces opened the epistemological closet (Sedgwick, 1990 ) of queer ways of being into the places of heteronormative culture. While figures like David Bowie and nvironments like the discotheque were not always discussed in terms of queerness, it took a particular kind of heteronormative privilege not to see particular icons and places as having an eye toward the LGBTQ+ community.

Historically the policing of gender identity and expression and of sexual orientation has been a tool for privileging and maintaining cisgender, heterosexual, masculine norms and values (Bronski, 2012 ; Mogul, Ritchie, & Whitlock, 2011 ). Further, the controlling of queer people and places is rooted in white supremacy movements that continue to be, for example, colonial iterations used against indigenous groups (Driskill, Finley, Gilley, & Morgensen, 2011 ). Such cis-hetero hegemony also has historical recursions against Black bodies in the transatlantic slave trade (Tinsley, 2008 ) and iterations within the atrocities committed against LGBTQ+ people in the Holocaust (Plant, 1986 ). Finally, there are recurrences of racial and political stratification of queerness in urban spaces (Holmes, 2016 ). The normalized idea of queerness-as-illness has been used as a mechanism of control that was impacting people and groups well before the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) characterized “homosexuality” under “paraphilia,” or transgender and gender-variant individuals as having a “disorder” (Boehmer, 2002 ; Shapiro & Powell, 2017 ). Attending to this marginalization is significant because, as scholars like Cohen ( 1997 ) have argued, without an attention to “shared experiences of oppression and resistance . . . to shape consciousness” (p. 459), queer politics can unintentionally reify the very ideals they are designed to interrupt.

As queer spaces and places disrupted the cis-hetero patriarchy, these events proliferated across scholarly dialogues. The destabilization of normalized ideas about sex, gender, and power existed across theoretical conversations (Butler, 1990 ; Foucault, 1978 ; Rubin, 1984 ), and resonated with qualitative inquiry that was rooted in sociocultural implications (Bersani, 1987 ; Lather & Smithies, 1997 ). In other words, as scholars read across contexts and understood everyday activism as having as much significance as theoretical understandings, qualitative frameworks were deeply impacted.

As Allen ( 2016 ) argues, “queer theorists arrived on our bookshelves only after we had already imbibed the political and poetic nectars of intellectual activism and intersectional politics offered by Black lesbian and gay poets, essayists, and scholars” (p. 35). One only needs to see the work of scholars like Laud Humphreys ( 1970 ), Patti Lather and Chris Smithies ( 1997 ), Tomás Almaguer ( 1991 ), and Ellen Lewin ( 1995 ) to understand how qualitative work was touched by multiple contexts and perspectives, and is driven by voices across sociocultural, political, and historical spaces. From Kushner’s Angels in America to Sylvia Wynter’s work on gender and diaspora, qualitative work has been strongly influenced by queer voices, from places of art to theoretical spaces.

From the contours of the cartography of queer theory emerged two questions that have reverberated, as Gershon ( 2018 ) might argue, from historical ideals to contemporary concerns about the field. They are: “What can queer theory do?” and “How does queer theory exist?” As has been explored, queer theory exists across fields in part because of the epistemological and ontological closet that was constructed for the physical and emotional safety of LGBTQ+ people and groups. Additionally, the multiplicity of fields that are layered within queer theory occur because, as many scholars have argued (e.g., Allen, 2016 ; Almaguer, 1991 ; Lorde, 1984 ; Plant, 1986 ), “queer” is an idea that traverses the boundaries and borders of sociocultural precepts. It is important to note that while Cohen’s ( 1997 ) call for intersectional dialogue is now over 20 years old, it is often because of the multiple fields that queer theory touches that intersectional conversations tends to break into the camps of identity politics. For example, there are scholars who focus on black queer feminists (Carruthers, 2018 ; hooks, 1989 ), black queer masculinities (Alexander, 2006 ; Ferguson, 2004 ), queer LatinX studies (Hames-García & Martínez, 2011 ), Latinx studies (Cashman, 2018 ), and transgender studies (Stryker & Whittle, 2006 ), to name but a few. To be clear, exploring the multiple pieces of the assemblage that constitutes any person or group (Puar, 2007 ; Weheliye, 2014 ) is significant and vital to disrupting normalized understandings while honoring the intimate details that are central to one’s way of being. One only needs to think about the consistent and often deadly violence used against transwomen of color to realize just how vital these discussions are to disrupting the aggressions that land physically and affectively on particular, and in many cases intentionally targeted, bodies and minds. However, while there is significance in solidarity, it is equally important to attend to the ways that identity politics can further marginalize people and groups.

With regard to the question of “what can queer theory do?,” one possible answer can be found in the helping professions that have used this field as a tool to disrupt normalized understandings about sex, sexual orientation, and gender, as well as gender identities and expressions (Case & Lewis, 2012 ; Logie, Bridge, & Bridge, 2007 ; Rubin, 1984 ). As these helping professions tend to exist in parallel play with education, it is no surprise then that the development of queer theory in qualitative work would seep into educational spaces and places. Although these professions and contexts have deeply informed qualitative research, this article will now build on that history to show what queer theory can do as it intersects with qualitative research and schooling. Such work has deep implications for students as they live, learn, and “be” in schools. As academics think about the multiple spaces of possibility (Helfenbein, 2010 ) for these fields, there may be few concerns more pressing than the physical and emotional safety of students.

The Contours of Qual, Queer Theory, and Education

As cis-hetero violence against LGBTQ+ people and groups across contexts continues unabated, qualitative research has become one possible tool with which to disrupt the normalized aggressions suffered by queer communities. One of the central ways that queer theory interrupts or inverts status quo understandings is by normalizing that which was previously considered to be abnormal. Because qualitative research has a strong history of making the familiar strange and the strange familiar (Spindler & Spindler, 1982 ), its entanglements with queer theory imbue these fields with a reflexive eye (Lather, 1986 ) toward lived experiences in general and queer lives in specific. Queer theory as a theoretical framework in qualitative research engages scholarship in at least the following ways. First, in her discussion of ethnographic work and Spivak’s discussion ( 1988 ) of the subaltern, Ortner ( 2006 ) argues that “Spivak arrives at what any good ethnography provides: an understanding of both the meaning and the politics of the meaning of an event” (p. 60). This quality is not unique to ethnographic work and is central to strong qualitative scholarship (e.g., Brown, 2006 ; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990 ; Mehan, 2000 ). Given queer theory’s imbrication with sociohistorical politics, Halberstam ( 2011 ) writes that queer theory similarly engages in Spivak’s ( 1988 ) attention to the politics of refusal through queerness. This is an attention to the many ways that queerness resists norms and values, often as an engagement in the resistance of political ideas and ideals. In sum, queer theory functions within the lines of qualitative research as a means to disrupt normalized ideals through an attention both to the event and the underlying understandings that are central to that event as it occurs, and to the analysis of what has happened. This is especially important as qualitative research is historically marked by colonizing projects that could potentially reify normalized understandings (e.g., Boas, 1888 ; Hewitt, 1903 ; Mead, 1928 ). While contemporary qualitative work attends to these histories and seeks to disrupt them in current iterations (e.g., Behar & Gordon, 1995 ; Gershon, 2018 ; Parker & Lynn, 2002 ), early- 21st-century queer theory as it is imbricated with qualitative research can be a powerful tool for the interruption of White, cis-hetero patriarchal ideas and ideals.

Second, qualitative work inherently responds to the multiplicity of experiences and associated ways of being that are formed, destroyed, patched together, affirmed, and troubled by those experiences. Whether it is abductive, deductive, or inductive reasoning (Agar, 1996 ) that builds the analysis, qualitative research exists in the vulnerability of experiences (Behar, 1996 ). Queer theory used within qualitative scholarship opens what Sedgwick ( 1993 ) discusses as the “open mesh of possibilities, gaps, overlaps, dissonances and resonances, lapses and excesses of meaning . . . that are made, or can’t be made” (p. 8) in these experiences. To be clear, strong qualitative research tends to be fluid in its analysis of epistemological and ontological understandings. This engagement with fluid possibilities is only buttressed through a queer lens that has a longstanding history of being explicit in its fluid tendencies.

Finally, it should be noted that queer theory in qualitative research tends to be both a space of potential political action (Carlson, 1998 ) and a reflection on sociocultural norms and values. This is true across contexts, from the explicit autobiographical study of sexual encounters as an antiracist analysis of power (Reid-Pharr, 2013 , p. 213) to archival research that focuses on queerness and postcolonial studies as a point of analysis and of disruption to educational structures (Coloma, 2006 ). For example, Lather and Smithies’s ethnography ( 1997 ) ethnography in many ways humanized HIV/AIDS during a time when women’s stories were largely invisible in the epidemic and overshadowed by the cognitive divorce with these narratives often caused by the quantitative tracking of the disease at the time. Similarly, in schools, researchers like Love ( 2017 ), Dumas and Nelson ( 2016 ), and Meyer, Tilland-Stafford, and Airton ( 2016 ) have used qualitative methods and queer theory to disrupt normalized ideas and ideals of schooling and academic spaces.

The map of qualitative research in schooling is formed in the classrooms, corridors, and coffins (Wozolek, Wootton, & Demlow, 2016 ) that often constitute the context of education for LGBTQ+ youth. To read this map is to perform an analysis of sociocultural and historical norms as they intersect with the everyday experiences of schooling. This is because education is inherently impacted by broader social ideas and ideals. From Mary McLeod Bethune’s article ( 1938 ) arguing for the inclusion of marginalized voices in the curriculum to Jack Halberstam’s discussion ( 2011 ) that explicates ideals of success in terms of their negative impacts on children, a longstanding dialogue exists across intellectual traditions and fields that focuses on the multiple ways in which sociocultural norms and values affect marginalized student populations.

The history of queer theory is exceptionally significant to education because the historical marginalization and victimization of people and groups based on queerness is the same move that is often used to publicly and privately despoil the queer energies of LGBTQ+ youth in schools (Sedgwick, 1993 ). The erasure of queer perspectives from formal curricula is but one example of how queer counter-narratives are explicitly not taught in schools. This null curriculum, or what is left out of formal lessons (Eisner, 1985 ) impacts the hidden curriculum, or the broader school culture and the lessons students learn through simply being at school (Giroux & Penna, 1983 ), by teaching both queer and straight students that at best LGBTQ+ narratives are insignificant and, at worst, a problem. Just as the AIDS epidemic stigmatized queerness, and in particular black male queerness (Bailey, 2016 ; Brockenbrough, 2016 ), AIDS is often discussed inaccurately and with little reference to LGBTQ+ history as a part of the STD/STI health curriculum in schools (Casemore, 2010 ; Gilbert, 2010 ; Sandlos, 2010 ). Further, the accomplishments and cultural contributions of LGBTQ+ identifying people and groups is largely left out of the curriculum across courses, from literature to the sciences (Gilbert, 2014 ; Quinn & Meiners, 2009 ).

These absences not only affect straight, cisgender students but also have a notable impact on LGBTQ+ youth. As the rates of self-harm and suicide continue to rise among queer youth (Kosciw, Greytak, Bartkiewicz, Boesen, & Palmer, 2010 ), the role of curricular absences (Pascoe, 2007 ; Sears, 1992 ), along with the discipline policies that disproportionally impact LGBTQ+ students (Mayo, 2014 ; McCready, 2007 ), and the continued normalization of transphobic and homophobic values in schools (Pinar, 1998 ; Whitlock, 2013 ) have become central concerns in scholarly dialogues. Additionally, the challenges that LGBTQ+ students face in K–12 classrooms and corridors does not exist in a vacuum and, as scholars like Miller and Rodriguez ( 2016 ) have argued, universities and communities are similarly impacted by the cis-hetero patriarchy.

Queer theory as it relates to qualitative research has been central to the interruption of LGBTQ+ youth marginalization. This disruption is multifaceted across schools and systems of schooling. Broadly discussed, at the K–12 level there is attention to the successes of LGBTQ+ youth in schools (e.g., Renn & Bilodeau, 2005 ); schooling as a safe space (Griffin, Lee, Waugh, & Beyer, 2004 ; Weems, 2010 ); queer students’ responses to oppression (e.g., Grossman, Haney, Edwards, Alessi, Adron, & Howell, 2009 ); violence against LGBTQ+ students of color (e.g., Cruz, 2011 ; Blackburn & McCready, 2009 ); the challenges and successes of Genders and Sexualities Alliances (Tierney & Dilley, 1998 ; Watson, Varjas, Meyers, & Graybill, 2010 ; Wozolek, Varndell, & Speer, 2015 ); as well as scholarship focused on queer teacher’s experiences (e.g., Endo, Reece-Miller, & Santavicca, 2010 ; Kissen, 1996 ). Within the lens of teacher preparation, there are dialogues about anti-homophobic and anti-transphobic teacher training at both the K–12 and teacher-education levels (e.g., Gorski, Davis, & Reiter, 2013 ; O’Malley, Hoyt, & Slattery, 2009 ; Payne & Smith, 2011 ); the creation of anti-oppressive pedagogy (Kumashiro, 2002 ) that rethinks the normalization of classrooms as cis-straight-only spaces (e.g., Anyon, 2008 ; Letts & Sears, 1999 ; Sweet & Carlson, 2017 ); and the queering of normalized academic understandings (e.g., Britzman, 1995 ; Kumashiro, 2001 ). To be clear, these examples are broad categories that define the contours of queer qualitative work. As Pinar ( 1998 ) discusses, this kind of work is historically situated and continues to proliferate in ways that make it impossible to name all the studies or completely articulate the significance of each scholar’s contribution. What is important to remember is that as qualitative researchers continue to tell these stories, they can become both a collective and corrective counter-narrative against the cis-hetero patriarchy in schools.

Qualitative research as it relates to systems of schooling, schools, and queerness is, as discussed, multifaceted in its dialogues. Additionally, the underlying provocation of queerness positions scholars to use “new narrative forms to enfranchise new relational modes” (Gilbert, 2014 , p. xxi) in classrooms and corridors. This is important because schooling is designed to reify sociocultural norms and values concerning “intersecting dynamics of sexuality, gender, social class, race, bodies” (Pascoe, 2007 , p. 3) as well as other ontological and epistemological ideals that are socially constructed. Although it has been 20 years since Bill Pinar ( 1998 ) articulated the necessity of queer theory in educational spaces as a form of resistance in the “highly conservative and highly reactionary field” (p. 2) of education, schools continue to be places where the physical and emotional safety of queer children is at risk. A response to the oppressive systems of schooling that created a context of harm for LGBTQ+ youth has been narratives that tend toward reflexivity, in both the self and social senses. This reflexivity constructs what Miller ( 1998 ) discusses as stories that make up the body of a queer curriculum. Such curricular forms are essential as they question the establishment and reification of hetero-masculine ways of being and knowing in current curricular models.

As this research continues to question what is, and envision what might be for students in schools, it has the potential to impact local, and less local, policies and practices. This is critical, as normalized oppression within these policies continually affects LGBTQ+ youth. For example, a topic of debate in the early 21st century across the United States is centered on how trans and gender queer youth are directly targeted through anti-inclusive policies regarding their ability to use the bathroom that aligns with their individual identities, rather than with the gender they were assigned at birth. Research and scholarship that focuses on how these policies have impacted trans and gender-fluid students along with their cis-gendered peers has a potential to influence how these policies get enacted in schools.

Finally, it is important to discuss how qualitative scholars have used queer theory in educational research as a means to begin and continue vital intersectional dialogues that attend to the complex assemblages that are students’ ways of being and knowing. Whether it is queering ideals of black girlhood (Love, 2012 ), reimagining of black boyhood (Dumas & Nelson, 2016 ), or empirical analysis of LGBTQ+ urban youth (Blackburn & McCready, 2009 ), qualitative research focused on queer people of color is significant in its reconsidering of identities in schooling. Everyday moments of being and becoming what Hucks ( 2016 ) refers to as an “intersectional warrior” in educational spaces are as much about fighting aggressions focused on race as they are about hostilities concerning queerness. The scholarship that attends to this everyday oppression within the double bind of queerness and race is central to building a counter-narrative against whiteness as it is further privileged by cis-hetero normalization.

While the work of qualitative educational researchers who queer systems of schooling through their scholarship has been instrumental in questioning heteronormative, business-as-usual in schools, it should be noted that this body of work is not without critique. Talburt and Rasmussen ( 2010 ) argue that educational research and the “queer project . . . follows certain traditions that often tethers itself to limited . . . imaginings of a need for a ‘subject’ of queer research and particular ideas of educational and political progress” (p. 1). Scholars have similarly called for the interruption of queerness as “representational vocabulary that simultaneously stabilizes and destabilizes” (Talburt & Rasmussen, 2010 , p. 3) through a post-queer lens that seeks to challenge the categories that have pervaded LGBTQ+ research (Gilbert, 2014 ; Noble, 2006 ; Sears, 2009 ; Talburt & Rasmussen, 2010 ).

The post-queer turn is significant in that it seeks to move away from queerness-as-usual, a vision of queer in schools that often attends more to sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression than the queering of ideas, ideals, and norms (Noble, 2006 ; Sears, 2009 ). However, as Noble ( 2006 ) argues, like most post-movements, such turns toward the post often reify the very norms they are meant to interrupt while setting up a pre-post binary that, particularly in queer literature seeking to move away from binaries, limits queer imaginings.

It is also significant to note that qualitative research focused on schooling and queerness often talks about space and place, but with little reference to critical geography. Further, the imaginings of the queer body as a space and place of possibility also misses the inclusion of critical geography as it meets affective dialogues. Such geography includes images of mapping the body and sexuality. This is one potential future direction of the field because, as scholars like Tuan ( 1977 ) and Massey ( 2005 ) have argued, dialogues about space and place are necessarily about questions of identities, multiplicity, ontologies, epistemologies, and fluidity. These fields not only resonate with each other but can serve to further complicate the valuable conversations that take place in schools around bodies, genders, sexualities, policies, practices, and being.

Queer theory has a longstanding history that began well before the conception of the field. Its iterations have significantly troubled sociocultural norms and values in ways that have been instrumental in the reconsideration of normalized policies and practices. In academic work, this scholarship has been helpful in the dismantling of the cis-hetero patriarchy that has been normalized across academic spaces, from the buildings that represent the academy to the dialogues that embody scholarly thought. Queer theory has historically, politically, and interpersonally opened up a “mesh of possibilities” (p. 8), as Sedgwick ( 1993 ) argues, within academic spaces.

In schools, queer theory as a lens through which qualitative research is carried out and analyzed is a powerful tool against hegemonic influences that seek to continually marginalize LGBTQ+ youth. This is important because the everyday of schooling is designed to disenfranchise specific populations. This sociopolitically enacted exclusion crashes affectively on the bodies and beings of LGBTQ+ youth. As has been well documented, these affective encounters tend to emerge and materialize through acts of self-harm and suicide. Although theorists and concerned educators who deal with the untimely death of LGBTQ+ youth alike are often arrested by wondering when one more incident of exclusion will be one too many, scholars have queered this focus and re-centered the dialogue around the idea that one is always too many. One death, one cut, one time holding in urine, one gay-bashing, one curriculum absent of queer voices, one oppressive pedagogy. One is always too many. The implication for queer theory in qualitative research in education is not only a disruption of these “ones,” but a call for attention to the historical, contemporary, political, and sociocultural ideas and ideals that engendered and maintained them so that they are the everyday of schooling.

• Abelove, H. , Barale, M. A. , & Halperin, D. M. (Eds.). (1993). The lesbian and gay studies reader . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Agar, M. H. (1996). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Alexander, B. K. (2006). Performing black masculinity: Race, culture, and queer identity . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Allen, J. S. (2016). Black/queer rhizomatics. In E. P. Johnson (Ed.), No tea, no shade: New writings in black queer studies (pp. 27–47). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Almaguer, T. (1991). Chicano men: A cartography of homosexual identity and behavior. Differences 3 (1), 75–100.
• Anyon, J. (Ed.). (2008). Theory and educational research: Toward critical social examination . New York: Routledge.
• Bailey, M. M. (2016). Black gay (raw) sex. In E. P. Johnson (Ed.), No tea, no shade (pp. 239–261). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays . (Translated by C. Emerson & M. Holquist ). Austin: University of Texas Press.
• Behar, R. (1996). The vulnerable observer: Anthropology that breaks your heart . Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
• Behar, R. , & Gordon, D. A. (Eds.). (1995). Women writing culture . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Bersani, L. (1987). In the rectum a grave? In D. Crimp (Ed.), AIDS: Cultural analysis: Cultural activism (pp. 197–222). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Bethune, M. M. (1938). Clarifying out vision with the facts. Journal of Negro History , 23 (1), 10–15.
• Blackburn, M. V. , & McCready, L. T. (2009). Voices of queer youth in urban schools: Possibilities and limitations. Theory Into Practice , 48 (3), 222–230.
• Boas, F. (1888). The central Eskimo . Bureau of American Ethnology, Sixth Annual Report (pp. 409–669). Washington, DC: The Smithsonian Institution.
• Boehmer, U. (2002). Twenty years of public health research: Inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations. American Journal of Public Health , 92 (7), 1125–1130.
• Britzman, D. P. (1995). Is there a queer pedagogy? Or, stop reading straight. Educational Theory 45 (2), 151–165.
• Brown, B. (2006). Shame resilience theory: A grounded theory study on women and shame. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services , 87 (1), 43–52.
• Brockenbrough, E. (2012). Agency and abjection in the closet: The voices (and silences) of black queer male teachers. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 25 (6), 741–765.
• Brockenbrough, E. (2016). Becoming queerly responsive: Culturally responsive pedagogy for black and Latino urban queer youth. Urban Education , 51 (2), 170–196.
• Bronski, M. (2012). A queer history of the United States . Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
• Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Butler, O. E. (1988). Dawn . New York, NY: Warner Books.
• Carlson, D. (1998). Who am I? Gay identity and a democratic politics of the self. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 107–119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Carlson, D. L. , & Linville, D. (2016). The social importance of a kiss: A Honnethian reading of David Levithan’s young adult novel, Two Boys Kissing , Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education . 37 (6), 887–901.
• Carruthers, C. (2018). Unapologetic: A black, queer and feminist mandate for our movement . Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
• Case, K. A. , & Lewis, M. K. (2012). Teaching intersectional LGBT psychology: Reflections from historically black and Hispanic-serving universities. Psychology & Sexuality , 3 (3), 260–276.
• Casemore, B. (2010). Free association in sex education: Understanding sexuality as the flow of thought in conversation and curriculum. Sex Education , 10 (3), 309–324.
• Cashman, H. (2018). Queer, Latinx, and bilingual: Narrative resources in the negotiation of identities . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Cohen, C. J. (1997). Punks, bulldaggers, and welfare queens: The radical potential of queer politics? GLQ: A Journal of Gay and Lesbian Studies , 3 (4), 437–465.
• Coloma, R. S. (2006). Putting queer to work: Examining empire and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 19 (5), 639–657.
• Connelly, F. M. , & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational researcher , 19 (5), 2–14.
• Cruz, C. (2011). LGBTQ+ street youth talk back: A meditation on resistance and witnessing. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 24 (5), 547–558.
• Driskill, Q. L. , Finley, C. , Gilley, B. J. & Morgensen, S. L. (Eds.). (2011). Queer indigenous studies: Critical interventions in theory, politics, and literature . Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.
• Dumas, M. J. , & Nelson, J. D. (2016). (Re) Imagining Black boyhood: Toward a critical framework for educational research. Harvard Educational Review , 86 (1), 27–47.
• Eisner, E. (1985). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs . New York, NY: Macmillan.
• Endo, H. , Reece-Miller, P. C. , & Santavicca, N. (2010). Surviving in the trenches: A narrative inquiry into queer teachers’ experiences and identity. Teaching and Teacher Education , 26 (4), 1023–1030.
• Ferguson, R. A. (2004). Aberrations in black: Toward a queer critique of color . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: An introduction, Vol. 1 . New York, NY: Vintage Books.
• Gershon, W. S. (2018). Sound curriculum: Sonic studies in educational theory, method, & practice . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Gilbert, J. (2010). Ambivalence only? Sex education in the age of abstinence, Sex Education 10 (2), 233–237.
• Gilbert, J. (2014). Sexuality in school: The limits of education . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Giroux, H. & Penna, A. (1983). Social education in the classroom: The dynamics of the hidden curriculum. In H. Giroux & D. Purple (Eds.), The hidden curriculum and moral education (pp. 100–121). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
• Gorski, P. C. , Davis, S. N. , & Reiter, A. (2013). An examination of the (in) visibility of sexual orientation, heterosexism, homophobia, and other LGBTQ concerns in US multicultural teacher education coursework. Journal of LGBT Youth , 10 (3), 224–248.
• Griffin, P. , Lee, C. , Waugh, J. , & Beyer, C. (2004). Describing roles that gay–straight alliances play in schools: From individual support to school change. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education , 1 (3), 7–22.
• Grossman, A. H. , Haney, A. P. , Edwards, P. , Alessi, E. J. , Ardon, M. , & Howell, T. J. (2009). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth talk about experiencing and coping with school violence: A qualitative study. Journal of LGBT Youth , 6 (1), 24–46.
• Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Halberstam, J. (2005). In a queer time and place: Transgender bodies, subcultural lives . New York, NY: NYU Press.
• Halberstam, J. (2011). The queer art of failure . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Hall, D. E. , Jagose, A. , Bebell, A. , & Potter, S. (2013). The Routledge queer studies reader . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Hames-García, M. & Martínez, E. J. (Eds.). (2011). Gay Latino studies: A critical reader . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Helfenbein, R. J. (2010). Thinking through scale: Critical geographies and curriculum spaces. In E. Malewski (Ed.), Curriculum studies handbook: The next moment (pp. 304–317). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Hewitt, J. N. B. (1903). Iroquoian cosmology: First part . Twenty-first Annual Report of the American Ethnology, 1899–1900 (pp. 127–339). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
• Holmes, K. (2016). Beyond the flames: Queering the history of the 1968 D.C. Riot. In E. P. Johnson (Ed.), No tea, no shade: New writings in black queer studies . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• hooks, b. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Hucks, D. C. (2016). Intersectional warrior: Battling the onslaught of layered microaggressions in the academy. In sj Miller & N. M. Rodriguez (Eds.), Educators queering academia (pp. 125–136). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places . Chicago, IL: Aldine.
• Johnson, E. P. (Ed.). (2016). No tea, no shade: New Writing in black queer studies . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Johnson, E. P. & Henderson, M. G. (Eds.). (2005). Black queer studies: A critical anthology . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Kissen, R. M. (1996). The last closet: The real lives of lesbian and gay teachers . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Kosciw, J. G. , Greytak, E. A. , Bartkiewicz, M. J. , Boesen, M. J. , & Palmer, N. A. (2010). The 2010 national school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools . New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian Straight Education Network.
• Kumashiro, K. (Ed.). (2001). Troubling intersections of race and sexuality: Queer studies of color and anti-oppressive education . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Kumashiro, K. (2002). Troubling education: Queer activism and antioppressive pedagogy . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place. Interchange , 17 (4), 63–84.
• Lather, P. , & Smithies, C. (1997). Troubling the angels: Women living with HIV/AIDS . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• de Lauretis, T. (1991). Queer theory: Lesbian and gay sexualities. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies , 3 (2), iii–xviii.
• Letts, W. J. , & Sears, J. T. (Eds.). (1999). Queering elementary education: Advancing the dialogue about sexualities and schooling . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• LeVay, S. (1996). Queer science: The use and abuse of research into homosexuality . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Lewin, E. (1995). Writing lesbian ethnography. In R. Behar & D. A. Gordon (Eds.), Women writing culture (pp. 322–335). Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Logie, C. , Bridge, T. J. , & Bridge, P. D. (2007). Evaluating the phobias, attitudes, and cultural competence of master of social work students toward the LGBT populations. Journal of Homosexuality , 53 (4), 201–221.
• Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider . New York, NY: Ten Speed Press.
• Love, B. L. (2012). Hip hop’s li’l sistas speak: Negotiating hip hop identities and politics in the new South . New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Love, B. L. (2017). A ratchet lens: Black queer youth, agency, hip hop, and the black ratchet imagination. Educational Researcher , 46 (9), 539–547.
• Massey, D. (2005). For space . London, U.K.: SAGE.
• Mayo, C. (2014). LGBTQ youth and education: Policies and practices . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• McCready, L. (2007). Queer urban education: Curriculum and pedagogy for LGBTQI youth in the city. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy , 4 (2), 71–77.
• Mead, M. (1928). Coming of age in Samoa . New York, NY: William Morrow.
• Mehan, H. (2000). Beneath the skin and between the ears: A case study in the politics of representation. In B. A. U. Levinson (Ed.), Schooling the symbolic animal: Social and cultural dimensions of education (pp. 259–279). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Meyer, E. J. , Tilland-Stafford, A. , & Airton, L. (2016). Transgender and gender-creative students in PK–12 schools: What we can learn from their teachers. Teachers College Record , 118 (8), 1–50.
• Miller, J. L. (1998). Autobiography as queer curriculum practice. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 301–309). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
• Miller, sj. & Rodriguez, N. M. (Eds). (2016). Educators queering academia: Critical memoirs . New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Mogul, J. L. , Ritchie, A. J. , & Whitlock, K. (2011). Queer (in)justice: The criminalization of LGBT people in the United States . Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
• Muñoz, J. E. (2009). Cruising utopia: The then and there of queer futurity . New York: New York University Press.
• Noble, J. B. (2006). Sons of the movement: FtMs risking incoherence on a post‐queer cultural landscape . Toronto, ON: Women’s Press.
• O’Malley, M. , Hoyt, M. , & Slattery, P. (2009). Teaching gender and sexuality diversity in foundations of education courses in the US. Teaching Education , 20 (2), 95–110.
• Ortner, S. (2006). Anthropology and social theory: Culture, power, and the acting subject . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Parker, L. , & Lynn, M. (2002). What’s race got to do with it? Critical race theory’s conflicts with and connections to qualitative research methodology and epistemology. Qualitative Inquiry , 8 (1), 7–22.
• Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Payne, E. C. , & Smith, M. (2011). The reduction of stigma in schools: A new professional development model for empowering educators to support LGBTQ students. Journal of LGBT Youth , 8 (2), 174–200.
• Pinar, W. F. (Ed.). (1998). Queer theory in education . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Plant, R. (1986). The pink triangle . New York, NY: Henry Holt.
• Puar, J. K. (2007). Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Quinn, T. , & Meiners, E. R. (2009). Flaunt it! Queers organizing for public education and justice . New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Reid-Pharr, R. (2013). Dinge. In D. E. Hall & A. Jagose (Eds.), The Routledge queer studies reader (pp. 212–219). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Renn, K. A. , & Bilodeau, B. (2005). Queer student leaders: An exploratory case study of identity development and LGBT student involvement at a Midwestern research university. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education , 2 (4), 49–71.
• Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality (pp. 269–319). Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Sandlos, K. (2010). On the aesthetic difficulties of research on sex education: Toward a methodology of affect. Sex Education , 10 (3), 299–308.
• Sears, J. T. (1992). Sexuality and the curriculum: The politics and practices of sexuality education . Critical Issues in the Curriculum. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Sears, J. T. (2009). Interrogating the subject: Queering elementary education, 10 years on. Sex Education , 9 (2), 193–200.
• Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). The epistemology of the closet . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Sedgwick, E. K. (1993). Tendencies . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Shapiro, S. , & Powell, T. (2017). Medical intervention and LGBT people: A brief history. In K. L. Eckstrand & J. Potter (Eds.), Trauma, resilience, and health promotion in LGBT patients (pp. 15–23). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.
• Spindler, G. & Spindler, L. (1982). Roger Harkes and Schonhausen: From the familiar to the strange and back. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action (pp. 20–47). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? Reflections on the history of an idea . New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
• Stein, A. , & Plummer, K. (1994). “I can’t even think straight”: “Queer” theory and the missing sexual revolution in sociology. Sociological Theory , 12 (2), 178–187.
• Stewart, K. (2010). Worlding refrains. In M. Gregg & G. J. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 339–353). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Stryker, S. & Whittle, S. (Eds.). (2006). The transgender studies reader . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Sweet, J. D. , & Carlson, D. L. (2017). Teaching trans*: Transparent as a strategy in English language arts classrooms. Occasional Paper Series , 37 (6), 1–19.
• Talburt, S. & Rasmussen, M. L. (2010). “After-queer” tendencies in queer research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 23 (1), 1–14.
• Tierney, W. G. & Dilley, P. (1998). Constructing knowledge: Educational research on gay and lesbian studies. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 40–60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Tinsley, O. N. (2008). Black Atlantic, queer Atlantic: Queering imaginings of the middle passage, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies , 14 (2–3), 191–215.
• Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Watson, L. B. , Varjas, K. , Meyers, J. , & Graybill, E. C. (2010). Gay–Straight Alliance advisors: Negotiating multiple ecological systems when advocating for LGBTQ youth. Journal of LGBT Youth , 7 (2), 100–128.
• Weems, L. (2010). From “home” to “camp”: Theorizing the space of safety. Studies in Philosophy and Education , 29 (6), 557–568.
• Weheliye, A. (2014). Habeas viscus: Racializing assemblages, biopolitics, and black feminist theories of the human . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Whitlock, R. U. (Ed.). (2013). Queer South rising: Voices of a contested place . Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press.
• Wozolek, B. (2018). In 8100 again: The sounds of students breaking . Educational Studies , 54 (4), 367–381.
• Wozolek, B. , Varndell, R. , & Speer, T. (2015). Are we not fatigued? Queer battle fatigue at the intersection of heteronormative culture. International Journal of Curriculum and Social Justice , 1 (1), 186–214.
• Wozolek, B. , Wootton, L. & Demlow, A. (2016). The school-to-coffin pipeline: Queer youth, suicide and resilience of spirit. Cultural Studies<->Critical Methodologies , 17 (5), 392–398.

Related Articles

• Critical Race Theory
• Queer Studies in Education
• Queer Pedagogy
• Qualitative Approaches to Studying Marginalized Communities

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 31 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.154]
• 81.177.182.154

Character limit 500 /500

• Privacy Policy

Home » Theory – Definition, Types and Examples

Theory – Definition, Types and Examples

Table of Contents

Definition:

Theory is a set of ideas or principles used to explain or describe a particular phenomenon or set of phenomena. The term “theory” is commonly used in the scientific context to refer to a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is based on empirical evidence and rigorous testing.

Types of Theories

Types of Theories are as follows:

Scientific Theories

These are theories that explain natural phenomena and are based on empirical evidence. Examples include the theory of evolution, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of relativity.

Social Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain social phenomena, such as human behavior, culture, and society. Examples include social learning theory, structural functionalism, and feminist theory.

Psychological Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain human behavior and mental processes. Examples include behaviorism, cognitive psychology, and psychoanalysis.

Economic Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain economic phenomena, such as the behavior of markets, businesses, and consumers. Examples include supply and demand theory, Keynesian economics, and game theory.

Political Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain political phenomena, such as the behavior of governments, political systems, and international relations. Examples include liberalism, conservatism, and Marxism.

Philosophical Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain fundamental concepts, such as the nature of reality, knowledge, and morality. Examples include existentialism, utilitarianism, and metaphysics.

Mathematical Theories

These are theories that use mathematical concepts and models to explain phenomena in various fields, such as physics, economics, and computer science. Examples include set theory, probability theory, and game theory.

Communication Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain the processes and effects of communication, such as the transmission of information, the influence of media, and the development of language. Examples include social penetration theory, media effects theory, and speech act theory.

Biological Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain biological phenomena, such as the functioning of the human body, genetics, and evolution. Examples include the theory of natural selection, the germ theory of disease, and the central dogma of molecular biology.

Environmental Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain the interactions between humans and the natural environment, including the effects of human activities on the environment and the impact of environmental changes on human society. Examples include ecological systems theory, environmental determinism, and sustainability theory.

Educational Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain the processes and effects of learning and education. Examples include behaviorism, constructivism, and social learning theory.

Cultural Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain cultural phenomena, such as the formation and transmission of cultural values, norms, and beliefs. Examples include cultural studies, postcolonial theory, and critical race theory.

Examples of Theories

There are many theories in various fields of study. Here are some examples of theories in different areas:

• Evolutionary Theory: The theory of evolution by natural selection, proposed by Charles Darwin, explains how species change over time in response to their environment.
• Quantum Theory : Quantum theory is the branch of physics that describes the behavior of matter and energy on a very small scale.
• Social Learning Theory: Social learning theory suggests that people learn by observing and imitating the behaviors of others.
• Chaos Theory: Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics that studies complex systems and how they can exhibit unpredictable behavior.
• Cognitive Dissonance Theory : This theory explains how people often experience discomfort or tension when their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors are inconsistent with each other.
• Attachment Theory: Attachment theory explains how early relationships between infants and their caregivers can shape their emotional and social development later in life.
• General Relativity: General relativity is a theory of gravitation that explains how the force of gravity arises from the curvature of spacetime caused by massive objects.
• Game Theory: Game theory is a mathematical approach used to model and analyze the strategic interactions between individuals or groups.
• Self-Determination Theory: This theory suggests that people are motivated by three fundamental needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
• Systems Theory: Systems theory is a framework for understanding complex systems that emphasizes their interdependence, feedback loops, and dynamic behavior.

Applications of Theories

Applications of Theories are as follows:

• Science : Scientific theories are used to develop new technologies, create new medicines, and explore the natural world. For example, the theory of evolution by natural selection is used to understand the diversity of life on Earth, while the theory of relativity is used to develop new technologies such as GPS.
• Psychology : Theories of psychology are used to understand human behavior and to develop effective therapies. For example, the theory of cognitive dissonance helps us to understand why people resist changing their beliefs, while the theory of operant conditioning is used to help people change their behavior.
• Sociology : Sociological theories are used to understand social structures, institutions, and relationships. For example, the theory of social capital helps us to understand the importance of social networks in promoting economic and social development, while the theory of cultural capital explains how cultural knowledge and practices contribute to social inequality.
• Economics : Economic theories are used to understand markets, trade, and economic growth. For example, the theory of comparative advantage helps to explain why countries specialize in certain goods and services, while the theory of supply and demand helps us to understand the behavior of consumers and producers.
• Education : Theories of learning and teaching are used to develop effective educational practices. For example, the theory of constructivism emphasizes the importance of students constructing their own knowledge, while the theory of multiple intelligences suggests that students have different types of intelligence that should be recognized and nurtured.

Purpose of Theory

The purpose of a theory is to provide a framework or explanation for observed phenomena in a particular field of study. Theories are developed through a process of observation, experimentation, and analysis, and they are used to explain how and why things happen the way they do.

In science, theories are used to describe and predict natural phenomena, while in social sciences, theories are used to explain human behavior and social interactions. Theories can be tested through further observation and experimentation, and they can be modified or discarded if new evidence contradicts them.

Characteristics of Theory

• Explanation : Theories provide an explanation of a phenomenon or event. They identify the causes and underlying mechanisms that contribute to the observed outcomes.
• Predictive power: Theories have the ability to predict future outcomes or behaviors based on the identified causes and mechanisms.
• Testable: Theories are testable through empirical research. They can be subjected to observation, experimentation, and analysis to determine their validity and accuracy.
• Falsifiability : Theories can be falsified if they are found to be inconsistent with empirical evidence. This means that they can be proven to be false if the evidence does not support them.
• Generalizability : Theories are generalizable to other contexts and situations beyond the original research setting. They are not specific to a particular time or place.
• Organizing framework : Theories provide an organizing framework for understanding and interpreting information. They help researchers organize their observations and make sense of complex phenomena.
• Parsimony: Theories are typically simple and concise. They strive to explain phenomena using the fewest number of assumptions or variables possible.

Advantages of Theory

• Framework for research: Theories provide a framework for research by guiding the development of hypotheses and research questions.
• Organizing information: Theories help researchers organize their observations and make sense of complex phenomena. They provide a structure for understanding and interpreting information.
• Prediction: Theories can predict future outcomes or behaviors based on the identified causes and mechanisms.
• Understanding causality: Theories help researchers understand the causal relationships between variables and events.
• Integration of knowledge: Theories integrate existing knowledge and provide a foundation for new discoveries.
• Application : Theories can be applied to real-world problems to develop interventions and policies that address social issues.
• Communication: Theories provide a common language and understanding for researchers, which facilitates communication and collaboration.

Disadvantages of Theory

• Limited scope: Theories are limited by the scope of their research and the context in which they were developed. They may not be applicable to other contexts or situations beyond the original research setting.
• Simplification : Theories often simplify complex phenomena and may oversimplify or exclude important aspects of the phenomenon being studied.
• Bias : Theories can be influenced by researcher bias, which can affect the development and interpretation of the theory.
• Difficulty in testing: Some theories may be difficult to test empirically, making it challenging to determine their validity and accuracy.
• Incomplete understanding : Theories may provide an incomplete understanding of a phenomenon, as they are based on limited research and knowledge.
• Resistance to change : Theories can be resistant to change, making it challenging to update or revise them in light of new evidence.
• Inconsistency: Different theories within the same field may conflict with each other or present different explanations for the same phenomenon, leading to inconsistencies and confusion.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

What is Art – Definition, Types, Examples

What is Anthropology – Definition and Overview

What is Literature – Definition, Types, Examples

Economist – Definition, Types, Work Area

Anthropologist – Definition, Types, Work Area

What is History – Definitions, Periods, Methods

Research in Number Theory

Research in Number Theory is a peer-reviewed journal focused on the mathematical disciplines of Number Theory and Arithmetic Geometry.

• Publishes high-quality original articles making significant contributions to these research areas.
• Actively seeks to publish seminal papers in emerging and interdisciplinary areas.
• Covers all traditional areas of number theory research.
• Also includes comprehensive reviews in its publications.
• Jennifer S. Balakrishnan,
• Florian Luca,
• Andrew V. Sutherland

Latest articles

On the local constancy of certain mod p galois representations.

• Abhik Ganguli
• Suneel Kumar

On Pillai’s Problem involving Lucas sequences of the second kind

• Sebastian Heintze
• Volker Ziegler

Macmahon’s sums-of-divisors and their connection to multiple Eisenstein series

• Henrik Bachmann

On the quasi-periodic Schneider continued fractions

• N. Ben Mahmoud

Torsion primes for elliptic curves over degree 8 number fields

• Maleeha Khawaja

Journal updates

New editor-in-chief, jennifer s. balakrishnan.

Jennifer Balakrishnan is the Clare Boothe Luce Associate Professor of Mathematics at Boston University. She joined  Research in Number Theory  as co-Editor-in-Chief in March 2022.

Journal information

• Emerging Sources Citation Index
• Google Scholar
• Japanese Science and Technology Agency (JST)
• Mathematical Reviews
• OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service
• TD Net Discovery Service
• UGC-CARE List (India)

Rights and permissions

Editorial policies

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Subscribe to the PwC Newsletter

Join the community, edit social preview.

Add a new code entry for this paper

Remove a code repository from this paper, mark the official implementation from paper authors, add a new evaluation result row, remove a task, add a method, remove a method, edit datasets, dissecting the interplay of attention paths in a statistical mechanics theory of transformers.

24 May 2024  ·  Lorenzo Tiberi , Francesca Mignacco , Kazuki Irie , Haim Sompolinsky · Edit social preview

Despite the remarkable empirical performance of Transformers, their theoretical understanding remains elusive. Here, we consider a deep multi-head self-attention network, that is closely related to Transformers yet analytically tractable. We develop a statistical mechanics theory of Bayesian learning in this model, deriving exact equations for the network's predictor statistics under the finite-width thermodynamic limit, i.e., $N,P\rightarrow\infty$, $P/N=\mathcal{O}(1)$, where $N$ is the network width and $P$ is the number of training examples. Our theory shows that the predictor statistics are expressed as a sum of independent kernels, each one pairing different 'attention paths', defined as information pathways through different attention heads across layers. The kernels are weighted according to a 'task-relevant kernel combination' mechanism that aligns the total kernel with the task labels. As a consequence, this interplay between attention paths enhances generalization performance. Experiments confirm our findings on both synthetic and real-world sequence classification tasks. Finally, our theory explicitly relates the kernel combination mechanism to properties of the learned weights, allowing for a qualitative transfer of its insights to models trained via gradient descent. As an illustration, we demonstrate an efficient size reduction of the network, by pruning those attention heads that are deemed less relevant by our theory.

Code Edit Add Remove Mark official

Tasks edit add remove, datasets edit, results from the paper edit add remove, methods edit add remove.