historical research framework

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Student information

Department of History and Philosophy of Science

• About the Department overview
• How to find the Department
• Annual Report
• Video and audio
• HPS Discussion email list
• Becoming a Visiting Scholar or Visiting Student overview
• Visitor fee payment
• Becoming an Affiliate
• Applying for research grants and post-doctoral fellowships
• Administration overview
• Information for new staff
• Information for examiners and assessors overview
• Operation of the HPS plagiarism policy
• Information for supervisors overview
• Supervising Part IB and Part II students
• Supervising MPhil and Part III students
• Supervising PhD students
• People overview
• Teaching Officers
• Research Fellows and Teaching Associates
• Professional Services Staff
• PhD Students
• Research overview
• Research projects overview
• Natural History in the Age of Revolutions, 1776–1848
• In the Shadow of the Tree: The Diagrammatics of Relatedness as Scientific, Scholarly and Popular Practice
• The Many Births of the Test-Tube Baby
• Culture at the Macro-Scale: Boundaries, Barriers and Endogenous Change
• Making Climate History overview
• Project summary
• Workstreams
• Works cited and project literature
• Research and teaching fellowships
• Histories of Artificial Intelligence: A Genealogy of Power overview
• From Collection to Cultivation: Historical Perspectives on Crop Diversity and Food Security overview
• Call for papers
• How Collections End: Objects, Meaning and Loss in Laboratories and Museums
• Tools in Materials Research
• Epsilon: A Collaborative Digital Framework for Nineteenth-Century Letters of Science
• Contingency in the History and Philosophy of Science
• Industrial Patronage and the Cold War University
• FlyBase: Communicating Drosophila Genetics on Paper and Online, 1970–2000
• The Lost Museums of Cambridge Science, 1865–1936
• From Hansa to Lufthansa: Transportation Technologies and the Mobility of Knowledge in Germanic Lands and Beyond, 1300–2018
• Medical Publishers, Obscenity Law and the Business of Sexual Knowledge in Victorian Britain
• Kinds of Intelligence
• Varieties of Social Knowledge
• The Vesalius Census
• Histories of Biodiversity and Agriculture
• Investigating Fake Scientific Instruments in the Whipple Museum Collection
• Before HIV: Homosex and Venereal Disease, c.1939–1984
• The Casebooks Project
• Generation to Reproduction
• The Darwin Correspondence Project
• History of Medicine overview
• Events overview
• Past events
• Philosophy of Science overview
• Study HPS overview
• Undergraduate study overview
• Introducing History and Philosophy of Science
• Frequently asked questions
• Routes into History and Philosophy of Science
• Part II overview
• Distribution of Part II marks
• BBS options
• Postgraduate study overview
• Why study HPS at Cambridge?
• MPhil in History and Philosophy of Science and Medicine overview
• A typical day for an MPhil student
• MPhil in Health, Medicine and Society
• PhD in History and Philosophy of Science overview
• Part-time PhD

PhD placement record

• Funding for postgraduate students
• Student information overview
• Timetable overview
• Primary source seminars
• Research methods seminars
• Writing support seminars
• Dissertation seminars
• BBS Part II overview
• Early Medicine
• Modern Medicine and Biomedical Sciences
• Philosophy of Science and Medicine
• Ethics of Medicine
• Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine
• Part III and MPhil
• Single-paper options
• Part IB students' guide overview
• About the course
• Supervisions
• Libraries and readings
• Scheme of examination
• Part II students' guide overview
• Primary sources
• Dissertation
• Key dates and deadlines
• Advice overview
• Examination advice
• Learning strategies and exam skills
• Advice from students
• Part III students' guide overview
• Essays and dissertation
• Subject areas
• MPhil students' guide overview
• PhD students' guide overview
• Welcome to new PhDs
• Registration exercise and annual reviews
• Your supervisor and advisor
• Progress log
• Intermission and working away from Cambridge
• The PhD thesis
• Submitting your thesis
• Examination
• News and events overview
• Seminars and reading groups overview
• Departmental Seminars
• Coffee with Scientists
• Cabinet of Natural History overview
• Publications
• History of Medicine Seminars
• The Anthropocene
• Calculating People
• Measurement Reading Group
• Teaching Global HPSTM
• Pragmatism Reading Group
• Foundations of Physics Reading Group
• Atmospheric Humanities Reading Group
• Values in Science Reading Group
• HPS Workshop
• Postgraduate Seminars overview
• Images of Science
• Language Groups overview
• Latin Therapy overview
• Bibliography of Latin language resources
• Fun with Latin
• Archive overview
• Lent Term 2024
• Michaelmas Term 2023
• Easter Term 2023
• Lent Term 2023
• Michaelmas Term 2022
• Easter Term 2022
• Lent Term 2022
• Michaelmas Term 2021
• Easter Term 2021
• Lent Term 2021
• Michaelmas Term 2020
• Easter Term 2020
• Lent Term 2020
• Michaelmas Term 2019
• Easter Term 2019
• Lent Term 2019
• Michaelmas Term 2018
• Easter Term 2018
• Lent Term 2018
• Michaelmas Term 2017
• Easter Term 2017
• Lent Term 2017
• Michaelmas Term 2016
• Easter Term 2016
• Lent Term 2016
• Michaelmas Term 2015
• Postgraduate and postdoc training overview
• Induction sessions
• Academic skills and career development
• Print & Material Sources
• Other events and resources

Tools and techniques for historical research

• About the Department
• News and events

If you are just starting out in HPS, this will be the first time for many years – perhaps ever – that you have done substantial library or museum based research. The number of general studies may seem overwhelming, yet digging out specific material relevant to your topic may seem like finding needles in a haystack. Before turning to the specific entries that make up this guide, there are a few general points that apply more widely.

Planning your research

Because good research and good writing go hand in hand, probably the single most important key to successful research is having a good topic. For that, all you need at the beginning are two things: (a) a problem that you are genuinely interested in and (b) a specific issue, controversy, technique, instrument, person, etc. that is likely to offer a fruitful way forward for exploring your problem. In the early stages, it's often a good idea to be general about (a) and very specific about (b). So you might be interested in why people decide to become doctors, and decide to look at the early career of a single practitioner from the early nineteenth century, when the evidence for this kind of question happens to be unusually good. You can get lots of advice from people in the Department about places to look for topics, especially if you combine this with reading in areas of potential interest. Remember that you're more likely to get good advice if you're able to mesh your interests with something that a potential supervisor knows about. HPS is such a broad field that it's impossible for any department to cover all aspects of it with an equal degree of expertise. It can be reassuring to know that your topic will evolve as your research develops, although it is vital that you establish some basic parameters relatively quickly. Otherwise you will end up doing the research for two, three or even four research papers or dissertations, when all you need is the material for one.

Before beginning detailed work, it's obviously a good idea to read some of the secondary literature surrounding your subject. The more general books are listed on the reading lists for the Part II lecture courses, and some of the specialist literature is listed in these research guides. This doesn't need to involve an exhaustive search, at least not at this stage, but you do need to master the fundamentals of what's been done if you're going to be in a position to judge the relevance of anything you find. If there are lectures being offered in your topic, make sure to attend them; and if they are offered later in the year, try to see if you can obtain a preliminary bibliography from the lecturer.

After that, it's usually a good idea to immerse yourself in your main primary sources as soon as possible. If you are studying a museum object, this is the time to look at it closely; if you're writing about a debate, get together the main papers relevant to it and give them a close read; if you're writing about a specific experiment, look at the published papers, the laboratory notebook, and the relevant letters. Don't spend hours in the early stages of research ferreting out hard-to-find details, unless you're absolutely positive that they are of central importance to the viability of your topic. Start to get a feel for the material you have, and the questions that might be explored further. Make an outline of the main topics that you hope to cover, organized along what you see as the most interesting themes (and remember, 'background' is not usually an interesting theme on its own).

At this stage, research can go in many different directions. At some point, you'll want to read more about the techniques other historians have used for exploring similar questions. Most fields have an established repertoire of ways of approaching problems, and you need to know what these are, especially if you decide to reject them. One of the advantages of an interdisciplinary field like HPS is that you are exposed to different and often conflicting ways of tackling similar questions. Remember that this is true within history itself, and you need to be aware of alternatives. This may well involve looking further afield, at classic books or articles that are not specifically on 'your' subject. For example, it may be that you could find some helpful ideas for a study of modern scientific portraiture in a book on the eighteenth century. The best books dealing with educational maps may not be on the astronomical ones you are studying, but on ones used for teaching classical geography. See where the inspiration for works you admire comes from, and have a look at the sources they have used. This will help you develop the kind of focussed questions that make for a successful piece of work.

As you develop an outline and begin to think through your topic in more detail, you'll be in good position to plan possible lines of research. Don't try to find out everything about your topic: pick those aspects that are likely to prove most fruitful for the direction your essay seems to be heading. For example, it may be worth spending a long time searching for biographical details about a person if their career and life are central to your analysis; but in many other cases, such issues may not be very important. If your interest is in the reception of a work, it is likely to be more fruitful to learn a lot about a few commentaries or reviews (where they appeared, who wrote them, and so forth) than to gather in randomly all the comments you can find.

Follow up hints in other people's footnotes. Works that are otherwise dull or outdated in approach are sometimes based on very solid research. One secondary reference to a crucial letter or newspaper article can save you hours of mindless trawling, and lead you straight to the information you need. Moreover, good historians often signal questions or sources that they think would be worth investigating further.

Remember that the best history almost always depends on developing new approaches and interpretations, not on knowing about a secret archive no one has used before. If you give your work time to develop, and combine research with writing, you will discover new sources, and (better still) a fresh importance for material that has supposedly been known for a long time. As you become familiar with your topic, you are likely to find that evidence you dug out at the beginning of your project is much more significant than you thought it was. In historical research, the most important evidence often isn't sitting there on the surface – it's something you need to dig out through close reading and an understanding of the situation in which the document you are studying was written, or in which the object was produced. This is especially true of instruments, paintings and other non-textual sources.

Some standard reference works

Your research should become more focussed as time goes on. Don't just gather randomly: you should always have at least some idea of why you are looking for something, and what you might hope to find. Make guesses, follow up hunches, see if an idea you have has the possibility to work out. At the beginning, it can be valuable to learn the full range of what is available, but eventually you should be following up specific issues, a bit like a detective tracing the clues to a mystery. It is at this stage of research, which is often best done in conjunction with writing up sections of your project, that knowing where to find answers to specific questions is most useful. There is nothing more disheartening than spending a week to find a crucial fact, only to discover that it's been sitting on the shelf next to you all term. The Whipple has a wide variety of guides, biographical dictionaries and bibliographies, so spend a few minutes early on looking at the reference shelves.

Every major country has a national biographical dictionary (the new version of the British one is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography , available 2004 online). For better-known scientists, a good place to start is Charles C. Gillispie (ed.) Dictionary of Scientific Biography (1970–1980). There are more specialized dictionaries for every scientific field, from entomology to astronomy. The University Library has a huge selection of biographical sources; ask your supervisor about the best ones for your purpose.

Preliminary searching for book titles and other bibliographical information is now often best done online, and every historian should know how to use the British Library's online search facility; COPAC (the UK national library database); and WorldCat (an international database). All of these are accessible through the HPS Whipple Library website (under 'other catalogues'). At the time of writing, the University Library is remains one of the few libraries of its size to have many of its records not available online, so remember that you have to check the green guard-book catalogues (and the supplementary catalogues) for most items published before 1977. It is hoped that this situation will be rectified soon. There are also numerous bibliographies for individual sciences and subjects, together with catalogues of relevant manuscripts. Most of these are listed elsewhere in this guide.

As questions arise, you will want to be able to access books and articles by other historians that touch upon your subject. There are many sources for this listed elsewhere in this guide, but you should definitely know about the Isis Current Bibliography and The Wellcome Bibliography for the History of Medicine . Both are available online, the former through the RLG History of Science, Technology and Medicine database, the latter through the website of the Wellcome Library.

Libraries and museums

Finally, a word in praise of libraries and museums. As the comments above make clear, the internet is invaluable for searching for specific pieces of information. If you need a bibliographical reference or a general reading list from a course at another university, it is an excellent place to begin. If you are looking for the source of an unidentified quotation, typing it into Google (or an appropriate database held by the University Library) will often turn up the source in seconds. Many academic journals are now online, as are the texts of many books, though not always in a paginated or citable form.

For almost all historical topics, however, libraries filled with printed books and journals will remain the principal tools for research, just as museums will continue to be essential to any work dealing with the material culture of past science. The reason for this is simple: what is on the internet is the result of decisions by people in the past decade, while libraries and museums are the product of a continuous history of collecting over several thousand years. Cambridge has some of the best collections for the history of science anywhere. Despite what is often said, this is not because of the famous manuscripts or showpiece books (these are mostly available in other ways), but because of the depth and range of its collections across the whole field. The Whipple Library is small and friendly, and has an unparalleled selection of secondary works selected over many years – don't just go for specific titles you've found in the catalogue, try browsing around, and ask the librarians for help if you can't see what you are looking for. Explore the Whipple Museum and talk to the curator and the staff. There are rich troves of material in these departmental collections, on topics ranging from phrenology and microscopy to the early development of pocket calculators. Become familiar with what the University Library has to offer: it is large and sometimes idiosyncratic, but worth getting to know well if you are at all serious about research. It is a fantastic instrument for studying the human past – the historian's equivalent of CERN or the Hubble Telescope. And all you need to get in is a student ID.

Further reading

Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. William, The Craft of Research , 2nd ed. (University of Chicago Press, 2003).

Email search

Privacy and cookie policies

Study History and Philosophy of Science

Undergraduate study

Postgraduate study

Library and Museum

Whipple Library

Whipple Museum

Museum Collections Portal

Research projects

History of Medicine

Philosophy of Science

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

• Louisiana State University
• Research Guides
• LSU Libraries
• Conducting Historical Research
• Beginning Research at LSU Libraries
• Finding Books
• Archives & Manuscripts
• Web Resources
• Reference Resources

History Librarian

Special Collections/Archival Assistance

Need Help with primary sources or archival materials? LSU Libraries Special Collections has a vast collection on rare books, manuscripts, and other special research materials on a variety of topics. For more information visit their website . 

You can also make an appointment with one of the Special Collections Librarians. Contact them via email to set up an appointment. 

Alia Kempton: [email protected]

Zach Tompkins: [email protected]

Historical Research Process

Historical Research often involves these steps

• Identify a topic or research question
• Conduct background research on the topic or question
• Refine or narrow research topic or question based on background research
• Identify primary and secondary sources
• Evaluate the sources for relevancy, authenticity, and accuracy. 
• Analyze sources and form an argument based on information gathered 

It should be noted that the research process is rarely linear. Many of these steps may occur multiple times throughout the research process. This is normal. 

(Berg & Lune, 2012, 311 and  https://ecu.au.libguides.com/historical-research-method ) 

Primary Sources

Historical Research depends heavily on both Primary and Secondary sources

Primary sources are contemporary to the time period in which they were created. These sources can give researchers insight into various aspects of the time period in question and can be analyzed in a variety of ways depending on the research goal. 

Examples of Primary Sources include but are not limited to the following:

• Eyewitness accounts of events
• Newspapers from the time period
• Personal papers
• Legal documents
• Public records
• Contemporary works of literature

You typically find primary sources in archives. Archives can be associated with a larger organization such as a library, university, or government entity. They can also be independently run. 

Secondary Sources

Secondary sources are resources that are developed through an evaluation of primary source evidence. These can be scholarly or for general consumption. 

Examples of Secondary Sources include but are not limited to the following: 

• Encyclopedias
• Journal articles
• Biographies
• Documentaries

Secondary sources are typically found among library resources. 

• Next: Beginning Research at LSU Libraries >>
• Last Updated: Mar 12, 2024 9:59 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.lsu.edu/hist

Provide Website Feedback Accessibility Statement

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

The Princeton Guide to Historical Research

• Zachary Schrag
• X / Twitter

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Princeton University Press
• Copyright year: 2021
• Main content: 440
• Other: 2 b/w illus. 1 table.
• Keywords: research manual ; writing manual ; style manual ; taking notes ; note-taking ; historiography ; dissertation ; thesis ; term paper ; thesis statement ; outline ; essay ; primary sources ; secondary sources ; critical reading ; archival research ; textual sources ; digital research ; studying the past ; historical schools ; how-to books ; graduate research ; undergraduate research ; Jacques Barzun ; Henry F. Graff ; The Modern Researcher ; The Craft of Research ; Katherine Pickering Antonova ; The Essential Guide to Writing History Essays
• Published: April 27, 2021
• ISBN: 9780691215488

• How it works

Historical Research – A Guide Based on its Uses & Steps

Published by Alvin Nicolas at August 16th, 2021 , Revised On August 29, 2023

History is a study of past incidents, and it’s different from natural science. In natural science, researchers prefer direct observations. Whereas in historical research, a researcher collects, analyses the information to understand, describe, and explain the events that occurred in the past.

They aim to test the truthfulness of the observations made by others. Historical researchers try to find out what happened exactly during a certain period of time as accurately and as closely as possible. It does not allow any manipulation or control of  variables .

When to Use the Historical Research Method?

You can use historical research method to:

• Uncover the unknown fact.
• Answer questions
• Identify the association between the past and present.
• Understand the culture based on past experiences..
• Record and evaluate the contributions of individuals, organisations, and institutes.

How to Conduct Historical Research?

Historical research involves the following steps:

• Select the Research Topic
• Collect the Data
• Analyse the Data
• Criticism of Data
• Present your Findings

Tips to Collect Data

Step 1 – select the research topic.

If you want to conduct historical research, it’s essential to select a research topic before beginning your research. You can follow these tips while choosing a topic and  developing a research question .

• Consider your previous study as your previous knowledge and data can make your research enjoyable and comfortable for you.
• List your interests and focus on the current events to find a promising question.
• Take notes of regular activities and consider your personal experiences on a specific topic.
• Develop a question using your research topic.
• Explore your research question by asking yourself when? Why? How

Step 2- Collect the Data

It is essential to collect data and facts about the research question to get reliable outcomes. You need to select an appropriate instrument for  data collection . Historical research includes two sources of data collection, such as primary and secondary sources.

Primary Sources

Primary sources  are the original first-hand resources such as documents, oral or written records, witnesses to a fact, etc. These are of two types, such as:

Conscious Information : It’s a type of information recorded and restored consciously in the form of written, oral documents, or the actual witnesses of the incident that occurred in the past.

It includes the following sources:

Unconscious information : It’s a type of information restored in the form of remains or relics.

It includes information in the following forms:

Secondary Sources

Sometimes it’s impossible to access primary sources, and researchers rely on secondary sources to obtain information for their research. 

It includes:

• Publications
• Periodicals
• Encyclopedia

Step 3 – Analyse the Data

After collecting the information, you need to analyse it. You can use data analysis methods  like 

• Thematic analysis
• Coding system
• Theoretical model ( Researchers use multiple theories to explain a specific phenomenon, situations, and behavior types.)
• Quantitative data to validate

Step 4 – Criticism of Data

Data criticism is a process used for identifying the validity and reliability of the collected data. It’s of two types such as:

External Criticism :

It aims at identifying the external features of the data such as signature, handwriting, language, nature, spelling, etc., of the documents. It also involves the physical and chemical tests of paper, paint, ink, metal cloth, or any collected object.

Internal Criticism :

It aims at identifying the meaning and reliability of the data. It focuses on the errors, printing, translation, omission, additions in the documents. The researchers should use both external and internal criticism to ensure the validity of the data.

Step 5 – Present your Findings

While presenting the  findings of your research , you need to ensure that you have met the objectives of your research or not. Historical material can be organised based on the theme and topic, and it’s known as thematic and topical arrangement. You can follow these tips while writing your research paper :

Build Arguments and Narrative

Your research aims not just to collect information as these are the raw materials of research. You need to build a strong argument and narrate the details of past events or incidents based on your findings. 

Organise your Argument

You can review the literature and other researchers’ contributions to the topic you’ve chosen to enhance your thinking and argument.

Proofread, Revise and Edit

After putting your findings on a paper, you need to proofread it to weed out the errors, rewrite it to improve, and edit it thoroughly before submitting it.

Are you looking for professional research writing services?

We hear you.

• Whether you want a full dissertation written or need help forming a dissertation proposal, we can help you with both.
• Get different dissertation services at ResearchProspect and score amazing grades!

In this world of technology, many people rely on Google to find out any information. All you have to do is enter a few keywords and sit back. You’ll find several relevant results onscreen.

It’s an effective and quick way of gathering information. Sometimes historical documents are not accessible to everyone online, and you need to visit traditional libraries to find out historical treasures. It will help you explore your knowledge along with data collection. 

You can visit historical places, conduct interviews, review literature, and access  primary and secondary  data sources such as books, newspapers, publications, documents, etc. You can take notes while collecting the information as it helps to organise the data accurately.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Historical Research

Frequently asked questions, what are the initial steps to perform historical research.

Initial steps for historical research:

• Define research scope and period.
• Gather background knowledge.
• Identify primary and secondary sources.
• Develop research questions.
• Plan research approach.
• Begin data collection and analysis.

You May Also Like

A variable is a characteristic that can change and have more than one value, such as age, height, and weight. But what are the different types of variables?

Thematic analysis is commonly used for qualitative data. Researchers give preference to thematic analysis when analysing audio or video transcripts.

You can transcribe an interview by converting a conversation into a written format including question-answer recording sessions between two or more people.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Historical Reasoning: Towards a Framework for Analyzing Students’ Reasoning about the Past

• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 03 October 2007
• Volume 20 , pages 87–110, ( 2008 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Jannet van Drie 1 &
• Carla van Boxtel 1  

43k Accesses

228 Citations

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This article explores historical reasoning, an important activity in history learning. Based upon an extensive review of empirical literature on students’ thinking and reasoning about history, a theoretical framework of historical reasoning is proposed. The framework consists of six components: asking historical questions, using sources, contextualization, argumentation, using substantive concepts, and using meta-concepts. Each component is discussed and illustrated by examples from our own research. The article concludes with suggestions on how to use the framework both in future research and in educational practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

Social Learning Theory—Albert Bandura

Stage theory of cognitive development—jean piaget, discovery learning—jerome bruner.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Traditionally, the focus of history education has been on the content, and learning history mainly implied memorizing important facts and data from the (national) past. Recent views of learning history have emphasized learning to reason with facts and stories about the past, and learning to create new coherent stories (McCarthy Young and Leinhardt 1998a ; O’Reilly 1991 ; Perfetti et al. 1995 ). Reasoning with information about the past can be considered as an important cultural practice of societies. It has been incorporated into the history curriculum in several countries and is considered to empower students to understand history, as well as social life in general. For instance, the ability to argue about historical artefacts, rather than accept or reject uncritically what is presented, is viewed as a significant capacity for participation in a democratic society (Rosa et al. 1998 ; Kuhn et al. 1994 ). In line with this, Barton and Levstik ( 2004 ) argue that history should promote reasoned judgment about important human matters. This requires the ability to appreciate the context, to deliberate and judge, to reflect on the causes of historical events and processes, their relative significance, and the potential outcomes of alternative courses of action, and, lastly, to reflect on the impact of the past on the present.

Educational research has shown increased interest in history learning since the 1990s (e.g., Carretero and Voss 1994 ; Leinhardt et al. 1994 ; Voss 1997 ; Voss and Carretero 1998 ; Wilson 2001 ). These studies have been conducted from a predominantly cognitive perspective on learning and include expert-novice comparisons, reasoning with historical documents and historical explanations, and the teaching of history. This line of research has recently been broadened with studies from a socio-cultural perspective (e.g., Barton 2001 ; Barton and Levstik 2004 ; Wertsch and Rozin 1998 ).

Although it is by now generally agreed that learning history implies more than learning facts about the past, different terms are used to describe the aim of history education, for instance, historical literacy (e.g., Lee 2004 , 2007 ; Perfetti et al. 1995 ; Roderigo 1994 ), historical thinking (e.g., Husbands 1996 ; Schreiber et al. 2006 ; Seixas 1993 , Spoehr and Spoehr 1994 ; VanSledright and Frankes 2000 ; Wineburg 2001 ), historical consciousness (e.g., Goegebeur et al. 1999 ; Jeismann 1997 ; Von Borries 1997 ), and historical reasoning (e.g., Kuhn et al. 1994 ; Leinhardt et al. 1994 ). Some authors relate historical thinking and reasoning to historical consciousness or literacy. Perfetti et al. ( 1995 ), for example, state that historical literacy involves learning historical events (a story) combined with the use of articulate reasoning.

In our research work we have adopted the term historical reasoning, approaching the construct from an educational perspective. Whereas the terms historical literacy and historical consciousness refer to more general abilities and attitudes, the term historical reasoning emphasizes the activity of students and the fact that when learning history, students not only acquire knowledge of the past, but also use this knowledge for interpreting phenomena from the past and the present. This emphasis on activity and knowledge use is in line with socio-constructivist and socio-cultural theories of learning, which argue that knowledge is actively constructed (Brown et al. 1989 ; Duffy and Jonassen 1992 ) and mediated by the use of language and tools (Wertsch 1991 ), rather than transmitted or passively received. By referring to verbally explicated reasoning, in speech or in writing, the term historical reasoning puts more emphasis on the active role of students than other terms have done so far.

Although the term historical reasoning is often used, it is much less defined or described in detail. Leinhardt et al. ( 1994 ) studying historical reasoning from the perspective of instructional explanations given to students, described it as “the process by which central facts (about events and structures) and concepts (themes) are arranged to build an interpretative historical case” (p. 134), which then requires analysis, synthesis, hypothesis generation, and interpretation. Most studies related to historical reasoning focus on only one specific aspect, such as the use of evidence (e.g., Rouet et al. 1996 ; Wineburg 1991a ), or the explanation of historical events (e.g., Carretero et al. 1997 ). While these studies provide many important insights into these specific aspects, historical reasoning as such can be seen to involve a whole range of more or less interrelated activities. For instance, the writing of an essay on a historical topic involves several activities such as contextualizing the topic in a broader historical context, providing explanations for events, describing changes, and comparing historical sources. Such a more inclusive view of the activities that makes up the process of historical reasoning is lacking in most of the research work (cf. Seixas 1993 ).

In this article we propose a theoretical framework for historical reasoning, which can be used to describe and study historical reasoning in secondary education in terms of its’ constituting activities. We will discuss the different components of the framework by referring to the findings of empirical studies and by providing examples from our own research. We conclude the article with suggestions on how to use the framework both in future research and in educational practice.

A Framework for Historical Reasoning

In our studies on history learning in secondary education, we needed a framework that would enable us to analyze students’ reasoning both in writing and speaking, for example, in collaborative learning situations. We wanted to create a framework that would allow us to describe progression in both reasoning and learning in history, as well as to identify the effects of different learning tasks and learning tools. From the available research literature, we identified components of historical reasoning so that to use them as a starting-point for the analysis of our data. We subsequently refined and extended our initial set of components through analyzing the quality of historical reasoning in student essays, chat discussions in an electronic learning environment, small group discussions, and whole-class discussions. Using the revised components as a ground for our coding schemes, we were able to identify differences in the amount and quality of historical reasoning between different tasks, as well as between experts and novices within the domain of history in various studies. For example, we found that as a starting point for historical inquiry by students, an evaluative question appeared to be more powerful than an explanatory question to provoke historical reasoning (Van Drie et al. 2006 ). In a study investigating the effects of different representational tools, as, for instance, an argumentative diagram and a matrix, we were able to show through the analysis of chat discussions and students essays that the amount and type of historical reasoning was shaped by the format of the representation (Van Drie et al. 2005 ). In a study in which we focussed on historical reasoning and its’ mediation through pictures and task instructions, we compared student dyads with whole-class discussions (Van Boxtel and Van Drie 2003 ). Our analysis showed teacher-guided class discussions to exhibit more contextualization, more explanatory questions, as well as more use of abstract historical concepts as compared to discussions in student pairs. In an expert-novice study, we were able to use the framework to bring to light differences in historical reasoning between novices of different ages, as well as between novices and experts (Van Boxtel and Van Drie, 2004 ).

Figure 1 presents in a schematic form the framework of historical reasoning we developed. The framework comprises six components: (a) asking historical questions, (b) using sources, (c) contextualization, (d) argumentation, (e) using substantive concepts, and (f) using meta-concepts. We define historical reasoning in the context of history education as an activity in which a person organizes information about the past in order to describe, compare, and/or explain historical phenomena. In doing this, he or she asks historical questions, contextualizes, makes use of substantive and meta-concepts of history, and supports proposed claims with arguments based on evidence from sources that give information about the past. The quality of students’ historical reasoning is influenced by the nature of the task, the topic or theme, as well as the historical materials provided. Furthermore, it is shaped by the historical knowledge, the historical thinking strategies (here we mean heuristics that support higher-order operations such as writing an essay on a historical topic or interpreting a historical cartoon), and by the epistemological beliefs the student brings to the task (Lee and Ashby 2000 ; Maggioni et al. 2004 ; Wineburg 1991a , b , 1998 ). We agree with Booth ( 1994 ) that only within the dimensions of the nature of the task, the topic or theme, the historical materials, and the background knowledge one is expected to bring to the task, that any meaningful statement can be made about the level of historical reasoning displayed. Hence, because the level of historical reasoning is always relative, we do not define fixed categories of high and low level historical reasoning within the framework.

Components of historical reasoning

We consider the components identified in the framework first and foremost as analytical tools for describing the activity of historical reasoning. While the framework identifies analytically separable components, these do not refer to entities that occur clearly separated in reality, which is indicated by the lines between the six components. Explaining a historical event, for example, implies contextualization, argumentation based on historical sources, and the use of both substantive concepts and meta-concepts, such as cause and effect. Both, meta-concepts and substantive concepts related to the discipline of history, shape historical questions, contextualization, use of sources, and argumentation. The relative importance of each of these components in historical reasoning will depend on the complexity and the level of the historical problem or question one wants to address, the information and means available, the product that is asked for, and the person’s knowledge and experience (see also Van Drie et al. 2006 ).

In the following sections we describe each component of historical reasoning separately, presenting important findings of empirical studies related to these components and providing examples from our own studies to further illustrate each component and its’ possible occurrence in research data and classroom reality.

Asking historical questions

A line of reasoning is always constructed during the encounter with a problem or a question. Schreiber et al. ( 2006 ) describe the willingness and ability to ask, recognize, and understand historical questions as one of the competencies underlying historical thinking. Questioning in educational research has been approached mainly as a reading strategy to improve understanding of texts and much less as a means for domain specific reasoning. Questioning may function as an “engine” for historical reasoning. A line of reasoning is not only constructed in relation to an initial question, each component of historical reasoning can be shaped by its own types of questions.

In history, different types of questions are used, such as descriptive questions, causal questions, comparison questions, and evaluative questions. These questions can be asked in relation to historical phenomena (e.g., “What caused World War I?”), but also in relation to the sources that give information about the past (e.g., “Does this document provide enough evidence?”). Evaluative questions are variations of descriptive, causal, or comparison questions. The explanatory question “What caused World War I?” becomes an evaluative question when it is reformulated as “What is the most important cause for the outbreak of World War I?” An example of an evaluative question in relation to historical changes is “Where the changes in the sixties in the Netherlands revolutionary or not?” Historical questions are often shaped by meta-concepts, as, for instance, causation, change, and continuity (Counsell 2000 ). Not all questions ask for the transformation of knowledge and information. For example, the question “When is the beginning of the Middle Ages?” does not require historical reasoning for a student who has learned that the Middle Ages begin in 500  ac and is supposed to give this date. However, depending on prior knowledge, available information, and the context of the question at hand, sometimes factual questions do ask for reasoning. The same question “When is the beginning of the Middle Ages?” does require historical reasoning when combined with “What do you think?” and “Give reasons for your opinion.” Using historical reasoning a student could argue that the Middle Ages started about 500  ac , or, perhaps, earlier or later and why so.

There is hardly any empirical research available about the way students interpret historical questions with which they are confronted in the history lessons, about the kind of questions they ask when engaged in a particular learning activity, or about how questions guide historical reasoning. Wineburg ( 1998 ), in a descriptive study of how two historians with high and low background knowledge read and interpret primary source documents, states that understanding emerges as a result of a dialectical process between the questions that are asked and the textual materials that are encountered. In an exploratory study of how experts and novices in the domain of history try to date and interpret a cartoon from the Cold War period, we found that questioning was an important means to build a historical context and that persons with more expertise within the domain were more inclined to ask questions (Van Boxtel and Van Drie 2004 ). Halldén ( 1998 ) warns that students may have difficulties finding the “correct” interpretation of historical questions asked in the classroom. First, questions may be ambiguous. For example, the question of how a specific event came about may be interpreted as a quest for the enabling factors, a quest for the factors that made the event come about, or a quest for a narrative in which the event is depicted as a consequence of a larger chain of events. Second, students, who are not yet completely socialized into the genre of school history, use their own conceptions and frameworks to interpret a question and these may differ from those of teachers and historians. Van Drie et al. ( 2006 ) compared how students reasoned when working on an evaluative question compared to an explanatory question. It turned out that the evaluative question elicited more historical reasoning, including argumentation, description of change and continuity, and explanation. This finding suggests that some questions may be more powerful to provoke ‘rich’ historical reasoning than others.

To summarize, asking historical questions in the context of historical reasoning concerns asking descriptive, causal, comparative, or evaluative questions about historical phenomena and about the sources that give information about the past.

The example in Fig.  2 illustrates how questions can function as an engine for historical reasoning. The example is taken from a small scale study that explored historical reasoning in dyads of students (12 years of age) and in subsequent whole-class discussions about the same task (Van Boxtel 2002 ). The task involved a medieval picture showing armed men on horses and men on foot leaving a castle. The students were asked to write a caption for this picture using some of the concepts that were given next to the picture. The episode below is taken from a whole-class discussion. In the analysis of the whole-class discussions we coded types of historical reasoning: describing processes of change and continuity, comparing historical phenomena, and explaining historical phenomena. When one of the students, Mary, mentions that in those days peasants had to work for the nobility, the teacher brings in the term system and asks an explanatory question: “Why did these people obey to this system?” (line 10). The teacher initiates a causal reasoning that is co-constructed by himself and the students Mary and Femke (lines 11 to 22).

Excerpt of a whole-class discussion in which a collaborative reasoning is initiated by a historical question

Using sources

Information about the past is acquired by a whole range of different types of sources, such as all kinds of written documents, images, and objects. A distinction can be made between primary sources from the time of the event itself and secondary sources or historical accounts of the events. Although objects and images contain more different information about the past than written sources (Fasulo et al. 1998 ), in educational settings students are often confronted with the latter. These sources may be primary as well as secondary and can be rather diverse: accounts of historians, excerpts of diaries and letters, treaties, and so on. When talking here about the sources, we refer to primary and secondary sources, written sources as well as images. Information from the sources is important to support assertions about the past. Sources often contain complementary, but also contradictory information about the past. As a consequence, the contents of several documents cannot be simply combined into a single representation (Rouet et al. 1996 ) and specific knowledge about documents and methods must be acquired to evaluate the trustworthiness of the sources. Rouet et al. make an important distinction between reasoning about documents and reasoning with documents. Reasoning with documents refers to the ability to use document information when executing a historical inquiry. Reasoning about documents refers to the activity in which a document is evaluated on the basis of the type of document it is.

Reasoning with textual sources has been extensively studied (e.g., Leinhardt and McCarthy Young 1996 ; Perfetti et al. 1995 ; Stahl et al. 1996 ; Wineburg 1991a , b , 1994 , 1998 ). Wineburg ( 1994 ) found that historians make three types of cognitive representations when reading historical texts: of the text, of the event, and of the subtext (i.e., the text as rhetorical artefact). He also found that students approach historical documents in a different way than expert historians. In an earlier study he compared how eight historians and eight high-school students reasoned about several primary sources (Wineburg 1991a ). From the thinking-aloud protocols three heuristics related to the study of historical documents were identified: (a) contextualization, or the act of situating a document in a concrete temporal and spatial context; (b) sourcing, or the act of looking first at the source of the document before reading the body of the text; and (c) corroboration, or the act of comparing documents with each other. Most differences between historians and students could be related to different belief systems. Firstly, historians and students had different beliefs about the task. The central question was “Which painting most accurately depicts what happened in Lexington?” Students approached the task as if one answer was correct and they had to find it. Historians, on the other hand, opposed the question with comments like “What did actually happen? What was actually going on there?” Their final result was more a suggestion than an answer. Secondly, in the reconstruction of the event, historians were more able to take into account the matter of where and when things happened. A third difference was related to beliefs about the texts, the conception of the primary documents. Whereas historians considered information about the text, such as who wrote the text and at what time, to be very important, students focused on the information in the text. Reading texts seemed to be a process of gathering information for students, with texts serving as bearers of this information. On the other hand, historians seemed to view texts as social exchanges to be understood, puzzled about the intentions of the author, and situate the text in a social context. All this means that to historians what is said is inseparable from who says it. As a consequence, historians more often made use of the sourcing heuristic. A fourth difference was found in the corroboration heuristic, or in the beliefs about the nature of historical evidence. For historians, corroboration was indispensable because every account was seen as reflecting a particular point of view. They were mainly concerned with the question of how a source’s bias influences the quality of the report. Students seemed to view bias as an attribute of some texts but not of others. In addition, the students also gave more importance to textbooks, whereas the experts ranked primary sources higher (cf. Rouet et al. 1998 ). According to Wineburg, the differences between students and historians resulted not so much from a difference in knowledge about the subject at hand, as not all the historians specialized in the topic at hand and some students showed more factual knowledge about the topic, but from a difference in knowledge and thinking skills about historical evidence. Historians were able to reason thoughtfully about the accuracy of the documents and were in this way able to build up an elaborate model of the event at hand. Wineburg’s study suggests that high-school students do not spontaneously use contextualization, sourcing, and corroboration heuristics when reading documents.

All the studies mentioned above involved students from high school and college. Lee and Ashby ( 2000 ) studied children’s changing ideas about historical evidence between the ages of seven to fourteen. Based on extensive studies that included 320 students, they identified six steps in students’ ideas about accounts and their relation to the past, namely (a) the past as given, (b) the past as inaccessible, (c) the past as determining stories, (d) the past as reported in a more or less biased way, (e) the past as selected and organized from a viewpoint, and finally (f) the past as (re-)constructed in answer to questions in accordance with criteria. Students often treated the sources as information and only used that information which supported the claim. Information from the sources was neither critically discussed, nor compared to information from other sources (Ashby 2004 ). These outcomes are in line with the results found by Wineburg.

We define the use of sources in the context of historical reasoning as the evaluation of sources (e.g., their usefulness, trustworthiness) in relation to the question at hand and the selection, interpretation, and corroboration of information from sources in order to answer a historical question or to provide evidence for a claim about the past.

The example in Fig.  3 shows two students discussing the content of a document, taken from a study on how students reason about the past in a computer-supported collaborative environment (Van Drie 2005 ; Van Drie et al. 2005 ). Participants were students from pre-university education, 16–17 years of age. Each student worked on his or her own computer, physically separated from the partner, and communication took place by chat and other shared tools. The computer-learning environment enabled students to collaborate in pairs on a historical inquiry task, which included studying historical sources and writing an essay of 1,000 words. The task, which took 6 h, was about the question “Were the changes in the youth culture in the nineteen sixties in the Netherlands revolutionary or not?” The chat discussions in this study were, among others, coded in elements of historical reasoning, for example contextualization, describing changes, argumentation, and use of sources. The excerpt below is one that was coded as use of sources . In the original study this excerpt was not analyzed in more detail. When considering this excerpt in relation to the definition of use of sources in the context of historical reasoning, the following can be noticed: Rosa and Wilma try to find out whether the historian, which is cited in source 22, thinks the changes of the sixties were revolutionary or not and use this in their argumentation. However, they do not relate the historians’ viewpoint in this fragment to other views of historians, neither do they consider the context of the source or evaluate the trustworthiness of this source. Of course, only a small part of the complete chat discussion is shown here and coming to conclusions on how these two students used historical sources in general would require taking into account the complete chat discussion, as well as the products they made. The excerpt, nevertheless, provides an example of how two students deal with sources in the context of an inquiry task.

Excerpt of a chat discussion in which students reason about a source

Contextualization

The past is strange and familiar at the same time (Wineburg 2001 ). In order to interpret historical events, one has to apply a wide range of general knowledge of how social variables function and interrelate these in order to interpret the specific events under consideration (Kuhn et al. 1994 ). But understanding and interpreting historical events and acts of persons also requires knowledge of the specific historical context, which is formed by the characteristics of the time and place of the event. It requires finding the appropriate historical context and, then, interpreting the phenomenon in accordance with that context (Halldén 1997 ). When talking about contextualization, Wineburg ( 1998 ) deliberately uses the term “creating” historical contexts, instead of “placing” or “putting” something into context, verb forms that conjure up images of jigsaw puzzles in which pieces are slotted into pre-existing frames. He refers to the Latin contextere , which means to weave together, to connect strings in a pattern. De Keyser and Vandepitte ( 1998 ) distinguish different frames of reference that can be used to contextualize a historical phenomenon: (a) a chronological frame of reference, including knowledge of periods, significant events, and developments; (b) a spatial frame of reference, including knowledge about locations and scale; and (c) a social frame of reference, including knowledge of components of human behavior and social activity such as socio-economic, socio-political, and socio-cultural conditions of life. The chronological frame is especially fundamental in history, as it is the main organizing principle. Stow and Haydn ( 2000 ) point out that chronology in history education does not only refer to the sequencing of events, but also to a general understanding of historical time, such as dating systems and time-related vocabulary.

Only few empirical studies have focused on contextualization and on how it is shaped by historical knowledge, thinking strategies, and epistemological beliefs. Based on a series of interviews with adolescents, Shemilt ( 1983 ) concluded that adolescents have special difficulty in making sense of the story in which the particular events and episodes are located. He compares it with students who are able to talk sensibly about certain scenes and characters of a play, but having no idea what the play is about. The failure to grasp the nature of historical context is often described as an important source of student misunderstanding (Wineburg 2001 ; Husbands 1996 ). Novices in the domain find it difficult to try to think about the past in its own terms and not to judge past actors and actions solely by present standards. Often, one must be able to imagine oneself in situations that he or she is not likely to experience (Spoehr and Spoehr, 1994 ). This ability is referred to with the term empathy. In the CHATA project carried out by Lee et al. ( 1997 ) in primary and secondary schools in England, children’s ideas about explanation and inquiry in history were investigated. One of the outcomes of this project was the model of progression for rational understanding in history, in which contextualizing and empathy are important aspects. The lowest level is what they call The Divi Past : past action is unintelligible because people in the past were ‘divi’ -stupid, not as clever as we are, inept, morally defective, or ‘didn’t know any better.’ Students in a more advanced level begin to view history as an explanatory system but make little attempt to understand the past in its own terms. At the highest level called contextual historical empathy , actions of people in the past are set in a wider context of beliefs and values. It is recognized that there are differences between the mindsets of the past and the present. According to Lee et al. , only from the age of 11 to 14, some students are beginning to distinguish between what they know about the situation and what the historical agent knew at that time.

In an expert/expert study Wineburg ( 1998 ) describes in detail how two historians build a historical context. He compared the interpretation of historical texts about Abraham Lincoln of a historian who was a specialist in the Civil War period and a historian in the general field of American history. Based on the outcomes of the study, six different types of contextual comments were distinguished: (a) spatio-temporal comments, about the physical location and temporal sequence of events; (b) social-rhetorical comments, about social demands of situations, intellectual, and ideological landscapes; (c) biographic comments, about life histories of individuals; (d) historiographic comments, about the body of historical writing about the past, (e) linguistic comments, about historical meanings of words, terms, and phrases; and (f) analogical comments, drawing explicit comparisons to other historical periods. For the more knowledgeable historian, the documents activated broad associations and extensive declarative knowledge that let him situate documents in a web of chronologically ordered events. Both historians were able to create a context. A more knowledgeable historian used a broader range of ways to do so, for example, through knowledge of the life history of Lincoln, the historical meaning of words, terms, and phrases and comparisons to other time periods. It was concluded that it was not only the factual knowledge that helped the historians to create a historical context, but also the awareness that words give rise to multiple interpretations. The historian that brought more background knowledge to the task and had more resources for building a context raised more questions about his knowledge and showed more doubt.

Currently, not much is known about the kind of knowledge that helps students to contextualize. Van Boxtel and Van Drie ( 2004 ) focused on the prior knowledge that novices (students) and more expert persons (history teachers) in the domain of history use to build a historical context for an unknown document or picture from the past in order to date it. Students who managed to date the sources correctly used (a) knowledge of significant historical events or so-called landmarks, such as the abolition of slavery; (b) a rich network of related and colligatory historical concepts, such as concepts related to communism or the Roman empire; and (c) knowledge of periodization and narrative structures, such as the rise and fall of the Roman empire and the beginning and the end of the Cold War.

To conclude, in the framework of historical reasoning contextualization is defined as situating a historical phenomenon, an object, statement, text, or picture in a temporal, spatial, and social context in order to describe, explain, compare, or evaluate it.

Figure 4 gives an example of contextualization in the context of interpreting and dating a historical cartoon from the Cold War period. The cartoon is about Stalin’s proposal in 1952 to unite and neutralise Germany. The aim of study was to investigate which means novices (students in several grades) and experts (in our study history teachers) use to interpret an unknown historical document or picture (Van Boxtel and Van Drie 2004 ). The students and teachers worked in pairs and their conversations were videotaped and transcribed. We coded the conversations on the utterance level using a coding scheme that focused on the identification of important ingredients of contextualization, as, for example, making reference to characteristics of time, space, and social context. Lara and Sanne are 16-year old pre-university students. In line 11 Lara starts to build a context for what she and Sanne see on the cartoon. The contextualization episode that follows contains several statements in which reference is made to different types of knowledge that is used to build a historical context, as, for instance, knowledge of a particular period (Cold War, line 11), knowledge of characteristics of a location (Germany was divided during the Cold War, line 11), and knowledge of a particular event (Russia tried to make the East communist, lines 13 and 15).

Excerpt of a discussion in which students build a historical context

Argumentation

Because historical accounts are based upon various kinds of sources that often contain partial and contradictory information and because historical interpretations are not definite, assertions and claims about the past must be supported by rational arguments, which, in turn, should be based upon well-evaluated evidence. Historical reasoning does not mean just giving an opinion or a viewpoint; it is the arguments and evidence used to support the opinion that counts (cf. Barton and Levstik 2004 ; Spoehr and Spoehr 1994 ). The skill of argumentation is, therefore, fundamental to historical reasoning (cf. Voss and Means 1991 ). Reasoning in the domain of history can be considered as informal reasoning. Contrary to formal reasoning, informal reasoning is related to ill-structured problems. Conclusions are reached on the basis of weighing arguments and evidence. They are never definite, but only more or less probable, as new evidence can alter these probabilities (Kuhn 1991 ; Voss et al. 1991 ). Voss et al. mention three criteria for evaluating the soundness of informal reasoning. These criteria include (a) whether the reasoning providing support is acceptable or true, (b) the extent to which the reason supports the conclusion, and (c) the extent to which an individual takes into account reasons that support the contradiction of the conclusion, also known as counter argumentation. In relation to argument-based reasoning in history, Perfetti et al. ( 1995 ) maintain that sound reasoning requires awareness that (a) arguments require evidence, (b) evidence is documented, and (c) documents are not equal in their privilege as evidence. The process of argumentation is, thus, closely related to the use of sources.

Research has shown that, although people in general are able to support their claims with arguments, even from a young age onwards (Stein and Miller 1993 ), weaknesses can be found in relation to the generation of different types of arguments (Voss and Means 1991 ), taking into account of counterarguments, and weighing of different theories (Kuhn 1991 ). Research in the domain of history shows the same pattern. For example, Pontecorvo and Girardet ( 1993 ) found that discussions between 9-year old students, who were asked to reach agreement about a historical claim, largely consisted of claims and justifications for these claims. Our own findings in a study on writing argumentative texts in history showed that most students (pre-university level) only mentioned several arguments in support of their claim, with hardly any counterarguments given, and with no weighing of arguments pro and contra (Van Drie et al. 2006 ). In their study of children’s changing ideas about historical evidence between the ages of seven to fourteen, Lee and Ashby ( 2000 ) also found that students often treated sources as information and only used the information which supported their claim. Spoehr and Spoehr ( 1994 ) argue that taking into account counterarguments is a very difficult aspect of reasoning in the domain of history.

Kuhn et al. ( 1994 ) relate the differences in level of argumentation to epistemological beliefs and discerns a progression of epistemological understanding. Initially, at the first level historians’ accounts of events are not distinguished from the events themselves: the subject focuses on statements about the events themselves, meta-statements about the accounts are rare, and two different accounts are not compared but information is added to provide a more complete version. In the second level, different accounts are seen as genuinely different: differences are attributed to wilful misrepresentation or bias on the part of one of the historians, and a neutral, third party is seen as capable of discerning the “truth.” Leadbeater and Kuhn (1989, in Kuhn et al. 1994 ) found that only one quarter of sixth graders showed this second level of reasoning. In the third level subjects maintain that both accounts could be right, because everyone sees things from their own point of view: all accounts are regarded as opinions. This level appeared in the study of Leadbeater and Kuhn among ninth graders and became the most frequent stance by the twelfth grade. Furthermore, they observed two subsequent levels of reasoning among adults. At one level, an objective reality is regarded as ultimately known through critical evaluation of multiple accounts. At the other, the realm of facts exists only as interpreted by human observers and do not yield a single reality.

To conclude, as a component of historical reasoning, argumentation concerns putting forward a claim about the past and supporting it with sound arguments and evidence through weighing different possible interpretations and taking into account counterarguments.

Figure 5 shows an example from an essay written by Rick and Joni in a text-editor in an electronic learning environment from the same study as the example in Fig.  3 in the section on using sources (Van Drie 2005 ). This essay gained a relatively high score for argumentation. In their complete essay, only one section of which is included in the example, they take the standpoint that the sixties were revolutionary and not only support this standpoint with several arguments but also discuss counterarguments and try to refute them. In the example, Rick and Joni discuss the fourth counterargument in which they refer to the fact that most radical youth was located in Amsterdam, and that Provo (a protest group) was not as revolutionary as is commonly assumed. They discuss whether the actions of Provo were unique or more general, which is an important disciplinary heuristic when reasoning about processes of change and continuity. The students also refer to information in one of the sources, a text written by a Dutch historian and make a meta-statement about this source when they conclude the source to be trustworthy. Although the remark “a man who should have knowledge on this subject” might not be a very strong argument, the fact that this remark is made shows that these students have some understanding that not all the documents are equal in their privilege as evidence. In the last sentence of the example, Rick and Joni try to refute this counter-argument by stating that this is only the viewpoint of one historian. Again, this might not be a strong argument, but it shows that they understand that they can’t trust on the argument of one person and need to be open for alternative interpretations.

Fragment of an essay in which students put forward claims and support them with arguments

Using substantive concepts

Each domain has its own language. Discipline-bound concepts are “tools” to think about, question, describe, analyze, synthesize, and discuss historical phenomena. Husbands ( 1996 ) describes concepts as the grammar of history, as they have the power to organize the infinite number of facts that characterize history. Student understanding and use of historical concepts is one of the major goals of history education. A distinction can be made between methodological and substantive concepts. Methodological, second order concepts (Lee et al. 1998 ), or meta-concepts (Limón 2002 ) refer to the methods used by historians to investigate and describe historical processes and periods and will be described in the following section. Substantive concepts refer to historical phenomena, structures, persons, and periods (e.g., pharaoh, feudalism, Charles V, Enlightenment). Different types of substantive concepts are used in history. Haenen and Schrijnemakers ( 2000 ) distinguish between unique and inclusive concepts. A unique concept applies to a thing, person, event, or period each of which is the only one to which the name applies (e.g., D-day, Middle Ages, Peace of Westfalia). Inclusive concepts are concepts that cover instances to which these names apply (e.g., castle, depression). Halldén ( 1997 ) points to the fact that in history many so-called colligatory concepts are used; higher order concepts that bring a series of events together by describing them from an aspect that makes them intelligible or relevant in an explanation. Examples are the fall of the Roman Empire, Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution. Such concepts provide a thematic organization of historical knowledge.

Students face various problems in understanding and using substantive concepts (Van Drie and Van Boxtel 2003 ). The first problem is that historical concepts are often abstract and theoretical. They do not refer to concrete objects in the past and are given meaning in the context of related concepts within a conceptual network. For example, to explain the concept of democracy, other concepts must be used, such as parliament, representation, and government. Each of these concepts is abstract and difficult to understand. The second problem is that substantive concepts often have no fixed meaning. This is related to the fact that historians themselves differ in their interpretation of concepts (Ankersmit 1982 ) and that the discipline of history does not have a large specialized vocabulary and uses concepts taken from other disciplines (e.g., economics, politics, and sociology) and from everyday life (Berti 1994 ). Concepts used in everyday life often have a different meaning in the past. For example, trade meant something different in the Middle Ages than it means in our present Western society. Thus, the meaning of concepts differs in time and place, and students must learn to describe phenomena that are different from those experienced in the present with known terms. Students often interpret a concept on the basis of their knowledge at present time and, thus, easily develop misunderstanding or misconceptions through anachronism. In addition, some concepts, such as fascism or slavery, give rise to strong feelings, making it sometimes difficult to distinguish between moral judgment and historical explanation (Von Borries 1994 ). Students should, thus, learn to differentiate between the present meaning of concepts and the meaning of concepts used in a specific historical context. The third problem arises from the fact that some concepts may be very specific and related to one period, so students may come across them only a few times, which limits their opportunities to understand and learn these concepts (Berti 1994 ). Finally, Limón ( 2002 ) points out that historical concepts are often implicit and not presented in an isolated way, but within a narrative. Students often have to infer their meaning, which may give rise to misunderstandings.

Relatively little research has been conducted into students’ ideas on particular substantive concepts (Limón 2002 ). The studies that did focus on students’ concept knowledge found that this knowledge is limited. Berti ( 1994 ), for example, notes that students’ use of concepts does not guarantee the correct understanding of their meaning. McKeown and Beck ( 1990 ) studied young students’ knowledge about the American Revolution just before and a year after they studied the subject in schools. They found that students in both groups were only able to provide simple associations with the concepts, as well as simple links between ideas, and that there were a lot of misconceptions and confusions. Others have shown that conceptual understanding in history is related to one’s social experience and culture (Delval 1994 ; Torney-Purta 1994 ). Especially younger children, having only limited social experience, may have difficulty in understanding historical concepts.

To conclude, using substantive concepts in historical reasoning concerns the use of concepts that name historical phenomena, persons, and periods when organizing information about the past in order to describe, compare, and/or explain historical phenomena.

The example which is presented in Fig.  2 also shows how substantive concepts shape reasoning in a whole-class discussion. In our analysis of the discourse we distinguished reasoning episodes with and without substantive concepts relevant to the task at hand. The group task that is discussed was successful in provoking student reasoning with substantive concepts, as students transformed their more everyday language into the language of history. For example, students first (not in the excerpt) talked about “men with armour” and “peasants” and then about “knights” (line 1) and “serfs” (line 2). The students use the terms knights, serfs, and nobility and the teacher brings in the abstract term system (which he explains later on the discussion) in order to explain why peasants worked for the nobility. In lines 3 and 4 Mary gives a description of the concept serf. The concepts nobility, serfs, and feudal system are important tools in the explanation of the actions of concrete persons in the Middle Ages.

Using meta-concepts

As described in the previous section, meta-concepts are related to the methods used by historians to investigate and describe historical processes and periods. Limón ( 2002 ) for example, mentions evidence, cause, explanation, empathy, time, space, change, source, fact, description, and narration. She argues that these meta-concepts form the basis of historical knowledge and mediate students’ understanding of substantive concepts. Research has shown that students’ knowledge about these meta-concepts is often implicit (Lee et al. 1998 ). Voss et al. ( 1998 ) found that although college students did seem to have some understanding of methodological concepts, this understanding was not well integrated.

We discuss meta-concepts in relation to historical reasoning: meta-concepts guide the asking of questions about the past as well as the description, comparison, and explanation of historical phenomena and the use of sources in an argumentation. In our framework we consider the use of meta-concepts in historical reasoning as the application of discipline-based heuristics that help to describe processes of change and continuity, to compare, and to explain historical phenomena. Meta-concepts and heuristics related to the use of sources, as, for instance, evaluating the trustworthiness and corroboration of information from different sources, were discussed in the section about sources.

According to Stearns ( 1998 ), understanding the phenomenon of change over time is the main purpose of history. He describes historical change as a multifaceted or multi-layered subject, which can occur in very different areas of society, for instance, political systems, technologies, fundamental beliefs, and family life. Historians often distinguish between political, economical, social, and cultural changes. Studying historical changes also raises questions about how change came about, whether it came about gradually or suddenly, as well as questions about the impact of changes and continuity or discontinuity. Barton ( 2001 ) showed that the socio-cultural setting of history education is an important factor shaping the focus on the role of individuals as agents in historical change. In a comparison of the reasoning of students from the United States with that of students from Northern Ireland, he found that US students particularly emphasized the role of (famous) individuals in bringing about change, whereas the Northern Ireland students gave more attention to societal factors such as political and social movements, economics, and the government.

The use of comparison to analyse and organise information about the past implies a focus on aspects of similarity and differences. Comparison as a heuristic can help to separate extraordinary situations or acts from more common ones. For example, in order to illuminate a particular political revolution, it can be helpful to compare it with other political revolutions. McCarthy Young and Leinhardt ( 1998b ) studied a specific form of comparison in history classes: analogical reasoning. They make a distinction between direct historical analogies involving comparison with other historical phenomena (events, structures, or meta-systems) and contextual analogies in which a historical phenomenon is compared to a familiar base drawn from personal or shared experience. Direct historical analogies are especially helpful to explain what something was, whereas contextual analogies tend to explain what something meant. Though overgeneralization and misleading comparison are potential risks of such analogical reasoning, McCarthy Young and Leinhardt did not find this kind of “misuse” in the classes of the three history teachers they studied.

In case of explanation, it is often stressed that causation in history does not involve simple cause–effect relationships: instead, many actions and events occurring over time could play a role in producing a historical event. A distinction can be made between immediate and long-term causes and between manifest and latent events or long-term developments, such as population shift or climate change (Spoehr and Spoehr 1994 ). Jacott et al. ( 1998 ) describe two different theoretical models of explanation in history. The intentionalist model conceptualizes historical explanation basically in terms of human actions, attributing major importance to the particular motives, intentions, and beliefs of the agents involved. The structural model of explanation is based on the relationship between a set of conditions (e.g., economic, demographic, social, political, religious) that constitute social reality. Thus, in case of explaining, historians search for more than one cause and/or for more than one type of cause. Results from several studies show that students tend to explain historical events from the intentionalist, personalistic point of view (e.g., Carretero et al. 1997 , 1994 ; Halldén 1993 ). In the study conducted by Carretero et al. ( 1997 ) novices and experts were asked to explain four historical events by ranking six different types of causes in order of importance (political, economic, ideological, personalistic, remote, and international policy). The results showed that non-experts attributed greater importance to personalistic causes. This is in line with findings of Rivière et al. ( 1998 ) that show that personal factors are better recalled, especially in lower levels of education. Experts tend to vary the importance given to different causes according to the historical event in question. They do not attribute the same influence to political, economic, and cultural-ideological causes, but consider each event in its own context. In short, when explaining the past, students face difficulties in using multiple and different types of causes, often have difficulties in realizing that some event can be a cause and a consequence at the same time (Shemilt 1983 ), and tend to maximize the role of human action over the influence of institutional factors.

To summarize, using meta-concepts in historical reasoning involves using heuristics related to (a) the description of processes of historical change , for example distinguishing change and continuity, gradual and sudden changes, and political, economical, social, and cultural changes; (b) the comparison of historical phenomena , for example distinguishing similarities and differences and unique and generic aspects; (c) the explanation of historical events , for example the identification of multiple causes, types of causes, relationships between causes, and of long term and immediate consequences; and (d) the use of sources providing information about the past, for example evaluating the trustworthiness of the source and corroborating information from different sources (see also the section about the use of sources).

Figure 6 presents a fragment of an essay written in a text editor in an electronic learning environment by two students, taken from the same study as the example shown in Fig.  3 . Pairs of students worked on the question of what caused the changes in the behaviour of Dutch youth in the nineteen sixties (Van Drie 2005 , 2006 ). The fragment shows the organization of information from several documents in an explanation. In this study, the scoring of the essay took, among others, into account the amount of causes given and the quality of the description of the causes (e.g., are different types of causes mentioned, are the different causes interrelated, is a distinction made between long term and immediate consequences?). This fragment forms the conclusion of their essay, which shows that these students are aware that there is not a single cause that explains the changes in the behaviour of the youth in the nineteen sixties. They take into account multiple causes and distinguish different types of causes (e.g., World War II, social-economic developments, and a changing mentality). They identify the Second World War as an important cause, together and in relation with societal developments. In the first sections of the essay (not presented here) the students are more specific about these societal developments, where they mention, for instance, increasing welfare, more education for youngsters, and the influence of television, and explain how these causes relate to changes in the youth culture.

Fragment of an essay that reflects the use of heuristics related to the meta-concept cause

Reasoning or Historical Reasoning?

Having explored historical reasoning in more detail, the question may arise to what extent there is something like historical reasoning or whether it merely reflects general reasoning skills. This question is related to the fundamental question whether thinking and reasoning are general skills or domain-specific skills. Kuhn ( 1991 ) argues that there is a general reasoning ability, which is independent of domain-specific knowledge. The philosophers in her study, who are considered experts in reasoning with no specific knowledge in the domain, outperformed the domain experts on quality of reasoning. Better reasoners tend to be analytic, generate different types of arguments and also arguments opposed to ones own position, and they are more inclined to use meta-cognitive mechanisms. On the other hand there are findings that stress the domain-specific aspects (Glaser 1984 ; Hirschfeld and Gelman 1994 ; Perfetti et al. 1995 ; Voss et al. 1980, in Wineburg 1991a ). Perfetti et al. ( 1995 ) state that historical reasoning may be informed by specific (historical) information but is guided by general reasoning principles. They consider historical reasoning as “neither specifically historical, nor fully general” (p. 5). Historical reasoning then depends on skills to approach texts and evidence critically and with an attempt to sort out evidence and construct arguments. We consider historical reasoning as a sub-concept of the overarching concept reasoning , just as, for instance, geographical reasoning or jurors reasoning. Historical reasoning can, thus, be regarded as a more specific form of reasoning. Consequently, historical reasoning requires general reasoning skills, but also contains several characteristics that are more specific to this particular domain. Historical reasoning is not only informed by historical information, domain-specific knowledge, and domain-specific epistemological beliefs, but also implies the application of historical heuristics or thinking strategies related to the meta-concepts of history. An example may clarify this. In one of our studies we asked both students and their history teachers to discuss in pairs and write a short essay about the question ‘To what extent can Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler be compared?’ that was given together with a text claiming that there were many communalities. Whereas the discussions and essays of the student dyads hardly reflected historical reasoning, those of the teachers did. The reasoning of the teachers was informed by a rich historical knowledge base that enabled them to judge carefully the claims made in the text, for example, two teachers criticized the claim that both Hitler and Hussein knew a personality cult, by discussing several characteristic features of the personality cult of Hitler and bringing in an alternative comparison with the personality cult of Stalin. The teachers did not only focus on communalities (arguments in favour) but also on differences (arguments against), always contextualizing features of the reign of Hussein and Hitler. Domain-specific epistemological beliefs seemed to underlie their reluctance to compare persons from different times and places and their careful analysis of the historical context of each person.

Using the Framework in Empirical Research

The framework of historical reasoning presented here helps guide future research. Firstly, the description of the components of historical reasoning shows that not all components have been investigated to the same extent and that some need further elaboration and specification. Although there is a reasonable number of studies which focus on heuristics related to the explanation of historical phenomena and the use of historical sources, there are not many empirical studies that focus on asking historical questions, contextualization, comparisons between historical phenomena, reasoning about historical changes, and the use of substantive concepts in reasoning. In addition, as far as we know, studies in which different components are more coherently studied are also still rare. Secondly, more insight is needed into the relationship between ways and levels of historical reasoning and historical knowledge, historical thinking strategies, and epistemological beliefs. The analytic framework presented here may provide a good starting point for investigating the question of the extent to which differences in reasoning are due to available historical and epistemological knowledge, strategies, and attitudes. Thirdly, historical reasoning is quite a complex activity and future research should shed more light on how to overcome the problems students face with historical reasoning, asking such questions as “What are good learning tasks that elicit and promote historical reasoning?” and “What are the effects of different learning tasks on students’ reasoning?” As mentioned before, we have studied the effects of different inquiry questions and the role of the construction of different kind of external representations (e.g., diagram, list, and matrix). In future research projects we will focus on how whole-class discussions influence students’ reasoning in small groups and on how students can be stimulated and supported to ask historical questions themselves.

Using the Framework for Educational Practice

Although the framework of historical reasoning was initially developed for research reasons, it can also be used by teachers in their daily classroom practice. Using the framework could help direct teachers’ attention to the question of what students are supposed to do with the information about the past that they are confronted with. An important task of the teacher then becomes to create ample opportunities in the classroom for students to practice historical reasoning, for themselves, in dialogue with other students, and in dialogue with the teacher. Leinhardt, for example, showed that historical reasoning could be promoted by teacher–student conversations (Leinhardt 1993 , 1997 ) and by writing tasks (Leinhardt 2000 ). In addition, Van Drie ( 2005 ) showed that collaborative learning in the context of an inquiry task could be a suitable instructional strategy to engage students in historical reasoning.

Clearly, teaching students to reason in history is a challenging job. It may take much time in an already time-limited practice of teaching several classes for only a few hours a week, it puts high demands on the reasoning skills of the teacher, it may be difficult and time-consuming to assess, and it requires good instructional materials and learning tasks (cf. O’Reilly 1991 ). The framework of historical reasoning presented here may provide a structure for the design of a curriculum and learning tasks. It could, for instance, be used to evaluate the current curriculum on how much time is directed to the various components. It may be a useful starting point for thinking about the desired goals students should attain in various school and age levels. In addition, the framework could be used to derive criteria for the assessment of students’ products, such as essays.

Conclusions and Discussion

In this article a framework of historical reasoning was presented. This framework aimed at gaining more insight into historical reasoning and its’ different components and at assisting the analysis of historical reasoning in the context of history education. Six components of historical reasoning were distinguished: (a) asking historical questions, (b) using sources, (c) contextualization, (d) argumentation, (e) using substantive concepts, and (f) using meta-concepts. From the literature on the components of historical reasoning we conclude that skilled historical reasoning can be described as reasoning which reflects contextualization or taking into account the historical period and setting, the use of substantive and meta-concepts to describe, compare, and explain historical phenomena, and sound argumentation based on a careful inspection and evaluation of available sources.

Historical reasoning, as described above, is a complex activity (cf. Fernández-Corte and García-Madruga 1998 ; Lowenthal 2000 ; Shemilt 2000 ; Spoehr and Spoehr 1994 ). Wineburg ( 2001 ) even describes it as an “unnatural act.” Most research on learning history has been conducted at the level of high-school and university students, which has consequences for what might be expected of students, but it is clear that historical reasoning as such contains several problematic aspects for students. First, while discussing their claims, students tend only to use arguments supporting their own point of view, do not take into account alternative views, and have difficulties in weighing different arguments. A second, related problem is that students do not use sources extensively, do not consider the trustworthiness of the source, and hardly use corroboration of sources when studying historical documents. Thirdly, contextualization of historical problems requires detailed factual knowledge of the issue at hand and a broader chronological frame of reference, as well as knowledge of how people and societies function, which students may possess only to a limited extent. Fourthly, judging the past by its own standards and not by our present ones is difficult for students. Fifthly, in describing historical changes students often find it difficult to take into account processes of continuity and in explaining them, they face problems in using multiple and different types of causes, and tend to maximize the role of human action and minimize the role of institutional factors. Finally, many substantive concepts are difficult for students to understand and use in a correct way. From the perspective of individual differences, the level of historical reasoning appears to be related to several factors, as, for instance, age and development (e.g., Kuhn et al. 1994 ; Torney-Purta 1994 ), culture (e.g., Barton 2001 ; Delval 1994 ), working memory capacity (e.g., Fernández-Corte and García-Madruga 1998 ), and epistemological beliefs (e.g., Kuhn et al. 1994 ; Voss et al. 1998 ). In addition, specific content knowledge plays an important role (e.g., Leinhardt and McCarthy Young 1996 ; Perfetti et al. 1995 ; Wineburg 1998 ).

In this article we have provided some examples of how the framework of historical reasoning can be used to analyze historical reasoning in studies on teaching and learning history. These examples suggest that it is a useful tool to analyze students’ historical reasoning in speaking and in writing and that it works in differentiating between different experimental conditions. Future research should focus on the validation of the framework and these outcomes may be considered as the first small step towards it. The framework can be used to analyze historical reasoning in more qualitative, as well as in more quantitative ways. As stated before, the framework does not specify fixed levels of historical reasoning. When it is desirable to specify levels of historical reasoning, the age and experience of students, the specific task, information, and support that are provided should be taken into account. For most of the components, there exists a reasonable amount of studies that would be helpful for such a specification.

To summarize, the proposed framework of historical reasoning suggests future empirical research on specific components as well as on their overall interrelations. Such research may support the development of instructional formats and principles to provoke and improve historical reasoning in history classrooms. At the same time, the framework can be used in educational practice as a framework to design and evaluate learning activities, learning materials, as well as criteria for assessment.

Ankersmit, F. R. (1982). Over geschiedenisonderwijs en historische begrippen [About history education and historical concepts]. Kleio , 8 , 11–15.

Google Scholar  

Ashby, R. (2004). Developing a concept of historical evidence. Students’ ideas about testing singular factual claims. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research , 4 (2), 44–55. Retrieved from http://www.ex.ac.uk/historyresource/journalstart.htm .

Barton, K. C. (2001). A sociocultural perspective on children’s understanding of historical change: Comparative findings from Northern Ireland and the United States. American Educational Research Journal , 38 (4), 881–913.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Berti, A. E. (1994). Children’s understanding of the concept state. In M. Carretero, & J. F. Voss (Eds.) Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 49–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Booth, M. (1994). Cognition in history: A British perspective. Educational Psychologist , 29 (2), 61–69.

Brown, A. L., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher , 18 , 32–42.

Carretero, M., Jacott, L., Limón, M., López-Manjón, A., & León, A. (1994). Historical knowledge: Cognitive and instructional implications. In M. Carretero, & J. F. Voss (Eds.) Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 357–376). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carretero, M., López-Manjón, A., & Jacott, L. (1997). Explaining historical events. International Journal of Educational Research , 27 (3), 245–254.

Carretero, M., & Voss, J. F. (Eds.) (1994). Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Counsell, C. (2000). Historical knowledge and historical skills: A distracting dichotomy. In S. Capel, J. Davison, J. Arthur, & J. Moss (Series Eds.) & J. Arthur & R. Philips (Vol. Eds.), Issues in subject teaching series. Issues in history teaching (pp. 54–71). London: Routledge.

De Keyser, R., & Vandepitte, P. (Eds.) (1998). Historical formation. Design of vision . Brussel, Belgium: Flemish Board for Catholic Secondary Education.

Delval, J. (1994). Stages in the child’s construction of social knowledge. In M. Carretero, & J. F. Voss (Eds.) Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 77–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In T. M. Duffy, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.) Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 1–16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fasulo, A., Girardet, H., & Pontecorvo, C. (1998). Seeing the past: Learning history through group discussion and iconographic sources. In J. F. Voss, & M. Carretero (Eds.) Learning and reasoning in history. International review of history education (Vol. 2) (pp. 132–153). London: Woburn.

Fernández-Corte, T., & García-Madruga, J. A. (1998). Constructing historical knowledge at high school: The case of the industrial revolution. In J. F. Voss, & M. Carretero (Eds.) Learning and reasoning in history. International review of history education (Vol. 2) (pp. 331–343). London: Woburn.

Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist , 39 , 933–104.

Goegebeur W., Simon, R., De Keyser, R., Van Dooren, J., & Van Landegem, P. (1999). Historisch besef: Hoe waarden-vol?! Ontwikkeling van een Analyse-instrument [Historical Consiousness: How Valuable?! Development of an Instrument of Analysis]. Brussels, Belgium: VUB.

Haenen, J., & Schrijnemakers, H. (2000). Suffrage, feudal, democracy, treaty… history’s building blocks: Learning to teach historical concepts. Teaching History , 98 , 22–29.

Halldén, O. (1993). Learners’ conceptions of the subject matter being taught: A case from learning history. International Journal of Educational Research , 19 , 317–325.

Halldén, O. (1997). Conceptual change and the learning of history. International Journal of Educational Research , 27 , 201–210.

Halldén, O. (1998). On reasoning in history. In J. F. Voss, & M. Carretero (Eds.) Learning and reasoning in history. International review of history education (Vol 2) (pp. 272–278). London: Woburn.

Hirschfeld, L. A., & Gelman, S. A. (1994). Mapping the mind. Domain specificity in cognition and culture . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Husbands, C. (1996). What is history teaching? Language, ideas and meaning in learning about the past . Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Jacott, L., López-Manjón, A., & Carretero, M. (1998). Generating explanations in history. In J. F. Voss, & M. Carretero (Eds.) Learning and reasoning in history. International review of history education (Vol. 2) (pp. 294–306). London: Woburn.

Jeismann, K. E. (1997). Geschichtsbewusstsein [Historical Consiousness]. In K. Bergmann, K. Fröhlich, A. Kuhn, J. Rüsen, & G. Schneider (Eds.), Handbuch der Geschichtsdidaktik [Handbook of Didactics of History] (pp. 42–44.). Germany: Kalmeyersche, Seelze.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kuhn, D., Winestock, M., & Flaton, R. (1994). Historical reasoning as theory-evidence coordination. In M. Carretero, & J. F. Voss (Eds.) Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 377–402). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lee, P. (2004). Historical literacy: Theory and research . Paper presented at the History Education International Research Network Conference. Ambleside: UK.

Lee, P. (2007). From national canon to historical literacy. In M. Grever, & S. Stuurman (Eds.) Beyond the canon. History for the Twenty-first Century (pp. 48–62). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lee, P., & Ashby, R. (2000). Progression in historical understanding among students age 7–14. In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.) Knowing, teaching, and learning history. National and international perspectives (pp. 199–222). New York: New York University Press.

Lee, P., Dickinson, A., & Ashby, R. (1997). “Just another emperor”: Understanding action in the past. International Journal of Educational Research , 27 , 233–244.

Lee, P., Dickinson, A., & Ashby, R. (1998). Researching children’s ideas about history. In J. F. Voss, & M. Carretero (Eds.) Learning and reasoning in history. International review of history education (Vol. 2) (pp. 277–251). London: Woburn.

Leinhardt, G. (1993). Weaving instructional explanations in history. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 63 , 46–74.

Leinhardt, G. (1997). Instructional explanations in history. International Journal of Educational Research , 27 (3), 221–233.

Leinhardt, G. (2000). Lessons on teaching and learning in history from Pauls’ pen. In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.) Knowing, teaching, and learning history. National and international perspectives (pp. 223–245). New York: New York University Press.

Leinhardt, G., Beck, I. L., & Stainton, C. (Eds.). (1994). Teaching and learning in history. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Leinhardt, G., & McCarthy Young, K. (1996). Two texts, three readers: Distance and expertise in reading history. Cognition and Instruction , 14 (4), 441–486.

Leinhardt, G., Stainton, C., & Virji, S. M. (1994). A sense of history. Educational Psychologist , 29 (2), 79–88.

Leinhardt, G., Stainton, C., Virji, S. M., & Odoroff, E. (1994). Learning to reason in history: Mindlessness to mindfulness. In M. Carretero, & J. F. Voss (Eds.) Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 131–158). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Limón, M. (2002). Conceptual change in history. In M. Limón, & L. Mason (Eds.) Reconsidering conceptual change. Issues in theory and practice (pp. 259–289). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lowenthal, D. (2000). Dilemmas and delights of learning history. In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.) Knowing, teaching, and learning history. National and international perspectives (pp. 63–82). New York: New York University Press.

Maggioni, L., Alexander, P., & VanSledright, B. (2004). At a crossroads? The development of epistemological beliefs and historical thinking. European Journal of School Psychology , 2 (1–2), 169–197.

McCarthy Young, K., & Leinhardt, G. (1998a). Writing from primary document. A way of knowing in history. Written communication , 15 (1), 25–68.

McCarthy Young, K., & Leinhardt, G. (1998b). Wildflowers, sheep and democracy: The role of analogy in the teaching and learning of history. In J. F. Voss, & M. Carretero (Eds.) Learning and reasoning in history. International review of history education (Vol 2) (pp. 154–156). London: Woburn.

McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (1990). The assessment and characterization of young learners’ knowledge of a topic in history. American Educational Research Journal , 27 (4), 688–726.

O’Reilly, K. (1991). Informal reasoning in high school history. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.) Informal reasoning and education (pp. 363–379). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction , 11 (3–4), 365–395.

Rivière, A., Nunez, M., Barquero, B., & Fontela, F. (1998). Influence of intentional and personal factors in recalling historical texts: A developmental perspective. In J. F. Voss, & M. Carretero (Eds.) Learning and reasoning in history. International review of history education (Vol. 2) (pp. 214–226). London: Woburn.

Roderigo, M. J. (1994). Discussion of chapters 10–12: Promoting narrative literacy and historical literacy. In M. Carretero, & J. F. Voss (Eds.) Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 309–320). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosa, A., Blanco, F., & Huertas, J. A. (1998). Uses of historical knowledge: An exploration of the construction of professional identity in students of psychology. In J. F. Voss, & M. Carretero (Eds.) Learning and reasoning in history. International review of history education (Vol. 2) (pp. 61–78). London: Woburn.

Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology , 88 (3), 478–493.

Rouet, J. F., Marron, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., & Favart, M. (1998). Understanding historical controversies: Students’ evaluation and use of documentary evidence. In J. F. Voss, & M. Carretero (Eds.) Learning and reasoning in history. International review of history education (Vol. 2) (pp. 95–116). London: Woburn.

Schreiber, W., Körber, A., Von Borries, B., Krammer, R., Leutner-Ramme, S., Mebus, S., Schöner, A., & Ziegler, B. (2006). Historisches Denken. Ein Kompetenz-Strukturmodell.[Historical Thinking. A model of compentences] Ars una, Neuried, Germany.

Seixas, P. (1993). Historical understanding among adolescents in a multicultural setting. Curriculum Inquiry , 23 (3), 301–327.

Shemilt, D. (1983). The devil’s locomotive. History and Theory , 22 (4), 1–18.

Shemilt, D. (2000). The Caliph’s coin: The currency of narrative frameworks in history teaching. In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.) Knowing, teaching, and learning history. National and international perspectives (pp. 83–101). New York: New York University Press.

Spoehr, K. T., & Spoehr, L. W. (1994). Learning to think historically. Educational Psychologist , 29 (2), 71–77.

Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly , 31 (4), 430–456.

Stearns, P. N. (1998). Goals in history teaching. Learning and Reasoning in history. International review of history education (Vol. 2) (pp. 281–293). London: Woburn.

Stein, N., & Miller, C. (1993). The development of memory and reasoning skills in argumentative contexts: Evaluating, explaining, and generating evidence. In R. Glaser (Ed.) Advances in instructional psychology . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stow, W., & Haydn, T. (2000). Issues in the teaching of chronology. In S. Capel, J. Davison, J. Arthur, & J. Moss (Series Eds.) & J. Arthur & R. Philips (Vol. Eds.), Issues in subject teaching series. Issues in history teaching (pp. 83–97). London: Routledge.

Torney-Purta, J. (1994). Dimensions of adolescents’ reasoning about political and historical issues: Ontological switches, developmental processes, and situated learning. In M. Carretero, & J. F. Voss (Eds.) Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social cciences (pp. 103–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Van Boxtel, C. (2002, June). Small group collaboration compared with teacher-guided collaboration in the whole class. Paper presented at the International Society for Cultural Research and Activity Theory (ISCRAT) Congress, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Van Boxtel, C., & Van Drie, J. (2003, August). Collaborative reasoning as a key concept for analyzing classroom discourse. Paper presented at the 10th European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI). Conference, Padova, Italy.

Van Boxtel, C., & Van Drie, J. (2004). Historical reasoning: A comparison of how experts and novices contextualise historical sources. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research , 4 (2), 89–97. Retrieved from http://www.ex.ac.uk/historyresource/journalstart.htm .

Van Drie, J. (2005). Learning about the past with new technologies. Fostering historical reasoning in computer-supported collaborative learning , Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Netherlands: Utrecht University.

Van Drie, J., & Van Boxtel, C. (2003). Developing conceptual understanding through talk and mapping. Teaching History , 110 , 27–32.

Van Drie, J., Van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior , 21 (4), 575–602.

Van Drie, J., Van Boxtel, C., & Van der Linden, J. L. (2006). Historical reasoning in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo, & G. Erkens (Eds.) Collaborative learning, reasoning and technology (pp. 265–296). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.

VanSledright, B. A., & Frankes, L. (2000). Concept- and strategic-knowledge development in historical study: A comparative exploration in two fourth-grade classrooms. Cognition and Instruction , 18 (2), 239–283.

Von Borries, B. (1994). (Re-)constructing history and moral judgment: On relationships between interpretations of the past and perceptions of the present. In M. Carretero, & J. F. Voss (Eds.) Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 339–355). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Von Borries, B. (1997). Concepts of historical thinking and historical learning in the perspective of German students and teachers. International Journal of Educational Research , 27 (3), 211–220.

Voss, J. (Ed.). (1997). Explanation and understanding in learning history [Special issue]. International Journal of Educational Research , 27(3).

Voss, J. F., & Carretero, M. (Eds.). (1998). Learning and reasoning in history. International review of history education (Vol. 2). London: Woburn.

Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction , 1 , 337–350.

Voss, J. F., Perkins, D. N., & Segal, J. W. (1991). Preface. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.) Informal reasoning and education (pp. vii–xvii). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Voss, J. F., Wiley, J., & Kennet, J. (1998). Student perceptions of history and historical concepts. In J. F. Voss, & M. Carretero (Eds.) Learning and reasoning in history. International review of history education (vol. Vol. 2, (pp. 307–330)). London: Woburn.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. V., & Rozin, M. (1998). The Russian Revolution: Official and unofficial accounts. In J. F. Voss, & M. Carretero (Eds.) Learning and reasoning in history. International review of history education (Vol. 2), (pp. 39–60). London: Woburn.

Wilson, S. M. (2001). Research on history teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.), (pp. 527–544). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.

Wineburg, S. S. (1991a). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology , 83 , 73–87.

Wineburg, S. S. (1991b). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal , 28 , 495–519.

Wineburg, S. S. (1994). The cognitive representation of historical texts. In G. Leinhardt, I. L. Beck, & C. Stainton (Eds.) Teaching and learning in history (pp. 85–136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wineburg, S. S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science , 22 , 319–346.

Wineburg, S. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Charting the future of teaching the past . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Graduate School of Teaching and Learning, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Spinozastraat 55, 1018, HJ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Jannet van Drie & Carla van Boxtel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jannet van Drie .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C. Historical Reasoning: Towards a Framework for Analyzing Students’ Reasoning about the Past. Educ Psychol Rev 20 , 87–110 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9056-1

Download citation

Received : 30 November 2006

Accepted : 11 September 2007

Published : 03 October 2007

Issue Date : June 2008

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9056-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Historical reasoning
• Domain-specific reasoning
• History learning
• Interaction analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Home » Introduction to Research Frameworks

Introduction to Research Frameworks

What are research frameworks, research frameworks provide us with, frameworks content, using research frameworks, contributing to the research frameworks.

In 1996 the English Heritage (now Historic England) publication ‘ Frameworks for our Past ‘ highlighted the need for research frameworks for the historic environment as a tool for establishing long-term objectives. The DCMS document ‘ Historic Environment: a Force for our Future’ (2001) stated that English Heritage had been ‘ commissioned to frame a co-ordinated approach to research across the historic environment sector’ .

Research Frameworks for many areas and specialisms have now been developed, with more in production, some of the earlier Frameworks are already being reviewed and updated.

The development of this Research Frameworks Network also addresses a number of the recommendations of the Pye Tait Review of Research Frameworks report (2014), including the need to ‘ Pursue the development of a dynamic and interactive web-based system for hosting a new generation of Research Frameworks’ .

As new Research Frameworks are developed, and older documents are reviewed, the plan is for them to be published here on the Network as a central location. We are also working on making older Research Frameworks (originally published as monographs) available through the Network.

How do we assess if sites or areas are important or significant? 

What research questions can we ask?

How do we go about co-ordinating this research?

Research Frameworks help us to identify what is important or significant archaeologically. They are normally organised by;

• Geographical areas such as Regional, County, or World Heritage Site (e.g. the South West Regional Research Framework)
• Periods (eg the Mesolithic)
• Themes (eg Roman pottery)

They provide research questions and objectives to help co-ordinate and focus our research effort.

They are created by bringing together people across the sector to create a shared framework, including:

• Local authorities
• Contractors
• Voluntary groups

Guided by a Steering Group, meetings of local stakeholders from across the historic environment spectrum come together to discuss and identify priorities. These take the form of a mixture of workshops and meetings, with sections of the Frameworks being written by specialists.

1. An up to date overview of current understanding – ie “what we currently know” .

Usually created by synthesising information from lots of different sources, eg Historic Environment Records (HERs), reports from planning-led investigations, academic and society journals. This provides an overview of a specific period, place or theme – eg The Bronze Age in the West Midlands.

2. A Research Agenda – identifying gaps in our knowledge and providing questions to fill these gaps .

An agreed set of research areas and questions that is used to help co-ordinate research – they help focus what the sector wants to know more about. Research agendas can help to coordinate academic and community research as well as provide a research focus for planning-led projects.

3. Strategies to carry out this research .

These strategies provide the framework within which the research can be carried out – promoting potential ways forward and partnerships.

This Regional Steering Group model means that Frameworks differ in content. They can cover archaeology, the built environment, landscapes, environmental information, and maritime heritage. However, generally they all contain similar components such as the following:-

• Defining the region – defining the area covered by the framework
• Time periods – summary of the time periods
• Research Agenda Topics – list of key research questions for each period and synthesis of research themes spanning multiple periods
• Research Strategy – strategies for advancing understanding of the Agenda Topics
• Overarching questions – region or specialism wide questions
• Environmental information (if relevant) – details of the palaeoenvironmental remains
• Resources/bibliography – these vary in detail and scope across the network, but often contain lists of publications used in the production of the framework, online resources and other relevant information.

A table of existing research Frameworks can be found  here , we are working to make more available on the network.

Research Frameworks play an important role in providing an overview of current understanding, coordinating research and informing decision making – particularly planning related. They have many different uses:

1. Local authority staff:

• As a reference to provide context for assessing the significance of heritage assets and proposed sites.
• To provide a research focus for planning-led investigations.

2. Contractors:

• As a reference resource to help write desk-based assessments and environmental impact assessments.
• Referred to when writing Written Schemes of Investigation (WSIs) in response to project briefs.

3. Academics:

• To scope out research projects and provide direction for postgraduate research.
• To assess the ‘impact’ of their research, eg in relation to Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact assessments.

4. Local Societies:

• To improve their knowledge and scope out research projects.
• To establish research priorities linking into the regional and national picture.

Frameworks rely on local research to keep up to date – everyone is encouraged to add to the value of the Frameworks by contributing to these online documents via the commenting facility.

To find out how to get involved please visit the How to use the Research Framework Site page to find out how to register and contribute to the historical and archaeological knowledge on these sites.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, conceptual frameworks in historical analysis: using reputation as interpretive prism.

Journal of Management History

ISSN : 1751-1348

Article publication date: 10 April 2017

This paper aims to advocate a revised perspective in historical analysis. The author calls for historians to apply the concept of reputation as interpretive lens in the analysis of historical processes and outcomes.

Design/methodology/approach

Widely used in management and marketing writing, but also relied upon in political science, the concept of reputation helps predict behaviour of individuals and entities that are bound by political constraints to align their actions to the goal of generating a popular standing. The lens also serves to cast light on the actions engaged in by external stakeholders that are informed by reputational cues. This theoretical contention is illustrated in four case studies resulting from investigations into political decisions and military conflicts, both in the republican and imperial period that ascertain how success and expansion as well as failure and decline of ancient Rome can be viewed and better understood by applying reputation as an instrument to direct and focus historical analysis.

This paper does not only advance complementary angles and alternative answers to issues in ancient Roman history. The cases considered also demonstrate how failure to recognise reputation as a significant concept in historical analysis does not only impair a comprehensive and balanced reflection of personal and organisational stakeholder behaviour but also thwarts a full appreciation of the motivation that drives individual protagonists and institutional agents, whose decisions are central to historical processes and outcomes.

Originality/value

The findings advanced in this paper – informed by four case studies – evidence the need of a new analytical prism in historical enquiry that will define the questions raised and direct the researcher’s attention. It has been shown how the concept of reputation can play a tangible role in sketching out a distinct new angle in historical investigation that leads to reviewing current narrative of past events and phenomena.

Schnee, C. (2017), "Conceptual frameworks in historical analysis: using reputation as interpretive prism", Journal of Management History , Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 152-169. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-01-2017-0002

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2017, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• Privacy Policy

Home » Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Theoretical Framework

Definition:

Theoretical framework refers to a set of concepts, theories, ideas , and assumptions that serve as a foundation for understanding a particular phenomenon or problem. It provides a conceptual framework that helps researchers to design and conduct their research, as well as to analyze and interpret their findings.

In research, a theoretical framework explains the relationship between various variables, identifies gaps in existing knowledge, and guides the development of research questions, hypotheses, and methodologies. It also helps to contextualize the research within a broader theoretical perspective, and can be used to guide the interpretation of results and the formulation of recommendations.

Types of Theoretical Framework

Types of Types of Theoretical Framework are as follows:

Conceptual Framework

This type of framework defines the key concepts and relationships between them. It helps to provide a theoretical foundation for a study or research project .

Deductive Framework

This type of framework starts with a general theory or hypothesis and then uses data to test and refine it. It is often used in quantitative research .

Inductive Framework

This type of framework starts with data and then develops a theory or hypothesis based on the patterns and themes that emerge from the data. It is often used in qualitative research .

Empirical Framework

This type of framework focuses on the collection and analysis of empirical data, such as surveys or experiments. It is often used in scientific research .

Normative Framework

This type of framework defines a set of norms or values that guide behavior or decision-making. It is often used in ethics and social sciences.

Explanatory Framework

This type of framework seeks to explain the underlying mechanisms or causes of a particular phenomenon or behavior. It is often used in psychology and social sciences.

Components of Theoretical Framework

The components of a theoretical framework include:

• Concepts : The basic building blocks of a theoretical framework. Concepts are abstract ideas or generalizations that represent objects, events, or phenomena.
• Variables : These are measurable and observable aspects of a concept. In a research context, variables can be manipulated or measured to test hypotheses.
• Assumptions : These are beliefs or statements that are taken for granted and are not tested in a study. They provide a starting point for developing hypotheses.
• Propositions : These are statements that explain the relationships between concepts and variables in a theoretical framework.
• Hypotheses : These are testable predictions that are derived from the theoretical framework. Hypotheses are used to guide data collection and analysis.
• Constructs : These are abstract concepts that cannot be directly measured but are inferred from observable variables. Constructs provide a way to understand complex phenomena.
• Models : These are simplified representations of reality that are used to explain, predict, or control a phenomenon.

How to Write Theoretical Framework

A theoretical framework is an essential part of any research study or paper, as it helps to provide a theoretical basis for the research and guide the analysis and interpretation of the data. Here are some steps to help you write a theoretical framework:

• Identify the key concepts and variables : Start by identifying the main concepts and variables that your research is exploring. These could include things like motivation, behavior, attitudes, or any other relevant concepts.
• Review relevant literature: Conduct a thorough review of the existing literature in your field to identify key theories and ideas that relate to your research. This will help you to understand the existing knowledge and theories that are relevant to your research and provide a basis for your theoretical framework.
• Develop a conceptual framework : Based on your literature review, develop a conceptual framework that outlines the key concepts and their relationships. This framework should provide a clear and concise overview of the theoretical perspective that underpins your research.
• Identify hypotheses and research questions: Based on your conceptual framework, identify the hypotheses and research questions that you want to test or explore in your research.
• Test your theoretical framework: Once you have developed your theoretical framework, test it by applying it to your research data. This will help you to identify any gaps or weaknesses in your framework and refine it as necessary.
• Write up your theoretical framework: Finally, write up your theoretical framework in a clear and concise manner, using appropriate terminology and referencing the relevant literature to support your arguments.

Theoretical Framework Examples

Here are some examples of theoretical frameworks:

• Social Learning Theory : This framework, developed by Albert Bandura, suggests that people learn from their environment, including the behaviors of others, and that behavior is influenced by both external and internal factors.
• Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs : Abraham Maslow proposed that human needs are arranged in a hierarchy, with basic physiological needs at the bottom, followed by safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization at the top. This framework has been used in various fields, including psychology and education.
• Ecological Systems Theory : This framework, developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner, suggests that a person’s development is influenced by the interaction between the individual and the various environments in which they live, such as family, school, and community.
• Feminist Theory: This framework examines how gender and power intersect to influence social, cultural, and political issues. It emphasizes the importance of understanding and challenging systems of oppression.
• Cognitive Behavioral Theory: This framework suggests that our thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes influence our behavior, and that changing our thought patterns can lead to changes in behavior and emotional responses.
• Attachment Theory: This framework examines the ways in which early relationships with caregivers shape our later relationships and attachment styles.
• Critical Race Theory : This framework examines how race intersects with other forms of social stratification and oppression to perpetuate inequality and discrimination.

When to Have A Theoretical Framework

Following are some situations When to Have A Theoretical Framework:

• A theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research in any discipline, as it provides a foundation for understanding the research problem and guiding the research process.
• A theoretical framework is essential when conducting research on complex phenomena, as it helps to organize and structure the research questions, hypotheses, and findings.
• A theoretical framework should be developed when the research problem requires a deeper understanding of the underlying concepts and principles that govern the phenomenon being studied.
• A theoretical framework is particularly important when conducting research in social sciences, as it helps to explain the relationships between variables and provides a framework for testing hypotheses.
• A theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research in applied fields, such as engineering or medicine, as it helps to provide a theoretical basis for the development of new technologies or treatments.
• A theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research that seeks to address a specific gap in knowledge, as it helps to define the problem and identify potential solutions.
• A theoretical framework is also important when conducting research that involves the analysis of existing theories or concepts, as it helps to provide a framework for comparing and contrasting different theories and concepts.
• A theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research that seeks to make predictions or develop generalizations about a particular phenomenon, as it helps to provide a basis for evaluating the accuracy of these predictions or generalizations.
• Finally, a theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research that seeks to make a contribution to the field, as it helps to situate the research within the broader context of the discipline and identify its significance.

Purpose of Theoretical Framework

The purposes of a theoretical framework include:

• Providing a conceptual framework for the study: A theoretical framework helps researchers to define and clarify the concepts and variables of interest in their research. It enables researchers to develop a clear and concise definition of the problem, which in turn helps to guide the research process.
• Guiding the research design: A theoretical framework can guide the selection of research methods, data collection techniques, and data analysis procedures. By outlining the key concepts and assumptions underlying the research questions, the theoretical framework can help researchers to identify the most appropriate research design for their study.
• Supporting the interpretation of research findings: A theoretical framework provides a framework for interpreting the research findings by helping researchers to make connections between their findings and existing theory. It enables researchers to identify the implications of their findings for theory development and to assess the generalizability of their findings.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research: A well-developed theoretical framework can enhance the credibility of the research by providing a strong theoretical foundation for the study. It demonstrates that the research is based on a solid understanding of the relevant theory and that the research questions are grounded in a clear conceptual framework.
• Facilitating communication and collaboration: A theoretical framework provides a common language and conceptual framework for researchers, enabling them to communicate and collaborate more effectively. It helps to ensure that everyone involved in the research is working towards the same goals and is using the same concepts and definitions.

Characteristics of Theoretical Framework

Some of the characteristics of a theoretical framework include:

• Conceptual clarity: The concepts used in the theoretical framework should be clearly defined and understood by all stakeholders.
• Logical coherence : The framework should be internally consistent, with each concept and assumption logically connected to the others.
• Empirical relevance: The framework should be based on empirical evidence and research findings.
• Parsimony : The framework should be as simple as possible, without sacrificing its ability to explain the phenomenon in question.
• Flexibility : The framework should be adaptable to new findings and insights.
• Testability : The framework should be testable through research, with clear hypotheses that can be falsified or supported by data.
• Applicability : The framework should be useful for practical applications, such as designing interventions or policies.

Advantages of Theoretical Framework

Here are some of the advantages of having a theoretical framework:

• Provides a clear direction : A theoretical framework helps researchers to identify the key concepts and variables they need to study and the relationships between them. This provides a clear direction for the research and helps researchers to focus their efforts and resources.
• Increases the validity of the research: A theoretical framework helps to ensure that the research is based on sound theoretical principles and concepts. This increases the validity of the research by ensuring that it is grounded in established knowledge and is not based on arbitrary assumptions.
• Enables comparisons between studies : A theoretical framework provides a common language and set of concepts that researchers can use to compare and contrast their findings. This helps to build a cumulative body of knowledge and allows researchers to identify patterns and trends across different studies.
• Helps to generate hypotheses: A theoretical framework provides a basis for generating hypotheses about the relationships between different concepts and variables. This can help to guide the research process and identify areas that require further investigation.
• Facilitates communication: A theoretical framework provides a common language and set of concepts that researchers can use to communicate their findings to other researchers and to the wider community. This makes it easier for others to understand the research and its implications.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Research Writing and Analysis

• NVivo Group and Study Sessions
• SPSS This link opens in a new window
• Statistical Analysis Group sessions
• Using Qualtrics
• Dissertation and Data Analysis Group Sessions
• Defense Schedule - Commons Calendar This link opens in a new window
• Research Process Flow Chart
• Research Alignment Chapter 1 This link opens in a new window
• Step 1: Seek Out Evidence
• Step 2: Explain
• Step 3: The Big Picture
• Step 4: Own It
• Step 5: Illustrate
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review This link opens in a new window
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• How to Synthesize and Analyze
• Synthesis and Analysis Practice
• Synthesis and Analysis Group Sessions
• Problem Statement
• Purpose Statement
• Conceptual Framework
• Theoretical Framework
• Quantitative Research Questions
• Qualitative Research Questions
• Trustworthiness of Qualitative Data
• Analysis and Coding Example- Qualitative Data
• Thematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Design
• Dissertation to Journal Article This link opens in a new window
• International Journal of Online Graduate Education (IJOGE) This link opens in a new window
• Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning (JRIT&L) This link opens in a new window

Designing the Theoretical Framework

What is it.

• A foundational review of existing theories. 
• Serves as a roadmap or blueprint for developing arguments and supporting research.
• Overview of the theory that the research is based on.
• Can be made up of theories, principles, and concepts.

What does it do?

• Explains the why and how of a particular phenomenon within a particular body of literature.
• Connects the research subject with the theory.
• Specifies the study’s scope; makes it more valuable and generalizable.
• Guides further actions like framing the research questions, developing the literature review, and data collection and analyses.

What should be in it?

• Theory or theories that the researcher considers relevant for their research, principles, and concepts.

Theoretical Framework Guide

• Theoretical Framework Guide Use this guide to determine the guiding framework for your theoretical dissertation research.

Making a Theoretical Framework

How to make a theoretical framework.

• Specify research objectives.
• Note the prominent variables under the study.
• Explore and review the literature through keywords identified as prominent variables.
• Note the theories that contain these variables or the keywords.
• Review all selected theories again in the light of the study’s objectives, and the key variables identified.
• Search for alternative theoretical propositions in the literature that may challenge the ones already selected.
• Ensure that the framework aligns with the study’s objectives, problem statement, the main research question, methodology, data analysis, and the expected conclusion.
• Decide on the final framework and begin developing.

Example Framework

• Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation This link offers an example theoretical framework.

Additional Framework Resources

Some additional helpful resources in constructing a theoretical framework for study:.

• https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/theoretical-framework/
• https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/theoretical-framework-example/
• https://www.projectguru.in/how-to-write-the-theoretical-framework-of-research/

Theoretical Framework Research

The term conceptual framework and theoretical framework are often and erroneously used interchangeably (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). A theoretical framework provides the theoretical assumptions for the larger context of a study, and is the foundation or ‘lens’ by which a study is developed. This framework helps to ground the research focus understudy within theoretical underpinnings and to frame the inquiry for data analysis and interpretation.  The application of theory in traditional theoretical research is to understand, explain, and predict phenomena (Swanson, 2013).

Casanave, C.P.,& Li,Y.(2015). Novices’ struggles with conceptual and theoretical framing in writing  dissertations and papers for publication. Publications,3 (2),104-119.doi:10.3390/publications3020104

Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, Selecting, and Integrating a Theoretical Framework in Dissertation Research: Creating the Blueprint for Your “House. ” Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 12–26

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

• << Previous: Conceptual Framework
• Next: Quantitative Research Questions >>
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 11:06 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchtools

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computation and Language

Title: openelm: an efficient language model family with open-source training and inference framework.

Abstract: The reproducibility and transparency of large language models are crucial for advancing open research, ensuring the trustworthiness of results, and enabling investigations into data and model biases, as well as potential risks. To this end, we release OpenELM, a state-of-the-art open language model. OpenELM uses a layer-wise scaling strategy to efficiently allocate parameters within each layer of the transformer model, leading to enhanced accuracy. For example, with a parameter budget of approximately one billion parameters, OpenELM exhibits a 2.36% improvement in accuracy compared to OLMo while requiring $2\times$ fewer pre-training tokens. Diverging from prior practices that only provide model weights and inference code, and pre-train on private datasets, our release includes the complete framework for training and evaluation of the language model on publicly available datasets, including training logs, multiple checkpoints, and pre-training configurations. We also release code to convert models to MLX library for inference and fine-tuning on Apple devices. This comprehensive release aims to empower and strengthen the open research community, paving the way for future open research endeavors. Our source code along with pre-trained model weights and training recipes is available at \url{ this https URL }. Additionally, \model models can be found on HuggingFace at: \url{ this https URL }.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .