how to do a research framework

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

What is a Theoretical Framework? | A Step-by-Step Guide

Published on 14 February 2020 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022.

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

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

1. Identify your key concepts

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

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

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

Objective : To increase the quantity of return customers.

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

2. Evaluate and explain relevant theories

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

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

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

3. Show how your research fits into existing research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). What is a Theoretical Framework? | A Step-by-Step Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved 9 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/the-theoretical-framework/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, how to write a results section | tips & examples, how to write a discussion section | tips & examples.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

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

Julie a. luft.

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

Sophia Jeong

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

Robert Idsardi

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

Grant Gardner

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

Associated Data

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

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

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

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

Building Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions and Advice

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

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

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

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

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

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

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

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

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

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

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

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

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

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

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

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

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

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

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

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

Supplementary Material

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

What is a framework? Understanding their purpose, value, development and use

• Articles with Attitude
• Open access
• Published: 14 April 2023
• Volume 13 , pages 510–519, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Stefan Partelow   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7751-4005 1 , 2  

13k Accesses

4 Citations

18 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Many frameworks exist across the sciences and science-policy interface, but it is not always clear how they are developed or can be applied. It is also often vague how new or existing frameworks are positioned in a theory of science to advance a specific theory or paradigm. This article examines these questions and positions the role of frameworks as integral but often vague scientific tools, highlighting benefits and critiques. While frameworks can be useful for synthesizing and communicating core concepts in a field, they often lack transparency in how they were developed and how they can be applied. Positioning frameworks within a theory of science can aid in knowing the purpose and value of framework use. This article provides a meta-framework for visualizing and engaging the four mediating processes for framework development and application: (1) empirical generalization, (2) theoretical fitting, (3) application, and (4) hypothesizing. Guiding points for scholars and policymakers using or developing frameworks in their research are provided in closing.

Similar content being viewed by others

Introduction

Reflections on Methodological Issues

Looking Back

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The development of ‘frameworks’ is at present probably the most common strategy in the field of natural resources management to achieve integration and interdisciplinarity. Mollinga , 2008

…it is not clear what the role of a scientific framework should be, and relatedly, what makes for a successful scientific framework. Ban and Cox, 2017

Frameworks are important research tools across nearly all fields of science. They are critically important for structuring empirical inquiry and theoretical development in the environmental social sciences, governance research and practice, the sustainability sciences and fields of social-ecological systems research in tangent with the associated disciplines of those fields (Binder et al. 2013 ; Pulver et al. 2018 ; Colding and Barthel 2019 ). Many well-established frameworks are regularly applied to collect new data or to structure entire research programs such as the Ecosystem Services (ES) framework (Potschin-Young et al. 2018 ), the Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014a ), Earth Systems Governance (ESG) (Biermann et al. 2010 ), the Driver-Impact-Pressure-State-Response (DIPSR) framework, and the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) framework. Frameworks are also put forth by major scientific organizing bodies to steer scientific and policy agendas at regional and global levels such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Díaz et al. 2015 ) and the Global Sustainable Development Report’s transformational levers and fields (UN 2019 ).

Despite the countless frameworks, it is not always clear how a framework can be developed or applied (Ban and Cox 2017 ; Partelow 2018 ; Nagel and Partelow 2022 ). Development may occur through empirically backed synthesis or by scholars based on their own knowledge, values, or interests. These diverse development pathways do, however, result in common trends. The structure of most frameworks is the identification of a set of concepts and their general relationships — often in the form box-and-arrow diagrams — that are loosely defined or unspecified. This hallmark has both benefits and challenges. On one hand, this is arguably the purpose of frameworks, to structure the basic ideas of theory or conceptual thinking, and if they were more detailed they would be models. On the other hand, there is often a “black box” nature to frameworks. It is often unclear why some sets of concepts and relationships are chosen for integration into frameworks, and others not. As argued below, these choices are often the result of the positionality of the framework’s creators. Publications of frameworks, furthermore, often lack descriptions of their value and potential uses compared to other frameworks or analytical tools that exist in the field.

Now shifting focus to how frameworks are applied. Some frameworks provide measureable indicators as the key variables in the framework, but many only suggest general concepts. This creates the need to link concepts and their relationships to data through other more tangible indicators. Methods to measure such indicators will also be needed in new empirical studies. These methodological and study design steps necessary to associate data to framework concepts is often referred to as “operationalizing” a framework. However, without guidance on how to do this, scholars are often left with developing their own strategies, which can lead to heterogeneous and idiosyncratic methods and data. These challenges can be referred to as methodological gaps (Partelow 2018 ), where the details of how to move from concept to indicator to measurement to data transformation, are not always detailed in a way that welcomes replicability or learning. This is not necessarily a problem if the purpose of a framework is to only guide the analysis of individual cases or synthesis activities in isolation, for example to inform local management, but it hinders meta-analyses, cross-case learning and data interpretability for others.

In this article, a brief overview of framework definitions and current synthesis literature are reviewed in the “ What is a framework? ” section. This is coupled with the argument that frameworks often lack clarity in their development and application because their positioning within a theory of science is unclear. In the “ Mechanisms of framework development and use: a meta-framework ” section, a meta-framework is proposed to assist in clarifying the four major levers with which frameworks are developed and applied: (1) empirical generalization, (2) theoretical fitting, (3) hypothesizing, and (4) application. The meta-framework aims to position individual frameworks into a theory of science, which can enable scholars to take a conceptual “step back” in order to view how their engagement with a framework contributes to their broader scientific goal and field. Two case studies of different frameworks are provided to explore how the meta-framework can aid in comparing them. This is followed by a discussion of what makes a good framework, along with explicit guiding points for the use of frameworks in research and policy practice.

What is a framework?

The definition and purpose of a framework is likely to vary across disciplines and thematic fields (Cox et al. 2016 ). There is no universal definition of a framework, but it is useful to provide a brief overview of different definitions for orientation. The Cambridge Dictionary states that frameworks are “a supporting structure around which something can be built; a system of rules, ideas, or beliefs that is used to plan or decide something.” Schlager ( 2007 , 293) states that “frameworks provide a foundation for inquiry,” and Cumming ( 2014 , 5) adds that this “does not necessarily depend on deductive logic to connect different ideas.” Importantly, Binder et al., ( 2013 , 2) note that “a framework provides a set of assumptions, concepts, values and practices,” emphasizing the normative or inherently subjective logic to framework development. A core theme being plurality and connectivity. Similarly, McGinnis and Ostrom ( 2014a , 1) define frameworks as “the basic vocabulary of concepts and terms that may be used to construct the kinds of causal explanations expected of a theory. Frameworks organize diagnostic, descriptive, and prescriptive inquiry.” In a review comparing ten commonly used frameworks in social-ecological systems (SES) research, Binder et al., ( 2013 , 1) state that frameworks are useful for developing “a common language, to structure research on SES, and to provide guidance toward a more sustainable development of SES.” In a similar review, Pulver et al., ( 2018 , 1) suggest that frameworks “assist scholars and practitioners to analyze the complex, nonlinear interdependencies that characterize interactions between biophysical and social arenas and to navigate the new epistemological, ontological, analytical, and practical horizons of integrating knowledge for sustainability solutions.” It is important to recognize that the above claims often suggest the dualistic or bridging positions held by frameworks, in both theory building and for guiding empirical observations. However, there is relatively little discussion in the above literature on how frameworks act as bridging tools within a theory of science or how frameworks add value as positioning tools in a field.

Every framework has a position, meaning it is located within a specific context of a scientific field. As positioning tools, frameworks seem to “populate the scientist’s world with a set of conceptual objects and (non-causal) relationships among them,” shaping (and sometimes limiting) the way we think about problems and potential solutions (Cox et al. 2016 , 47). Thus, using a specific framework helps in part to position the work of a researcher in a field and its related concepts, theories and paradigms.

Four factors can be considered to evaluate the positioning of a framework: (a) who developed it, (b) the values being put forth by those researchers, (c) the research questions engaged with, and (d) the field in which it is embedded. For example, the Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) (Ostrom 2009 ) was developed by (a) Elinor Ostrom who developed the framework studying common-pool resource and public goods governance from the 1960s until the 2000s. Ostrom’s overall goal was (b) to examine the hindering and enabling conditions for governance to guide the use and provision common goods towards sustainability outcomes. Her primary research questions (c) related to collective action theory, unpacking how and why people cooperate with each other or not. The field her work is embedded in (d) is an interdisciplinary mix between public policy, behavioral and institutional economics. Scholars who use Ostrom’s SESF today, carry this history with them and therefore position themselves, whether implicitly or explicitly, as part of this research landscape as systems thinkers and interdisciplinarians, even if they have other scholarly positions.

Frameworks are positioned within a theory of science. Understanding this positioning can guide scholars in comprehending how their engagement with frameworks contributes to the overall advancement of their field. To do this, taking a conceptual “step back” is necessary, to distinguish between different levels of theory in science. From the conceptually broadest to the most empirically specific, we can identify the following levels of theory: paradigms, frameworks, specific theories, models/archetypes and cases (Table 1 ). Knowledge production processes flow up and down these levels of theory. For example, as argued by Kuhn ( 1962 ), the purpose of a scientific field is to advance its paradigm. Thus, the study of empirical observations (e.g., case studies) — and the development of models or theories resulting from those data — are aimed at advancing the overarching paradigm. Such paradigms could be conservation, democracy, sustainable development or social-ecological systems.

There is a need to connect cases, models and specific theory up to the overall paradigms of a field to make aggregate knowledge gains. Here, the role of frameworks becomes more clear, as bridging tools that enable connections between levels of knowledge. From the top down, frameworks can specify paradigms with more tangible conceptual features and relationships, which can then guide empirical inquiry. For example, the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework (Smeets and Weterings 1999 ; Ness, Anderberg, and Olsson 2010 ) specifies how to evaluate policy options and their effects by focusing on the five embedded concepts in a relational order. Scholars can then generate more specific indicators and methods to measure the five specified features of the framework, and their relationships, to generate empirical insights that now have a direct link to the paradigm of sustainable policy development via the framework.

Furthermore, frameworks can also emerge from the bottom up, by distilling empirical data across cases and thus creating a knowledge bridge of more specified conceptual features and relationships that connect to a paradigm. In both top-down and bottom-up mechanism, frameworks can play a vital role in synthesizing and communicating ideas among scholars in a field — from empirical data to a paradigm. A challenge may be, however, that multiple frameworks have emerged attempting to specify the core conceptual features and relationships in a paradigm. A mature scientific field is likely to have many frameworks to guide research and debate. There is, however, a lack of research and tools available to compare frameworks and their added value.

Beyond their use as positioning tools, frameworks make day-to-day science easier. They can guide researchers in designing new empirical research by indicating which core concepts and relationships are of interest to be measured and compared. Scientific fields also need common fires to huddle around, meaning that we need reference points to initiate scholarly debates, coordinate disparate empirical efforts and to communicate findings and novel advancements through a common language (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014a ; Ban and Cox 2017 ). As such, frameworks are useful for synthesis research, focusing the attention of reviews and meta-analyses around core sets of concepts and relationships.

There is, however, a tension between frameworks that aim to capture complexity and those that aim to simplify core principles. Complexity oriented frameworks often advance systems thinking at the risk of including too many variables. They often have long lists of variables which makes empirical orientation and synthesis difficult. On the other hand, simplification frameworks face the challenge of leaving important things out, with the benefit of clarifying what may be important and giving clear direction.

From a more critical perspective, the “criteria for comparing frameworks are not well developed,” (Schlager, 2007 , 312), and the positionality of frameworks has not been rigorously explored outside of smaller studies. Nonetheless, numerous classifications or typologies of frameworks within specific fields have been suggested (Table 2 ), although not with reference to positionality (Spangenberg 2011 ; Binder et al. 2013 ; Cumming 2014 ; Schlager 2007 ; Ness et al. 2007 ; Potschin-Young et al. 2018 ; Cox et al. 2021 ; Louder et al. 2021 ; Chofreh and Goni 2017 ; Alaoui et al. 2022 ; Tapio and Willamo 2008 ). These studies point to the question of: what makes a good framework? Are there certain quality criteria that make some frameworks more useful than others? There has undoubtedly been a rise in the number of frameworks, but as expressed by Ban and Cox ( 2017 , 2), “it is not clear what the role of a scientific framework should be, and relatedly, what makes for a successful scientific framework. Although there are many frameworks […] there is little discussion on what their scientific role ought to be, other than providing a common scientific language.” The meta-framework presented below serves as a tool for answering these questions and provides guidance for developing and implementing frameworks in a range of settings.

Mechanisms of framework development and use: a meta-framework

This section presents a meta-framework detailing the mechanisms of framework development and use (Fig. 1 ). The meta-framework illustrates the role of frameworks as bridging tools for knowledge synthesis and communication. Therefore, the purpose of the meta-framework is to demonstrate how the mechanisms of framework development and use act as levers of knowledge flow across levels within a theory of science, doing so by enabling the communication and synthesis of knowledge. Introducing the meta-framework has two parts, outlined below.

A meta-framework outlining the central role frameworks play in scientific advancement through their development and use. In the center, frameworks provide two core bridging values: knowledge synthesis and knowledge communication. Three modes of logical reasoning contribute to framework development: induction, deduction and abduction. Frameworks are used and developed through four mediating processes: (1) empirical generalization, (2) theoretical fitting, (3) application, and (4) hypothesizing

First, the meta-framework visualizes the levels along the scale of scientific theory including paradigms, frameworks, specific theory and empirical observations, introduced above. Along this scale, three mechanisms of logical reasoning are typical: induction, deduction, and abduction. Induction is a mode of logical reasoning based on sets of empirical observations, which, when patterns within those observations emerge, can inform more generalized theory formation. Induction, in its pure form, is reasoning without prior assumptions about what we think is happening. In contrast, deduction is a mode of logical reasoning based on testing a claim or hypothesis, often based on a body of theory, against an observation to infer whether or not a claim is true. In contrast to induction, which always leads to probable or fuzzy conclusions, deductive logic provides true or false conclusions. A third mode of logical reasoning is abduction. Abduction starts with a single or limited set of observations, and assumes the most likely cause as a conclusion. Abduction can only provide probable conclusions. Knowledge claims from all three modes of logical reasoning are part of the nexus of potential framework creation or modification.

Second, the meta-framework has four iterative mediating processes that directly enable the development and/or application of frameworks (Fig. 1 ). Two of the four mediating processes relate to framework development: (1) empirical generalization and (2) theoretical fitting. The other two relate to framework application: (3) hypothesizing, and (4) application (Fig. 1 , Table 3 ). The details of the specific mediating pathways are outlined in Table 3 , including the processes involved in each. There are numerous potential benefits and challenges associated with each (Table 3 ).

The value of a meta-framework

The presented meta-framework (Fig. 1 ) allows us to assess the values different frameworks can provide. If a framework provides a novel synthesis of key ideas or new developments in a field, and communicates those insights well in its composition, it likely adds notable value. If a framework coordinates scientific inquiry across the 1 or more of the four mediating processes, it likely acts as an important gatekeeper and boundary object for what may otherwise be disparate or tangential research. If it contributes substantial advances in 3 or 4 of the mediating processes, the value of the framework is likely higher.

The meta-framework can further help identify the positioning of framework such as the type of logical reasoning processes used to create it, as well as help clarify the role of a framework along the scale of knowledge production (i.e., from data to paradigm). It might be clear, for example, what paradigm or specific theory a framework contributes to. The meta-framework can add value by guiding the assessment of how frameworks fit into the bigger picture of knowledge contribution in their field. Furthermore, many scholars and practitioners are interested in developing new frameworks. The meta-framework outlines the mechanisms that can be considered in creating the framework as well as help developers of new frameworks communicate how their frameworks add value. For example, to link empirical data collection to theoretical work in their field.

The meta-framework can help compare frameworks, to assess strengths and weaknesses in terms of their positioning and knowledge production mechanisms. It can also help elucidate the need for, or value of, new frameworks. This challenge is noted by Cumming ( 2014 , 18) in the field of social-ecological systems, reflecting that “the tendency of researchers to develop “new” frameworks without fully explaining how they relate to other existing frameworks and what new elements they bring to the problem is another obvious reason for the lack of a single dominant, unifying framework.” To showcase such as comparison, two brief examples are provided. The first example features the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework developed by the European Environmental Agency (EEA) (Box 1 ) (Smeets and Weterings 1999 ; Ness, Anderberg, and Olsson 2010 ). The DPSIR framework exemplifies a framework developed from the top-down (theoretical fitting) approach, to better organize the policy goal and paradigm of environmental sustainability to the indicators collected by EU member states. The second example highlights the Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) developed by Elinor Ostrom (Box 2 ) (Ostrom 2009 ; McGinnis and Ostrom 2014a ). The SESF exemplifies a framework developed from the bottom up (empirical generalization) to aggregate data into common variables to enable data standardization and comparison towards theory building to improve environmental governance. In the case examples (Box 1 ; Box 2 ), we can see the value of both frameworks from different perspectives. The examples briefly illustrate how the positionality of each framework dictates how others use them to produce knowledge towards a paradigm. In the case of the DPSIR framework, from the top-down towards a policy goal, and with the SESF, from the bottom-up towards a theoretical goal.

Drivers – Pressures – State – Impact - Response (DPSIR) framework

Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF)

Discussion and directions forward

Frameworks are commons objects to huddle around in academic and practitioner communities, providing identity and guiding our effort. They focus scholarly attention on important issues, stimulate cognitive energy and provide fodder for discussion. However, reflection on the role and purpose of the frameworks we use needs to be a more common practice in science. The proposed meta-framework aims to showcase the role of frameworks as boundary objects that connect ideas and concepts to data in constructive and actionable ways, enabling knowledge to be built up and aggregated within scientific fields through using common languages and concepts (Mollinga 2008 ; Klein 1996 ).

Boundary objects such as frameworks can be especially important for inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration, where there may be few prior shared points of conceptual understanding or terminology beyond a problem context. Mollinga ( 2008 , 33) reflects that “frameworks are typical examples of boundary objects, building connections between the worlds of science and that of policy, and between different knowledge domains,” and that “the development of frameworks is at present probably the most common strategy in the field of natural resources management to achieve integration and interdisciplinarity,” (Mollinga, 2008 , 31). They are, however, critically important for both disciplinary specific fundamental research, as well as for bridging science-society gaps through translating often esoteric academic concepts and findings into digestible and often visual objects. For example, the DPSIR framework (Box 1 ) attempts to better organize the analysis of environmental indicators for policy evaluation processes in the EU. Furthermore, Partelow et al., ( 2019 ) and Gurney et al., ( 2019 ) both use Ostrom’s SESF (Box 2 ) as a boundary object at the science-society interface to visually communicate systems thinking and social-ecological interactions to fishers and coastal stakeholders involved in local management decision-making.

An important feature of frameworks is that the very contestation over their nature is perhaps their main value. A framework can only be an effective boundary object if it catalyzes deliberation and scholarly debate — thus contestation over what it is and its value is seeded into the toolbox and identity of a scholarly field. Although most frameworks are likely to have shortcomings, flaws or controversial features, the fact that they motivate engagement around common problems and stimulate scholarly engagement is a value of its own. In doing so, frameworks often become symbols of individual and community identity in contested spaces. This is evidenced in how frameworks are often used to stamp our research as valid, relevant and important to the field, even if done passively. Citing a framework both communicates the general purpose of what a scholar is attempting to achieve to others, and orients science towards a common synthetic object for future knowledge synthesis and debate. These positioning actions are essential for science and practitioner communities to understand a research or policy project, its aims and assumptions. Historically, disciplines have provided this value – signaling the problems, methods and theories one is likely to engage with. Frameworks can act as tools for bridging disciplines, helping to catalyze interdisciplinary engagement (Mollinga 2008 ; Klein 1996 ). As many scientific communities shift focus towards solving real-world problems (e.g., climate change, gender equality), tools that can help scientists’ cooperate and communicate, such as a framework, will continue to play a vital role in achieving knowledge co-production goals.

Guiding points for framework engagement

An aim of this article is not only to reflect on the purpose, value and positioning of frameworks, but to provide some take-away advice for engaging with frameworks in current or future work. Over the course of this article, the question of “What makes a good framework?” has been explored. The meta-framework outlines mechanisms of useful frameworks and can help understand the positioning of frameworks. Nonetheless, more detailed guiding points can be specified for both the use and development of frameworks going forward. A series of guiding points are outlined in Table 4 , generated from the literature cited throughout this article, feedback from colleagues and personal experiences applying and developing numerous frameworks. The guiding points focus on the two types of mediating processes, framework development and use (Table 4 ).

In conclusion, we need to know our academic tools in order make the best use of them in our own research, practice and knowledge communities. Frameworks have gained substantial popularity for the communication and synthesis of academic ideas, and as tools we all have the ability to create and perhaps the responsibility to steward. However, frameworks have struggled to find roots in a theory of science which grounds their contributions in relation to other scientific tools such as models, specific theories and empirical data. There is also a lack of discussion about what makes a good framework and how to apply frameworks in a way to makes those applications of integrative value to an overall community of scholars positioned around it. The meta-framework provided in this article offers insights into how to understand the purpose and positionality of frameworks, as well as the mechanisms for understanding the creation and application of frameworks. The meta-framework further allows for the comparison of frameworks to assess their value.

Alaoui A, Barão L, Ferreira CSS, Hessel R (2022) An Overview of sustainability assessment frameworks in agriculture. Land 11(4):1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040537

Article   Google Scholar  

Ban NC, Cox M (2017) Advancing social-ecological research through teaching: summary, observations, and challenges. Ecol Soc 22(1):1–3

Biermann F, Betsill MM, Gupta J, Kanie N, Lebel L, Liverman D, Schroeder H, Siebenhüner B, Zondervan R (2010) Earth system governance: a research framework. Int Environ Agreem Polit 10(4):277–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-010-9137-3

Binder CR, Hinkel J, Bots PWG, Pahl-Wostl C (2013) Comparison of Frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 18(4):26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05551-180426

Chofreh AG, Goni FA (2017) Review of frameworks for sustainability implementation. Sustain Dev 25(3):180–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1658

Colding J, Barthel S (2019) Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecol Soc 24(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-10598-240102

Cox M, Gurney GG, Anderies JM, Coleman E, Darling E, Epstein G, Frey UJ (2021) Lessons learned from synthetic research projects based on the ostrom workshop frameworks. Ecol Soc 26(1)

Cox M, Villamayor-tomas S, Epstein G, Evans L, Ban NC, Fleischman F, Nenadovic M, Garcia-lopez G (2016) Synthesizing theories of natural resource management and governance. Glob Environ Chang 39(January):45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.011

Cumming GS (2014) Theoretical Frameworks for the analysis of social-ecological systems. In: Sakai S, Umetsu C (eds) Social-Ecological Systems in Transition . Springer, Japan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54910-9

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A et al (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework - connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

Gurney GG, Darling ES, Jupiter SD, Mangubhai S, McClanahan TR, Lestari P, Pardede S et al (2019) Implementing a social-ecological systems framework for conservation monitoring: lessons from a multi-country coral reef program. Biol Conserv 240(August). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108298

Kuhn T (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions (University of Chicago Press)

Klein JT (1996) Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities . University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville and London

Google Scholar  

Louder E, Wyborn C, Cvitanovic C, Bednarek AT (2021) A Synthesis of the frameworks available to guide evaluations at the interface of environmental science on policy and practice. Environ Sci Policy 116(July 2020):1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.12.006

McGinnis MD, Ostrom E (2014a) Social-Ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc 19(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230

Mollinga PP (2008) In: Evers H-D, Gerke S, Mollinga P, Schetter C (eds) The rational organisation of dissent: boundary concepts, boundary objects and boundary settings in the interdisciplinary Study of Natural Resources Management. University of Bonn, Bonn

Nagel B, Partelow S (2022) A methodological guide for applying the ses framework: a review of quantitative approaches. Ecol Soc

Ness B, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2010) Structuring problems in sustainability science: the multi-Level DPSIR framework. Geoforum 41(3):479–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.12.005

Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60(3):498–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023

Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Partelow S (2018) A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications and challenges. Ecol Soc

Partelow S, Fujitani M, Soundararajan V, Schlüter A (2019) Transforming the social-ecological systems framework into a knowledge exchange and deliberation tool for comanagement. Ecol Soc 24(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10724-240115

Potschin-Young M, Haines-Young R, Görg C, Heink U, Jax K, Schleyer C (2018) Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: reading the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosyst Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.015

Pulver S, Ulibarri N, Sobocinski KL, Alexander SM, Johnson ML, Mccord PF (2018) Frontiers in socio-environmental research: components, connections, scale, and context. Ecol Soc 23(3)

Schlager E (2007) A Comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of policy processes. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the Policy Process , 1st edn. Routledge, pp 293–319

Smeets E, Weterings R (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and overview. In: Bosch P, Büchele M, Gee D (eds) European Environment Agency (EEA) , vol 50. European Environment Agency, Copenhagan

Spangenberg JH (2011) Sustainability Science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv 38(3):275–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000270

Tapio P, Willamo R (2008) Developing Interdisciplinary environmental frameworks. Ambio 37(2):125–133. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2008)37[125:DIEF]2.0.CO;2

UN (2019) Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General, Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The Future is Now – Science for Achieving Sustainable Development. United Nations, New York

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Michael Cox and Achim Schlüter for their helpful feedback on previous versions of the manuscript and the ideas within it. I am grateful to the Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT) in Bremen, and the Center for Life Ethics at the University of Bonn for support.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Bremen, Germany

Stefan Partelow

Center for Life Ethics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Partelow .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declares that he has no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Partelow, S. What is a framework? Understanding their purpose, value, development and use. J Environ Stud Sci 13 , 510–519 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-023-00833-w

Download citation

Accepted : 29 March 2023

Published : 14 April 2023

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-023-00833-w

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

• Theory of science
• Methodology
• Social science
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of Theory and a Theoretical Framework

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

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

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

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

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

The theoretical framework strengthens the study in the following ways :

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

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

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

Strategies for Developing the Theoretical Framework

I.  Developing the Framework

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

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

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

II.  Purpose

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Borrowing Theoretical Constructs from Other Disciplines

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Undertheorize!

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

The key distinctions are:

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

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

Still Yet Another Writing Tip

Be Prepared to Challenge the Validity of an Existing Theory

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: The Research Problem/Question
• Next: 5. The Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Apr 11, 2024 1:27 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Organizing Academic Research Papers: Theoretical Framework

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

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

Importance of Theory

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

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

The theoretical framework strengthens the study in the following ways .

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

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

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

Strategies for Developing the Theoretical Framework

I.  Developing the Framework

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

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

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

II.  Purpose

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Borrowing Theoretical Constructs from Elsewhere

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Undertheorize!

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

Still Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

The key distinctions are:

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

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

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

Research Support

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

Using the Library

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

User Information

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

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

Conceptual Framework: A Step-by-Step Guide on How to Make One

What is a conceptual framework? How do you prepare one? This article defines the conceptual framework and lists the steps on how to prepare it. A simplified example is added to strengthen the reader’s understanding.

In preparing your research paper as one requirement for your course as an undergraduate or graduate student, you will need to write the conceptual framework of your study. The conceptual framework steers the whole research activity. The conceptual framework serves as a “map” or “rudder” that will guide you towards realizing your study’s objectives or intent.

What, then, is a conceptual framework in empirical research? The next section defines and explains the term.

Table of Contents

Definition of conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework represents the researcher’s synthesis of the literature on how to explain a phenomenon. It maps out the actions required in the study’s course, given the researcher’s previous knowledge of other researchers’ point of view and his or her observations about the phenomenon studied.

The conceptual framework is the researcher’s understanding of how the particular  variables  in the study connect. Thus, it identifies the variables required in the research investigation. It is the researcher’s “map” in pursuing the investigation.

As McGaghie  et al . (2001) put it: The conceptual framework “sets the stage” to present the particular research question that drives the investigation being reported based on the problem statement. The problem statement of a thesis gives the context and the issues that caused the researcher to conduct the study.

The conceptual framework lies within a much broader framework called a theoretical framework . The latter draws support from time-tested theories that embody many researchers’ findings on why and how a particular phenomenon occurs.

I expounded on this definition, including its purpose, in my recent post titled “ What is a Conceptual Framework? Expounded Definition and Five Purposes .”

4 Steps on How to Make the Conceptual Framework

Before you prepare your conceptual framework, you need to do the following things:

Choose your topic

Decide on what will be your research topic. The topic should be within your field of specialization. (Generate your research topic using brainstorming tips ).

Do a literature review

Review relevant and updated research on the theme that you decide to work on after scrutiny of the issue at hand. Preferably use peer-reviewed , and well-known scientific journals as these are reliable sources of information.

Isolate the important variables

Identify the specific variables described in the literature and figure out how these are related. Some research abstracts contain the variables, and the salient findings thus may serve the purpose. If these are not available, find the research paper’s summary.

If the variables are not explicit in summary, get back to the methodology or the results and discussion section and quickly identify the study variables and the significant findings. Read  the TSPU Technique  to skim articles efficiently and get to the essential points with little fuss.

Generate the conceptual framework

Build your conceptual framework using your mix of the variables from the scientific articles you have read. Your problem statement or research objective serves as a reference for constructing it. In effect, your study will attempt to answer the question that other researchers have not explained yet. Your research should address a knowledge gap .

Example of a Conceptual Framework

Research topic.

Statement number 5 introduced in an earlier post titled How to Write a Thesis Statement  will serve as the basis of the illustrated conceptual framework in the following examples.

The youth, particularly students who need to devote a lot of time using their mobile phones to access their course modules, laptops, or desktops, are most affected. Also, they spend time interacting with their mobile phones as they communicate with their friends on social media channels like Facebook, Messenger, and the like.

When free from schoolwork, many students spend their time viewing films on Netflix, YouTube, or similar sites. These activities can affect their sleeping patterns and cause health problems in the long run because light-emitting diode (LED) exposure reduces the number of hours spent sleeping.

Thesis Statement

Related to the students’ activity, we can write the thesis statement thus:

Thesis statement : Chronic exposure to blue light from LED screens (of computer monitors ,  mobile phones, tablets, and television) deplete melatonin levels, thus reducing the number of sleeping hours among the youth, particularly students who need to work on their academic requirements.

Review of Literature

The literature review supports the thesis statement as among those that catch one’s attention is a paper that warns against the use of LED devices at night. Although we can save a lot of electrical energy by using the efficient LED where the inventors Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano and Shuji Nakamura received a Nobel prize in physics in 2014, there is growing evidence that it can cause human health problems, particularly cancer.

Haim & Zubidat (2015) of the Israeli Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Chronobiology synthesized the literature about LEDs. They found out that blue light from the light-emitting diodes (LED) inhibits melatonin production, particularly during active secretion at night. Melatonin is a neuro-hormone that regulates sleep and wake cycles. Also, it can slow down aging and prevent cancer (Srinivasan et al., 2011).

Thus, looking directly at your laptop, mobile phone, or television at night not only can severely damage your eyes but also prevent the achievement of sound sleeping patterns. As a countermeasure, sleep experts recommend limiting the use of digital devices until 8 o’clock in the evening.

Those affected experience insomnia (see 10 Creative Ways on How to Get Rid of Insomnia ); they sleep less than required (usually less than six hours), and this happens when they spend too much time working on their laptops doing some machine learning stuff, monitoring conversations or posts on social media sites using their mobile phones, or viewing the television at night.

Variables Isolated from the Literature

Using the background information backed by evidence in the literature review, we can now develop the study’s paradigm on the effect of LED exposure to sleep. We will not include all the variables mentioned and select or isolate only those factors that we are interested in.

Figure 1 presents a visual representation, the paradigm, of what we want to correlate in this study. It shows measurable variables that can produce data we can analyze using a statistical test such as either the parametric test Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation or the nonparametric test Spearman Rho (please refresh if you cannot see the figure).

Notice that the variables of the study are explicit in the paradigm presented in Figure 1. In the illustration, the two variables are:

1) the number of hours devoted in front of the computer, and 2) the number of hours slept through the night until dawn.

The former is the independent variable, while the latter is the dependent variable. Both variables are easy to measure. It is just counting the number of hours spent in front of the computer and the number of hours slept through the night in the study subjects.

Assuming that other things are constant during the study’s performance, it will be possible to relate these two variables and confirm that, indeed, blue light emanated from computer screens can affect one’s sleeping patterns. (Please read the article titled “ Do you know that the computer can disturb your sleeping patterns ?” to find out more about this phenomenon). A correlation analysis will show if the relationship is significant.

Related Reading :

• How the conceptual framework guides marketing research

Evolution of a Social Theory as Basis of Conceptual Framework Development

Related to the development of the conceptual framework, I wrote a comprehensive article on how a social theory develops by incisively looking at current events that the world is facing now — the COVID-19 pandemic. It shows how society responds to a threat to its very survival.

Specifically, this article focuses on the COVID-19 vaccine, how it develops and gets integrated into the complex fabric of human society. It shows how the development of the vaccine is only part of the story. A major consideration in its development resides in the supporters of the vaccine’s development, the government, and the recipients’ trust, thus the final acceptance of the vaccine.

Social theory serves as the backdrop or theoretical framework of the more focused or variable level conceptual framework. Hence, the paradigm that I develop at the end of that article can serve as a lens to examine how the three players of vaccine development interact more closely at the variable level. It shows the dynamics of power and social structure and how it unfolds in response to a pandemic that affects everyone.

Check out the article titled “ Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine: More Than 90% Effective Against the Coronavirus .” This article shall enrich your knowledge of how an abstract concept narrows down into blocks of researchable topics.

Haim, A., & Zubidat, A. E. (2015). LED light between Nobel Prize and cancer risk factor. Chronobiology International , 32 (5), 725-727.

McGaghie, W. C.; Bordage, G.; and J. A. Shea (2001). Problem Statement, Conceptual Framework, and Research Question. Retrieved on January 5, 2015 from http://goo.gl/qLIUFg

Srinivasan, V., R Pandi-Perumal, S., Brzezinski, A., P Bhatnagar, K., & P Cardinali, D. (2011). Melatonin, immune function and cancer. Recent patents on endocrine, metabolic & immune drug discovery , 5 (2), 109-123.

©2015 January 5 P. A. Regoniel

Cite as: Regoniel, P. A. (2015, January 5). Conceptual framework: a step-by-step guide on how to make one. Research-based Articles. https://simplyeducate.me/wordpress_Y/2015/01/05/conceptual-framework-guide/

Related Posts

Five techniques to review related literature, how to write survey questions.

10 Research Methods: Types and Applications

About the author, patrick regoniel.

Dr. Regoniel, a faculty member of the graduate school, served as consultant to various environmental research and development projects covering issues and concerns on climate change, coral reef resources and management, economic valuation of environmental and natural resources, mining, and waste management and pollution. He has extensive experience on applied statistics, systems modelling and analysis, an avid practitioner of LaTeX, and a multidisciplinary web developer. He leverages pioneering AI-powered content creation tools to produce unique and comprehensive articles in this website.

104 Comments

hallo! I would like to study “the socio-economic and environmental Impact of urban forests on livelihood: The perception of urban residents” how can my conceptual framework be like?

Hello Jesse, there are many free alternatives online if you are diligent enough in finding them. The reason I wrote this article is that in 2015, when I originally wrote it, I could not find an easy-to-understand explanation of the conceptual framework which will help my students. I also have a vague knowledge of the concept at that time, even with the available literature. Hence, I painstakingly gathered all materials I could from online and offline literature, synthesized them, and wrote about the concept in the simplest way I could without losing the essence. Now, I have seen many articles and even videos using the ideas I have rigorously prepared. If you find the tedious work I did irrelevant, then perhaps the ebook is expensive notwithstanding the many expenses on hosting, domain name, time and effort in maintaining the site that I incur in keeping this website online and make this ebook available to everyone.

I read the article how still struggling to come up with a conceptual framework, may you please assist, how should I go about as a new researcher my topic; INVESTIGATE THE DECISION TO TRANSFER NINE (9) FUNCTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT . Purpose: The purpose of this research is to review the delivery of EHS at the local government with a view to understanding the variation in performance and their causes. questions are: 1.2.1 What factors explain the performance variation in the delivery of EHS across municipalities? 1.2.2 How has devolution of the EH function aided or harmed the delivery of EHS?

Hello Mr. Siyabonga. I think what you want to find out is how environmental health services (EHS) performed at the local government level. In doing so, you need to have a set of indicators of successful transition. How is performance assessed? Once you already have a measure of success, then you need to define which variables in the local government have significantly influenced performance. After you have done so, then you can try to correlate local government characteristics and their performance.

I hope that helps.

My name is Jobson, my research topic is: The scope of Ugandan nurses and midwives in using the nursing process in the care of patients

our topic is Neutrophil and Lymphocyte Ratio as a Diagnostic Biomarker for Kidney Stones (experimental) How do I come up with a conceptual framework? What would be the variables?

My topic: E-commerce Platform for Agricultural and Construction Supplies with e-KYC Identification, Feed Page, and Products Bidding Will you please help me to make Conceptual Framework written with visual representation. thank you so much in advance.

Good day Jomar, I am not so clear about what you want to do. Can you write the objectives of your study? You can read about framing the research objectives here: https://simplyeducate.me/wordpress_Y/2020/03/15/research-objective/

My topic is; Mitigating against Childmaltreatment in earlychildhood through positive parenting: Chronicles of first time parents in XYZ City”

How do I come up with a conceptual framework? What would be variables?

Hello Phathi, Apparently, you are trying to relate parenting and child behavior?

Assessing the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) as a storage information tool in estate management:

How do i come up with a conceptual framework. What would be variables??

Dear Mbuso, Why will you assess the GIS use in estate management? What is it for?

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 22, Issue 2
• Integration of a theoretical framework into your research study
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Roberta Heale 1 ,
• Helen Noble 2
• 1 Laurentian University , School of Nursing , Sudbury , Ontario , Canada
• 2 Queens University Belfast , School of Nursing and Midwifery , Belfast , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Roberta Heale, School of Nursing, Laurentian University, Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, P3E2C6, Canada; rheale{at}laurentian.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2019-103077

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Often the most difficult part of a research study is preparing the proposal based around a theoretical or philosophical framework. Graduate students ‘…express confusion, a lack of knowledge, and frustration with the challenge of choosing a theoretical framework and understanding how to apply it’. 1 However, the importance in understanding and applying a theoretical framework in research cannot be overestimated.

The choice of a theoretical framework for a research study is often a reflection of the researcher’s ontological (nature of being) and epistemological (theory of knowledge) perspective. We will not delve into these concepts, or personal philosophy in this article. Rather we will focus on how a theoretical framework can be integrated into research.

The theoretical framework is a blueprint for your research project 1 and serves several purposes. It informs the problem you have identified, the purpose and significance of your research demonstrating how your research fits with what is already known (relationship to existing theory and research). This provides a basis for your research questions, the literature review and the methodology and analysis that you choose. 1 Evidence of your chosen theoretical framework should be visible in every aspect of your research and should demonstrate the contribution of this research to knowledge. 2

What is a theory?

A theory is an explanation of a concept or an abstract idea of a phenomenon. An example of a theory is Bandura’s middle range theory of self-efficacy, 3 or the level of confidence one has in achieving a goal. Self-efficacy determines the coping behaviours that a person will exhibit when facing obstacles. Those who have high self-efficacy are likely to apply adequate effort leading to successful outcomes, while those with low self-efficacy are more likely to give up earlier and ultimately fail. Any research that is exploring concepts related to self-efficacy or the ability to manage difficult life situations might apply Bandura’s theoretical framework to their study.

Using a theoretical framework in a research study

Example 1: the big five theoretical framework.

The first example includes research which integrates the ‘Big Five’, a theoretical framework that includes concepts related to teamwork. These include team leadership, mutual performance monitoring, backup behaviour, adaptability and team orientation. 4 In order to conduct research incorporating a theoretical framework, the concepts need to be defined according to a frame of reference. This provides a means to understand the theoretical framework as it relates to a specific context and provides a mechanism for measurement of the concepts.

In this example, the concepts of the Big Five were given a conceptual definition, that provided a broad meaning and then an operational definition, which was more concrete. 4 From here, a survey was developed that reflected the operational definitions related to teamwork in nursing: the Nursing Teamwork Survey (NTS). 5 In this case, the concepts used in the theoretical framework, the Big Five, were the used to develop a survey specific to teamwork in nursing.

The NTS was used in research of nurses at one hospital in northeastern Ontario. Survey questions were grouped into subscales for analysis, that reflected the concepts of the Big Five. 6 For example, one finding of this study was that the nurses from the surgical unit rated the items in the subscale of ’team leadership' (one of the concepts in the Big Five) significantly lower than in the other units. The researchers looked back to the definition of this concept in the Big Five in their interpretation of the findings. Since the definition included a person(s) who has the leadership skills to facilitate teamwork among the nurses on the unit, the conclusion in this study was that the surgical unit lacked a mentor, or facilitator for teamwork. In this way, the theory of teamwork was presented through a set of concepts in a theoretical framework. The Theoretical Framework (TF)was the foundation for development of a survey related to a specific context, used to measure each of the concepts within the TF. Then, the analysis and results circled back to the concepts within the TF and provided a guide for the discussion and conclusions arising from the research.

Example 2: the Health Decisions Model

In another study which explored adherence to intravenous chemotherapy in African-American and Caucasian Women with early stage breast cancer, an adapted version of the Health Decisions Model (HDM) was used as the theoretical basis for the study. 7 The HDM, a revised version of the Health Belief Model, incorporates some aspects of the Health Belief Model and factors relating to patient preferences. 8 The HDM consists of six interrelated constituents that might predict how well a person adheres to a health decision. These include sociodemographic, social interaction, experience, knowledge, general and specific health beliefs and patient preferences, and are clearly defined. The HDM model was used to explore factors which might influence adherence to chemotherapy in women with breast cancer. Sociodemographic, social interaction, knowledge, personal experience and specific health beliefs were used as predictors of adherence to chemotherapy.

The findings were reported using the theoretical framework to discuss results. The study found that delay to treatment, health insurance, depression and symptom severity were predictors to starting chemotherapy which could potentially be adapted with clinical interventions. The findings from the study contribute to the existing body of literature related to cancer nursing.

Example 3: the nursing role effectiveness model

In this final example, research was conducted to determine the nursing processes that were associated with unexpected intensive care unit admissions. 9 The framework was the Nursing Role Effectiveness Model. In this theoretical framework, the concepts within Donabedian’s Quality Framework of Structure, Process and Outcome were each defined according to nursing practice. 10 11  Processes defined in the Nursing Role Effectiveness Model were used to identify the nursing process variables that were measured in the study.

A theoretical framework should be logically presented and represent the concepts, variables and relationships related to your research study, in order to clearly identify what will be examined, described or measured. It involves reading the literature and identifying a research question(s) while clearly defining and identifying the existing relationship between concepts and theories (related to your research questions[s] in the literature). You must then identify what you will examine or explore in relation to the concepts of the theoretical framework. Once you present your findings using the theoretical framework you will be able to articulate how your study relates to and may potentially advance your chosen theory and add to knowledge.

• Kalisch BJ ,
• Parent M , et al
• Strickland OL ,
• Dalton JA , et al
• Eraker SA ,
• Kirscht JP ,
• Lightfoot N , et al
• Harrison MB ,
• Laschinger H , et al

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Patient and public involvement Not required.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Learning Genealogy Made Easy

Why and How to Build a Research Framework

You can avoid a lot of frustration with your genealogy research if you approach it with a framework in mind. Here's how you can build your own research framework.

Generations Cafe Podcast, Episode 21

You can listen to this episode by clicking the play button below. (You can also listen on Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , Stitcher , and most other podcast apps.) Length: 20 minutes.

What Is a Genealogy Research Framework?

A framework is a a general plan, a method of approaching your research. It's a way of ensuring that you're covering the basics and not missing something obvious. 

A framework is something that you can duplicate no matter where your research takes you or who you are researching.

A Framework vs. a Checklist

In a way, a framework is like a checklist, in that it's a list that you can follow. Where they are different, though some may argue with this, is that often a checklist is seen as the end. "75 Records To Find About Your Ancestor" sounds like once you've found all 75, you're done. What happens when the answer you want is in record type #76?

A framework isn't the end of your research; it's the beginning. Much like framing your house isn't the end of building your house; it's the beginning. 

The beauty of a framework is that not only does it help ensure that you're taking care of the foundational research, it also helps spark ideas for new types of records to look at and new places to look. 

3 Ways to Build a Genealogy Research Framework

There are many ways you can build a framework, but here are 3 that I have found useful over the years. The cool thing is that you can combine them as you need to.

Consider aspects of the ancestor's life. Beyond the his or her name, have you considered things like occupation, ethnicity, religion, and military status? All of the facets of someone's identity can lead us to search for more records. (You can learn more about identity-building in the podcast episode, "Can You Identify Your Ancestor?" )

Think About Record Types. Certainly there is no way to list every single source that you might want to use. However, you can develop a list of records that you want to make sure that you look for. These would include sources that you have at home (like letters and photos), vital records, and census records. Then moving on to more in-depth records like land, tax, probate, court, and military records. 

Places to Look. This is my favorite framework, as it is easy to implement and it generate so many more records to look at, including types that you might not have been aware of. 

A Framework of Places to Look

Besides your favorite websites like Ancestry, FamilySearch, MyHeritage, etc., it's good to have other sites in your framework. Here are the type of websites that I look for, no matter where my research takes me (especially in the U.S.)

Reminder #1: This isn't to say that everything you need is online. (I know you know that, but if I don't say it, someone will make the comment, and then I'll have to answer, and it's easier to just say it here. Thanks for listening.) 

Reminder #2: This isn't to say that these are the only websites you should look at. But you already knew that from what I said before about what a framework is.

The Local Public Library. You never know what you're going to find at the public library where your ancestor lived even if you never actually go there. More and more public libraries of all sizes are adding materials that are of interest to us as family historians. Just one of many examples that I've found is the Boyd County (Kentucky) Public Library . On their website, they have obituaries, cemetery records, marriage records, and a really cool local historic photograph collection. It's always worth looking at a library's catalog. Even if you aren't planning on going there in person, you never know what you're going to stumble across in the catalog. So if you find something of interest, maybe you do plan a trip to the library or contact the library to see if you can get photocopies or see if you can get materials on interlibrary loan. Maybe you contact a researcher to go look at that material. 

The County Genealogy Society. Most counties in the U.S. have some kind of genealogy. I cannot stress enough the importance of these societies in your research. Their materials are often a mix of members-only materials and material that is available to the public. One such society is the Iroquois County (Illinois) Genealogy Society , which has a ton of materials on their website, including a collection of family Bibles. 

Local and County Historical Societies. Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that your ancestor's hometown was too small for a historical society. You would be surprised the size of the towns that have their own historical societies. Also think about countywide historical societies. The Clinton County (Michigan) Historical Society has all kinds of materials on their website, including yearbooks, vital records, and county home records.

State Genealogical Societies. There are some very, very active state genealogy societies in the United States. For example, the Indiana Genealogical Society has more than 2,200 databases on its website. Some of these databases are restricted to members of the Society, but many are open for everyone to use.

The State Historical Society and the State Archives. I put these together because in some states the state historical society acts as the state archive. In these organizations, you'll find more original records and manuscript materials. State historical societies collect materials that are relevant to the state; these could be from individuals, organizations, businesses, churches, etc. State Archives are responsible for preserving the permanent records of state government, so they're going to have original records of state government, such as records of the state adjutant general, state prisons, and the state hospitals. Often you'll have to use those records in person, but more and more of them are digitizing records and making them available online. A great example of this is the Wisconsin Historical Society . They have so many great records on their site that I wish I had Wisconsin ancestors so I could use it more often!

The State Library. State libraries often focus on the published materials, so things like annual reports and other published materials that come from state government. If you have ancestors in Virginia, you definitely need to check out the website of the Library of Virginia and when you do, don't say that I didn't warn you, because that website is massive. (And I'm thankful I have ancestors from Virginia!)

Frameworks help you ensure that you're building a good foundation for your research and helps you generate more ideas of places to look and things to look for. If you're using a framework of places to look, explore their websites even if you aren't planning to go in person. You never know what you're going to find on their website. Besides their online databases, take some time and explore their catalog because even if you aren't planning a trip there in person, you might be able to order copies or find someone to go research those materials for you. 

More from my site

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

18 comments on “ Why and How to Build a Research Framework ”

Thanks, Amy. Good info as always. I do have lots of WI ancestors and use the WI Historical Society archives a lot. I’m envious of other states that share death records on line with complete info so I don’t have to pay $15 and wait 2 weeks for a record that may or may not have any useful information! But I will appreciate it more now that you’ve mentioned it.

Amy, as always, your blog generates new leads for me to follow. I have found joining Facebook genealogy groups helpful. I follow one for my county, one for my state, one for the large city nearby, one for Acadian ancestry, and I just joined one for Irish DNA. Members post new sources coming online, workshops and are willing to help others. Thank you!

Amy, Very interesting info. I Volunteer at Randolph County Genealogy Society @ Steeleville, Illinois .we are small but have a lot of records. Glad I found you site. Thanks again.

Excellent reminders, Amy. I have become so dependent on the “big” research sites that I had forgotten about local town and county resources. In the ’70s I made many trips to county courthouses and found primary sources that aren’t online even now. Again, thanks!

Thanks for the reminders Amy. I too am guilty of tunnel vision in my research when it comes to websites. Good timing because I’m a bit “stuck” right now as to which ancestor I need to work on. Why? Because I spin my wheels every week trying to break down two HUGE brick walls. They’ve driven me nuts for over 16 yrs. I’ve even hired professionals and still …. nothing. DNA has not yet helped, but I’m hopeful. Maybe setting up a framework will not only help my overall research but give new life to these 2 frustrating cases. Thanks

Amy, thanks so much for sharing. I would offer two additional places to search in Oklahoma. The University of Oklahoma has a huge library with all kinds of historical information including information about the Native American tribes that were removed to the Indian Territory before we became a state. And, the Oklahoma State University also holds many historical collections.

There are also group organizations – I have gotten so much information from the “American Historical Society of Germans From Russia” especially historical information from what used to be the Soviet Union. Thanks for the other tips – I do get tunnel vision once in awhile!

Thank you, Amy, what valuable information! I am preparing a presentation based on 210 letters written between 1882-1887 by my great aunt and her husband. I would like to provide additional information about them and will use the framework method to obtain more information.

Amy, A great start for researchers. I’d suggest you add to the framework ethnic and religious genealogy groups. There are lots of Jewish Gen societies, Italian gen societies, etc. Also, ethnic and religious historical societies – for the same reasons.

I enjoyed this article. I have been doing a type of framework research using the Trello App. Your article articulated and expanded my process. Thank you.

Excellent guide for building a framework for genealogy research.

This is an excellent guide for building a framework for genealogy. Another part of your framework might be a writing aid such as ZOTERO which is a free download for researching.

Thanks, Amy. Good information as always! I’m visiting the Colorado State Archives on Monday. Will check out all these other ideas too!

I like the idea of the framework rather than the checklist. I’ve given up too early several times in the past because “the birth certificate/marriage record/obituary” wasn’t there, only to find a newspaper article, or a lodge notice, or a school program that provides a clue to that very thing. That is one of the things about Rootsfinder that I like. It does find hints from more than just the usual databases and typical records.

Hi Amy, I just came across your blog, and am looking forward to reading/listening. On a whim, one cold weekend last month I picked up a carefully typed 1903 report from an ancestor, passed down through my grandmother. I had only casually looked at it before. I thought I would honor this unknown relative’s hard work and see how many more dots I could connect. His report documented family back to early Colonial 1600’s. Given these early settlers well documented names, other (unknown) relatives have done research before me. Thankfully I had the insight to make a framework for what I was discovering on my iPad. I gave specific symbols to different family lines, so i could easily read it over later and not get confused. I followed whichever lines I could ( male & female) in an unbroken line and managed to go back to 1000 c. It was 2am and I sat completely dizzy with astonishment at the historical journey I had just discovered I was connected to. I never knew the relative who typed the original report I inherited, but I feel so greatful he took the time and had the heart to do it. He was 70 when he did it, which would have put him as a young man during the Civil War. Am looking forward to the tips on this blog to finding more specifics.

This is fantastic! I wish though that a visual could be given of the framework. (You could say that I’m a visual learner with this type of thing?) I also have quite a number of ancestors from Wisconsin, and my biggest issue is figuring out how to navigate the Historical Society website! I also wish that the Dakota’s had something like this available. South Dakota especially. I was told that a few collateral gggg uncles were instrumental in the founding of Pierre, SD.

I use the census records to build a research framework. I use them to try and build what looks like a family group might be and then use the data in them to search for vital records.

Thanks Amy. already discovered what I don’t know & to find out how to know what I need to know.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation

Published on October 14, 2015 by Sarah Vinz . Revised on July 18, 2023 by Tegan George.

Your theoretical framework defines the key concepts in your research, suggests relationships between them, and discusses relevant theories based on your literature review .

A strong theoretical framework gives your research direction. It allows you to convincingly interpret, explain, and generalize from your findings and show the relevance of your thesis or dissertation topic in your field.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Sample problem statement and research questions, sample theoretical framework, your theoretical framework, other interesting articles.

Your theoretical framework is based on:

• Your problem statement
• Your research questions
• Your literature review

A new boutique downtown is struggling with the fact that many of their online customers do not return to make subsequent purchases. This is a big issue for the otherwise fast-growing store.Management wants to increase customer loyalty. They believe that improved customer satisfaction will play a major role in achieving their goal of increased return customers.

To investigate this problem, you have zeroed in on the following problem statement, objective, and research questions:

• Problem : Many online customers do not return to make subsequent purchases.
• Objective : To increase the quantity of return customers.
• Research question : How can the satisfaction of the boutique’s online customers be improved in order to increase the quantity of return customers?

The concepts of “customer loyalty” and “customer satisfaction” are clearly central to this study, along with their relationship to the likelihood that a customer will return. Your theoretical framework should define these concepts and discuss theories about the relationship between these variables.

Some sub-questions could include:

• What is the relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction?
• How satisfied and loyal are the boutique’s online customers currently?
• What factors affect the satisfaction and loyalty of the boutique’s online customers?

As the concepts of “loyalty” and “customer satisfaction” play a major role in the investigation and will later be measured, they are essential concepts to define within your theoretical framework .

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Try for free

Below is a simplified example showing how you can describe and compare theories in your thesis or dissertation . In this example, we focus on the concept of customer satisfaction introduced above.

Customer satisfaction

Thomassen (2003, p. 69) defines customer satisfaction as “the perception of the customer as a result of consciously or unconsciously comparing their experiences with their expectations.” Kotler & Keller (2008, p. 80) build on this definition, stating that customer satisfaction is determined by “the degree to which someone is happy or disappointed with the observed performance of a product in relation to his or her expectations.”

Performance that is below expectations leads to a dissatisfied customer, while performance that satisfies expectations produces satisfied customers (Kotler & Keller, 2003, p. 80).

The definition of Zeithaml and Bitner (2003, p. 86) is slightly different from that of Thomassen. They posit that “satisfaction is the consumer fulfillment response. It is a judgement that a product or service feature, or the product of service itself, provides a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment.” Zeithaml and Bitner’s emphasis is thus on obtaining a certain satisfaction in relation to purchasing.

Thomassen’s definition is the most relevant to the aims of this study, given the emphasis it places on unconscious perception. Although Zeithaml and Bitner, like Thomassen, say that customer satisfaction is a reaction to the experience gained, there is no distinction between conscious and unconscious comparisons in their definition.

The boutique claims in its mission statement that it wants to sell not only a product, but also a feeling. As a result, unconscious comparison will play an important role in the satisfaction of its customers. Thomassen’s definition is therefore more relevant.

Thomassen’s Customer Satisfaction Model

According to Thomassen, both the so-called “value proposition” and other influences have an impact on final customer satisfaction. In his satisfaction model (Fig. 1), Thomassen shows that word-of-mouth, personal needs, past experiences, and marketing and public relations determine customers’ needs and expectations.

These factors are compared to their experiences, with the interplay between expectations and experiences determining a customer’s satisfaction level. Thomassen’s model is important for this study as it allows us to determine both the extent to which the boutique’s customers are satisfied, as well as where improvements can be made.

Figure 1 Customer satisfaction creation 

Of course, you could analyze the concepts more thoroughly and compare additional definitions to each other. You could also discuss the theories and ideas of key authors in greater detail and provide several models to illustrate different concepts.

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

Research bias

• Anchoring bias
• Halo effect
• The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon
• The placebo effect
• Nonresponse bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Vinz, S. (2023, July 18). Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation. Scribbr. Retrieved April 13, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/theoretical-framework-example/

Is this article helpful?

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

Other students also liked

What is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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.

RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here . You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/ . Click “accept” to agree.

Bringing an equity-centered framework to research: Transforming the researcher, research content, and practice of research

By Nitya M. Venkateswaran , Jay E. Feldman , Stephanie Hawkins Anderson , Megan A. Lewis , Janelle Melissa Armstrong-Brown , Megan Lee Comfort , Ashley Nichole Lowe, Daniela Pineda.

January 27, 2023 Open Access Peer Reviewed

DOI: 10.3768/rtipress.2023.op.0085.2301

• Share on Facebook
• Share on X.com
• Share on Linkedin
• This paper discusses how organizations can build on their specific commitments to diversity, inclusion, and equity by applying these principles in the research enterprise.
• Incorporating principles of diversity, inclusion, and equity requires a departure from mainstream practice because of historical and intentional exclusion of these principles.
• This organizing framework illustrates what this departure requires and how research can serve liberation and social justice by transforming the researcher, the research content, and the day-to-day practice of conducting research.
• Centering the work of seminal scholars and practitioners of color in the field, this paper provides a holistic framework that incorporates various research approaches and paradigms intended to shift power to minoritized and marginalized communities to achieve social transformation through research.

Since the mainstream racial awakening to pervasive and entrenched structural racism, many organizations have made commitments and adopted practices to increase workplace diversity, inclusion, and equity and embed these commitments in their organizational missions. A question often arises about how these concepts apply to research. This paper discusses how organizations can build on their specific commitments to diversity, inclusion, and equity by applying these principles in the research enterprise. RTI International’s framework for conducting equity-centered transformative research highlights how incorporating principles of diversity, inclusion, and equity requires a departure from mainstream practice because of historical and intentional exclusion of these principles. Drawing on methodologies of culturally responsive evaluation, research, and pedagogy; feminist, Indigenous, and critical methodologies; community-based participatory research; and theories of social transformation, liberation, and racial justice, this organizing framework illustrates what this departure requires and how research can serve liberation and social justice by transforming the researcher, the research content, and the day-to-day practice of conducting research. Centering the work of seminal scholars and practitioners of color in the field, this paper provides a holistic framework that incorporates various research approaches and paradigms intended to shift power to minoritized and marginalized communities to achieve social transformation through research.

Introduction

Researching, transformation and liberation, acknowledgments, bringing an equity-centered framework to research: transforming the researcher, research content, and practice of research.

Since the mainstream racial awakening, in 2020, to pervasive and entrenched structural racism, many institutions and organizations have made commitments and adopted practices to increase workplace diversity, inclusion, and equity and embed these commitments in their organizational missions. A question often arises about how these concepts apply to research. Often, the application is limited to the makeup of the research team, such as the racial and ethnic diversity of staff members, or to the focus of the research, such as highlighting racial disparities in specific outcomes, such as health. But if we look at diversity, inclusion, and equity not just through the lens of people but also through the lens of processes, the inclusion of these concepts should be mandated in the application of the day-to-day work of conducting research.

In this paper, we outline RTI International’s framework for conducting equity-centered transformative research (the framework is relevant to both research and evaluation, but we use the word “research” throughout). Equity-centered transformative research departs from mainstream methodologies to serve liberation and social justice. This paper links the organizational transformation via specific commitments related to diversity, inclusion, and equity efforts and the application of these principles in the research enterprise. By linking commitment and application, researchers and research organizations can clearly articulate to themselves, communities, and clients, including foundations, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies, how existing commitments extend further than the immediate impact on employees’ well-being, to the larger goal of advancing equity for all.

This framework draws on methodologies of culturally responsive evaluation, research, and pedagogy; transformative, feminist, Indigenous, and critical methodologies; community-based participatory research (CBPR); and equity, liberatory, and racial justice research and evaluation practices detailed in gray literature, journal articles, and textbooks. These research paradigms provide viewpoints not considered part of the mainstream research process and anchor many principles of diversity, inclusion, and equity. The framework also includes literature on transformational change or learning, decolonization, and liberation, including liberation psychology. Sources cited in this paper come from authors seminal in their respective fields or reflect a synthesis of the approach to guide researchers and practitioners. We were also mindful of centering scholars and practitioners from minoritized or marginalized backgrounds and those at the margins of what is considered traditional academic scholarship according to Western European standards.

The aim of this paper is to integrate these paradigms and approaches into one framework to demonstrate how they build and extend on one another for the ultimate goal: improving the well-being of minoritized and marginalized communities. For example, these approaches highlight the importance of engaging communities most affected by the research in the process of research, but goals and outcomes of this engagement vary. Indigenous paradigms and CBPR highlight the importance of community-led research so that community self-determination and liberation is an outcome of the research process. In culturally responsive evaluation, scholars describe the importance of community engagement to achieve multicultural validity. The approach mainly emphasizes the broader goals of social justice and equity as an outcome and does not specifically name liberation as the goal. Multicultural validity refers “to the accuracy and trustworthiness of understandings and actions across multiple, intersecting dimensions of cultural difference” ( Kirkhart, 2013 , p.2). Each set of methodologies highlights important nuances that are well-served under one framework.

This paper starts with a description of elements of equity-centered transformative research. Then, it illustrates how to operationalize the concepts of diversity, inclusion, and equity in research. Finally, it provides examples to support the application of these principles and references for future self-study.

Elements of Equity-Centered Transformative Research

Mainstream research paradigms (e.g., positivism) posit that data are neutral and that the research process can provide evidence that improves our world. However, research is a social enterprise that itself can reify inequity. Evidence and data are used to define and understand problems, determine solutions, and validate existing policies or strategies ( Weiss, 1979 ). But who is—and is not—involved in this process? How are problems defined, and what issues are left unexamined? Which solutions are developed, and which are discarded? Research operating within a system of white supremacy can preserve this system ( Caldwell & Bledsoe, 2019 ; House, 2017 ). Under the guise of Western conceptions of objectivity and neutrality, principles of diversity, inclusion, and equity have been excluded from mainstream research practice ( Zuberi & Bonilla-Silva, 2008 ). Therefore, incorporating these principles requires a departure from mainstream methodologies.

We provide an organizing framework to illustrate what this departure requires. An integrative, holistic framework based on various research approaches and paradigms that shifts power to minoritized and marginalized communities allows us to demonstrate the application of diversity, inclusion, and equity principles in research practice. This integration facilitates principles for research practice that require (1) transformation of the researcher, (2) an expansion of the research content, and (3) a shift in the process of conducting research. By understanding these distinct elements, research organizations or individual researchers can assess and target development opportunities to start the transformation of their research practice. Each aspect should be considered when implementing research practice that advances equity, but it is critical to start with the researcher. Researchers’ biases can influence the entire research process, and their values and beliefs about equity and inclusion can affect the extent to which anti-racist methods or strategies are used or implemented. These three elements—researcher, research, and researching—are explained below.

Research is not neutral. Researchers’ worldviews and values, which are shaped by their identities and experiences, including the socialization process, influence how research is conducted. Using equity-centered transformative research methods requires researchers to develop a critical consciousness, in which they uncover and understand how their worldviews and values represent dominant frames and cultural values ( Feagin, 2013 ), including white supremacy, and how these values manifest in their research practice. In addition to self-awareness, this approach requires researchers to continuously self-reflect to understand how dominant frames and their power and privilege play out in various contexts and to be responsive to those contexts ( Symonette, 2009 ) This ensures the validity of the research, specifically interpersonal validity, which is “the soundness and trustworthiness of understandings warranted by one’s uses of self as knower” ( Symonette, 2015 , p. 123). To combat oppressive and racist systems, researchers must possess knowledge, skills, and values or beliefs that support self-reflection and transformation ( Ladson-Billings, 1995 ; López, 2016 ). Researchers should know why and how racism and oppression exist and perpetuate, hold values and beliefs that align with equity and justice, and possess skills to implement anti-oppressive practices ( Solórzano & Yosso, 2002 ).

For research to be in service of equity and transformation, it should focus on or be committed to examining and dismantling systems of oppression ( Community Science, 2021b ; Equitable Evaluation Initiative, 2022 ; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002 ). It is not enough for disparities to be highlighted; research should acknowledge current systems that keep inequities in place and explore and address them ( Andrews et al., 2019 ). Racism and oppression can only be dismantled by examining, diagnosing, and treating the root conditions that perpetuate them.

Mainstream research practices have been developed within a system of white supremacy and according to Eurocentric cultural norms ( Love, 2020 ; Smith, 2017 ; Zuberi & Bonilla-Silva, 2008 ). In fact, current statistical methods were developed to advance arguments of racial superiority as part of the eugenics movement ( Zuberi, 2001 ). This calls into question whether methodologies originating under these oppressive systems perpetuate practices or approaches that continue this trajectory. Embedding principles of diversity, inclusion, and equity in the research process requires a shift in the day-to-day research work, such as new data collection approaches and/or analytical tools.

Equity Principles and Relationship to Research

In this section, we define the principles of diversity, inclusion, and equity within the researcher, research, and researching framework. We also explore their intended outcomes: belonging, transformation, and liberation. Current mainstream conceptualizations of the terms diversity, inclusion, equity, and belonging arise from organizations in the United States that are committing to changes in their workplace cultures and policies. The application of these concepts to research requires thinking beyond workplaces as individual people who work at an organization (e.g., diversity as the presence of differences or equity as fair treatment of employees) and a recognition of the power of research to maintain or challenge social inequities. This paper provides new ways to conceptualize these principles.

This framework includes concepts of transformation and liberation to recognize the aspirational role of research in contributing to social change beyond alleviating immediate conditions and experiences for nondominant communities. We propose that belonging, transformation, and liberation are outcomes when we adhere to principles of diversity, inclusion, and equity in research ( Figure 1 ). Therefore, we have deliberately placed these principles in a sequential order. However, it should be noted that these principles are interrelated and should not be thought of as separate ideas. For example, being inclusive is a way to address power imbalances that result from systemic inequities. This framework affords us a way to highlight important distinctions in these concepts while acknowledging that there cannot be equity without inclusion; inclusion is not a meaningful concept when not considering diversity and belonging; and transformation and liberation will not occur until research practice addresses and incorporates diversity, inclusion, and equity.

Framework for equity-centered transformative research

Definitions

This section starts with definitions and then moves to describing each element.

Valuing diversity requires acknowledging psychological, physical, and social differences as well as differences as a result of systemic cumulative advantages or systemic cumulative barriers to opportunities.

Common definitions of diversity in the organizational workplace literature focus on the presence of differences; differences are expressed in a multitude of forms, including race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, language, (dis)ability, religion, political perspective, and culture. The definition above recognizes that many of these “differences,” especially racialized differences, arose from valuation placed on certain phenotypical or physical characteristics for exploitation of labor ( Kendi, 2016 ). The resulting systems of advantages and disadvantages privilege whiteness. This process of minoritization has led to diminished access to power and resources and negative outcomes across many measures of well-being.

Inclusion requires anchoring the voices, perspectives, and cultures of those most excluded from power and influence in the research process.

Traditional workplace definitions of inclusion focus on ensuring that people with different backgrounds and characteristics feel respected, valued, comfortable being their authentic self, and supported by the organization. The definition above recognizes why inclusion is necessary. Historically, “traditional” research approaches and methodologies have excluded marginalized and oppressed voices, diverse perspectives, lived experiences, recognition of power dynamics, and cultural conceptualizations ( Beetham & Demetriades, 2007 ; Drawson et al., 2017 ; Smith, 2017 ). Legacies of colonialism and white supremacy place less value on cultural and knowledge systems developed outside of the Western world, which has resulted in the exclusion of these systems from mainstream research ( Grosfoguel, 2013 ; Love, 2020 ; Smith, 2017 ). Institutions and organizations have also pushed minoritized scholars to the margin ( McGee, 2021 ). Yet inclusion of these perspectives is necessary for building knowledge about effective solutions to society’s enduring problems and creating an organized force for social activism and change that leads to social transformation ( Brooks, 2007 ; Drawson et al., 2017 ). Inclusion requires reversing mainstream practices so that communities and groups most affected by the research and those with lived experience of the systems under study lead research so that their perspectives, experiences, values, and beliefs anchor the research.

Equity exists when intersections of social identities, residence in marginalized communities, and/or experience with oppressive systems do not determine opportunities, access to resources, and outcomes in life. Achieving equity requires acknowledging, addressing, and dismantling systemic biases in mindsets, practices, and policies.

Persistent inequitable outcomes result from systemic biases and racism in interlocking systems, such as education, health, legal, and economic systems ( Bonilla-Silva, 1997 ). The promotion of fairness and equal opportunity will only go so far to achieve equitable outcomes without the intentional disruption of current biased systems that undermine equity. Researchers should acknowledge and dismantle oppressive systems to allow for new systems that advance equity. Researchers should also employ methods that lead to the eradication of oppressive systems. For example, scholars have argued that traditional social science research methods developed by researchers in colonial academies have created and perpetuated racist stereotypes and policies that preserve racial hierarchies and inequities ( Gillborn, 2010 ; Love, 2020 ; Smith, 2017 ; Zuberi & Bonilla-Silva, 2008 ).

Belonging is the outcome of using principles of diversity, inclusion, and equity. Belonging is achieved when research serves those affected by it and the research process transforms to allow expanded views on what expertise means and to allow for multiple modes of knowledge and participation.

When researchers engage individuals or communities most affected by the research as experts in the research co-construction process, and when they use inclusive approaches to engagement that recognize and value diverse demonstrations of knowledge, expertise, and participation, those most marginalized will feel a sense of belonging ( powell & Menendian, 2022 ). When this happens, social hierarchies between “researcher” and “participant” will no longer affect the research process. Researchers will not use the privilege conferred on them by social hierarchies to dictate the research process because they value centering the perspectives and expertise of the community and those most affected by the research.

Transformation and liberation are the outcomes of incorporating principles of diversity, inclusion, and equity in the research. Transformation is the conscious reconstruction of the status quo (beliefs, structures, policies, and practices) toward a new society. Liberation is achieved when conditions of inequity and oppression are eliminated such that all people are free.

The aim of equity-centered transformative research is to dismantle current oppressive systems and develop new equitable ones. This requires transformative change, which is the reframing of dominant attitudes, beliefs, and cultural values; the shifting of power dynamics; and the development of new policies and practices that maintain structures ( Kania et al., 2018 ) and “govern collective, individual, and institutional practices” ( Hillenbrand et al., 2015 , p. 5). The intersection of all these elements underlies and reinforces oppression ( Martín-Baró, 1994 ). For example, laws disenfranchise people who have been incarcerated and exclude them from exercising their political power and participating in civic life. Formal policies also prevent them from accessing public benefits, such as public housing, and many types of employment and educational experiences. The intersection of these policies and practices combined with unfavorable biases toward people impacted by incarceration perpetuates their status as second-class citizens ( Alexander, 2010 ).

Systems can be transformed in service of liberation of minoritized and oppressed communities. Liberation is when all people are free of the oppressive systems of colonialism and white supremacy. To achieve liberation requires transformation at the personal and structural levels. Transformation at the personal level must occur first because one needs to be freed of patterns or ways of thinking that reflect current attitudes, beliefs, and norms to reimagine solutions ( Freeman & Vasconcelos, 2010 ; Martín-Baró, 1994 ). At the individual level, liberation is transforming and healing from internalized oppression ( Fanon, 2008 ), especially barriers that prevent self-determination ( Moane, 2003 ), and experiencing a “shift of consciousness” ( Morrell & O’Connor, 2002 , p. xvii). This applies to all (including the researcher), not only those who experience oppression. Once personal transformation has occurred within a community, the community can engage in collective action to bring about structural-level transformation of dominant attitudes, beliefs, power dynamics, and policies and practices. Only when power relations shift and those furthest from power lead the change will liberation happen ( Lorde, 2007 ). Research can be a tool in this process. Research should support the creation of systems that transform how the world is envisioned, where all people are free from systems of colonialism and white supremacy and the voices, perspectives, and experiences of the most marginalized drive the creation of new systems to ensure their well-being. When individuals or communities furthest from power yet most affected by research lead the research, they will contribute to knowledge creation and knowledge systems that engender the creation of new policies, practices, and cultural systems ( Love, 2020 ; Murray-Browne, 2019 ). Indigenous methodologies describe how knowledge creation serves a decolonizing purpose by rebalancing power as communities engage in self-determination ( Drawson et al., 2017 ). The process of decolonization, “specifically requires the repatriation of Indigenous land and life” ( Tuck & Yang, 2014 , p. 21).

Application of Equity Principles to Elements of Researcher, Research, Researching

Table 1 describes the application of diversity, inclusion, equity, belonging, and transformation and liberation to each element of research. The following subsections include examples of how each concept would be applied in practice. The examples are meant to be illustrative and not exhaustive. We recommend readers review the resources cited in each section for additional study.

Researcher understands the importance of acknowledging and reflecting on their own biases and assumptions that influence research.

Each one of us brings a particular perspective and cultural worldview to our work that is influenced by where we were socialized, our identities, and our past experiences. In research, this concept is aligned to positionality, which is the idea that researchers’ social identities influence how they see the world and interact with others. The problem that this poses in research is when researchers are not aware of how they are imposing their worldview—the way they define reality—when engaging in research, especially when working across difference. Because we live and have been socialized in a system of white supremacy in which whiteness is privileged, we are socialized to have worldviews and norms that uphold this system ( Mills, 1997 ).

An African American researcher is studying why African Americans frequent farmers markets at lower rates than the rest of the population. An examination of her positionality and how it affects the research would include the acknowledgment of her privilege and power that comes with her education and socioeconomic status while recognizing the marginalization she has experienced as an African American woman. Although the similar racial background she shares with participants allows her entry into the community, her perspective on what healthy eating looks like may vary from participants’ perspectives. To not impose this worldview requires her self-reflection on her assumptions about healthy eating, where she comes from, and how she may influence the data collection and analysis process.

Self-reflection is critical to engaging in equity-focused research ( Andrews et al., 2019 ). Knowledge of oneself, including one’s values, biases, and perspectives, is critical to knowing how and when one’s biases and worldviews influence the research process, interactions with research participants, and the context in which research occurs ( Symonette, 2009 ). Reflection is one of the first steps to take in research but should also be a continuous practice throughout the project ( Andrews et al., 2019 ; Symonette, 2015 ). Symonette’s (2015) self-reflection framework highlights the importance of contextualizing this reflection for each project to achieve interpersonal validity. In this framework, one first looks inward to understand the self, then at the self in relation to how others perceive them (i.e., How do I perceive others as perceiving or receiving me showing up in a world of many “we”s and “they”s?), then at the context of the evaluation or research study and how the evaluator shows up in the related work and tasks, and finally at the relationship between the researcher and the social context in which the work occurs (e.g., social norms, ways of knowing, power dynamics).

When conducting research with communities of color, one should also understand one’s racialized experiences and how those have formed a racialized identity ( Milner, 2007 ). Milner (2007) suggests that not understanding one’s racialized experiences may cause harm for communities of color. For example, if researchers value the concept of “colorblindness” (“I don’t see race”), they will be unable to see and give voice to experiences with discrimination and racism that people of color face. Researchers can take the following steps to examine positionality and bias:

Engage a diverse staff of researchers on the project team; ensure staff from nondominant backgrounds have leadership positions on the project and are not tokenized.

Use a positionality map to examine identity and positionality and how identity influences research (see Jacobson & Mustafa, 2019 , for a sample tool; an adaptation of this tool and accompanying reflection questions can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7459976 and https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7459987 , respectively). Jacobson and Mustafa (2019) outline how a positionality map can be useful during different aspects of the research process, such as when designing methodology or preparing to interact with participants. Some questions to ask during this process include the following:

What social identities and groups do I belong to?

How might they color the lens through which I view the world?

In what ways do my racial and cultural backgrounds influence how I experience the world, what I emphasize in my research, and how I evaluate and interpret others and their experiences? ( Milner, 2007 )

Use Symonette’s (2015) self-reflection framework, Integrated Evaluator Quadrant Model, to understand and reflect on yourself “in action” in each context.

Create a positionality statement for the project (see Castillo & Gillborn, 2022 , for an example).

Reflect on conscious and unconscious biases brought to the research before and during the research process. Andrews and colleagues (2019) highlight a few questions to surface biases: “Who or what makes you uncomfortable, and why? To whom do you give second chances, and why? Whom or what do you judge based on stereotypes?”

Researcher values authentic partnerships with communities most affected by research, understands the power dynamics inherent in the researcher-participant relationship, and knows how to create an inclusive collaborative environment when engaging in partnerships.

Researchers must value and see the benefits of engaging in equitable partnerships with communities in the research process. They must not only value the perspectives and experiential knowledge of communities and view them as equally important as the academic knowledge that researchers possess but also be willing to cocreate knowledge through these partnerships ( Minkler, 2004 ).

Once researchers embark on these partnerships, they should know how to and have the skills to equalize these relationships that are historically laden with power dynamics. Fostering inclusion with partners requires an awareness of when power dynamics and mistrust between researchers and participants might surface and why. It also includes methods for building trust and elevating the voice and perspectives of those who have not previously been given power in the research process ( Chicago Beyond, 2019 ). Researchers should possess the knowledge and awareness of past and current abuses of research, such as researcher deception and exploitation, that have caused mistrust between many communities and researchers ( Burnette & Sanders, 2014 ; Washington, 2006 ) so as to not replicate these harms. They also must be open to and value the time it takes to build trust ( Chicago Beyond, 2019 ) and have knowledge of appropriate strategies for building and maintaining trust. Wallerstein (1999) describes challenges of not adequately addressing the extent of community mistrust despite established relationships with community partners.

Engaging inclusively also requires an understanding of how racism and discrimination can mediate the ability to create authentic and trusting relationships ( Minkler, 2004 ). Researchers often work across difference, especially because researchers may not reflect the racial, cultural, and/or socioeconomic backgrounds of the communities they partner with. Without reflection on their positionality or how biases might surface in their interactions with participants, researchers might perpetuate these dynamics. Possessing cultural humility, or the ability to continuously self-reflect and be willing to learn about others’ perspectives and experiences, will support working across difference ( Minkler, 2004 ). Although no one person can be “competent” in another culture, researchers should intentionally learn about cultural practices or norms to support inclusive engagement when interacting across difference ( Kien, 2007 ). Researchers can take the following steps to foster inclusion:

Understand the social and political context of communities. The section on inclusion in research content outlines steps to understanding the context of the specific community where the research is taking place that can support researchers’ use of inclusive interactions, such as understanding racial dynamics and power differentials in the specific location or community.

Educate oneself about the cultural norms of a community. Kien (2007 , p. 6) outlines various steps and questions one can ask before entering a community. These include partnering with a cultural translator or bridge and attending community events before engaging members from the community in the research. Cultural translators or bridges are “familiar with the cultural group” or “may be able to explain basic characteristics of the cultural group” ( Kien, 2007 , p. 5). Recommended questions to ask oneself before entering a community include, “Who can help me understand this cultural group and some of its basic norms? Who can introduce me and help me gain entry into the group? What nonverbal communication and rules of conduct did I observe in this group? What have others learned about what it takes to work with this group? What are some of their mistakes that I should be careful not to repeat?”

Understand how to create inclusive environments when engaging individuals and groups most affected by the research. This includes inclusive facilitation techniques ( Community Science, 2021a ) and understanding how interpersonal interactions can influence feelings of inclusion. Researchers should be aware of how comments or actions may subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally express a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a minoritized group, be careful not to inflict these microaggressions, and be prepared to intervene if they arise.

Researcher possesses values and beliefs oriented toward anti-racism and anti-oppression and understands how research can be used as a tool for both oppression and social justice.

Dismantling systemic racism and oppression through research requires a commitment to equity and justice. Researchers should hold specific values and beliefs to develop and apply approaches that challenge the status quo and transform systems that lead to liberation ( Solórzano & Yosso, 2002 ). These values and beliefs should move beyond general platitudes of equality and justice to understand how one’s own beliefs and actions perpetuate white supremacy, racism, and oppression. Bonilla-Silva (2015) highlights how a colorblind ideology in contemporary American society perpetuates racism despite articulated commitments to equality. Therefore, it is critical to unpack one’s values and examine how actions and practices align with these values. For example, white supremacy culture is evident in all facets of society, including research work ( Love, 2020 ; Okun, n.d. ). Researchers should reject a deficit ideology—the perspective that motivational or cognitive deficits are the cause of inequities—and the pathologizing of communities, value the shift of power to communities, and possess critical awareness of how research methods have been used to perpetuate oppression ( López, 2016 ; Love, 2020 ). Researchers can take the following steps to develop this consciousness:

Educate oneself on the history of white supremacy, how it came to be, how it is currently perpetuated, and what one can do to dismantle it. Numerous books (e.g., Kendi, 2016 ), podcasts (e.g., Seeing White, Scene on Radio season 2), and documentaries (e.g., Raoul Peck’s Exterminate All the Brutes ) on this topic have proliferated in recent years. Consultants and organizations provide numerous trainings for individuals and organizations as well.

Understand white supremacy culture ( Okun, n.d. ) and how it manifests in research practice.

Engage in anti-oppression training or ally training that supports the development of critical consciousness and values.

Researcher's sense of self expands to include values and beliefs of communities that serve as authentic partners in the research.

Research on close relationships suggests that interactions between individuals and those with different backgrounds can result in individuals’ self-expansion of their values and beliefs to incorporate the values and beliefs of others ( Aron et al., 1992 ). Expansion of the self to include others happens when researchers start to include the needs, motivations, and values of community members or research participants as part of their own identity. When this process occurs, evidence suggests that individual motivation transforms from a “me” to “we” focus ( Finkel & Rusbult, 2008 ). The consequence of this self-expansion may be researchers becoming more empathetic to the needs and lived experience of community members and seeing research participants as human beings, not research subjects. Others have also argued that changing conceptions of self and others, in this case researchers and community members, is critical to achieving justice ( powell, 2012 ). An essential mechanism in this process is enlarging the circle of human concern to a more-expansive definition of “we” ( powell & Toppin, 2021 ). Expanding conceptions of oneself and addressing narrow conceptions of “we” will lead to research that is centered in community needs.

Researcher undergoes their own individual transformation to support the transformation and liberation of others.

By engaging in critical self-reflection and engaging in practices that challenge white supremacy and oppression, researchers may go through their own individual transformation ( Mertens, 2017 ). Through this process, they can develop a critical consciousness, which is the ability to recognize and address systems of oppression, especially in their own lives ( Freire, 2000 ). Individual transformation occurs when individuals change their worldviews or frames of reference and subsequent actions ( Mezirow, 1997 ). When researchers begin to critically question their current research practice and identify how they have perpetuated oppressive systems through this practice, this sets the stage for personal transformation. For example, they may start to shift their worldview from research as neutral or objective to research as inherently biased. This new worldview leads to subsequent practices that shift what they have traditionally done before. Transformation can also occur as a result of engaging with communities in ways that they have not before and engaging in perspective taking—in other words, taking another person’s or groups’ point of view when perceiving the world ( Symonette, 2009 ). Transformation of the researcher must occur for the research to be in service of transformation of and liberation from oppressive systems.

Research acknowledges how social and political factors shape experiences of individuals who do not reflect the dominant culture or norm.

When explaining variation in outcomes by demographic characteristics, research should provide structural explanations for why disparities are produced (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2017). Often, research findings imply a deficit perspective or stance about groups because of the focus on disparities without structural explanations ( First Nations Development Institute, 2018 ). A deficit perspective can be defined as a “person-centered” explanation for outcomes that relies on “motivational or cognitive deficits” of the individual ( Valencia, 2002 ). These explanations or narratives perpetuate stigmatization of communities. Instead, the research content should acknowledge social and political causes of disparities. For example, Gross (2020) recommends that information on “structural context” such as “key policies, relationships, current and past access to resources” should be included and considered throughout a research report, not solely at the end of the discussion. Conducting a root cause analysis before engaging in the study can help identify the current and historical policies and practices that affect outcomes (see our explanation of a root cause analysis in our section on equity in research content). Some questions to ask to guide the inclusion of these factors in the study include the following:

How did things get this way? What historical policies and practices shaped the neighborhood, community, or system where you see inequitable outcomes?

What are current policies and practices that maintain these inequities? How do systems (e.g., education system, health care system) intersect to maintain these inequities?

Research acknowledges the social and political context and culture of communities where the research is conducted.

The research content should include the context of the community where the study takes place. Not only does this process help inform how one engages with the community ( Andrews et al., 2019 ; Wallerstein et al., 2008 ), it ensures that findings and recommendations do not perpetuate systems in the community that cause harm ( Bledsoe & Hopson, 2009 ). Moreover, a consideration of context allows the achievement of multicultural validity, which Kirkhart (2010) describes as the congruence between theory and context. Researchers can take the following steps to understand context:

Andrews and colleagues (2019 , p. 10) provide reflective questions that researchers can answer before the research study: “What are the historical and cultural antecedents of the community? (For example, what is the history of racial dynamics in the community?) Who is affected—positively or negatively—by the issue you plan to study? Why? How? How is power distributed in the community? What power differentials exist within the community? (For example, are elders treated as gatekeepers or final authority?)”

Kirkhart (2010 , p. 405) provides various dimensions of the context to acknowledge and incorporate: “Learn the history of this community and of the evaluand within it; Reflect on shared aspirations, values, and ideals and how they are represented in the institutions and governance structures of this context; Notice how power is distributed in this context through both formal and informal structures.”

Research aims to dismantle the root causes of systemic inequities.

Research often examines the manifestations of systems, such as inequitable outcomes in health or education, but less-frequently addresses or explores causes for those outcomes that are rooted in structural and institutionalized racism or other systems of oppression ( Brown et al., 2019 ) or detail how racism can be “confronted” ( Kohli et al., 2017 ). Irons (2019) articulates the importance of understanding why inequities exist: to move away from identifying interventions or solutions that fix some aspects of the individual “deficiencies” to fixing the causes of inequities that would lead to improved outcomes. Research should uncover the systemic causes of inequities to provide solutions for practitioners and policy makers to transform systems ( Andrews et al., 2019 ). This requires linking modern-day policies and practices to the history of how systems were created. Hardeman and colleagues (2022) recommend that researchers improve the measurement of structural racism to inform the development of anti-racist policies. Researchers can implement the following practices to focus research on systems:

To identify areas of focus for the study:

Conduct a root cause analysis to determine the focus of the study and/or research questions to include ( Andrews et al., 2019 ). The Youth Researchers for a New Education System (YRNES) Report ( Bacha et al., 2008 ) illustrates an example in which a diverse group of youth in New York City conducted an inquiry on youth’s perspectives on public schools through a participatory action research project. The youth conducted analysis and identified systems, ideologies, attitudes, goals, and policies that perpetuated inequities in the New York City school system.

Reframe a program, theory of change, or logic model to include systemic factors ( Community Science, 2021b ) to drive the program theory, study measurement, or both.

To study or analyze oppression or racism in measurement or analysis:

Use factor analysis to analyze root causes ( Hawn Nelson et al., 2020 ).

Ask participants about their experiences with discrimination or oppression within the social condition or program being studied to surface root causes.

Conducting a root cause analysis requires researchers to define the problem or condition that is the focus of the research project and identify the current policies, practices, resource flows, and narratives or mental models that maintain the conditions or inequities (the trunk of the tree) and their historical antecedents (the roots). A version of this activity can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7460008 .

When researchers use principles of inclusion during the research process and engage communities in intentional and authentic partnerships, research findings provide value to those most affected by the conditions being researched.

Evidence or information generated by the research creates knowledge necessary to improve conditions or issues participants most care about, including bringing about transformation ( Brush et al., 2020 ). CBPR is an approach to research that engages communities as equal partners in the research process ( Minkler & Wallerstein, 2011 ). CBPR is grounded in the principles of “self-determination, liberty, and equity and reflects an inherent belief in the ability of people to accurately assess their strengths and needs and their right to act upon them” ( Minkler, 2004 , p. 684) Wallerstein and Duran (2010) highlight how the health research field has documented the impact of CBPR on “system-change outcomes such as policy changes, practice and program changes such as greater sustainability and equity, and community capacity and empowerment outcomes” (p. S43). Their conceptual logic model of CBPR, developed through a systematic literature review, also details changes in power relations, transformed social and economic conditions, and a reduction in health inequities when CBPR is used ( Wallerstein et. al, 2008 ).

Research is in service of the creation of new systems that dismantle oppressive, white supremacist, and colonial systems.

Laenui (2000) , as described in Chilisa (2019) , illustrates how research can participate in the dismantling of colonialism by supporting communities as they use their own knowledge systems and theories to imagine new systems and possibilities that can be a blueprint for transformation. Research-generated findings and knowledge can be in service of communities’ collective action toward liberation and decolonization by supporting the analysis of current conditions and the development of solutions. For example, research can help unpack current inequities in the system and the root causes of these inequities, supporting community members’ liberation from internalized notions that their current situation is the fault of their own shortcomings and instead understanding the failure of a rigged system ( M. E. Hall, 2020 ). This can only occur by redistributing power to communities so they own the research process and use methodologies and knowledge systems indigenous to them ( Chilisa, 2019 ; Love, 2020 ). For example, the Young Women’s Freedom Center (YWFC) youth participatory action research project examined the impact of institutional systems on women, girls, and transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals in San Francisco ( Melendrez & Young Women’s Freedom Center, 2019 ). YWFC believes that “those most impacted are best positioned to guide the work of the YWFC and to transform the world.” The knowledge created by research may not always be in service of liberation and transformation and therefore requires an intentional commitment and focus ( Laenui, 2000 ; Murray-Browne, 2019 ). For example, the researcher can ask if their research aims to envision a new system and dismantle colonial systems ( Murray-Browne, 2019 ).

Research approach privileges theories, methodologies, and processes that are rooted in groups that have been most marginalized and/or based in the culture of participants and communities in the research

Knowledge systems, frameworks, and methods of inquiry exist in many cultures, but using traditional research methods privileges those from the Western-dominant perspective ( Hall & Tandon, 2017 ). Incorporating frameworks and approaches from nondominant cultures or marginalized groups should be part of the research process, especially when the research is conducted in communities that do not reflect the dominant culture ( Tillman, 2002 ).

In addition, research should be responsive to communities by centering their cultural systems throughout the process ( Hood et al., 2015 ; Trainor & Bal, 2014 ). Conducting research is not neutral; it is inherently situated in a cultural context. Because doing research is often conducted from the perspective of the dominant cultural context, though, it is difficult to notice. Culture can be defined by “a cumulative body of learned and shared behavior, values, customs and beliefs common to a particular group or society” ( Frierson et al., 2002 , p. 63). Literature on culturally responsive evaluation and research outlines numerous considerations for how culture can be considered throughout the research cycle. Researchers can take the following steps to privilege nondominant cultures or frameworks:

Engage in self-reflection to understand the social systems where the work is taking place ( Symonette, 2015 ). One can ask, “Whose ways of being, doing, or engaging matter and are thus privileged? Who authorizes or decides, and how?” ( Symonette, 2015 , p. 125).

Ask questions to guide reflection during the implementation of day-to-day tasks:

Whose worldviews are our research reflecting or prioritizing?

Are frameworks and instruments aligned with the culture and context of communities or based on researchers’ cultural lens?

Does the evaluation design fit the cultural context and values of communities?

Use instruments or measures that reflect cultural norms of communities. Whenever possible, use instruments that were validated with communities participating in the study, or adapt current measures or instruments with help from community leaders ( Hood et al., 2015 ; Public Policy Associates, 2015 ). Chicago Beyond (2019) highlights how measures for outcomes are rooted in cultural norms that may not be appropriate for different communities. It suggests asking, “What are the commonly used metrics for this type of work, and what inequities, historical or present, are built into them? What assumptions are built into how these metrics are used?” For example, Chicago Beyond questions measuring “overcrowding” as an outcome for participants from a culture that values living with extended family or measuring “wealth accumulation” from families with norms of sending money to extended or immediate family.

Use culturally responsive approaches to collecting data that privilege cultural traditions of communities in which the study is taking place. J. N. Hall (2020) describes an approach to focus groups that is grounded in Indigenous ways of knowing through a “non-Western” approach called Fa’afaletui when conducting research in a New Zealand Mori community.

Use theoretical frameworks that are rooted in the cultural systems and context of communities. For example, Community Learning Theory originated within the context of experiences of the Chicano Movement of the 1970s. The theory builds on multilingual and multicultural assets in the learning process, acknowledging the importance of relationships and trust that provide the foundation for change ( Vargas, 2008 ). It can be used to understand community-led movements and empowerment approaches in the Chicano community.

Research process is grounded in intentional and authentic partnership with research participants and communities most affected by the research.

Indigenous, feminist, and culturally responsive evaluation approaches underscore the need for collaborative partnerships with individuals or communities most affected by the research and those with lived experience throughout the research process, especially when they are themselves participants in the research ( Drawson et al. 2017 ; Hood et al., 2015 ). Approaches such as CBPR and empowerment evaluation provide frameworks for how researchers and evaluators can engage communities in the research process. These approaches are oriented toward community empowerment and self-determination to achieve outcomes of transformation and liberation ( Miller & Campbell, 2006 ; Wallerstein, 1999 ). In both of these approaches, collaboration should be equitable and community members should participate fully as decision makers in all aspects of the research process to determine what is studied as well as what and how data are collected, analyzed, interpreted, and reported. Decision-making is different from consultation with communities about the research process ( Arnstein, 1969 ). In consultation, communities provide input, but researchers or funders have ultimate decision-making authority. Decision-making requires the transfer of power so that community members can make decisions about the study, especially the focus, with support from researchers. Creating clear expectations for these relationships and how partners will work together (e.g., establishing memoranda of understanding) will help partnerships be successful ( Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium, 2011 ).

One way to identify the different roles community members can play in the research is to use a collaboration engagement matrix to identify where in the research process they will have decision-making authority. Ideally, they are engaged at all points, but most importantly, they should be engaged in the direction and focus of the study. An example of a collaboration engagement matrix can be found at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7465721 .

Various dimensions can indicate the quality of community engagement in the research process and whether these approaches attain the intended goals of empowerment and self-determination ( Miller & Campbell, 2006 ). One dimension is the degree of inclusiveness of the engagement. Researchers should be aware of the diversity of who is represented in these partnerships, including racial and ethnic diversity, if applicable, and other dimensions, such as age and lived experience, which may contribute to variance in perspectives ( Aguilar-Gaxiola et. al., 2022 ; Wallerstein et al., 2008 ). In evaluations of programs or initiatives, it is important to include both program implementers and program recipients when considering those most affected by the research project. Researchers should also be aware of power dynamics within groups of community participants, ensuring that groups furthest from power are centered in this process. Often, those with the most power, time, or resources are the ones who participate most in these spaces despite the intention to engage everyone.

Researchers should forge relationships with the community intentionally, even before the research study starts ( Bledsoe & Hopson, 2009 ; Drawson et al., 2017 ) and should sustain them after the projects are finished, if possible; these relationships should not be viewed as mainly a “transactional” enterprise ( Aguilar-Gaxiola et. al., 2022 , p.7). Researchers can take the following steps to create intentional partnerships:

Ask questions to guide reflection when engaging participants and community members in the process (the following questions are taken or adapted from Andrews and colleagues [2019] and Nelson and Greenberg [2017] ):

Are we exploring what matters to communities or what participants want to know?

Have researchers identified how answers to research questions will benefit communities?

Are we involving communities in the process and respecting their reality?

Are we prioritizing the needs of communities or constraints on budget, time, and so on?

How much time will key collaborators or community members need to invest in the research project?

Use participatory research approaches, including action research or CBPR, to engage participants in the research process.

Create structures and processes to support intentional partnerships in which decision-making is shared and to create inclusive environments where participants are fully valued.

When communities or those affected by the research represent various racialized or minoritized identities, ask these questions to ensure those furthest from power are centered (the following questions are taken from Stewart [2017] ):

Who is in the room? Who is trying to get in the room but can’t? Whose presence in the room is under constant threat of erasure?

Have everyone’s ideas been heard? Whose ideas won’t be taken as seriously because they aren’t in the majority?

Is this environment safe for everyone to feel like they belong? Whose safety is being sacrificed and minimized to allow others to be comfortable maintaining dehumanizing views?

Ensure all aspects of the evaluation process are accessible to communities, noting language needs and accommodations. Follow principles of universal design and inclusive meetings and facilitation.

Create structures and systems to support two-way communication.

Provide capacity building and training for community partners to partner authentically.

Develop a common understanding of research terms and processes.

Develop agreements to guide partnerships.

Build flexibility into the project to allow for meaningful community engagement throughout all stages of the research.

Budget for compensating community members and/or organizations for their time and expertise.

Use of anti-racist or anti-oppressive research methods throughout the research process.

Mainstream research methods can perpetuate oppression and racism by failing to unmask the role oppression and racism play in outcomes. They can also perpetuate harmful narratives and stereotypes about groups that continue to dehumanize and erase. How and what researchers collect data on, and how they analyze and report data, influences what they understand about conditions they study. For example, the practice of using race as a predictor of outcomes (e.g., health or poverty) perpetuates the notion that race is a cause of differential outcomes, which in turn perpetuates cultural deficit narratives and stereotypes ( Bonilla-Silva & Zuberi, 2008 ). Tuck and Yang (2014) argue that much of social science research is “damage centered,” documenting the damage and pain of nondominant communities, which intensifies stigmatizing narratives. Researchers can take the following steps to embed equity in the research process:

Ask reflective questions to inform aspects of the research process (the following questions are adapted from Kien [2007] and Nelson and Greenberg [2017] ):

How might choices made based on this analysis perpetuate stereotypes, injustice, or a savior complex?

Are we focusing our analysis on participants who are exemplary to elevate communities’ assets?

How do we use language to actively name oppression?

How do we use language to humanize and not stigmatize communities?

Will the findings place a stigma on a certain group or give the group power to access resources and improve their situation?

Use a “desire-based” framework that “interrupts” narratives of damaged communities so research can serve as a tool for empowerment while also documenting the systems of oppression ( Tuck & Yang, 2014 ).

Use a mixed-methods approach to researching racism and inequity, using qualitative data to unpack counternarratives that often plague studies solely examining disparities ( Mertens 2007 ; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002 ).

When examining outcomes, explain why race is being used in the study and ensure the definition of race is a sociopolitical, not biological, one ( Boyd, et al., 2020 ).

Ensure overrepresentation of groups systematically excluded from research or data collection efforts to ensure adequate sample sizes when disaggregating data. Data collection and disaggregation practices continue to “other” certain groups, such as Native American and American Indian communities, because of small sample sizes ( Urban Indian Health Institute, 2020 ). These practices marginalize certain communities because they are not represented in the data, and therefore, policies and programs are not created to address those communities’ concerns or issues.

Use an intersectional lens to unpack how racism and other oppressive systems interact ( Solórzano & Yosso, 2002 ).

Refrain from using white outcomes as the “norm” or standard to which outcomes of people of color are compared ( Andrews et al., 2019 ) because this comparison fails to recognize structural barriers that created these outcomes. Instead, focus on improving outcomes for all groups.

Consider the denominator and model selection for quantitative analysis ( Castillo & Gillborn, 2022 ) and be transparent about the limitations and implications. For example, Castillo & Gillborn (2022) outline various instances in which researchers concluded that police were not racially biased toward Black people, but these findings were skewed by who researchers included in their study sample. Variable selection should also be purposeful. Castillo & Gillborn recommend that researchers ask critical questions when creating models, especially variables that “control away” racism. Because racism and discrimination affect socioeconomic status, when controlling for socioeconomic status, the model also controls for effects of racism. Being intentional and transparent about these decisions allows research consumers to understand how racism affects the research process.

Ensure research products and processes do not perpetuate stereotypical narratives about certain groups. Use asset- and strengths-based narratives that counter deficit narratives (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2017).

Researchers value all expressions of knowledge and participation styles throughout the research process.

This outcome is similar to mainstream definitions of belonging. In this case, it pertains specifically to participants’ sense of belonging in the research process. When communities are included as authentic partners in the research or even lead the research, this can challenge traditional academic notions of what is considered knowledge and how it is expressed to include theories or methods indigenous to the participating communities ( Wallerstein & Duran, 2010 ). Research processes grounded in communities’ local or cultural knowledge systems and ways of being can contribute to their sense of belonging in the research process.

Communities and individuals most affected by the research have ownership of the research process.

Liberation occurs when members of a community experience personal transformation and work toward structural transformation through self-determination and collective action. Research can be in service of transformation and liberation when individuals or communities most affected by the oppressive social conditions that cause inequities can create knowledge and work toward the solutions they have identified. For this to occur, they must own the research process and direct the research toward the types of knowledge they want to create about the systems they want to transform and what those systems should look like (e.g., policies, practices, values and beliefs). Marginalized and nondominant communities should have the power to generate solutions that directly affect their lives. Additionally, they have the most intimate knowledge of oppressive systems, which privileged groups do not ( Brooks, 2007 ). When they have ownership of research, they create new knowledge that can aid in the process of transforming the most-oppressive systems that affect their lives ( Hall & Tandon, 2017 ).

Ownership of the research process includes deciding the focus of the research; participating in decision-making about the design of the study; engaging in data collection, analysis, and interpretation; communicating the research findings; and developing policies or practices based on the research findings (see Framework for Community Decision Making in Study Planning and Implementation at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7459914 ). Researchers should work in partnership with communities involved in various stages of the research process, providing technical expertise throughout, such as providing training on research methods, so community members can lead or co-lead aspects of the process to ensure their research interests and worldviews anchor the process (Collins et al., 2018).

An example of a participatory process detailed in Melendrez and Young Women’s Freedom Center’s (2019) youth participatory action research project demonstrates how youth can lead and participate in using research to examine harmful systems and develop solutions. The project examined the effect of institutional systems on women, girls, and transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals. Women, girls, and transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals led the research process, engaged research participants in the review of findings, and oversaw how researchers represented them. Researchers trained three youth organizers for 3 months on research methods, and all researchers received a certification in collaborative institutional training with topics in research, ethics, compliance, and safety, which enabled youth researchers to be co-investigators in the study.

Integrating principles of diversity, inclusion, and equity in the research is an unlearning process. It requires a departure from mainstream research methods taught in colleges and universities across the United States and the type of research funders seek. The researcher, research, and researching are fundamentally transformed once principles of diversity, inclusion, and equity are integrated in the foundation of the research endeavor, and the application of these principles will contribute to belonging and transformation and liberation.

This framework offers alternative definitions of diversity, inclusion, and equity to acknowledge social dimensions of research and its role in contributing to oppression and white supremacy. The inclusion of transformation and liberation articulates how research can contribute to social movements that aim to transform current systems that continue to oppress communities. Framing the research approach in alignment with these concepts allows research organizations to connect their commitments to transform workplaces according to these principles to the day-to-day activities of research.

The strategies presented in this paper to embed principles of diversity, inclusion, and equity in research are by no means exhaustive, nor are the examples prescriptive. They are starting points for researchers to explore approaches and provide an aspirational guide for the trajectory of their research practice. For example, this framework can provide a guide for how one can progress by focusing first on diversity, then moving to inclusion, and then moving to equity. However, a nonnegotiable element of an equity-centered transformative research approach is partnering with communities or individuals most affected by the research throughout the research process. Without this partnership, transformation and liberation cannot occur. Communities or individuals most affected should have the agency to direct the changes that will affect their lives.

As funding and governmental agencies ask for research to center principles of diversity, inclusion, and equity, they should acknowledge the need for communities to be part of the process and support the use of these approaches. One example of an investment in this approach is the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Science of Engagement initiative, which seeks to build an evidence base related to community engagement for clinical research. The Equitable Evaluation Initiative, which seeks to transform foundations’ evaluation practices, also values community engagement as a critical pillar of an equitable approach. The hope is that with continued investment and support this approach will no longer be ancillary but will be an integral practice for all researchers.

This integrative, holistic framework based on multiple methodologies and approaches demonstrates how the research process can create knowledge and evidence in service of social transformation and liberation. Although the goals of transformation and liberation are aspirational and may be unattainable in one lifetime, if the field acknowledges that research can reify inequity and creates a new normal in which all researchers embed principles of diversity, inclusion, and equity in research, we can collectively move toward that goal.

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of the 2020–2021 Education Workforce Development Division’s Equity Committee (Demond McKenzie, Natassia Rodriguez Ott, Nestor Ramirez, Pablo Traverso, and Robin Wisniewski) to the development of the organizing framework of researcher, research, and researching.

RTI Press Associate Editor: Philip Graham

To contact an author or seek permission to use copyrighted content, contact our editorial team

• [email protected]
• +1 919 541 6490

Meet the Experts

Megan A. Lewis

Stephanie Hawkins

Jay Feldman

Nitya Venkateswaran

Megan Comfort

Daniela Pineda

Janelle Armstrong-Brown

Related publications, recent publications, trauma-informed approaches and community engagement, wearable sensors for service members and first responders, the opioid crisis and hospice care, designer drugs, the impact of police violence on communities, integrating noncommunicable diseases into antenatal care in cameroon, the impacts of covid-19 on schools’ willingness to participate in research, north carolina state university and the forensic technology center of excellence two-part virtual workshop series.

‘Deploying and Evaluating LLMs to Program Service Mobile Robots’

“Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have spurred interest in using them for generating robot programs from natural language, with promising initial results. We investigate the use of LLMs to generate programs for service mobile robots leveraging mobility, perception and human interaction skills, and where accurate sequencing and ordering of actions is crucial for success. We contribute CodeBotler, an open-source robot-agnostic tool to program service mobile robots from natural language, and RoboEval , a benchmark for evaluating LLMs’ capabilities of generating programs to complete service robot tasks.”

Find the paper and list of authors at IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters.

‘How Beginning Programmers and Code LLMs (Mis)read Each Other’

‘black-box access is insufficient for rigorous ai audits’, large language models can lie to you — this professor wants you to know when they do, ‘hierarchical rl-guided large-scale navigation of a snake robot’, ‘bergeron: combating adversarial attacks through a conscience-based alignment framework’, ‘more samples or more prompt inputs exploring effective in-context sampling for llm few-shot prompt engineering’, ‘multi-instance randomness extraction and security against bounded-storage mass surveillance’, ‘is a seat at the table enough engaging teachers and students in dataset specification for ml in education’, ‘”the wallpaper is ugly”: indoor localization using vision and language’.