what is a research theoretical framework

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Theoretical Framework

Definition:

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

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

Types of Theoretical Framework

Types of Types of Theoretical Framework are as follows:

Conceptual Framework

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

Deductive Framework

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

Inductive Framework

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

Empirical Framework

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

Normative Framework

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

Explanatory Framework

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

Components of Theoretical Framework

The components of a theoretical framework include:

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

How to Write Theoretical Framework

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

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

Theoretical Framework Examples

Here are some examples of theoretical frameworks:

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

When to Have A Theoretical Framework

Following are some situations When to Have A Theoretical Framework:

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

Purpose of Theoretical Framework

The purposes of a theoretical framework include:

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

Characteristics of Theoretical Framework

Some of the characteristics of a theoretical framework include:

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

Advantages of Theoretical Framework

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

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

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

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

• 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 9, 2024 1:19 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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.

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 .

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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 9, 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, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

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

• Introduction and overview
• What is qualitative research?
• What is qualitative data?
• Examples of qualitative data
• Qualitative vs. quantitative research
• Mixed methods
• Qualitative research preparation
• Theoretical perspective
• Introduction

Strategies for developing the theoretical framework

• Literature reviews
• Research question
• Conceptual framework
• Conceptual vs. theoretical framework
• Data collection
• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research
• Case studies
• Ethnographical research
• Ethical considerations
• Confidentiality and privacy
• Power dynamics
• Reflexivity

Theoretical framework

The theoretical perspective provides the broader lens or orientation through which the researcher views the research topic and guides their overall understanding and approach. The theoretical framework, on the other hand, is a more specific and focused framework that connects the theoretical perspective to the data analysis strategy through pre-established theory.

A useful theoretical framework provides a structure for organizing and interpreting the data collected during the research study. Theoretical frameworks provide a specific lens through which the data is examined, allowing the researcher to identify recurring patterns, themes, and categories related to your research inquiry based on relevant theory.

Let's explore the idea of the theoretical framework in greater detail by exploring its place in qualitative research, particularly how it is generated and how it contributes to and guides your research study.

Theoretical framework vs. theoretical perspective

While these two terms may sound similar, they play very distinct roles in qualitative research . A theoretical perspective refers to the philosophical stance informing the methodology and thus provides a context for the research process. These perspectives could be rooted in various schools of thought like postmodernism, constructivism, or positivism, which fundamentally shape how researchers perceive reality and construct knowledge.

On the other hand, the theoretical framework represents the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study. It presents a logical structure of connected concepts that help the researcher understand, explain, and predict how phenomena are interrelated. The theoretical framework can pull together various theories or ideas from different perspectives to provide a comprehensive approach to addressing the research problem.

Moreover, theoretical frameworks provide useful guidance as to which research methods are appropriate for your research project. If the theoretical framework you employ is relevant to individual perspectives and beliefs, then interviews may be more suitable for your research. On the other hand, if you are utilizing an existing theory about a certain social behavior, then ethnographic observations can help you more ably capture data from social interactions.

Later in this guide, we will also discuss conceptual frameworks , which help you visualize the essential concepts and data points in the context you are studying. For now, it is important to emphasize that these are all related but ultimately different ideas.

Example of a theoretical framework

Let's look at a simple example of a theoretical framework used to address a social science research problem. Consider a study examining the impact of social media on body image among adolescents. The theoretical perspective might be rooted in social constructivism, based on the assumption that our understanding of reality is shaped by social interactions and cultural context.

The theoretical framework, then, could draw on one or several theories to provide a comprehensive structure for examining this issue. For instance, it might combine elements of "social comparison theory" (which suggests that individuals determine their own social and personal worth based on how they stack up against others), "self-perception theory" (which posits that individuals develop their attitudes by observing their own behavior and concluding what attitudes must have caused it), and "cultivation theory" (which suggests that long-term immersion in a media environment leads to "cultivation", or adopting the attitudes and beliefs portrayed in the media).

This framework would provide the structure to understand how social media exposure influences adolescents' perceptions of their bodies, how they compare themselves to images seen on social media, and how these influences may shape their attitudes toward their own bodies.

Put your theories into focus with ATLAS.ti

Powerful data analysis to turn your data into insights and theory. Download a free trial today.

Other examples of theoretical frameworks

Let's briefly look at examples in other fields to put the idea of "theoretical framework" in greater context.

Political science

In a study investigating the influence of lobbying on legislative decisions, the theoretical framework could be rooted in the "pluralist theory" and "elite theory".

Pluralist theory views politics as a competition among groups, each one pressing for its preferred policies, while elite theory suggests that a small, cohesive elite group makes the most important decisions in society. The framework could combine these theories to examine the power dynamics in legislative decisions and the role of lobbying groups in influencing these outcomes.

Educational research

An educational research study aiming to understand the impact of parental involvement on children's academic success could employ a theoretical framework based on Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory and Epstein's theory of overlapping spheres of influence.

The ecological systems theory emphasizes the importance of multiple environmental systems on child development, while Epstein's theory focuses on the partnership between family, school, and community. The intersection of these theories allows for a comprehensive examination of parental involvement both in and outside of the school context.

Health services research

In a health services study exploring factors affecting patient adherence to medication regimes, the theoretical framework could draw from the health belief model and social cognitive theory.

The health belief model posits that people's beliefs about health problems, perceived benefits of action and barriers to action, and self-efficacy explain engagement in health-promoting behavior.

The social cognitive theory emphasizes the role of observational learning, social experience, and reciprocal determinism in behavior change. The framework combining these theories provides a holistic understanding of both personal and social influences on patient medication adherence.

Developing a theoretical framework involves a multi-step process that begins with a thorough literature review . This allows you to understand the existing theories and research related to your topic and identify gaps or unresolved puzzles that your study can address.

1. Identify key concepts: These might be the phenomena you are studying, the attributes of these phenomena, or the relationships between them. Identifying these can help you define the relevant data points to analyze.

2. Find relevant theories: Conduct a literature review to search for existing theories in academic research papers that relate to your key concepts. These theories might explain the phenomena you are studying, provide context for it, or suggest how the phenomena might be related. You can build off of one theory or multiple theories, but what is most important is that the theory is aligned with the concepts and research problem you are studying.

3. Map relationships: Outline how the theories you have found relate to one another and to your key concepts. This might involve drawing a diagram or writing a narrative that explains these relationships.

4. Refine the framework: As you conduct your research, refine your theoretical framework. This might involve adding new concepts or theories, removing concepts or theories that do not fit your data, or changing how you conceptualize the relationships between theories.

Remember, the theoretical framework is not set in stone. At the same time, it may start with existing knowledge, it is important to develop your own framework as you gather more data and gain a deeper understanding of your research topic and context.

In the end, a good theoretical framework guides your research question and methods so that you can ultimately generate new knowledge and theory that meaningfully contributes to the existing conversation around a topic.

Visualize your theories and analysis with ATLAS.ti

From literature review to research paper, ATLAS.ti makes the research process easier and more efficient. See how with a free trial.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research Research Tools and Apps

Theoretical Research: Definition, Methods + Examples

Research is the careful study of a particular research problem or concern using the scientific method. A theory is essential for any research project because it gives it direction and helps prove or disprove something. Theoretical basis helps us figure out how things work and why we do certain things.

Theoretical research lets you examine and discuss a research object using philosophical ideas and abstract theoretical structures.

In theoretical research, you can’t look at the research object directly. With the help of research literature, your research aims to define and sketch out the chosen topic’s conceptual models, explanations, and structures.

LEARN ABOUT: Research Process Steps

This blog will cover theoretical research and why it is essential. In addition to that, we are going to go over some examples.

What is the theoretical research?

Theoretical research is the systematic examination of a set of beliefs and assumptions.

It aims to learn more about a subject and help us understand it better. The information gathered in this way is not used for anything in particular because this kind of research aims to learn more.

All professionals, like biologists, chemists, engineers, architects, philosophers, writers, sociologists, historians, etc., can do theoretical research. No matter what field you work in, theoretical research is the foundation for new ideas.

It tries to answer basic questions about people, which is why this kind of research is used in every field of knowledge.

For example , a researcher starts with the idea that we need to understand the world around us. To do this, he begins with a hypothesis and tests it through experiments that will help him develop new ideas. 

What is the theoretical framework?

A theoretical framework is a critical component in research that provides a structured foundation for investigating a specific topic or problem. It encompasses a set of interconnected theories, existing theories, and concepts that guide the entire research process. 

The theoretical framework introduces a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. Also, the theoretical framework strengthens the research’s validity and specifies the key elements that will be explored. Furthermore, it connects different ideas and theories, forming a cohesive structure that underpins the research endeavor.

A complete theoretical framework consists of a network of theories, existing theories, and concepts that collectively shape the direction of a research study. 

The theoretical framework is the fundamental principle that will be explored, strengthens the research’s credibility by aligning it with established knowledge, specifies the variables under investigation, and connects different aspects of the research to create a unified approach.

Theoretical frameworks are the intellectual scaffolding upon which the research is constructed. It is the lens through which researchers view their subject, guiding their choice of methodologies, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. By incorporating existing theory, and established concepts, a theoretical framework not only grounds the research but also provides a coherent roadmap for exploring the intricacies of the chosen topic.

Benefits of theoretical research

Theoretical research yields a wealth of benefits across various fields, from social sciences to human resource development and political science. Here’s a breakdown of these benefits while incorporating the requested topics:

Predictive power

Theoretical models are the cornerstone of theoretical research. They grant us predictive power, enabling us to forecast intricate behaviors within complex systems, like societal interactions. In political science, for instance, a theoretical model helps anticipate potential outcomes of policy changes.

Understanding human behavior

Drawing from key social science theories, it assists us in deciphering human behavior and societal dynamics. For instance, in the context of human resource development, theories related to motivation and psychology provide insights into how to effectively manage a diverse workforce.

Optimizing workforce

In the realm of human resource development, insights gleaned from theoretical research, along with the research methods knowledge base, help create targeted training programs. By understanding various learning methodologies and psychological factors, organizations can optimize workforce training for better results.

Building on foundations

It doesn’t exist in isolation; it builds upon existing theories. For instance, within the human resource development handbook, theoretical research expands established concepts, refining their applicability to contemporary organizational challenges.

Ethical policy formulation

Within political science, theoretical research isn’t confined to governance structures. It extends to ethical considerations, aiding policymakers in creating policies that balance the collective good with individual rights, ensuring just and fair governance. 

Rigorous investigations

Theoretical research underscores the importance of research methods knowledge base. This knowledge equips researchers in theory-building research methods and other fields to design robust research methodologies, yielding accurate data and credible insights.

Long-term impact

Theoretical research leaves a lasting impact. The theoretical models and insights from key social science theories provide enduring frameworks for subsequent research, contributing to the cumulative growth of knowledge in these fields.

Innovation and practical applications

It doesn’t merely remain theoretical. It inspires innovation and practical applications. By merging insights from diverse theories and fields, practitioners in human resource development devise innovative strategies to foster employee growth and well-being.

Theoretical research method

Researchers follow so many methods when doing research. There are two types of theoretical research methods.

• Scientific methods
• Social science method 

Let’s explore them below:

Scientific method

Scientific methods have some important points that you should know. Let’s figure them out below:

• Observation: Any part you want to explain can be found through observation. It helps define the area of research.
• Hypothesis: The hypothesis is the idea put into words, which helps us figure out what we see.
• Experimentation: Hypotheses are tested through experiments to see if they are true. These experiments are different for each research.
• Theory: When we create a theory, we do it because we believe it will explain hypotheses of higher probability.
• Conclusions: Conclusions are the learnings we derive from our investigation.

Social science methods

There are different methods for social science theoretical research. It consists of polls, documentation, and statistical analysis.

• Polls: It is a process whereby the researcher uses a topic-specific questionnaire to gather data. No changes are made to the environment or the phenomenon where the polls are conducted to get the most accurate results. QuestionPro live polls are a great way to get live audiences involved and engaged.
• Documentation: Documentation is a helpful and valuable technique that helps the researcher learn more about the subject. It means visiting libraries or other specialized places, like documentation centers, to look at the existing bibliography. With the documentation, you can find out what came before the investigated topic and what other investigations have found. This step is important because it shows whether or not similar investigations have been done before and what the results were.
• Statistic analysis : Statistics is a branch of math that looks at random events and differences. It follows the rules that are established by probability. It’s used a lot in sociology and language research. 

Examples of theoretical research

We talked about theoretical study methods in the previous part. We’ll give you some examples to help you understand it better.

Example 1: Theoretical research into the health benefits of hemp

The plant’s active principles are extracted and evaluated, and by studying their components, it is possible to determine what they contain and whether they can potentially serve as a medication.

Example 2: Linguistics research

Investigate to determine how many people in the Basque Country speak Basque. Surveys can be used to determine the number of native Basque speakers and those who speak Basque as a second language.

Example 3: Philosophical research

Research politics and ethics as they are presented in the writings of Hanna Arendt from a theoretical perspective.

LEARN ABOUT: 12 Best Tools for Researchers

From our above discussion, we learned about theoretical research and its methods and gave some examples. It explains things and leads to more knowledge for the sake of knowledge. This kind of research tries to find out more about a thing or an idea, but the results may take time to be helpful in the real world. 

This research is sometimes called basic research. Theoretical research is an important process that gives researchers valuable data with insight.

QuestionPro is a strong platform for managing your data. You can conduct simple surveys to more complex research using QuestionPro survey software.

At QuestionPro, we give researchers tools for collecting data, such as our survey software and a library of insights for any long-term study. Contact our expert team to find out more about it.

FREE TRIAL         LEARN MORE

MORE LIKE THIS

Event Feedback Software: Top 11 Best in 2024

Apr 9, 2024

Top 10 Free Market Research Tools to Boost Your Business

Best 15 Behavior Analytics Tools to Explore Your User Actions

Apr 8, 2024

Top 7 Concept Testing Tools to Elevate Your Ideas in 2024

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

info This is a space for the teal alert bar.

notifications This is a space for the yellow alert bar.

Research Process

• Brainstorming
• Explore Google This link opens in a new window
• Explore Web Resources
• Explore Background Information
• Explore Books
• Explore Scholarly Articles
• Narrowing a Topic
• Primary and Secondary Resources
• Academic, Popular & Trade Publications
• Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals
• Grey Literature
• Clinical Trials
• Evidence Based Treatment
• Scholarly Research
• Database Research Log
• Search Limits
• Keyword Searching
• Boolean Operators
• Phrase Searching
• Truncation & Wildcard Symbols
• Proximity Searching
• Field Codes
• Subject Terms and Database Thesauri
• Reading a Scientific Article
• Website Evaluation
• Article Keywords and Subject Terms
• Cited References
• Citing Articles
• Related Results
• Search Within Publication
• Database Alerts & RSS Feeds
• Personal Database Accounts
• Persistent URLs
• Literature Gap and Future Research
• Web of Knowledge
• Annual Reviews
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• Finding Seminal Works
• Exhausting the Literature
• Finding Dissertations
• Researching Theoretical Frameworks
• Research Methodology & Design
• Tests and Measurements
• Organizing Research & Citations This link opens in a new window
• Scholarly Publication
• Learn the Library This link opens in a new window

Learn Frameworks via Email

Over the course of 7 days, you will receive bite-sized lessons in your email about researching theoretical and conceptual frameworks. 

• Click on the link below.
• Complete the very short registration form.
• Check your email!
• Theoretical & Conceptual Frameworks - email series

Additional Guidance

• Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Theoretical Framework University of Southern California
• The Research Planning Process: Theoretical Framework (video)
• Theoretical Framework (video)
• Understanding, selecting, and integrating a Theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house” Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, Selecting, and Integrating a Theoretical Framework in Dissertation Research: Creating the Blueprint for Your "House". Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, And Research, 4(2), 12-26.
• What is a Theoretical Framework? Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

NU Dissertation Center

If you are looking for a document in the Dissertation Center or Applied Doctoral Center and can't find it please contact your Chair or The Center for Teaching and Learning at [email protected]

• NCU Dissertation Center Find valuable resources and support materials to help you through your doctoral journey.
• Applied Doctoral Center Collection of resources to support students in completing their project/dissertation-in-practice as part of the Applied Doctoral Experience (ADE).

Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks provide a particular perspective, or lens, through which to examine a topic. There are many different lenses, such as psychological theories, social theories, organizational theories and economic theories, which may be used to define concepts and explain phenomena. Sometimes these frameworks may come from an area outside of your immediate academic discipline. Using a theoretical framework for your dissertation can help you to better analyze past events by providing a particular set of questions to ask, and a particular perspective to use when examining your topic.

Traditionally, Ph.D. and Applied Degree research must include relevant theoretical framework(s) to frame, or inform, every aspect of the dissertation. Further, Ph.D. dissertations should make an original contribution to the field by adding support for the theory, or, conversely, demonstrating ways in which the theory may not be as explanatory as originally thought. You can learn more about the theoretical framework requirements in the NU Dissertation Center .

It can be difficult to find scholarly work that takes a particular theoretical approach because articles, books, and book chapters are typically described according to the topics they tackle rather than the methods they use to tackle them. Further, there is no single database or search technique for locating theoretical information. However, the suggestions below provide techniques for locating possible theoretical frameworks and theorists in the Library databases. In addition to your Library research, you should discuss possible theories your Dissertation Chair to ensure they align with your study. Also, keep in mind that you will probably find and discard several potential theoretical frameworks before one is finally chosen.

• The Theoretical Framework Guide from the NU Center for Teaching and Learning
• Theoretical Frameworks Entry from the The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods
• Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research Book effectively explains, through discussion and example, what a theoretical framework is, how it is used in qualitative research, and the effects it has on the research process.

Conceptual Frameworks

A conceptual framework provides the concept or set of related concepts supporting the basis or foundation of a study. It creates a conceptual model for possible strategies or courses of action identified as important for researching a particular problem or issue. While a conceptual framework is often referred to interchangeably with a theoretical framework, it maintains a distinct purpose. A conceptual framework is used to clarify concepts, organize ideas, and identify relationships with which to frame a study. Concepts are logically developed and organized to support an overall framework and often exhibited graphically within dissertation research. Note that a dissertation may include both a theoretical framework and a conceptual framework.

The suggestions below provide techniques for locating possible conceptual frameworks in the Library databases. Note when examples may use the term "theoretical framework," you may change your search terms to "conceptual framework." In addition to your Library research, you should discuss possible frameworks your Dissertation Chair to ensure they align with your study. Also, keep in mind that you will probably find and discard several potential conceptual frameworks before one is finally chosen.

• The Conceptual Framework Guide from the NU Center for Teaching and Learning
• Conceptual Framework Entry from the SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation

Researching Theoretical & Conceptual Frameworks Workshop

This workshop presents search techniques for researching theoretical and conceptual frameworks both online and in the NU Library.

• E-Book Databases
• ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
• NavigatorSearch
• SAGE Research Methods
• Web of Science

Content: A reference database useful for accessing scholarly definitions, background and contextual information. Subjects covered include art, biography, business, economics, education, history, literature, music, psychology, religion, and science and technology.

Purpose: An excellent starting point for brainstorming a research topic and building out your initial search terms list.

Special Features: Mindmap; related articles; image search

Content: Ebooks with coverage across all academic disciplines. The collection offers a critical mass of more than 150,000 foundational scholarly ebooks with balanced quantity and quality to improve teaching, learning and research workflow and outcomes.

Purpose: Provides access to multidisciplinary ebooks for download or to be read online.

Special Features: Browse by subject option; highlight and take notes in text.

Help using this database.

Content : Books, chapters, and peer-reviewed content about a diverse range of topics.

Purpose: Users may access full text, and authoritative information about many topics.

Special Features: Users may explore topics and subjects.

Use the Library’s e-book databases to gather background information on a particular theory or theorist. Since the e-book databases will contain fewer resources than a database containing thousands of scholarly journal articles, it is best to keep your search terms a little more broad.

For example, a search for education theory in the Ebook Central database results in many relevant e-books, as shown below. Expanding the Table of Contents will provide additional details about the e-book.

Encyclopedias and handbooks will also provide reliable background information on particular theories. For example, a search for cognitive developmental theory in the Credo Reference database results in a number of reference entries which discuss the history of the theory, identify relevant theorists, and cite seminal research studies.

You may search for theorists and theoretical information using Google and Google Scholar , as well. However, please keep in mind that you will need to be more discriminating when it comes to using material found on open access websites. We recommend reviewing the Website Evaluation guidelines when considering online sources.

One method that may be used in Google is limiting your search by a particular domain name. If a website ends in .org, .gov, or .edu, it is more likely to be a scholarly source. If it ends in .com or .net it is less likely to be a scholarly source. In the search below, for example, we have limited our search for "leadership theories" to just those websites ending with .edu. You may also find this domain limiter under Tools>Advanced Search.

Note: Limiting to a particular domain is not necessary in Google Scholar, as all results in Google Scholar may be considered scholarly. This may include articles, theses, books, abstracts and court opinions, material from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and other web sites.

For additional information, see the following:

• Google for School LibGuide
• Google Scholar Quick Tutorial Video A short video demonstration of using Google Scholar for academic research.
• Limit By Domain FAQ

Content: National University & NCU student dissertations and literature reviews.

Purpose: Use for foundational research, to locate test instruments and data, and more. 

Special Features: Search by advisor (chair), degree, degree level, or department. Includes a read-aloud feature.

Content: Global student dissertations and literature reviews.

Special Features: Search by advisor (chair), degree, degree level, or department. Includes a read-aloud feature

The ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database (PQDT) is the world's most comprehensive collection of dissertations and theses. It is the database of record for graduate research, with over 2.3 million dissertations and theses included from around the world.

Since most doctoral research requires a theoretical framework, looking at completed dissertations related to your topic is an effective way to identify relevant theories and theorists. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global provides access to over 3 million full text doctoral dissertations and graduate theses. You may limit your search to only doctoral dissertations by using the Advanced Search screen. Look at the table of contents or abstract for reference to theoretical framework, as shown below. The dissertation’s references/bibliography will have a full citation to the original theorist’s research.

Content: Scholarly journals, e-books, videos and more. 

Purpose: A key multidisciplinary database for most topics. It is one of the library’s main search engines and the most comprehensive single search. 

Note: Certain library databases and publisher content are not searchable in NavigatorSearch, and individual databases may need to be searched to retrieve information due to unique content. NavigatorSearch can be found at https://resources.nu.edu .

On the NavigatorSearchscreen, include theor* as one your search terms, as shown below. It will retrieve results that include one of the following keywords: theory, theories, theoretical, theorist, or theorists . It is important to keep in mind, however, that this is not a foolproof method for locating theoretical frameworks. Scholars will often cite theory or theorists in order to refute them, or because they are saying something that's tangentially related, or they may even just refer to theory briefly in passing. In our example, we have selected the field for AB Abstract because if theory is mentioned within the abstract, the study is more likely to take a theoretical approach.  

As shown below, results from our example search clearly include articles which apply theory to the topic of curriculum design.  

Remember to look past the article title. Theoretical information may be mentioned in a subheading, or referred to elsewhere in the document. Use the FIND feature in your PDF viewer or internet browser to scan the document for terms such as theor*  (to pull up theory, theorist, theoretical), framework, conceptual, perspective , etc., as shown below.

Content: Books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos on research methods and design. 

Purpose: Use to learn more about qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research. 

Special Features: Includes a methods map, project planner, and "which stats" test

SAGE Research Methods  is a multimedia database containing more than 1,000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos covering every step of the research process. It includes e-books and e-book chapters which may help you better understand the theoretical framework aspect of your research study. A selection of resources is included below:

Searching in SAGE Research Methods

Use the main search bar to locate information about theoretical frameworks. Search the general phrase "theoretical frameworks," or the name of a specific theoretical framework like "social cognitive theory," in quotation marks to yield results with that specific phrase. See the example below.

You may also browse content in this database by Discipline . Select  Browse  on the top navigation to view a list of key topics.

• Anfara, V. (2008). Theoretical frameworks. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 870-874). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
• Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (Eds.). (2006). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
• Theoretical framework. (2014). In Walker, R., & Solvason, C. Success with your early years research project (pp. 21-32). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Content: Citations and articles in multi-disciplines not found through a NavigatorSearch.

Purpose: Used to conduct topic searches as well as find additional resources that have cited a specific resource (citation network).

You may conduct a Cited Reference Search in Web of Science to find articles that cite a primary theorist in your area. These articles are likely to tackle your topic through your theoretical lens, or will point you toward another article that does. To access Web of Knowledge, go to A-Z Databases from the Library’s home page.

On the Web of Science home page, click on Cited Reference Search  to search for articles that cite a person's work. 

Enter the name of a key theorist in your area (in our example, John Dewey) in the format they specify (in this case Dewey J*), as shown below, and press "Search."

On the results screen, select the appropriate Web of Science category under Refine Results. For example, we could select “Education Educational Research” and then click “Refine.” You may wish to further refine by Document Type, Research Area, Author, etc. (also located on the left hand menu). Sorting your results by “Times Cited - Oldest to Newest"  is an effective way to discover the most frequently cited works. 

• 12Manage Global knowledge platform on management and business administration, including descriptions of frameworks. Requires free email sign up.
• Academic Theories Includes alphabetical listing of theories, as well as grouping by type.
• Communication Theories Provides list of communication theories grouped according to topic.
• Psychological Theories Browse alphabetically or use the clusters feature to view theories grouped by similar topics or approaches.
• Theories Used in Information Systems (IS) Research Click on a linked theory name to find details about the theory, some examples of IS papers using the theory, and links to related sites.

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Finding Dissertations
• Next: Research Methodology & Design >>
• Last Updated: Mar 31, 2024 4:57 PM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchprocess

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

Theoretical vs Conceptual Framework

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

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

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

Overview: Theoretical vs Conceptual

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

• Theoretical vs conceptual: which one should I use?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

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

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

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

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

Theoretical framework vs conceptual framework

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

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

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

Psst… there’s more (for free)

This post is part of our dissertation mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project. 

19 Comments

Thank you for giving a valuable lesson

good thanks!

VERY INSIGHTFUL

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

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

good, fantastic

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

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

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

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

Simple and clear!

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

Thank you great insight

Superb. Thank you so much.

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

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

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

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Dissertation & Thesis Guides
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing
• Theoretical Framework in Research: Definition & How to Write It
• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Other Essays
• Main Academic Essays
• Research Paper Topics
• Basics of Research Paper Writing
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Methodology
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Other Guides
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips

• Essay Guides
• Research Paper Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Basics of Research Process
• Admission Guides

Theoretical Framework in Research: Definition & How to Write It

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

One of the most challenging phases in research is creating a theoretical framework. Failure to include this part may result in your work being rejected by publishers or professors. It is a crucial part of dissertation writing because it offers a theoretical context that enables readers to assess your work. Specifically, it helps in establishing a foundation upon which all sections of a study are developed.  But can you tell what is theoretical framework in research? Students, in general, find it very difficult to even define, choose, and formulate an appropriate background that can inform their research. If you are one of them, then this piece is specifically created to address your needs. The article describes ideas about how to write a theoretical framework. Additionally, you will gain insights into the types of theory in research so that you can create a solid blueprint for an inquiry.  Contact our Ph.D. academic writers if you need help with dissertation . We're open to helping you anytime.

What Is a Theoretical Framework: Definition

So, what is a theoretical foundation? A theoretical framework is a summary of all theories that outline and clarify the boundaries of what you are investigating. It is impossible to explore all things associated with your topic. Rather, you usually present assumptions regarding how various ideas are related and explain a particular issue using a theoretical framework. These are the key variables, constructs, or factors of your dissertation that illuminate exactly the scope of analysis.  Theoretical frameworks are critically important both for quantitative and qualitative studies . As the basis of a thesis or dissertation, they are built on existing and relevant research theories and must comply with your objectives. Theories intend to support and structure the rationale, problem, purpose, questions, and meaning of your research paper. Remember that as the investigation progresses and data is collected, the core assumptions you identified might also change. Thus, you can refine the context of your study along the way.

Why Are Theoretical Frameworks Important?

Your work will be of no use if you cannot describe its theoretical foundation. Here is how the theoretical framework benefits your study. It:

• Guides all aspects of an inquiry from thesis declaration to the conclusion. It helps you in exploring diverse theories, which enriches your investigation’s strengths.
• Offers a structure demonstrating how your report is expressed. In particular, a theoretical framework in research can be stated analytically, epistemologically, or philosophically.
• Helps you avoid simple descriptions of an issue by examining different factors surrounding it. Thus, ensure to affirm your theoretical statements.
• Allows readers to evaluate your manuscript from varying angles.
• Enables you to predict your research problem, including any limits of your focus area. Its importance is in specifying which main variables affect your dissertation topic and explaining how they vary based on what conditions.
• Acts as a tool for filtering relevant questions and guiding data collection.

Types of Research Theories

There is a close connection between an investigation and what model is used, as stated previously, about how important it is to establish a theoretical basis. This association can be characterized as a transaction in which theoretical models determine the kind of data that can be collected and how a study should be organized. Therefore, it is essential to know the three types of theory in research:

• Descriptive This is what an exploratory researcher uses in classifying a particular feature or element of an event, situation, group, or individual by identifying commonalities. Usually, this is done after observing them discreetly. It is a simple type of theory in research, and is needed when you do not understand a phenomenon entirely.
• Relational These research theories are used by mostly correlational researchers in specifying how various characteristics of a phenomenon of interest are related. Researchers use them to explain the relationship between different parts of an issue. Their development requires one to know the essential aspects of a problem or first develop and validate a descriptive model.
• Explanatory Explanatory theories in research go further than relational accounts by precisely predicting the causative association between dimensions of a topic or how groups differ. Experimental investigators develop these models after formulating relational ones and use them to address cause and effect type of questions.

Theoretical Framework in Research

At this point, you already know what a theoretical framework is. However, you may not understand the types of theories in research that you can consider for an inquiry. Well, a model offers a perspective through which you will explore a study problem. But, this view can be from any theoretical approach depending on the nature of your manuscript.  Specifically, different categories of frameworks can be selected. Examples include grounded , critical, leadership, driving force, phenomenological , transcendental, and feminist theories. Others are functional, postmodernism, Marxist, constructionist, critical race, and game approach. As highlighted earlier, your field of study and discipline influence which theoretical model you will use. Even within a specific discipline, your pick affects how the analysis will be conducted because a single topic can be interpreted by different philosophies.  Consider domestic violence as an example. Conflict theory will look into differences in resource possession as the cause, while the functional system will focus on gender role differences. Thus, the best way to find applicable concepts for your paper involves immersing yourself in the existing literature about a phenomenon. While you may find a specific principle, the theoretical review will reveal one or different interrelated core ideas from which to frame an investigation. Whatever choice you have, make sure to explain it in your work. Buy dissertations at StudyCrumb in case you have limited time and can’t prepare your theoretical framework.

Theoretical Framework Structure

The theoretical framework is an illustrative view of the link you anticipate seeing between variables of interest. These concepts are generated after reviewing relevant studies. Therefore, place this section just after a literature review segment to guide your methodology part. Learn how to write your theoretical framework by following this layout. Structure it by:

• Setting your objectives and aims first. This helps you relate a model to the main goals.
• Defining and explaining a theory. Clarify which approach you are focusing on, its major supporters, and its applications.
• Developing a strong argument. Evaluate your selection critically over other potential models.
• Choosing and describing your thoughts. Identify which side you are on and why.
• Ascertaining the ideas. Organize a theoretical framework by elaborating on which concepts you will use and why. Also, elucidate how these notions are associated with each other and the aims of your approach and how you will achieve the objectives.
• Stating your view. What is your epistemological and ontological standpoint?
• Recognizing any limitations of your framework. Expound why it cannot account for a specific feature of your work and solution.

How to Write a Theoretical Framework

To create a theoretical framework , you must first identify a study problem and understand why your approach offers a practicable solution. You do this after reviewing relevant course texts in your dissertation. If you can provide an answer to the aforementioned issues, you have the foundations for composing your thesis or dissertation. The following steps demonstrate how to develop a theoretical framework based on the design mentioned previously. You can apply them in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies.

1. Inspect Your Research Problem

Consider your research problem or the subject of your work very closely because it acts as a theoretical base. You will build an appropriate model using it. Describe any gaps in understanding that drove your project and offer a summary of different ways others have tackled the issue. This provides a specific setting for your theoretical framework by showing how you are examining instances of broader phenomena. It also helps in linking your manuscript to the wider theoretical constructs, contested views, or existing gaps in your field. In turn, this enables you to demonstrate that the thesis aims to illuminate vital themes and is, therefore, crucial for your subject area.

2. Determine the Key Variables

Next, list all variables you think are key in your theoretical framework. These can be: 

• Independent and dependent variables
• Confounding variables
• Extraneous variables .

In other words you should identify what factors contribute to the estimated outcome. This helps you locate, define, and break down the central terms related to your research question or problem statement . It is important because some of them can mean several things based on context. Thus, your theoretical work must clarify what each one denotes. You use this information in your future discussion about theories linking the identified concepts. 

For example, a business is unable to reach young customers under 25 years old . It operates a chain of cafes across the city. Although it has a new website and dishes for this group, there are no orders. The key leadership thinks adding online payment techniques will appeal to young clients and enhance user satisfaction . It is anticipated that this will simplify the buying process, attract more people, and grow the user base.

Here, the core elements of a theoretical background are determined by:

• Identifying an issue, which is the lack of orders from young customers.
• Explaining the objective, i.e., examining if online payment techniques increase user satisfaction.
• Formulating a research question stated below.

Does implementing online payments enhance user satisfaction among young online customers aged under 25 years old ?

The main components are: 

• “ user satisfaction ”
• “ clients aged under 25 years old ”
• “ online payments .”

Your model must define and discuss these ideas.

3. Conduct a Literature Review

The third step in developing a theoretical framework is conducting a literature review associated with your topic. The intention is to ascertain how others have discussed an issue, identify which tools and assumptions they applied and made respectively, and discover how they specified and built connections of key concepts. Remember to use credible and peer-reviewed works only as you research the theoretical framework. Your focus here is on contrasting and assessing the approaches of various scholars critically while writing a theoretical framework of a study. Specifically, check how they defined important ideas, their justifications, and what theories they used. This helps you in building your project and establishing vital and fitting definitions. You may need a sample literature review outline , we have a special blog to help you with this step.

4. Discuss Relevant Theories

You also need to analyze relevant theories when writing a theoretical framework. Remember that while some of them are popular, no right or perfect system for your research paper exists. Therefore, you must state which approaches you encountered in your review of current studies, discuss what they propose or assume, and elaborate on how these suggestions relate to your study. Clarify how your selected model will assist in answering your research question and conducting an investigation. In other words, how can it serve as a reference for your project? This offers useful knowledge that helps in building a theoretical framework in research. You should also assess the relative value of each principle for your subject area to have a sense of which ones are commonly applied in examining your research problem.  Additionally, identify how your work will implement those ideas by scrutinizing whether specific perspectives hold in the context of your inquiry. You will gain useful insights to help in selecting the best theories in research. What is more, in the framework a theory must relate to your most important propositions. Make sure this is the case. For example, if you found a certain belief unfit, explain why.

5. Go Beyond the Existing Theories

In addition to evaluating and exemplifying extant viewpoints as you write a theoretical framework, you should demonstrate how your work refutes or supports actual theories. Specifically, position your research in a wider context or with varying models. This enables you to build a theoretical framework that offers genuine insights into your problem. It also helps you in examining if an existing view can be used to interpret your findings, deliberating on or challenging notions critically, and combining different philosophies in a new or unique way to form a distinct philosophy.  Finish your theoretical writing by providing your audience with an explanation about how your project is useful or solves an issue feasibly in the field. You can then continue with other sections of your work such as research methodology , discussion section , or results section . 

Theoretical Framework Writing Tips

Here are additional tips for writing a theoretical framework. When composing this section, ensure to:

• Use the present tense during discussions about your work.
• Describe your model, concepts, and specific theoretical framework models you will use explicitly.
• Explain any assumptions of your selected framework clearly.
• Identify the strengths and drawbacks of your approach, particularly those elements of your research problem requiring further investigation due to inadequate descriptions by the theory.
• Develop a theoretical framework diagram. This is like a conceptual map that helps in identifying key ideas, philosophies, and the relationship between them.
• Conduct an interdisciplinary review by examining constructs outside of your field.
• Use your identified approach throughout the study.
• Be ready to challenge the validity of any model you encounter.

Theoretical Framework Checklist

Consider the following checklist as you complete your theoretical framework:

• checkbox I presented and explained the main models and theories related to my work. Alternatively, my assumptions are stated explicitly to enable readers to evaluate them critically.
• checkbox I can describe what theoretical frameworks are.
• checkbox I used peer-reviewed sources and cited them correctly.
• checkbox I have discussed and assessed existing literature about approaches or ideas and identified gaps.
• checkbox I provided information regarding how key concepts are related.
• checkbox I have identified relevant models informing my research.
• checkbox My framework explains why my work is important and valid.
• checkbox I stated and included relevant assumptions and their guiding theories.
• checkbox My model acts as the basis for my entire manuscript and gives direction in answering my research question.

Bottom Line on Theoretical Framework

This article provided a thorough explanation of what is a theoretical model. Therefore, you should be able to define a theoretical framework without any difficulties after reading all the sections. It is a crucial part of your research paper that cannot be ignored because it determines how you develop, collect data, and explain the findings of your work. The blog also described the process of how to make a theoretical framework. Use these details to create appropriate models for your project. Once you do that, you might also need to develop a conceptual framework .

In case you still experience any difficulties with your research, delegating your task to a professional writing service will be a smart solution. Buy thesis or dissertation at our platform and we will find the most qualified expert to work on your research.

FAQ About Theoretical Frameworks

1. what is the purpose of a theoretical framework.

The purpose of a theoretical framework is to capture any lessons and concepts from current theories and propose how a new research problem can be answered. Since you will find multiple models that can offer theoretical support to your paper, a framework provides guidance that helps in comparing and selecting the best options.

2. How long should a theoretical framework be?

Even though there are no rules regarding the length of a theoretical framework, this section should be 3-5 pages long. You must provide enough relevant details to your audience within this space. However, if you go past this span and find yourself needing to add more information, a possible reason is that you did not explain yourself succinctly.

3. What is the difference between a theoretical framework and a literature review?

The two are not the same thing. A literature review is where you make a case for your work by examining existing studies and identifying gaps in knowledge. This is what your project will focus on filling based on your research aims, objectives, and hypotheses . In contrast, with a theoretical framework, you demonstrate how to address an issue or which perspective you will use to collect and understand data.

5. What tense should I use when writing a theoretical framework?

While writing your theoretical framework, ensure to use the present tense. This is important because it is what you are currently doing. Apply this to all things related to your project.

4. What should I include in a theoretical framework?

In developing your theoretical framework, make sure to include a definition of theories or ideas you are basing your work on, a statement of which context these concepts have been examined previously, key studies about your selected models and propositions, and your plan for exploring them. Additionally, identify any gaps you intend to fill and limitations encountered by you and others.

Joe Eckel is an expert on Dissertations writing. He makes sure that each student gets precious insights on composing A-grade academic writing.

You may also like

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Research Frameworks: Critical Components for Reporting Qualitative Health Care Research

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

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

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

What Is “Theory”?

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

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

The Building Blocks of Formal Theories 9

The importance of research frameworks.

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

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

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

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

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

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

Examples of How Theoretical Frameworks May Be Used

Examples of how conceptual frameworks may be used, misconceptions about qualitative research.

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Conflicts of Interest: None.

• Open access
• Published: 10 January 2024

A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies

• Saliha Ziam   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8892-9572 1 ,
• Sèverine Lanoue 2 ,
• Esther McSween-Cadieux 2 ,
• Mathieu-Joël Gervais 3 ,
• Julie Lane 2 , 4 ,
• Dina Gaid 5 ,
• Laura Justine Chouinard 1 ,
• Christian Dagenais 6 ,
• Valéry Ridde 7 , 8 ,
• Emmanuelle Jean 9 ,
• France Charles Fleury 10 ,
• Quan Nha Hong 5 &
• Ollivier Prigent 2  

Health Research Policy and Systems volume  22 , Article number:  8 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

2351 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

Evaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of TMFs that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies.

A scoping review methodology was used. Articles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form. Data extracted included study characteristics, KMb characteristics, and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation. An adapted version of Nilsen (Implement Sci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy (Powell et al. in Implement Sci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis.

Of the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. These consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). The majority were published after 2010 ( n  = 70, 79.5%) and were health related ( n  = 71, 80.7%). Half of the studied KMb strategies were implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom ( n  = 42, 47.7%). One-third used existing TMFs ( n  = 28, 31.8%). According to the adapted Nilsen taxonomy, process models ( n  = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks ( n  = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of TMFs used or proposed to evaluate KMb. According to the ERIC taxonomy, activities to “train and educate stakeholders” ( n  = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to “develop stakeholder interrelationships” ( n  = 23, 26.1%). Analysis of the TMFs identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of KMb strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts.

Conclusions

This scoping review provides an overview of the many KMb TMFs used or proposed. The results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing KMb strategies.

Peer Review reports

Contribution to the literature

The evaluation of KMb strategies is a critical dimension of the KMb process that is still poorly documented and warrants researchers’ attention.

Our review identified the most common theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) proposed or used to assess KMb strategies and the main components to consider when evaluating a KMb strategy.

By developing an integrative reference framework, this work contributes to improving organizations’ capacity to evaluate their KMb initiatives.

It is widely recognized that research evidence has the potential to inform, guide, and improve practices, decisions, and policies [ 1 ]. Unfortunately, for diverse reasons, the best available evidence is still too seldom taken into account and used [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. The field of research on knowledge mobilization (KMb) has been growing rapidly since the early 2000s [ 2 , 3 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Its purpose is to better understand how to effectively promote and support evidence use.

Knowledge mobilization is one of many terms and concepts developed over recent decades to describe processes, strategies, and actions to bridge the gap between research and practice. Other common terms often paired interchangeably with the term “knowledge” are “translation”, “transfer”, “exchange”, “sharing” and “dissemination”, among others. [ 12 , 13 ]. Some are more closely linked than others to specific fields or jurisdictions. For this study, we adopted the term knowledge mobilization (KMb) because it conveys the notions of complexity and multidirectional exchanges that characterize research-to-action processes. We used it as an umbrella concept that encompasses the efforts made to translate knowledge into concrete actions and beneficial impacts on populations [ 1 ]. Moreover, the term KMb is also used by research funding agencies in Canada to emphasize the medium- and long-term effects that research knowledge or research results can have on potential users [ 1 , 14 ].

KMb represents all processes from knowledge creation to action and includes all strategies implemented to facilitate these processes [ 14 ]. A KMb strategy is understood as a coordinated set of activities to support evidence use, such as dissemination activities to reach target audiences (for example, educational materials, practical guides, decision support tools) or activities to facilitate knowledge application in a specific context and support professional behaviour change (for example, community of practice, educational meetings, audits and feedback, reminders, deliberative dialogues) [ 15 ]. A KMb process may vary in intensity, complexity or actor engagement depending on the nature of the research knowledge and the needs and preferences of evidence users [ 7 ].

KMb is considered a complex process, in that numerous factors can facilitate or hinder its implementation and subsequent evidence use. The past two decades have seen the emergence of a deeper understanding of these factors [ 2 , 3 , 16 ]. These may be related to the knowledge mobilized (for example, relevance, reliability, clarity, costs), the individuals involved in the KMb process (for example, openness to change, values, time available, resources), the KMB strategies (for example, fit with stakeholder needs and preferences, regular interactions, trust relationships, timing), and organizational and political contexts (for example, culture of evidence use, leadership, resources) [ 2 , 6 , 17 , 18 ]. However, more studies are needed to understand which factors are more important in which contexts, and to evaluate the effects of KMb strategies.

On this last point, while essential, it is often very complex to study KMb impacts empirically to demonstrate the effectiveness of KMb strategies [ 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Partly for this reason, high-quality studies that evaluate process, mechanisms and effects of KMb strategies are still relatively rare [ 2 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. As a result, knowledge about the effectiveness of different KMb strategies remains limited [ 10 , 17 , 19 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 28 ] and their development cannot be totally evidence informed [ 3 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 29 , 30 ], which may seem incompatible with the core values and principles of KMb.

The growing interest in KMb has led to an impressive proliferation of conceptual propositions, such as theories, models and frameworks (TMF) [ 2 , 3 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 31 , 32 ]. Many deplore the fact that these are poorly used [ 11 , 30 , 33 ] and insist on the need to test, refine and integrate existing ones [ 3 , 31 , 34 ]. Indeed, the conceptual and theoretical development of the field has outpaced its empirical development. This proliferation appears to have created confusion among certain users, such as organizations that need to evaluate their KMb strategies. Besides implementing and funding KMb strategies, knowledge organizations such as granting agencies, governments and public organizations, universities and health authorities are often required to demonstrate the impact of their strategies [ 21 , 35 , 36 ]. Yet this can be a significant challenge [ 20 , 23 , 29 ]. They may have difficulty knowing which TMFs to choose, in what context and how to use them effectively in their evaluation process [ 12 , 37 ].

Indeed, the evaluation of KMb strategies is still relatively poorly documented, with respect to the phases of their development and implementation. Our aim in this scoping review is to clarify, conceptually and methodologically, this crucial dimension of the KMb process. This would help organizations gain access to evidence-based, operational and easy-to-use evaluation toolkits for assessing the impacts of their KMb strategies.

To survey the available knowledge on evaluation practices for KMb strategies, we conducted a scoping review. According to Munn et al. [ 38 ], a scoping review is indicated to identify the types of available evidence and knowledge gaps, to clarify concepts in the literature and to identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept. This review methodology also allows for the inclusion of a diversity of publications, regardless of their nature or research design, to produce the most comprehensive evidence mapping possible [ 39 ]. The objective of the scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) used or proposed to evaluate KMb strategies. The specific research questions were:

What TMFs to evaluate KMb strategies exist in the literature?

What KMb strategies do they evaluate (that is types of KMb objectives, activities, target audiences)?

What dimensions and components are included in these TMFs?

This scoping review was conducted based on the five steps outlined by Arksey and O’Malley [ 39 ]: (1) formulating the research questions; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting relevant studies; (4) extracting and charting data; and (5) analysing, collating, summarizing and presenting the data. Throughout the process, researchers and knowledge users (KMb practitioners) were involved in decisions regarding the research question, search strategy, selection criteria for studies and categories for data charting. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines [ 40 ]. No protocol was registered for this review.

Search strategy and information sources

The search strategy was developed, piloted and refined in consultation with our team’s librarian. Search terms included controlled vocabulary and keywords related to three main concepts: (1) knowledge mobilization (for example [knowledge or evidence or research] and transfer, translation, diffusion, dissemination, mobilization, implementation science, exchange, sharing, use, uptake, evidence-based practice, research-based evidence), (2) evaluation (for example, evaluat*, measur*, impact, outcome, assess, apprais*, indicator) and (3) TMF (for example, framework*, model*, method*, guide*, theor*). See Additional file 1 for the search terms and strategies used in the electronic searches.

The following databases were searched from January 2000 to August 2023: MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), ERIC (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Dissertations & Theses (Proquest), Érudit and Cairn. These databases were chosen to identify relevant references in the health, education and social fields. Several search strategies were tested by the librarian to optimize the retrieval of citations known to the investigators and to increase the likelihood that all relevant studies would be retrieved. We also searched reference lists of included articles and previous systematic reviews [ 11 , 12 , 15 , 41 ].

Eligibility criteria

A publication was considered eligible if it (1) presented or used a theory, model, or framework (TMF), (2) described dimensions or specific components to consider in the evaluation of KMb strategies, (3) presented or discussed KMb strategies or activities (any initiatives to improve evidence use), and (4) proposed outcomes that might result directly or indirectly from the KMb strategies. Studies were excluded from analysis if they (1) presented a TMF to assess the impact of research without mentioning KMb strategies or an intervention not related to KMb and (2) presented evaluation dimensions or components that could not be generalized. We considered publications in English or French. All types of articles and study designs were eligible, including study protocols.

Study selection

The results of the literature search were imported into Covidence, which the review team used for screening. After duplicate articles were removed, the titles and abstracts were screened independently by two of the three reviewers (EMC, MJG, GL). Publications identified as potentially relevant were retrieved in full text and screened independently by three reviewers (EMC, MJG, GL). Discrepancies regarding the inclusion of any publication were resolved through discussion and consensus among reviewers. The principal investigator (SZ) validated the final selection of articles.

Data synthesis

A data charting form was developed in Microsoft Excel and piloted by the research team. Data extracted included study characteristics (authors, authors’ country of affiliation, year, journal, discipline, article type, study setting, study aim), KMb strategies of interest, KMb objectives, KMb target audiences and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation (existing or new TMF, specific dimensions or components of TMF and so on). Data were extracted by a single reviewer (SL, JC or OP) and validated by a second reviewer (SZ). Disagreements were discussed between reviewers and resolved by consensus. No quality appraisal of included studies was conducted, as this is optional in scoping reviews and the purpose was only to describe the content of identified TMFs [ 42 ].

Data analysis and presentation of results

Data were summarized according to study characteristics, KMb strategy characteristics (activities, objectives, target audiences), types of TMFs, and dimensions or components to consider for KMb evaluation. Disagreements during the process were discussed and resolved through consensus (SL, DG, SZ). A KMb strategy might have one or more objectives and include one or more activities. Thus, the objectives and activities of the KMb strategies extracted from the selected studies were summarized based on existing categorizations. The categorization of KMb objectives was inspired by Gervais et al. [ 15 ] and Farkas et al. [ 43 ] (Table  1 ).

The KMb activities were categorized according to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy [ 44 ]. The activities were first classified according to the full taxonomy and then grouped into the nine categories proposed by Waltz et al. [ 45 ] (Table  2 ).

The TMFs were categorized according to the categories of theoretical approaches described by Nilsen [ 32 ]: process models, evaluation frameworks, determinant frameworks and classic theories (Table  3 ). The category “implementation theories” originally described by Nilsen [ 32 ] was not used because we did not identify any article that fit this category. We also added a category named “logic models” due to the nature of the identified TMFs. Logic models are often used in theory-driven evaluation approaches and are usually developed to show the links among inputs (resources), activities and outputs (outcomes and short-, medium- and long-term effects) [ 46 ].

Finally, the content extracted from the TMFs was analysed using mainly an inductive method. This method allows, among other things, to develop a reference framework or a model from the emerging categories that are evident in the text data [ 50 ].

The classification of concepts is the result of multiple readings and interpretations. The concepts associated with each dimension of the framework were classified according to their meaning. Similar concepts were grouped together to form components. These grouped components were then associated with the subdimensions and main dimensions of the framework.

Search results

The searches yielded 4763 articles. Of those, 4258 were excluded during the title and abstract screening. Of the 505 full-text articles, we retained 88 in our final sample. The results of the search and selection processes (PRISMA flowchart) are summarized in Fig.  1 .

PRISMA flowchart summarizing search strategy and selection results [ 40 ]

Publication characteristics

Most articles were published after 2010 ( n  = 70, 79.5%), with an average of 5 articles per year between 2010 and 2023 compared with an average of 2.1 articles per year between 2001 and 2009; there were no eligible articles from 2000. The search was conducted in August 2023, and only five articles were published in these 7 months of the year. Table 4 presents the main characteristics of the selected articles. A full list of the included articles with their main characteristics is presented in Additional file 2 .

The number of theoretical and empirical articles was relatively similar. Among the theoretical articles, 19 descriptive articles (21.6%) were aimed at describing a KMb strategy, a KMb infrastructure or a TMF related to a specific programme or context; 18 articles (20.5%) synthesized knowledge to propose a TMF (new or revised); and three articles conducted systematic reviews (3.4%).

The empirical articles category included studies with different methodological approaches (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods). We will not report the details of the methodologies used, as this would result in a long list with few occurrences. The empirical articles can be divided into three categories: (1) studies that evaluated a TMF related to KMb ( n  = 16, 18.2%), (2) studies that evaluated a KMb strategy ( n  = 21, 23.9%) and (3) studies that evaluated both a KMb strategy and a TMF ( n  = 7, 8.0%).

Most articles were related to healthcare ( n  = 71, 80.7%). This field of study was divided into three subdomains. The healthcare and social services articles usually described or assessed a KMb strategy targeting health professionals’ practices in a variety of fields (for example, occupational therapy, dentistry, mental health, pharmacology, gerontology, nursing and so on). The health policy and systems articles usually described or assessed KMb strategies targeting decision-making processes, decision-makers or public health interventions and policies. The continuing education articles assessed training programmes for health professionals aimed at increasing knowledge and skills in a specific field. The articles in the general field described or discussed TMFs and KMb strategies that could be applied to multiple disciplines or contexts. Finally, the articles in the education field described or assessed a KMb strategy targeting education professionals.

Almost half of the articles ( n  = 42, 47.7%) studied KMB strategies implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. Countries in South America, the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, China and Europe were underrepresented ( n  = 8, 9.1%). The remaining 34 articles (38.6%) did not specify an implementation context and were mostly theoretical articles. Regarding the authors’ countries of affiliation, Canada, the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom were again the most represented countries, featuring in 85% of the articles ( n  = 75).

What theories, models or frameworks exist in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies?

Several articles proposed a new TMF ( n  = 37, 42.0%), and some articles proposed a logic model specifically developed to evaluate their KMb strategy ( n  = 17, 19.3%). One-third of the articles used existing TMFs ( n  = 28, 31.8%). A few articles only referred to existing TMFs but did not use them to guide a KMb strategy evaluation ( n  = 6, 8.5%).

The identified TMFs were then categorized according to their theoretical approaches (adapted from Nilsen, [ 32 ]) (Table  5 ). Five articles used or proposed more than one TMF, and three TMFs could be classified in two categories. Several articles proposed or used a process model ( n  = 34, 38.6%) or an evaluation framework ( n  = 28, 31.8%); these were the two most frequently identified types of TMFs. Fewer articles proposed or used a logic model ( n  = 17, 19.3%), a determinant framework ( n  = 12, 13.6%) or a classic theory ( n  = 7, 8.0%). The TMFs most often identified in the articles were the RE-AIM framework ( n  = 5, 5.7%), the Knowledge-to-Action framework [ 9 ] ( n  = 4, 4.5%), the Theory of Planned Behavior [ 51 ] ( n  = 3, 3.4%) and the Expanded Outcomes framework for planning and assessing continuing medical education [ 52 ] ( n  = 3, 3.4%). In total, we identified 87 different TMFs in the 88 articles. Only nine TMFS were retrieved in more than one article.

What KMb strategies do the TMFs evaluate (activities, objectives, target audience)?

Thirty-eight articles reported using more than one activity in their KMb strategy. According to the ERIC compilation, “Train and educate stakeholders” activities were the most common, followed by “Develop stakeholder interrelationships” and “Use evaluative and iterative strategies”. Table 6 presents the various types of activities and the number of articles that referred to each.

Of the 88 articles analysed, 18 (20.4%) did not specify a KMb objective. The remaining articles proposed one or more KMb strategy objectives. Specifically, 39 (36.4%) articles had one objective, 15 (17.0%) had two, three (3.4%) had three, and 13 (14.8%) had four or five. Table 7 presents the different types of objectives and the number of times they were identified.

The target audiences for KMb strategies were clearly specified in half of the articles ( n  = 44, 50.0%). Generally, these were empirical articles that targeted specific professionals ( n  = 36, 40.9%) or decision-makers ( n  = 8, 9.1%). Just under one-third of the articles identified a broad target audience (for example, professionals and managers in the health system, a health organization) ( n  = 26, 29.5%). Finally, 18 articles (20.4%) did not specify a target audience for KMb; these were most often theoretical articles.

What are the dimensions and components included in TMFs for evaluating KMb strategies?

The analysis of the identified TMFs revealed many factors of interest relevant for the evaluation of KMb strategies. These specific components were inductively classified into four main dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts (Fig.  2 ). The context dimension refers to the assessment of the conditions in place when the KMb strategy is implemented. These include both the external (that is, sociopolitical, economic, environmental and cultural characteristics) and internal environments (that is, characteristics of organizations, individuals and stakeholder partnerships). These factors are understood to influence the selection and tailoring of a KMb strategy. The process dimension refers to the assessment of the planning, levels and mechanisms of implementation, as well as to the characteristics of the KMb strategy implemented. The effects dimension refers to the assessment of outcomes following the KMb strategy implementation. The potential effects vary depending on the strategy’s objectives and can be either the immediate results of the KMb strategy or short-, medium- and long-term outcomes. The conceptual gradation of effects was generally represented in a similar way in the TMFs analysed, but the temporality of effects could vary. A medium-term outcome in one study could be understood as a long-term outcome in another. However, the majority of authors group these effects into three categories (Gervais et al. 2016: p. 6): (1) short-term effects, measured by success of KMb strategy measured by success of KMb strategy (number of people reached, satisfaction, participation and so on); (2) medium-term effects linked to changes in individual attitude and the use of knowledge; and (3) the long-term effects that result from achieving the KMb objective (for example, improved practices and services, changed collective behaviour, sustainable use of knowledge).

The main evaluation dimensions that emerged from the TMFs analysed

Finally, the impacts dimension refers to the ultimate effects of KMb products or interventions on end users, as measured by the organization (Phipps et al. [ 36 ], p. 34). The evaluation of these ultimate effects can be measured by the integration of a promising practice into organizational routines, by the effects on service users or by the effects on the health and well-being of communities and society in general.

This gradation shows the importance of measuring effects at different points in time, to take account of the time they take to appear and their evolving nature (Gervais et al., 2016: p. 6).

Most of the articles presented the dimensions that should be evaluated, whereas the empirical articles presented the dimensions but also used them in practice to evaluate a KMb strategy. Only five articles (5.7%) did not mention specific dimensions that could be classified.

Table 8 presents both the number of articles that presented dimensions to be evaluated and the number of articles that evaluated them in practice. These results showed that the effects dimension was both the most often named and the most evaluated in practice. The other three dimensions (context, process, impacts), while quite often mentioned as relevant to assess, were less often evaluated in practice. For example, only five articles (5.7%) reported having assessed the impacts dimension.

As previously mentioned, the components relevant for the evaluation of KMb strategies were extracted from the identified TMFs. Table 9 presents these components, which represent the more specific factors of interest for assessing context, process, effects and impacts.

Although often overlooked, the evaluation of KMb strategies is an essential step in guiding organizations seeking to determine whether the expected outcomes of their initiatives are being realized. Evaluation not only allows organizations to make adjustments if the initiatives are not producing the expected results, but also helps them to justify their funding of such initiatives. Evaluation is also essential if the KMb science is to truly inform KMb practice, such that the strategies developed are based on empirical data [ 30 ]. To make KMb evaluation more feasible, evaluation must be promoted and practices improved.

This scoping review meets the first objective of our project, which was to provide an overview of reference frameworks used or proposed for evaluating KM strategies, and to propose a preliminary version of a reference framework for evaluating KM strategies. Several key findings emerged from this scoping review:

Proliferation of theories, models and frameworks, but few frequently used

We are seeing a proliferation of TMFs in KMb and closely related fields [ 132 , 133 ]. Thus, the results of this scoping review support the argument that the conceptual and theoretical development of the field is outpacing its empirical development. Most of the reviewed articles (42.0%) proposed a new TMF rather than using existing ones. Furthermore, we identified relatively few empirical studies (50.0%) that focused on the evaluation of KMb strategies. Consequently, the TMFs used were poorly consolidated, which does not provide a solid empirical foundation to guide the evaluation of KMb strategies. Also, not all the TMFs proposed in the articles were specifically developed for evaluation; some were focused on KMb implementation processes. These may still provide elements to consider for evaluation, although they were not designed to propose specific indicators.

A scoping review published in 2018 identified 596 studies using 159 different KMb TMFs, 95 of which had been used only once [ 11 ]. Many authors reported that these are rarely reused and validated [ 11 , 30 , 33 ] and that it is important to test, refine and integrate existing ones [ 3 , 31 , 34 , 133 ]. A clear, collective and consistent use of existing TMFs is recommended and necessary to advance KMb science and closely related fields [ 12 , 31 ]. The systematic review by Strifler et al. [ 11 ] highlights the diversity of available TMFs and the difficulty users may experience when choosing TMFs to guide their KMb initiatives or evaluation process. Future work should focus on the development of tools to better support users of TMFs, especially those working in organizations. By consolidating a large number of TMFs, the results of this scoping review contribute to these efforts.

The importance of improving evaluation practices for complex multifaceted KMb strategies

Another noteworthy finding was the emphasis on the evaluation of strategies focused on education and professional training for practice improvement (52.3%). Relatively few of the reviewed articles looked at, for example, the evaluation of KMb strategies aimed at informing or influencing decision-making (13.6%), or KMb strategies targeting decision-makers (9.1%). These results reaffirm the importance of conducting more large-scale evaluations of complex and multifaceted KMb strategies. These involve a greater degree of interaction and engagement, are composed of networks of multiple actors, mobilize diverse sources of knowledge and have simultaneous multilevel objectives [ 19 , 134 ].

The fact that some KMb strategies are complex interventions implemented in complex contexts [ 134 ] presents a significant and recurring challenge to their evaluation. Methodological designs, approaches and tools are often ill-suited to capture the short-, medium- and long-term outcomes of KMb strategies, as well as to identify the mechanisms by which these outcomes were produced in a specific context. It is also difficult to link concrete changes in practice and decision-making to tangible longer-term impacts at the population level. Moreover, these impacts can take years to be achieved [ 36 ] and can be influenced by several other factors in addition to KMb efforts [ 2 , 19 , 24 ]. Comprehensive, dynamic and flexible evaluation approaches [ 135 , 136 , 137 ] using mixed methods [ 20 ] appear necessary to understand why, for whom, how, when and in what context KMb strategies achieve their objectives [ 2 , 21 , 25 ]. For instance, realist evaluation, which belongs to theory-based evaluation, may be an approach that addresses issues of causality without sacrificing complexity [ 134 , 138 , 139 ]. This evaluation approach aims to identify the underlying generative mechanisms that can explain how the outcomes were generated and what characteristics of the context affected, or not, those mechanisms. This approach is used to test and refine theory about how interventions with a similar logic of action actually work [ 139 ].

Large heterogeneity of methodologies used in empirical studies

Despite the growth of the KMb field, a recurring issue is the relatively limited number of high-quality studies that evaluate KMb outcomes and impacts. This observation is shared by many of the authors of our scoping articles [ 2 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. Only a limited number of empirical articles met the selection criteria ( n  = 44/88) in this scoping review. Synthesizing these studies is challenging due to the diversity of research designs used and the large number of potential evaluation components identified. In addition, most of the identified studies used TMFs and measurement tools that were not validated [ 20 , 29 ] and that were specifically developed for their study [ 16 , 25 , 140 ]. Moreover, these studies did not describe the methods used to justify their choice of evaluation dimensions and components [ 25 ], which greatly hinders the ability to draw inferences and develop generalizable theories through replication in similar studies [ 110 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 ]. The lack of a widely used evaluation approach across the field is therefore an important issue [ 16 , 20 ] also highlighted by this scoping review.

Our aim in this review was not to identify specific indicators or measurement tools (for example, questionnaires) for assessing KMb strategies, but rather to describe dimensions and component of TMFs used for KMb evaluation. However, a recent scoping review [ 144 ] looked at measurement tools and revealed that only two general potential tools have been identified to assess KMb activities in any sector or organization: the Level of Knowledge Use Survey (LOKUS) [ 145 ] and the Knowledge Uptake and Utilization Tool (KUUT) [ 95 ]. The authors also assert the importance of developing standardized tools and evaluation processes to facilitate comparison of KMb activities’ outcomes across organizations [ 144 ].

Lack of description and reporting of KMb strategies and evaluation

Another important finding from this review was the sparsity of descriptions of KMb strategies in the published articles. In general, the authors provided little information on the operationalization of their KMb strategies (for example, objectives, target audiences, details of activities implemented, implementation context, expected effects). The KMb strategy objectives and the implemented activities should be carefully selected and empirically, theoretically or pragmatically justified before the evaluation components and specific indicators can be determined [ 146 ].

To improve consistency in the field and to contribute to the development of KMb science, many authors reported the need to better describe and report KMb strategies and their context [ 8 , 54 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 ]. KMb strategies are often inconsistently labelled across studies, poorly described and rarely justified theoretically [ 146 , 150 , 151 ]. It was not possible in this scoping review to associate the evaluation components to be used with the objectives and types of KMb strategies, as too much information was missing in the articles. Over the past 10 years, several guidelines have been proposed to improve the reporting of interventions such as KMb strategies: the “Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations checklist” [ 147 ], the “Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI)” [ 150 ] and the “Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR)” [ 152 ]. These guidelines should be used more often to enhance the reporting of KMb strategies and help advance the field [ 153 ].

Implications for future research

This scoping review provides an overview of potential factors of interest for assessing the context, process, effects and impacts of a KMb strategy. It also proposes a preliminary inventory of potential dimensions and components to consider when planning the evaluation of a KMb strategy. Given the broad spectrum of factors of interest identified across studies, not all of them can be assessed in every context. Rather, they should be targeted according to the objectives of the evaluation, the nature of the KMb strategy and the resources available to conduct the evaluation. Thus, this inventory should not be understood as a prescriptive, normative and exhaustive framework, but rather as a toolbox to identify the most relevant factors to include in the evaluation of a given KMB strategy, and to address a need often expressed by organizations wishing to evaluate their KMb efforts.

Additional work is needed to validate and operationalize these dimensions, to identify relevant measurement tools related to the different components and to see how this inventory could support KMb evaluation practices in organizations.

This scoping review is the first stage of a larger research project aimed at improving organizations’ capacity to evaluate their KMb initiatives by developing an integrative, interdisciplinary and easy-to-use reference framework. In the second phase of the project, the relevance and clarity of the evaluation dimensions identified in the scoping review will be validated through a Delphi study with KMb specialists and researchers. The enriched framework will then be pilot tested in two organizations carrying out and evaluating KMb strategies, to adapt the framework to their needs and to further clarify how the dimensions can be measured in practice. In this third phase, guidance will be provided to help organizations adopt the framework and its support kit. The aim of the project is to go beyond proposing a theoretical framework, and to help build organizations’ capacity to evaluate KT strategies by proposing tools adapted to their realities.

Review limitations

Some limitations of this scoping review should be acknowledged. First, given the numerous different terms used to describe and conceptualize the science of using evidence, it is possible that our search strategy did not capture all relevant publications. However, to limit this risk, we manually searched the reference lists of the selected articles. Second, the literature search was limited to articles published in English or French, and the articles were mostly from high-income countries (for example, North America); therefore, the application of the identified concepts in this scoping review to other contexts should be further explored.

In addition, the search strategy focused on scientific publications to assess progress made in the field of knowledge mobilization strategy evaluation. The grey literature was not examined. It should be considered in future research to complete the overview of evaluation needs in the field of knowledge mobilization.

Finally, the paucity of information in the articles sometimes made it difficult to classify the TMFs according to the taxonomies [ 32 , 44 ], which may have led to possible misinterpretation. However, to limit the risk of errors, the categorization was performed by two reviewers and validated by a third in cases of uncertainty.

Given the increasing demand from organizations for the evaluation of KMb strategies, along with the poorly consolidated KMb research field, a scoping review was needed to identify the range, nature and extent of the literature. This scoping review enabled us to synthesize the breadth of the literature, provide an overview of the many theories, models and frameworks used, and identify and categorize the potential dimensions and components to consider when evaluating KMb initiatives. This scoping review is part of a larger research project, in which the next steps will be to validate the integrative framework and develop a support kit to facilitate its use by organizations involved in KMb.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is included within the article and its additional files.

Abbreviations

• Knowledge mobilization
• Theories, models, and frameworks

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Guidelines for Effective Knowledge Mobilization. 2019. https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/policies-politiques/knowledge_mobilisation-mobilisation_des_connaissances-eng.aspx Accessed 28 Dec 2022.

Boaz A, Davies H, Fraser A, Nutley S. What works now? evidence-informed policy and practice. Bristol: Policy press; 2019.

Book   Google Scholar  

Curran JA, Grimshaw JM, Hayden JA, Campbell B. Knowledge translation research: the science of moving research into policy and practice. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2011;31(3):174–80.

Article   Google Scholar  

Global Commission on Evidence. The Evidence Commission report: A wake-up call and path forward for decision-makers, evidence intermediaries, and impact-oriented evidence producers. McMaster University; 2022 p. 144. https://www.mcmasterforum.org/networks/evidence-commission/report/english

Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011;104(12):510–20.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S. The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(7): e21704.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID, editors. Knowledge translation in health care: moving from evidence to practice. 2nd ed. Chichester, West Sussex ; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley/BMJ Books; 2013, 406

Barwick M, Dubrowski R, Petricca K. Knowledge translation: The rise of implementation. 2020; https://ktdrr.org/products/kt-implementation/KT-Implementation-508.pdf

Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Continuing Educ Health Professions. 2006;26(1):13–24.

Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):50.

Strifler L, Cardoso R, McGowan J, Cogo E, Nincic V, Khan PA, et al. Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks with limited use. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;100:92–102.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Esmail R, Hanson HM, Holroyd-Leduc J, Brown S, Strifler L, Straus SE, et al. A scoping review of full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):11.

McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DA, et al. A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel? Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):16.

Fonds de recherche du Québec. Stratégie de mobilisation des connaissances 2014–2017. 2014. https://frq.gouv.qc.ca/en/mobilization-of-knowledge/ . Accessed 28 Dec 2022.

Gervais MJ, Souffez K, Ziam S. Quel impact avons-nous ? Vers l’élaboration d’un cadre pour rendre visibles les retombées du transfert des connaissances. TUC Revue francophone de recherche sur le transfert et l’utilisation des connaissances. 2016;1(2):21.

Google Scholar  

Williams NJ, Beidas RS. Annual research review: the state of implementation science in child psychology and psychiatry: a review and suggestions to advance the field. J Child Psychol Psychiatr. 2019;60(4):430–50.

Mitton C, Adair CE, Mckenzie E, Patten SB, Perry BW. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q. 2007;85(4):729–68.

Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):2.

Fazey I, Bunse L, Msika J, Pinke M, Preedy K, Evely AC, et al. Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Glob Environ Chang. 2014;25:204–20.

Gervais MJ, Marion C, Dagenais C, Chiocchio F, Houlfort N. Dealing with the complexity of evaluating knowledge transfer strategies: guiding principles for developing valid instruments. Res Eval. 2016;25(1):62–9.

Reed MS, Bryce R, Machen R. Pathways to policy impact: a new approach for planning and evidencing research impact. Evid policy. 2018;14(3):431–58.

Kim C, Wilcher R, Petruney T, Krueger K, Wynne L, Zan T. A research utilisation framework for informing global health and development policies and programmes. Health Res Policy Sys. 2018;16(1):9.

Langer L, Tripney J, Gough D University of London, Social Science Research Unit, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre. The science of using science: researching the use of research evidence in decision-making. 2016.

Rajić A, Young I, McEwen SA. Improving the utilization of research knowledge in agri-food public health: a mixed-method review of knowledge translation and transfer. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2013;10(5):397–412.

Scarlett J, Forsberg BC, Biermann O, Kuchenmüller T, El-Khatib Z. Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):93.

Bornbaum CC, Kornas K, Peirson L, Rosella LC. Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):162.

Sarkies MN, Bowles KA, Skinner EH, Haas R, Lane H, Haines TP. The effectiveness of research implementation strategies for promoting evidence-informed policy and management decisions in healthcare: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):132.

Scott SD, Albrecht L, O’Leary K, Ball GD, Hartling L, Hofmeyer A, et al. Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):70.

Dagenais C, Malo M, Robert É, Ouimet M, Berthelette D, Ridde V. Knowledge transfer on complex social interventions in public health: a scoping study. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12): e80233.

Davies HT, Powell AE, Nutley SM. Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2015;3(27):1–190.

Damschroder LJ. Clarity out of chaos: use of theory in implementation research. Psychiatry Res. 2020;283: 112461.

Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):53.

Ellen ME, Panisset U, Araujo de Carvalho I, Goodwin J, Beard J. A knowledge translation framework on ageing and health. Health Policy. 2017;121(3):282–91.

Wensing M, Bosch M, Grol R. Developing and selecting interventions for translating knowledge to action. CMAJ. 2010;182(2):E85–8.

Bennet A, Bennet D, Fafard K, Fonda M, Lomond T, Messier L, et al. Knowledge mobilization in the social sciences and humanities: moving from research to action. Frost: MQI Press; 2007.

Phipps D, Cummins J, Pepler D, Craig W, Cardinal S. The Co-produced Pathway to Impact Describes Knowledge Mobilization Processes. JCES. 2016;9(1). https://jces.ua.edu/articles/258 . Accessed 17 Nov 2022.

Birken SA, Rohweder CL, Powell BJ, Shea CM, Scott J, Leeman J, et al. T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):143.

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Moullin JC, Sabater-Hernandez D, Fernandez-Llimos F, Benrimoj SI. A systematic review of implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare and resulting generic implementation framework. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13(101170481):16.

Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synthesis Methods. 2014;5(4):371–85.

Farkas M, Jette AM, Tennstedt S, Haley SM, Quinn V. Knowledge dissemination and utilization in gerontology: an organizing framework. Gerontologist. 2003;43:47–56.

Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):21.

Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):109.

Smith JD, Li DH, Rafferty MR. The implementation research logic model: a method for planning, executing, reporting, and synthesizing implementation projects. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):84.

Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7.

Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B. Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care. 1998;7:149–58.

Sketris IS, Carter N, Traynor RL, Watts D, Kelly K, following contributing members of the CNODES Knowledge Translation Team: Pierre Ernst JG Brenda Hemmelgarn, Colleen Metge, Michael Paterson, Robert Platt W and Gary Teare. Building a framework for the evaluation of knowledge translation for the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020;29 Suppl 1(d0r, 9208369):8–25.

Thomas DR. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval. 2006;27(2):237–46.

Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.

Moore DE, Green JS, Gallis HA. Achieving desired results and improved outcomes: integrating planning and assessment throughout learning activities. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2009;29(1):1–15.

Tschida JE, Drahota A. Fidelity to the ACT SMART Toolkit: an instrumental case study of implementation strategy fidelity. Implement Sci Commun. 2023;4(1):52.

Colquhoun H, Leeman J, Michie S, Lokker C, Bragge P, Hempel S, et al. Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):781.

Bertone MP, Meessen B, Clarysse G, Hercot D, Kelley A, Kafando Y, et al. Assessing communities of practice in health policy: a conceptual framework as a first step towards empirical research. Health Res Policy Sys. 2013;11(1):39.

Gagliardi AR, Legare F, Brouwers MC, Webster F, Wiljer D, Badley E, et al. Protocol: developing a conceptual framework of patient mediated knowledge translation, systematic review using a realist approach. Implement Sci. 2011;6(101258411):25.

Sargeant J, Borduas F, Sales A, Klein D, Lynn B, Stenerson H. CPD and KT: models used and opportunities for synergy. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2011;31(3):167–73.

Stetler CB, Ritchie J, Rycroft-Malone J, Schultz A, Charns M. Improving quality of care through routine, successful implementation of evidence-based practice at the bedside: an organizational case study protocol using the Pettigrew and Whipp model of strategic change. Implement Sci. 2007;2(101258411):3.

Kok MO, Schuit AJ. Contribution mapping: a method for mapping the contribution of research to enhance its impact. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10(101170481):21.

Dadich A. From bench to bedside: methods that help clinicians use evidence-based practice. Aust Psychol. 2010;45(3):197–211.

Brown P, Bahri P. Engagement’ of patients and healthcare professionals in regulatory pharmacovigilance: establishing a conceptual and methodological framework. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2019;75(9):1181–92.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Cockerill R, Barnsley J, DiCenso A. A framework for the dissemination and utilization of research for health-care policy and practice. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs Presents Arch Online J Knowl Synthesis Nurs. 2002;9(1):149–60.

Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC, Bhattacharyya OK. The guideline implementability research and application network (GIRAnet): an international collaborative to support knowledge exchange: study protocol. Implement Sci. 2012;7(101258411):26.

Brooks SP, Zimmermann GL, Lang M, Scott SD, Thomson D, Wilkes G, et al. A framework to guide storytelling as a knowledge translation intervention for health-promoting behaviour change. Implement sci commun. 2022;3(1):35.

Cullen L, Hanrahan K, Edmonds SW, Reisinger HS, Wagner M. Iowa implementation for sustainability framework. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):1.

Labbé D, Mahmood A, Miller WC, Mortenson WB. Examining the impact of knowledge mobilization strategies to inform urban stakeholders on accessibility: a mixed-methods study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5):1561.

Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID, Zwarenstein M, Bhattacharyya O, Shepperd S. Monitoring use of knowledge and evaluating outcomes. Can Med Assoc J. 2010;182(2):E94–8.

Bennett S, Whitehead M, Eames S, Fleming J, Low S, Caldwell E. Building capacity for knowledge translation in occupational therapy: learning through participatory action research. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):257.

Brown C, Rogers S. Measuring the effectiveness of knowledge creation as a means of facilitating evidence-informed practice in early years settings in one London Borough. Lond Rev Educ. 2014;12(3):245–60.

Talbott E, De Los RA, Kearns DM, Mancilla-Martinez J, Wang M. Evidence-based assessment in special education research: advancing the use of evidence in assessment tools and empirical processes. Except Child. 2023;89(4):467–87.

Rosella LC, Bornbaum C, Kornas K, Lebenbaum M, Peirson L, Fransoo R, et al. Evaluating the process and outcomes of a knowledge translation approach to supporting use of the Diabetes Population Risk Tool (DPoRT) in public health practice. Canadian J Program Eval. 2018;33(1):21–48.

Couineau AL, Forbes D. Using predictive models of behavior change to promote evidence-based treatment for PTSD. Psychol Trauma Theory Res Pract Policy. 2011;3(3):266–75.

Dufault M. Testing a collaborative research utilization model to translate best practices in pain management. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1:S26-32.

Beckett K, Farr M, Kothari A, Wye L, le May A. Embracing complexity and uncertainty to create impact: exploring the processes and transformative potential of co-produced research through development of a social impact model. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):118.

Kramer DM, Wells RP, Carlan N, Aversa T, Bigelow PP, Dixon SM, et al. Did you have an impact? A theory-based method for planning and evaluating knowledge-transfer and exchange activities in occupational health and safety. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2013;19(1):41–62.

Duhamel F, Dupuis F, Turcotte A, Martinez AM, Goudreau J. Integrating the illness beliefs model in clinical practice: a family systems nursing knowledge utilization model. J FAM NURS. 2015;21(2):322–48.

Wimpenny P, Johnson N, Walter I, Wilkinson JE. Tracing and identifying the impact of evidence-use of a modified pipeline model. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2008;5(1):3–12.

Ward V, Smith S, House A, Hamer S. Exploring knowledge exchange: a useful framework for practice and policy. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(3):297–304.

Grooten L, Vrijhoef HJM, Alhambra-Borras T, Whitehouse D, Devroey D. The transfer of knowledge on integrated care among five European regions: a qualitative multi-method study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):11.

Stetler CB. Updating the Stetler Model of research utilization to facilitate evidence-based practice. Nurs Outlook. 2001;49(6):272–9.

Ward V. Why, whose, what and how? A framework for knowledge mobilisers. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2017;13(3):477–97.

Levin RF, Fineout-Overholt E, Melnyk BM, Barnes M, Vetter MJ. Fostering evidence-based practice to improve nurse and cost outcomes in a community health setting: a pilot test of the advancing research and clinical practice through close collaboration model. Nurs Adm Q. 2011;35(1):21–33.

Currie M, King G, Rosenbaum P, Law M, Kertoy M, Specht J. A model of impacts of research partnerships in health and social services. Eval Program Plann. 2005;28(4):400–12.

Richard L, Chiocchio F, Essiembre H, Tremblay MC, Lamy G, Champagne F, et al. Communities of practice as a professional and organizational development strategy in local public health organizations in Quebec, Canada: an evaluation model. Healthc Policy. 2014;9(3):26–39.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rycroft-Malone J, Wilkinson J, Burton CR, Harvey G, McCormack B, Graham I, et al. Collaborative action around implementation in collaborations for leadership in applied health research and care: towards a programme theory. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(3 Suppl):13–26.

Gagliardi AR, Fraser N, Wright FC, Lemieux-Charles L, Davis D. Fostering knowledge exchange between researchers and decision-makers: exploring the effectiveness of a mixed-methods approach. Health Policy. 2008;86(1):53–63.

Paquette-Warren J, Harris SB, Naqshbandi Hayward M, Tompkins JW. Case study of evaluations that go beyond clinical outcomes to assess quality improvement diabetes programmes using the Diabetes Evaluation Framework for Innovative National Evaluations (DEFINE). J Eval Clin Pract. 2016;22(5):644–52.

Paquette-Warren J, Tyler M, Fournie M, Harris SB. The diabetes evaluation framework for innovative national evaluations (DEFINE): construct and content validation using a modified Delphi method. Can J diabetes. 2017;41(3):281–96.

Abbot ML, Lee KK, Rossiter MJ. Evaluating the effectiveness and functionality of professional learning communities in adult ESL Programs. TESL Canada J. 2018;35(2):1–25.

Ho K, Bloch R, Gondocz T, Laprise R, Perrier L, Ryan D, et al. Technology-enabled knowledge translation: frameworks to promote research and practice. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2004;24(2):90–9.

Yu X, Hu D, Li N, Xiao Y. Comprehensive evaluation on teachers’ knowledge sharing behavior based on the improved TOPSIS method. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2022;2022(101279357):2563210.

Arora S, Kalishman SG, Thornton KA, Komaromy MS, Katzman JG, Struminger BB, et al. Project ECHO: a telementoring network model for continuing professional development. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2017;37(4):239–44.

Smidt A, Balandin S, Sigafoos J, Reed VA. The Kirkpatrick model: a useful tool for evaluating training outcomes. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2009;34(3):266–74.

Jeffs L, Sidani S, Rose D, Espin S, Smith O, Martin K, et al. Using theory and evidence to drive measurement of patient, nurse and organizational outcomes of professional nursing practice. Int J Nurs Pract. 2013;19(2):141–8.

Skinner K. Developing a tool to measure knowledge exchange outcomes. Can J Program Eval. 2007;22(1):49–75.

Lavis J, Ross S, McLeod C, Gildiner A. Measuring the impact of health research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(3):165–70.

Boyko JA, Lavis JN, Abelson J, Dobbins M, Carter N. Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(11):1938–45.

Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76.

Gainforth HL, Latimer-Cheung AE, Athanasopoulos P, Martin Ginis KA. Examining the feasibility and effectiveness of a community-based organization implementing an event-based knowledge mobilization initiative to promote physical activity guidelines for people with spinal cord injury among support personnel. Health Promot Pract. 2015;16(1):55–62.

Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B, Rabin B, Smith ML, Porter GC, et al. RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front Public Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064 .

Shelton RC, Chambers DA, Glasgow RE. An extension of RE-AIM to enhance sustainability: addressing dynamic context and promoting health equity over time. Front Public Health. 2020;8(101616579):134.

Bender BG, Simmons B, Konkoly N, Liu AH. The asthma toolkit bootcamp to improve rural primary care for pediatric asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(8):3091-3097.e1.

de la Garza Iga FJ, Mejia Alvarez M, Cockroft JD, Rabin J, Cordon A, Elias Rodas DM, et al. Using the project ECHO TM model to teach mental health topics in rural Guatemala: an implementation science-guided evaluation. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2023;69(8):2031–41.

Alkin M, Taut S. Unbundling evaluation use. Stud Educ Eval. 2003;29(1):1–12.

Varallyay NI, Langlois EV, Tran N, Elias V, Reveiz L. Health system decision-makers at the helm of implementation research: development of a framework to evaluate the processes and effectiveness of embedded approaches. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):64.

McCabe KE, Wallace A, Crosland A. A model for collaborative working to facilitate knowledge mobilisation in public health. Evid Policy. 2015;11(4):559–76.

Gonzales R, Handley MA, Ackerman S, O’sullivan PS. A framework for training health professionals in implementation and dissemination science. Acad Med. 2012;87(3):271–8.

Edgar L, Herbert R, Lambert S, MacDonald JA, Dubois S, Latimer M. The joint venture model of knowledge utilization: a guide for change in nursing. Nurs Leadersh. 2006;9(2):41–55.

Stetler CB, Damschroder LJ, Helfrich CD, Hagedorn HJ. A Guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation. Implement Sci. 2011;6(101258411):99.

Brennan SE, Cumpston M, Misso ML, McDonald S, Murphy MJ, Green SE. Design and formative evaluation of the policy liaison initiative: a long-term knowledge translation strategy to encourage and support the use of cochrane systematic reviews for informing. Evid Policy. 2016;12(1):25–52.

Hinchcliff R, Senserrick T, Travaglia J, Greenfield D, Ivers R. The enhanced knowledge translation and exchange framework for road safety: a brief report on its development and potential impacts. Inj Prev. 2017;23(2):114–7.

Ye J, Woods D, Bannon J, Bilaver L, Kricke G, McHugh M, et al. Identifying contextual factors and strategies for practice facilitation in primary care quality improvement using an informatics-driven model: framework development and mixed methods case study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2022;9(2): e32174.

Brangan J, Quinn S, Spirtos M. Impact of an evidence-based practice course on occupational therapist’s confidence levels and goals. Occup Ther Health Care. 2015;29(1):27–38.

Bonetti D, Johnston M, Pitts NB, Deery C, Ricketts I, Tilley C, et al. Knowledge may not be the best target for strategies to influence evidence-based practice: using psychological models to understand RCT effects. Int J Behav Med. 2009;16(3):287–93.

Buckley LL, Goering P, Parikh SV, Butterill D, Foo EKH. Applying a “stages of change” model to enhance a traditional evaluation of a research transfer course. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003;9(4):385–90.

Boyko JA, Lavis JN, Dobbins M, Souza NM. Reliability of a tool for measuring theory of planned behaviour constructs for use in evaluating research use in policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011;24(9):29.

Imani-Nasab MH, Yazdizadeh B, Salehi M, Seyedin H, Majdzadeh R. Validity and reliability of the Evidence Utilisation in Policymaking Measurement Tool (EUPMT). Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):66.

Dwan KM, McInnes P, Mazumdar S. Measuring the success of facilitated engagement between knowledge producers and users: a validated scale. Evid Policy. 2015;11(2):239–52.

Haynes A, Rowbotham S, Grunseit A, Bohn-Goldbaum E, Slaytor E, Wilson A, et al. Knowledge mobilisation in practice: an evaluation of the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre. Health Res Policy Sys. 2020;18(1):13.

Haines M, Brown B, Craig J, D’Este C, Elliott E, Klineberg E, et al. Determinants of successful clinical networks: the conceptual framework and study protocol. Implement Sci. 2012;7(101258411):16.

Ko LK, Jang SH, Friedman DB, Glanz K, Leeman J, Hannon PA, et al. An application of the science impact framework to the cancer prevention and control research network from 2014–2018. Prev Med. 2019;12: 105821.

Leeman J, Sommers J, Vu M, Jernigan J, Payne G, Thompson D, et al. An evaluation framework for obesity prevention policy interventions. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9(101205018):E120.

Pettman TL, Armstrong R, Waters E, Allender S, Love P, Gill T, et al. Evaluation of a knowledge translation and exchange platform to advance non-communicable disease prevention. Evid Policy. 2016;12(1):109–26.

Yearwood AC. Applying a logical theory of change for strengthening research uptake in policy: a case study of the Evidence Informed Decision Making Network of the Caribbean. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2018;42: e91.

Thomson D, Brooks S, Nuspl M, Hartling L. Programme theory development and formative evaluation of a provincial knowledge translation unit. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):40.

Garad R, Kozica-Olenski S, Teede HJ. Evaluation of a center of research excellence in polycystic ovary syndrome as a large-scale collaborative research translation initiative, including evaluating translation of guideline impact. Semin Reprod Med. 2018;36(1):42–9.

Reddy S, Wakerman J, Westhorp G, Herring S. Evaluating impact of clinical guidelines using a realist evaluation framework. J Eval Clin Pract. 2015;21(6):1114–20.

Van Eerd D, Moser C, Saunders R. A research impact model for work and health. Am J Ind Med. 2021;64(1):3–12.

Yip O, Huber E, Stenz S, Zullig LL, Zeller A, De Geest SM, et al. A contextual analysis and logic model for integrated care for frail older adults living at home: The INSPIRE Project. Int J Integr Care. 2021;21(2):9.

Guo R, Bain BA, Willer J. Application of a logic model to an evidence-based practice training program for speech-language pathologists and audiologists. J Allied Health. 2011;40(1):e23–8.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

McDonald S, Turner T, Chamberlain C, Lumbiganon P, Thinkhamrop J, Festin MR, et al. Building capacity for evidence generation, synthesis and implementation to improve the care of mothers and babies in South East Asia: methods and design of the SEA-ORCHID Project using a logical framework approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10(100968545):61.

Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, Brownson RC. Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(3):337–50.

Wensing M, Grol R. Knowledge translation in health: how implementation science could contribute more. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):88.

Kreindler SA. Advancing the evaluation of integrated knowledge translation. Health Res Policy Sys. 2018;16(1):104.

Best A, Holmes B. Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods. Evid Policy. 2010;6(2):145–59.

van Mil HGJ, Foegeding EA, Windhab EJ, Perrot N, van der Linden E. A complex system approach to address world challenges in food and agriculture. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2014;40(1):20–32.

Wehrens R. Beyond two communities – from research utilization and knowledge translation to co-production? Public Health. 2014;128(6):545–51.

Ridde V, Pérez D, Robert E. Using implementation science theories and frameworks in global health. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(4): e002269.

Salter KL, Kothari A. Using realist evaluation to open the black box of knowledge translation: a state-of-the-art review. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):115.

Van Eerd D, Cole D, Keown K, Irvin E, Kramer D, Gibson B, et al. Report on knowledge transfer and exchange practices: A systematic review of the quality and types of instruments used to assess KTE implementation and impact. Toronto: Institute for Work & Health; 2011 p. 130. https://www.iwh.on.ca/sites/iwh/files/iwh/reports/iwh_sys_review_kte_evaluation_tools_2011_rev.pdf

Dobbins M, Robeson P, Ciliska D, Hanna S, Cameron R, O’Mara L, et al. A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):23.

Rychetnik L, Bauman A, Laws R, King L, Rissel C, Nutbeam D, et al. Translating research for evidence-based public health: key concepts and future directions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(12):1187–92.

Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, Powell BJ, Dorsey CN, Clary AS, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):108.

Bhawra J, Skinner K. Examination of tools associated with the evaluation of knowledge uptake and utilization: a scoping review. Eval Program Plann. 2020;83: 101875.

Lane JP, Stone VI, Nobrega A, Tomita M. Level Of Knowledge Use Survey (LOKUS): a validated instrument for tracking knowledge uptake and use. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;217:106–10.

Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):139.

Albrecht L, Archibald M, Arseneau D, Scott SD. Development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):52.

Bragge P, Grimshaw JM, Lokker C, Colquhoun H, Albrecht L, Baron J, et al. AIMD - a validated, simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):38.

Kastner M, Makarski J, Hayden L, Lai Y, Chan J, Treister V, et al. Improving KT tools and products: development and evaluation of a framework for creating optimized, Knowledge-activated Tools (KaT). Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1(1):47.

Pinnock H, Barwick M, Carpenter CR, Eldridge S, Grandes G, Griffiths CJ, et al. Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement. BMJ. 2017;6(356): i6795.

Lokker C, McKibbon KA, Colquhoun H, Hempel S. A scoping review of classification schemes of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into practice in healthcare. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):27.

Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;7(348): g1687.

Wilson PM, Sales A, Wensing M, Aarons GA, Flottorp S, Glidewell L, et al. Enhancing the reporting of implementation research. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):13.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Julie Desnoyers for designing and implementing the search strategy, Gabrielle Legendre for her contribution in the screening phase and Karine Souffez and Caroline Tessier for their input during the project.

This project was supported by an Insight Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and by the Équipe RENARD (FRQ-SC). The funding bodies had no role in the conduct of this scoping review.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Business Administration, Université TÉLUQ, Montreal, Canada

Saliha Ziam & Laura Justine Chouinard

Department of School and Social Adaptation Studies, Faculty of Education, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada

Sèverine Lanoue, Esther McSween-Cadieux, Julie Lane & Ollivier Prigent

Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Canada

Mathieu-Joël Gervais

Centre RBC d’expertise Universitaire en Santé Mentale, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada

School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada

Dina Gaid & Quan Nha Hong

Department of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada

Christian Dagenais

Université Paris Cité, IRD (Institute for Research on Sustainable Development, CEPED, Paris, France

Valéry Ridde

Institute of Health and Development (ISED), Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal

Public Health Intelligence and Knowledge Translation Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada

Emmanuelle Jean

Coordinator of the Interregional Consortium of Knowledge in Health and Social Services (InterS4), Rimouski, Canada

France Charles Fleury

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SZ, MJG, EMC, JL, CD, EJ, KS, VR and CT were involved in developing and designing the scoping review. EMC, MJG and GL (collaborator) screened articles in duplicate. SL, DG, LJC and OP extracted data from the included articles. SL and DG synthesized the data. SL, SZ and EMC drafted the manuscript. SZ led the project, supervised and assisted the research team at every stage, and secured the funding. All authors provided substantive feedback and approved the manuscript prior to submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saliha Ziam .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Keywords and search strategy.

Additional file 2.

Summary of included articles.

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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ziam, S., Lanoue, S., McSween-Cadieux, E. et al. A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies. Health Res Policy Sys 22 , 8 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01090-7

Download citation

Received : 16 June 2023

Accepted : 07 December 2023

Published : 10 January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01090-7

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

• Knowledge translation
• Scoping review

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

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 24, Issue 2
• Five tips for developing useful literature summary tables for writing review articles
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-5319 Ahtisham Younas 1 , 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-8130 Parveen Ali 3 , 4
• 1 Memorial University of Newfoundland , St John's , Newfoundland , Canada
• 2 Swat College of Nursing , Pakistan
• 3 School of Nursing and Midwifery , University of Sheffield , Sheffield , South Yorkshire , UK
• 4 Sheffield University Interpersonal Violence Research Group , Sheffield University , Sheffield , UK
• Correspondence to Ahtisham Younas, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, NL A1C 5C4, Canada; ay6133{at}mun.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2021-103417

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.

Introduction

Literature reviews offer a critical synthesis of empirical and theoretical literature to assess the strength of evidence, develop guidelines for practice and policymaking, and identify areas for future research. 1 It is often essential and usually the first task in any research endeavour, particularly in masters or doctoral level education. For effective data extraction and rigorous synthesis in reviews, the use of literature summary tables is of utmost importance. A literature summary table provides a synopsis of an included article. It succinctly presents its purpose, methods, findings and other relevant information pertinent to the review. The aim of developing these literature summary tables is to provide the reader with the information at one glance. Since there are multiple types of reviews (eg, systematic, integrative, scoping, critical and mixed methods) with distinct purposes and techniques, 2 there could be various approaches for developing literature summary tables making it a complex task specialty for the novice researchers or reviewers. Here, we offer five tips for authors of the review articles, relevant to all types of reviews, for creating useful and relevant literature summary tables. We also provide examples from our published reviews to illustrate how useful literature summary tables can be developed and what sort of information should be provided.

Tip 1: provide detailed information about frameworks and methods

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Tabular literature summaries from a scoping review. Source: Rasheed et al . 3

The provision of information about conceptual and theoretical frameworks and methods is useful for several reasons. First, in quantitative (reviews synthesising the results of quantitative studies) and mixed reviews (reviews synthesising the results of both qualitative and quantitative studies to address a mixed review question), it allows the readers to assess the congruence of the core findings and methods with the adapted framework and tested assumptions. In qualitative reviews (reviews synthesising results of qualitative studies), this information is beneficial for readers to recognise the underlying philosophical and paradigmatic stance of the authors of the included articles. For example, imagine the authors of an article, included in a review, used phenomenological inquiry for their research. In that case, the review authors and the readers of the review need to know what kind of (transcendental or hermeneutic) philosophical stance guided the inquiry. Review authors should, therefore, include the philosophical stance in their literature summary for the particular article. Second, information about frameworks and methods enables review authors and readers to judge the quality of the research, which allows for discerning the strengths and limitations of the article. For example, if authors of an included article intended to develop a new scale and test its psychometric properties. To achieve this aim, they used a convenience sample of 150 participants and performed exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the same sample. Such an approach would indicate a flawed methodology because EFA and CFA should not be conducted on the same sample. The review authors must include this information in their summary table. Omitting this information from a summary could lead to the inclusion of a flawed article in the review, thereby jeopardising the review’s rigour.

Tip 2: include strengths and limitations for each article

Critical appraisal of individual articles included in a review is crucial for increasing the rigour of the review. Despite using various templates for critical appraisal, authors often do not provide detailed information about each reviewed article’s strengths and limitations. Merely noting the quality score based on standardised critical appraisal templates is not adequate because the readers should be able to identify the reasons for assigning a weak or moderate rating. Many recent critical appraisal checklists (eg, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) discourage review authors from assigning a quality score and recommend noting the main strengths and limitations of included studies. It is also vital that methodological and conceptual limitations and strengths of the articles included in the review are provided because not all review articles include empirical research papers. Rather some review synthesises the theoretical aspects of articles. Providing information about conceptual limitations is also important for readers to judge the quality of foundations of the research. For example, if you included a mixed-methods study in the review, reporting the methodological and conceptual limitations about ‘integration’ is critical for evaluating the study’s strength. Suppose the authors only collected qualitative and quantitative data and did not state the intent and timing of integration. In that case, the strength of the study is weak. Integration only occurred at the levels of data collection. However, integration may not have occurred at the analysis, interpretation and reporting levels.

Tip 3: write conceptual contribution of each reviewed article

While reading and evaluating review papers, we have observed that many review authors only provide core results of the article included in a review and do not explain the conceptual contribution offered by the included article. We refer to conceptual contribution as a description of how the article’s key results contribute towards the development of potential codes, themes or subthemes, or emerging patterns that are reported as the review findings. For example, the authors of a review article noted that one of the research articles included in their review demonstrated the usefulness of case studies and reflective logs as strategies for fostering compassion in nursing students. The conceptual contribution of this research article could be that experiential learning is one way to teach compassion to nursing students, as supported by case studies and reflective logs. This conceptual contribution of the article should be mentioned in the literature summary table. Delineating each reviewed article’s conceptual contribution is particularly beneficial in qualitative reviews, mixed-methods reviews, and critical reviews that often focus on developing models and describing or explaining various phenomena. Figure 2 offers an example of a literature summary table. 4

Tabular literature summaries from a critical review. Source: Younas and Maddigan. 4

Tip 4: compose potential themes from each article during summary writing

While developing literature summary tables, many authors use themes or subthemes reported in the given articles as the key results of their own review. Such an approach prevents the review authors from understanding the article’s conceptual contribution, developing rigorous synthesis and drawing reasonable interpretations of results from an individual article. Ultimately, it affects the generation of novel review findings. For example, one of the articles about women’s healthcare-seeking behaviours in developing countries reported a theme ‘social-cultural determinants of health as precursors of delays’. Instead of using this theme as one of the review findings, the reviewers should read and interpret beyond the given description in an article, compare and contrast themes, findings from one article with findings and themes from another article to find similarities and differences and to understand and explain bigger picture for their readers. Therefore, while developing literature summary tables, think twice before using the predeveloped themes. Including your themes in the summary tables (see figure 1 ) demonstrates to the readers that a robust method of data extraction and synthesis has been followed.

Tip 5: create your personalised template for literature summaries

Often templates are available for data extraction and development of literature summary tables. The available templates may be in the form of a table, chart or a structured framework that extracts some essential information about every article. The commonly used information may include authors, purpose, methods, key results and quality scores. While extracting all relevant information is important, such templates should be tailored to meet the needs of the individuals’ review. For example, for a review about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, a literature summary table must include information about the intervention, its type, content timing, duration, setting, effectiveness, negative consequences, and receivers and implementers’ experiences of its usage. Similarly, literature summary tables for articles included in a meta-synthesis must include information about the participants’ characteristics, research context and conceptual contribution of each reviewed article so as to help the reader make an informed decision about the usefulness or lack of usefulness of the individual article in the review and the whole review.

In conclusion, narrative or systematic reviews are almost always conducted as a part of any educational project (thesis or dissertation) or academic or clinical research. Literature reviews are the foundation of research on a given topic. Robust and high-quality reviews play an instrumental role in guiding research, practice and policymaking. However, the quality of reviews is also contingent on rigorous data extraction and synthesis, which require developing literature summaries. We have outlined five tips that could enhance the quality of the data extraction and synthesis process by developing useful literature summaries.

• Aromataris E ,
• Rasheed SP ,

Twitter @Ahtisham04, @parveenazamali

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.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

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

• Open access
• Published: 09 April 2024

Action researchers as “orchestrators” of co-innovation: a theoretical and methodological framework

• Marianne Eliassen 1 ,
• Cathrine Arntzen 1 , 3 ,
• Lina Forslund 1 ,
• Morten Nikolaisen 1 ,
• Patrik Alexandersson 2 ,
• Astrid Gramstad 1 &
• Andreas Hellström 2  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  445 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

With the increasing complexity of health care services, more comprehensive and integrated services need to be designed. Action researchers are encouraged to facilitate multiactor participation and user-centered approaches to initiate service development. However, “orchestrating” co-innovation, in which actors have diverse attitudes, agendas, positions of power, and horizons of understanding, is challenging, and a framework that supports action researchers in co-innovation studies lack. The purpose of this article was to explore how action researchers can facilitate multiactor engagement and handle possible challenges and stimulate creativity among diverse stakeholders.

We have studied and discussed two Scandinavian cases of rehabilitation innovation (for cancer patients and persons with acquired brain injury) where two research teams with action research approaches have acted in an orchestrating role to create co-innovation.

We identified four themes that are essential for action researchers to facilitate collaborative and creative co-innovation processes: (1) relational power reflexibility, (2) resource integration, (3) joint understanding, and (4) the facilitation of creativity. These mutually dependent themes constitute a theoretical and methodological framework for of co-innovation.

Conclusions

This paper offers a contribution that supports action researchers in orchestrating diverse actors and their contributions in co-innovation processes.

Peer Review reports

The complexity of health care services across a wide range of disciplines is rapidly increasing [ 1 ]. Due to multimorbidity and interacting sociocultural influences, health care institutions are among the most complex and interdependent entities in society [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Historically, health care organizations have been structured and designed within a society where infections and other delimited issues were predominant, and the specialization of services was a prerequisite for delivering adequate services. Public bureaucrats have instinctively sought to deconstruct problems into smaller, more manageable parts in an attempt to “tame” them. However, organizational problems are deemed “wicked and unruly” necessitating solutions that embrace rather than oversimplify complexity [ 6 ].

With these issues in mind, there has been a rapidly increasing interest in designing comprehensive and integrated services to meet the challenges of complex health care needs [ 4 , 7 , 8 ]. The complex issues that exist in and across organizations and sectors cannot be addressed by any single discipline, as they should be acknowledged as pluralistic and complex, and approached by a broad range of actors.

Designing new services that address the challenges of today’s complex and fragmented health care services call for innovative solutions that consider the wide perspectives of the multiple stakeholders involved. In this study, we build on the definition of co-innovation by Saragih and Tan [ 9 ]: “Co-innovation is defined as a shared work of generating innovative and exceptional design conduct by various actors”. What constitutes an “exceptional design” varies in each unique context. However, in this study, we fucus on innovations created by multiple actors who represent diverse rules, attitudes, agendas, knowledges, and institutional cultures. Within this framework, co-innovations are innovations transcend existing sectorial, organizational, or professional boundaries (both tangible and intangible) to create new ways of delivering services that generate public value. In accordance with Lee, Olson, and Trimi [ 10 ], co-innovation represent a new innovation paradigm where various actors engage to generate shared values. This paradigm of co-innovation can assist organizations in creating shared value through convergence, collaboration, and co-creation, involving collaboration through open network to a greater extent than the previous paradigms of ‘closed-innovation,’ ’collaborative innovation,’ and ‘open innovation’ strategies [ 2 , 10 , 11 , 12 ].

Researchers [ 13 , 14 ] call for collaborative knowledge generation in the development of services that can meet the needs of integration and collaboration in health care services. This new research paradigm suggests a transformative role of service research, in addition to new ways of managing practice development, as academics work alongside other stakeholders to create public value [ 13 ]. The collaborative knowledge generation is believed to increase research impact by bridging the knowing-doing gap between the academic and practice fields [ 13 , 14 ].

Action research (AR) has been advocated to be a suitable approach for researchers who wish to engage in innovation [ 15 ]. AR offers an alternative orientation to knowledge creation compared to a traditional notion of ‘evidence creation’ as a pre-existing truth about the world waiting to be discovered by researchers. Instead, action researchers aim to alter power dynamics, facilitating the empowerment of stakeholders, including patients and their families, in collaborative knowledge creation [ 15 , 16 ]. A fundamental assumption in such approaches is that scientific knowledge is socially constructed through collective reflections and that the planning, execution, dissemination, and implementation of research are not separate actions but are deeply interconnected and contextual. Within such an understanding, the relationship between researchers and research users must be interpreted as a co-constructive partnership.

In AR, researchers are not solely tasked with evaluating effects; they are also deeply involved and accountable for the processes of knowledge construction in the development and design of services. Eriksson and Hellström [ 17 ] argue that AR can strengthen public services and systems, not only by producing knowledge about existing services but also by integrating researchers’ knowledge and skills in the design and innovation of services. This often requires action researchers to manage the complexity of orchestrating a diverse group of actors, in line with Greenhalgh et al. [ 13 ], who call for researchers to address the processes of innovation in addition to the outcomes. In their literature review, Greenhalgh et al. [ 13 ] summarized findings on various forms of co-creation, which they defined as collaborative knowledge generation between researchers and stakeholders from the practice field. In their research, they found that the literature tends to fucus on particular programs and projects, whereas less attention has been paid to the processes of the research, and strategies that inform and shape how we define and judge research. Osborn et al. [ 18 ] highlight that co-innovations are not a normative good, as they also have the potential to lead to ‘co-destruction’. Additionally, they claim that theories and research tend to focus on the role of service users in co-innovations, confusing co-innovations with user-led services, while the role of other actors, such as service professionals, are less studied [ 18 ]. There is a need for increased knowledge about the processes of co-innovation, which may form a framework that support action researchers in their value creation.

Co-innovation of health care services involves a wide range of stakeholders, such as patients, families, clinical professionals, administrators, and the wider community represented by volunteers and nonprofit organizations. It has been argued that this multiple-actor approach provides complementary value-in-context and contextualized experiences that are relevant for sustainable service designs [ 6 , 11 ], as well as enhancing creative problem-solving and innovation [ 19 , 20 ]. A meta-analysis by Damanpour [ 21 ] confirms that a high degree of diversity among the involved actors has a positive impact on innovation in public organizations.

However, multi-actor involvement also brings challenges, as different stakeholders often have different organizational and professional cultures, diverse attitudes, positions of power, and horizons of understanding, which can be obstacles to collaboration [ 19 , 22 ]. Donetto et al. [ 23 ] state that a simplification of democratization can increase oppression and social exclusion of the already oppressed and therefore call for increased attention to critically explore how power relations among participants can affect collaborative processes. Researchers engaging in co-innovation must be able to operate outside the traditional narrow framework of “evidence creation”, as their role includes integrating varied perspectives and contributions of diverse stakeholders and facilitating creativity, shared experiences, and value creation [ 6 ]. In this paper, we refer to action researchers’ new role of facilitating innovation among diverse actors as “orchestrators” of co-innovation.

Co-innovation studies in health care settings often describe the roles of other actors, such as social enterprises [ 24 ], health care professionals [ 25 ], and public managers [ 6 ], social entrepreneurs or third sector organizations [ 20 ], while the role of action researchers is only sparsely described [ 14 ]. Although the paradigm of co-innovation calls for researchers to engage in organizational development, democratic processes [ 14 ], creative thinking and shared knowledge generation [ 13 ], there is a lack of descriptions on how to perform such actions. Strategies for overcoming barriers to collaboration, such as different views, conflicts of interest and power discrepancies, are needed.

The purpose of this article is to explore the methodology of co-innovation, specifically how action researchers can facilitate multi-actor engagement and stimulate creativity among diverse stakeholders. This paper has evolved through thorough discussions among action researchers, based on experiences from two large co-innovation projects within the field of rehabilitation research. In this paper, we aim to discuss overarching themes that can constitute a methodological framework for orchestration of co-innovation.

First, we will present two empirical cases of co-innovation processes from health care settings in Sweden and Norway. Next, we describe researchers’ strategies of orchestration through experiences from the empirical cases. Finally, we discuss how these strategies may serve as a methodological framework for researchers’ orchestration of co-innovation and discuss how this may contribute to increasing the quality of AR in the public sector.

The discussions that we present in this study are obtained through action researchers’ abductive reasoning [ 26 ] and overarching discussions based on large action research projects aiming for co-innovation in health care services. The authors of this paper, engaged as action researchers in the two co-innovation cases that we will describe in the following.

Study context

Two independent empirical cases of co-innovation-based AR from health care settings in Sweden and Norway are presented to illustrate and discuss potential strategies in co-innovation processes.

The Nordic welfare states have available and extensive public services that are mainly publicly organized and provided, and health care financing is mainly composed of tax revenues [ 27 ]; these are among the most service-intensive states in the Western world [ 28 ]. The principle of equal rights is one of the most central principles of the Nordic welfare state, and publicly funded services should be offered to all citizens regardless of their financial situation, social status, gender, or age [ 28 ]. It has been argued that the traditional public management strategies of specialization, differentiation, segmentation and decentralization create fragmented welfare services, such that collaborative and integrated services are hampered [ 17 , 29 ]. Collaborative efforts to redesign services to be more integrated are emphasized in the Nordic context. Despite some differences, such as the consumption of services and the degree of decentralized services, the contexts of Norwegian and Swedish health care services are comparably similar.

The two cases that are presented in this article represent services that target persons with acquired brain injury (ABI) and cancer survivors and their significant others. Common to these user groups is that they often struggle with everyday activities due to reduced motor, psychosocial, and cognitive functioning. These issues are often neglected in a mono-professional, fragmented, and diagnosis-based health care system, and patients often experience a lack of continuity and coordination in service provision [ 30 ]. Both innovation projects target people with chronic or long-term conditions, with a focus on rehabilitation and health promotion. This means that both cases also involve many more actors than those limited to the health care sector.

Central to both co-innovation cases was the creation of services that could support patients and their families in physical, social, emotional, and cognitive challenges in everyday life. The initiatives of both cases were based on intersubjectivity and a life event or everyday life perspective, moving away from a medical discourse toward a matter of community integration [ 31 ]. Knowledge creation and continuous reflexive development [ 14 ] were central visions in both projects. These perspectives entailed a need for service innovations at the intersection between existing services, including welfare initiatives beyond typical health care services. Therefore, a co-innovation approach was applied in both cases.

RehabLos, a rehabilitation model for persons with acquired brain injury (ABI) in Northern Norway

ABI can be caused by a variety of incidents, such as stroke, bacterial infections, neurosurgical operations, or trauma. This may lead to a wide range of impairments, such as decreased motor, cognitive, social, and emotional abilities, all of which are preconditions for functional everyday living. Consequently, people suffering from ABI often have complex and diverse rehabilitation needs, which involve not only the patient but also their significant others and, in a broader view, society as a whole [ 32 ]. Contemporary health care policies emphasize shorter hospital stays, and patients who do not have substantial impairments related to motor function or speech run the risk of being discharged to home without proper assessment or adequate follow-up [ 33 ].

Health service researchers (including five of this paper’s authors) at UiT, The Arctic University of Norway initiated RehabLos, a co-innovation project with the goal of developing a collaborative rehabilitation model to support community integration of people with mild or moderate ABI. The initiating researchers were all health care professionals (physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and nurses) who had experience with neurorehabilitation from clinical work, research, and education. Aiming for a more comprehensive rehabilitation model that targets community integration, the research group invited a wide range of stakeholders to participate in the project. The stakeholders included persons with ABI, significant others, multiprofessional health care staff from hospitals and primary care, coordinated care services, and representatives from the Labor and Welfare Administration. In total, 30 stakeholders participated in the project. The action researchers facilitated and designed the process, which included sending out invitations to attendees, arranging activities, and collecting data for academic purposes.

During a period of 12 months (April 2021-March 2022), the researchers initiated field work, two digital seminars and three all-day workshops aiming to co-innovate a cross sectorial rehabilitation model for people with ABI. The events included focus group discussions, individual interviews, service design activities, and plenary discussions. All the events were either video or audiotaped, and field notes were taken throughout the entire process.

‘Kraftens Hus’, enhancing psychosocial support for cancer patients and their families in Sweden

A cancer diagnosis can affect a person in multiple ways: physically, psychologically, socially, and existentially. Rehabilitation and better collaboration between authorities and welfare actors are needed to support cancer patients in returning to work and functional life. Cancer rehabilitation in Sweden is inadequate in many parts of the country, leaving patients with insufficient psychosocial support and struggling to find a new identity. Both patients and their relatives may need societal support in various ways, and multiple actors may be involved. At a societal level, there is an increasing realization of the need for strengthened collaboration between societal actors to create a better, more needs-adapted, more equitable, and legally secure welfare system.

The initiative for Kraftens Hus (The House of Power) came from the Patient and Relative Council at the Regional Cancer Center West (RCC West), which tested new ways for patients and relatives to contribute to the development of cancer care. A multiprofessional project group was created to facilitate the innovation process. The group consisted of a patient representative with personal experience living with chronic cancer, relatives, and actors from the local hospital, primary care, the municipality, the Social Insurance Agency, regional politicians, the Employment Service, local businesses, and civil society. In addition, an experienced action researcher and a service designer (two of the authors of this paper) experienced in innovations in various industries also participated.

To view the entire complexity from the perspective of those affected, not just their disease, the work was guided by a life event perspective [ 34 ], emphasizing a persons’ life events, rather than focusing on the medical disease when developing services. The project aimed to identify shortcomings and opportunities in organizational gaps, stressing the view that the main challenges lie in the “gap between” existing services.

During a period of seven months (May 2016-November 2016), seven co-innovation workshop, including focus groups and design activities (see detailed descriptions elsewhere [ 35 ]), were conducted with the aim of developing a service offer that supports the psychosocial needs of cancer patients. The co-innovation events were documented by field notes.

Data generation and analysis

Data were generated throughout the processes of both the co-innovation case and are described thoroughly elsewhere. For detailed descriptions of the RehabLos project, see Forslund et al. [ 36 ] and Ellingsen et al. [ 37 ], and for the Kraftens Hus project, see Huzzard et al. [ 22 ] and Hellström [ 35 ].

Field notes and transcribed audio and video material from workshops and co-innovation meetings constituted the data for the analysis. Seven researchers (the authors of this paper) from both co-innovation projects arranged joint analysis workshops (two all-day physical workshops, and three digital meetings), where we analyzed data through a qualitative thematic approach [ 38 ]. In the first analysis workshop, the researchers presented summaries of fieldnotes, focus groups transcripts, and evaluation notes from both projects for each other to generate a common insight, and to enable transverse analysis that was representative for both co-innovation cases. We were interested in generating knowledge about the orchestration of the multiple contributions from different stakeholders. Therefore, we initially focused on the action researchers’ actions (both intended and spontaneous) that facilitated reactions among the participants. Patterns of similarities across the two cases gave rise to some preliminary themes of how action researchers orchestrate co-innovation. In the second analysis workshop, we focused on the participants activities and evaluations to map out facilitators and barriers for interactions and innovation. These facilitators and barriers were connected to the preliminary themes, which were refined in accordance with the new insights. During the following digital meetings, the researchers discussed and negotiated commonalities and discrepancies within the data. Through iterative discussions, moving between data and theory of co-innovation in an abductive manner [ 26 ], four common themes were eventually created. All the seven authors participated in the analyses, which generated a triangulation of multiple perspectives.

Based on experiences from the two Scandinavian cases, we identified four themes that were perceived as central for the action researchers’ orchestration of the co-innovation processes: (1) relational power reflexivity, (2) resource integration, (3) joint understanding, and (4) the facilitation of creativity.

Relational power reflexivity

The first theme revolves around aspects concerning the diverse positions of power that the multiple stakeholders possess, and how action researchers should exercise reflexivity regarding this aspect when orchestrating co-innovation. We present strategies that were observed within the co-innovation cases, and the researchers’ rationales for these strategies. By reflecting on the diverse positions of power, the action researchers were able to facilitate activities that could level out the asymmetric relationships between diverse group of stakeholders.

Experiences from the Norwegian case of co-innovation for persons with ABI (RehabLos) demonstrate that the action researchers strategically arranged activities for leveling out asymmetrical power relations. While assembling a diverse group of stakeholders for innovation workshops, the importance of selecting a “neutral” venue was emphasized to ensure that all participants would feel equally included. The action researchers therefore booked a local conference facility for the arrangement of the three workshops. Initially, it was emphasized that all participants got to know each other. Everyone was provided with a name tag, and all group activities were initiated with a presentation of the respective stakeholders. The rationale for this was to build confidence and trust among the participants.

The researchers in RehabLos designed several activities that were carried out during the workshops to facilitate discussions and dialog among the various actors. During the first workshop, all actors were divided into focus groups to identify and discuss the needs of persons with ABI and challenges in current health care services. Although multi-actor engagement was perceived as essential for the co-innovation process, the researchers decided to arrange an initial homogenous group exclusively for users and significant others. This choice was made to create an arena where users and significant others could feel empowered by peer support and be able to bring forward their voices without interruptions from other stakeholders who could possibly hold a superior power position. In this group meeting, users and significant others were presented with the questions and themes for the multi-actor groups so that they were prepared and felt confident about engaging in the collaboration with other stakeholders in subsequent groups. Evaluations of the project revealed that this was valued by the users, who felt supported by their peers. Enhancing empowerment among the user group was intended to bring out the voices of the users and to bring forward “what really matters” in the meetings between all stakeholders. One of the care providers evaluated this to be motivating by stating: “I really appreciated the fact that the users contribute to pinpoint what really is important! [I] experienced new enthusiasm and motivation”.

In the Swedish Kraftens Hus case, relational power was also claimed to be an essential component. Before the initiative of Kraftens Hus was initiated, a group of patients had started a movement with the ambition to raise awareness about the difficult situation in which many cancer patients found themselves while trying to manage their lives. The impact was minimal, and a clear lesson was that they did not have access to or a mandate in the forums to drive this issue. With the support of the multiprofessional project group and RCC West, a broad platform was created, paving the way to drive the innovation project of Kraftens Hus. In this manner, the Swedish cancer project was placing the ownership of the project with the patient group. The rationale behind this, was to empower the users, leveling out a possible asymmetric power balance between service providers and service users. Through workshops and dialogs based on “the whole system in the room” (see e.g. [ 22 , 39 , 40 ]), the action researcher and the project team tried to establish an environment to encourage an open-minded approach, allowing for collective questioning of the existing order, rethinking of beliefs about what is possible, and redefining of solutions and approaches to meet the needs of individuals affected by cancer.

Another consideration made in the early phase of the RehabLos case was to reflect on the stakeholders’ previous relationships and how it could influence the group dynamics and the co-innovation processes. Some of the users, significant others, and professionals already knew each other. On the one hand, the established relationships were discussed as contributing to establishing confidence and trust. On the other hand, the action researchers tried to be sensitive to how the previous power relations influenced the innovation process, particularly in terms of who was to speak out and who remained silent. By moderating the group dialogs, the researchers facilitated joint engagement by all the participants.

Power inequity was not only discussed as a question of the power relations between users and “the others” but also a matter of relationships among all the involved stakeholders. In both cases, the researchers were aware that power and agency were central in this type of co-innovation, and there was a clear aim to reduce, or compensate for, power and relational diversities during the innovation processes. In both cases, the user groups were actors that might struggle to have their voice heard in society, with a weak impact against authorities and health care providers. As the researchers were the ones who facilitated all workshops, they were in position to mediate the different perspectives and facilitate a balanced power relation among the varied actors.

Resource integration

The second theme displays how resource integration was perceived as a central element to succeed with co-innovation, and how it was important for action researchers to facilitate engagement by all stakeholders and visualize how diverse forms of resources could be integrated to complement each other. One participant claimed that succeeding with a complex service innovation was utopian unless one ensured resource contributions from all participants. In the project Kraftens Hus, the involvement of multiple stakeholders was deemed essential to ensure its effectiveness. The idea was that when the multiple actors saw the benefits of the activities, this could create a potential for a socially and economically sustainable service model. To achieve this, the participants were encouraged to engage in collaborative discussions to develop a common understanding of the value creation in the project. Some of the participants claimed that it was impossible for one single organization to arrange complex services for cancer patients alone, as the financial conditions were limited, and collaboration with contributions from multiple actors was perceived as a prerequisite to succeed. However, it was also recognized that resources were not limited to financial resources, as materials, knowledge, and information were also perceived as important contributions.

Recognizing that resources imply more than merely financial resources, the researchers in RehabLos worked strategically to integrate the more intangible resources in the form of experiences, perspectives, and competences. Participants were therefore strategically selected, to ensure resource contributions from a variety of stakeholders, including patients, significant others, organizations, sectors, and professions. To ensure that different perspectives and fields of competences were brought up, all stakeholders were divided into heterogeneous focus groups consisting of researchers, persons with ABI, significant others, and stakeholders from various parts of the welfare services. The action researchers assumed a role as mediators to ensure engagement by all participants. After one of the innovation sessions, several of the participants stated that they felt that their voices were heard, and one of the user representatives with ABI stated: “I have felt like an equal partner. Of course, I know that there will always be someone who has preconceived opinions about brain damage’s self-awareness and reflective abilities. However, in this setting, I have met skilled professionals with good empathetic manners.”

Anchoring the projects at an administration level was also perceived as important to ensure resource contributions from the diverse stakeholders. Therefore, the researchers in the RehabLos project initiated meetings with leaders from all the represented organizations in the project, and signed agreements were ensured before any activities in the project were conducted.

Joint understanding

The third theme that was identified in this study was joint understanding . This theme arose from the observations of activities that action researchers performed to ensure that the diverse stakeholders were able to share a joint understanding of service challenges, user needs, and the service goals. Creating a joint understanding was perceived as a prerequisite for the stakeholders to ‘pull in the same direction’, leading towards co-innovation.

In the RehabLos case, the researchers included “trigger films” as a strategy to create a common foundation for the involved actors. The researchers videotaped interviews with two persons with ABI and three health care providers to generate trigger films of patients and service providers who provided experiences with ABI and health care services. In the first innovation workshop, the trigger films were presented to all participants to create a common understanding and joint engagement in the user experiences (Fig. 1 a).

a - d Design activities to promote common engagement and creativity in a multi-actor co-innovation process

Furthermore, a perspective that emphasized everyday life events, rather than a disease-oriented approach focusing on biomedical aspects, was chosen as an overall concept for the discussions and activities in the workshops to underpin user experiences. The researchers facilitated the focus group discussions by displaying a timeline that represented a user’s rehabilitation process after the occurrence of ABI (Fig. 1 b). The rationale behind the user-focused timeline was to create a joint focus on the conduct of everyday life with which everyone could identify, thus preventing a conversation about medical diagnosis and organizational structures that potentially would exclude some of the actors from the dialog. As the cases included multiple stakeholders aiming to create innovation, it was emphasized to facilitate a ‘everyday life event-language’ where everyone perceived a shared understanding of the concepts and terminology used in the process. The rationale behind this was that a common language could contribute to better communication and understanding between stakeholders, and by that contribute to reducing barriers between stakeholders and thus increasing collaboration and cooperation. Building on an everyday life perspective was evaluated as beneficial, as it was described to represent the cornerstone of challenges for both ABI patients and their significant others and facilitated a “common language”. After the workshop, one participant stated: “Participation in this project has contributed to increased insight and knowledge about the user group and challenges that they experience. I believe this will support me in my daily practice, consequently, increasing the quality of the services I provide.” This perspective was therefore considered appropriate for tracking challenges in existing services, while simultaneously facilitating conversations and discussions characterized by ‘everyday language’ in which all stakeholders could engage and to which they could relate.

The researchers also presented a storyboard based on user experiences that represented a user’s meeting with current health care services (Fig. 1 c). The rationale behind this was to bring to the forefront the voices of the users and to achieve a joint understanding of the potential challenges of a fragmented and complex health care system.

Visual tools were also used in the case of Kraftens Hus. For example, a four-minute film “What if” was used to visualize the shared vision and show how many different parties in society can be affected by a cancer diagnosis. The film represented the perspective of the person with cancer but also included how health care employees, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, and people in the cancer patient’s everyday life are affected. The film had a clear message about shared responsibility and was therefore a natural choice for the action researchers to clarify the shared responsibility.

The facilitation of creativity

The last theme that was identified in this study displays how action researchers facilitate creativity as a means for co-innovation. The rationale behind this strategy was that collective creativity was perceived to challenge the traditional mindsets of the participants and involved that the actors had to face their potential “taken-for-granted” views, accepting new ways of thinking, and embrace the perspectives of others. After the first workshop in the RehabLos case, one of the participants paradoxically evaluated that she felt that the participants were too unified and that she missed some constructive conflicts and contrasting views on the discussed themes. A possible explanation for this may have been that the action researchers had overlooked the promising potential of contradicting views, while they had strived for an equal horizon of understanding and an equalized balance of power.

This perspective gave rise to a new strategy for the researchers, who, in the second workshop, arranged for activities that intended to disturb preconceived understandings. The participants were provided with ‘actor cards’, ‘service cards’ and ‘activity cards’ (Fig. 1 d) that represented actors, services and activities that were identified in the first workshop as relevant for the community integration of people with ABI and their significant others. The participants were challenged to discuss how different actors and services could be put together in new, creative ways of working and collaborating to meet the users’ needs. Different solutions were promoted and discussed. In evaluations, the participants supported the assumption that such visual tools facilitated creative thinking. Visualizing new ways of organizing services enabled the actors to see past traditional standards and organizational boundaries that are often taken for granted and possibly limit service provision. One of the participants stated that discussing possible solutions for new service design normally would be limited by questions about financial or organizational limitations. However, she stated, the innovation strategy of using visual tools enhanced creative discussions without bringing up limitations and constraints. These examples of how to use visual tools provide a strategy for action researchers to facilitate creative thinking that extends beyond the existing organizational frameworks.

In this section we will discuss how the four mutually dependent themes identified in this paper, can be utilized as a methodological framework for action researchers who orchestrate co-innovation processes. Second, we will discuss how this framework may contribute to increasing the validity of AR in the public sector.

A framework for action researchers’ orchestration of co-innovation

Traditionally, health care services have been developed from a service-provider perspective, hence, roles and power relations between providers and users have been clearly demarcated, challenging substantial democratic processes [ 23 ]. However, the cases represented in this study, emphasize user experiences as a cornerstone in innovation, in line with descriptions of Osborne [ 12 ]. The first theme identified in this study, relational power reflexivity, shows that trust-building activities were important to facilitate joint engagement by the diverse actors, in line with Crosby et al. [ 6 ] who argue that collaborating partners build trust by sharing information and knowledge and by demonstrating competency and good intentions.

Exploring the position of the involved users and significant others was deemed essential in this study. The two cases had different strategies to support the empowerment of the users. While the ABI-project arranged peer-support meetings to build trust and empowerment among users to prepare for co-innovation activities, the cancer-project placed the project ownership with the user group and a non-profit organization. Nonprofit organizations are often trusted advocates that “speak on behalf of the interests of citizens”, and the majority are volunteers who are motivated by a desire to make a difference and to positively impact society [ 22 ]. This makes the third sector actors suitable as initiators for co-innovation projects, as they can facilitate trustful engagement by the users and significant others and in that matter contribute to empowering the users’ voice and neutralizing potential asymmetric power relations between the involved stakeholders. Projects that are initiated and “owned” by user representatives are in a unique position to bring forward the users’ voice and designing user-centered processes. However, one should also bear in mind that this means that the user group holds a hegemonic position compared to other actors, which may limit the perspectives of those with professional and organizational competence.

Based on these experiences, we put forward a proposition that empowering users can be facilitated by strategies that emphasize trust-building and peer-support activities, or strategies that provide the user group with project ownership. In addition, the imbalance of power between actors from varied facilities was discussed to possibly challenge the co-innovation. Action researchers should therefore reflect on the diverse power relations of all the involved stakeholders in the planning of co-innovation activities.

The second identified theme , resource integration, calls for action researchers to be sensitive to the diverse forms of resources varied actors may contribute with. It has been argued that resource contributions from multiple actors can support public services to better address complex issues [ 17 ]. In contributing to the enhanced quality of public services and generating public value, resource integration can serve as a frame that commits the involved actors. In co-innovation, resources must be understood as both tangible and intangible [ 17 ] as they may include experiences, contextual knowledge, professional knowledge, analytical competence, and creative engagement, in addition to material resources. Researchers’ contribution of facilitation and orchestration is therefore no exception. In the ABI case, the research team consisted of researchers with health care backgrounds, and in that matter, they had essential knowledge about the field of study. However, this position could again counter the neutral position of being an outsider. The positionality and structure of the relationship between researchers and practitioners may provide both benefits and limitations of a co-innovation process and should therefore be discussed in each individual case.

Based on these experiences, we propose that action researchers should be reflexive about how mediating activities and dialogs can facilitate engagement and contribution by all stakeholders. The researchers’ contribution, regarding their “neutrality” and knowledge to the field of practice, should also be acknowledged.

The third theme that we constituted in this study, was ‘joint understanding’, as action researchers in the two cases emphasized activities that could account for the diverse perspectives and understanding of the stakeholders. Differentiated organizational and professional cultures, horizons of understanding [ 19 , 22 ], and even a certain way of speaking (“tribal language”) [ 41 , 42 ] may challenge co-innovation. Crosby and Bryson [ 43 ] emphasize the importance of creating an early agreement about the nature of the problem when diverse actors collaborate for innovation. Additionally, one should strive for a dialog that does not involve “tribal language”, which will exclude certain participants.

To create joint understanding, both the presented cases in this study utilized an everyday life event-perspective, moving the focus away from medical disease and diagnostic terms. Additionally, the action researchers used visual tools such as “trigger films”, timelines, and actor cards as a response to situations where they identified a need for cross boundary interactions. Trigger films are suggested by Donetto et al. [ 23 ] and Windrum et al. [ 17 ] to create engagement among participants and facilitate a joint understanding of the varied actors’ roles. By using varied visual tools, the researchers aimed to facilitate dialog and reflections with a ‘common language’ while visualizing the complexity of health care systems. In this matter, visual tools functioned as boundary objects [ 44 ], connecting the multiactor perspectives through common “rules of the game”. Boundary objects are described as objects that may have different meanings in different social contexts but are nevertheless structured in a way that is common enough to be recognizable from varied perspectives and therefore are key objects in developing coherence across intersecting social worlds [ 44 , 45 ]. Torfing [ 19 ] suggests that narratives, heuristic models, artifacts, and prototypes may function as boundary objects, and thereby facilitate collaboration across boundaries. In the co-innovation cases in this study, the action researchers chose visual tools for two intentions; first, to achieve power balance between the involved actors, and to facilitate activities of creativity. This is in line with how Kimble et al. [ 46 ] describe how strategically chosen artifacts can become boundary objects when managed particularly to enhance cross boundary interaction.

Based on experiences from both the co-innovation cases, we put forward a proposition that an everyday life event-perspective may facilitate a common ground for collaboration and propose that action researchers utilize visual tools as boundary objects when aiming to engage diverse stakeholders with different backgrounds and horizons of understanding.

The fourth theme elaborates on how action researchers facilitate creativity as a means for co-innovation. Based on feedback from participants, the action researchers in the ABI-project arranged activities that aimed for ‘constructive conflicts.’ This harmonizes with Crosby et al. [ 6 ] who argue that it is advantageous to create an appropriate disturbance of the collaborative process to encourage the participants to creative thinking. Crosby et al. [ 6 ] state that leaders who manage collaborative innovation processes need to facilitate participants to think outside the box and experiment in the face of imperfection rather than giving in to rule-following, risk avoidance, and safe retreat.

Innovation is often defined as the development and practical realization of new and creative solutions that challenge hegemonic views [ 47 ]. By applying creativity-generating methods, as shown in the examples in the presented cases, one may create unexpected associations with problems, which is also observed by Wegener [ 48 ].

Based on this, we propose that action researchers who orchestrate co-innovation should intervene with the intention to create situations in which the actors move out of their comfort zone to generate new ideas, identities, resources, and desires.

Enhancing action research rigor in co-innovation

Co-innovation entails the inherent tension between collaboration and innovation, representing a paradoxical challenge. While collaboration thrives in the presence of a certain similarity in terms of background, education, and values between actors, innovation flourishes when different experiences, views and ideas complement and disturb each other, as it facilitates creative problem solving. Despite the strong promising opportunities of co-innovation, it follows that widely divergent views, ideas and interests may hamper a joint understanding, resulting in a ‘dialog of the deaf’ [ 49 ]. The results in this study display how action researchers involved in co-innovation can contribute to facilitate and orchestrate diverse actors and their contributions by leveling out the asymmetrical distribution of power, ensuring the integration of relevant resources, creating a joint understanding, and facilitating creativity.

We argue that these mutually dependent (and to a certain point overlapping) themes collectively constitute a unifying theoretical and methodological framework for orchestrating co-innovation that aims for public value. Such a framework may prepare action researchers who assume an orchestrating role in co-innovation and thus contribute to solving complex problems and creating public value. This interactive and highly involved role may also contribute to revitalizing the view of researchers, supporting a contemporary paradigm of knowledge creation as socially constructed and minimizing the gap between researchers and research users.

Herr and Anderson [ 50 ] have put forward the concepts of dialogic validity, process validity, and democratic validity , which refers to how quality and rigor of AR must be evaluated through other criteria than validity measures in traditional research. Dialogic validity refers to inclusion of varied actors with a wide range of perspectives [ 50 ]. Process validity refer to the researcher-practitioner relationships, in which trustful relations are expected to enhance innovation, problem solving, and learning [ 50 ]. Democratic validity refers to the equal terms of participation for all actors to ensure their varied experiences and insights from diverse contexts emerge [ 50 ]. The four themes identified in this study, can be interpreted as an operationalization of this set of validity criteria for AR. Hence, we argue that the results of this study can be utilized to increase the quality of AR in co-innovation processes.

Study limitations

As the purpose of this article was to explore the action researchers’ orchestration of co-innovation, we have reported on overall discussions from two large co-innovation projects in Scandinavia. These studies were not initiated and designed to generate knowledge about action researchers’ role in co-innovation, as they aimed to innovate health care services. Therefore, the data that constitute the foundation for our results are merely a combination of data from the two cases, and reflections and discussion between the involved researchers. Therefore, rather than describing all data generating activities of the two cases in depth, we have briefly described the most relevant aspects of the cases, which are relevant to provide knowledge about the orchestration of co-innovation. Omitting some aspects of the projects means that there may be other relevant aspects that are not treated in this article.

Reporting on effects of AR is challenging as such practices are highly multifaceted and complex. Although we cannot conclude if the two cases that we present in this article have resulted in more effective services (which would require other service designs), experiences of the co-innovation process may provide valuable insights about the co-innovation processes that can be utilized for further development of the field of AR. A further exploration of the effects of the co-innovation strategies that are provided here, is needed.

This work has been focused on exploring the methodology of co-innovation, as we have described how action researchers can orchestrate varied actors in a collaborative process with the goal of creating public value. By providing examples from two large studies in Scandinavia that engaged patients and other stakeholders in co-innovation, we have shown how action researchers can orchestrate co-innovation through redistribution of power, integration of resources, facilitation of joint understanding and creativity.

We have also discussed how these themes may support quality in AR, as they intervene with the concepts of dialogic, process, and democratic validity.

Availability of data and materials

As this article is a theoretical article based on examples from two projects, no distinct data are available publicly. However, it is possible to contact the authors for further details about the studies: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected].

Abbreviations

Acquired brain injury

• Action research

The Norwegian Social Data Services

Regional Cancer Center West

Plsek PE, Greenhalgh T. The challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ. 2001;323(7313):625–8.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chandra Y, Shang L, Roy MJ. Understanding healthcare social enterprises: a new public governance perspective. J Soc Policy. 2022;51(4):834–55.

Article   Google Scholar  

Glouberman S, Mintzberg H. Managing the care of health and the cure of disease—part I: differentiation. Health Care Manag Rev. 2001;26(1):56–69.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Studying complexity in health services research: desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift. BMC Med. 2018;16(95):95.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kodner DL, Spreeuwenberg C. Integrated care: meaning, logic, applications, and implications–A discussion paper. Int J Integr Care. 2002;2(4):e12.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Crosby BC, Hart ‘T, Torfing P. Public value creation through collaborative innovation. Public Manag Rev. 2017;19(5):655–69.

Plsek PE, Wilson T. Complexity, leadership, and management in healthcare organisations. BMJ. 2001;323(7315):746–9.

Roberts JP, Fisher TR, Trowbridge MJ, Bent C. A design thinking framework for healthcare management and innovation. Healthcare. 2016;4(1):11–4.

Saragih HS, Tan JD. Co-innovation: a review and conceptual framework. Int J Bus Innov Res. 2018;17(3):361–77.

Lee SM, Olson DL, Trimi S. Co-innovation: convergenomics, collaboration, and co‐creation for organizational values. Manag Decis. 2012;50(5):817–31.

Elg M, Engström J, Witell L, Poksinska B. Co-creation and learning in health‐care service development. J Serv Manag. 2012;23(3):328–43.

Osborne SP. From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? Public Manag Rev. 2018;20(2):225–31.

Greenhalgh T, Jackson C, Shaw S, Janamian T. Achieving research impact through co-creation in community‐based health services: literature review and case study. Milbank Q. 2016;94(2):392–429.

Elg M, Gremyr I, Halldorsson Á, Wallo A. Service action research: review and guidelines. J Serv Mark. 2020;34(1):87–99.

Lifvergren S, Huzzard T, Hellström A. Action research and healthcare. Act Res. 2015;13:3–8.

Koch T, Kralik D. Participatory action research in health care. Singapore: Wiley; 2009.

Eriksson E, Hellström A. Multi-actor resource integration: a service approach in public management. Br J Manag. 2021;32(2):456–72.

Osborne SP, Radnor Z, Strokosch K. Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment? Public Manage Rev. 2016;18(5):639–53.

Torfing J. Collaborative innovation in the public sector: the argument. Public Manag Rev. 2019;21(1):1–11.

Windrum P, Schartinger D, Rubalcaba L, Gallouj F, Toivonen M. The co-creation of multi-agent social innovations: a bridge between service and social innovation research. Eur J Innov Manag. 2016;19(2):150–66.

Damanpour F. Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Acad Manag J. 1991;34(3):555–90.

Huzzard T, Hellström A, Lifvergren S. Whole system in the room: toward systems integration in healthcare. Health Commun. 2018;33(7):800–8.

Donetto S, Pierri P, Tsianakas V, Robert G. Experience-based co-design and healthcare improvement: realizing participatory design in the public sector. Des J. 2015;18(2):227–48.

Google Scholar  

Chandra Y, Shang L, Roy MJ. Understanding healthcare social enterprises: a new public governance perspective. J Soc Policy. 2022;51.4: 834–55.

Grenier C. Structuring an integrated care system: interpreted through the enacted diversity of the actors involved—the case of a French healthcare network. Int J Integr care. 2011;11:11.

Blaikie N. Approaches to social enquiry: advancing knowledge. Cambridge: Polity; 2007.

Rostgaard T. Quality reforms in Danish home care–balancing between standardisation and individualisation. Health Soc Care Community. 2012;20(3):247–54.

Vike H. Politics and bureaucracy in the Norwegian welfare state: an anthropological approach. Porsgrunn: Springer; 2017.

Valentijn PP, Schepman SM, Opheij W, Bruijnzeels MA. Understanding integrated care: a comprehensive conceptual framework based on the integrative functions of primary care. Int J Integr Care. 2013;13:e010.

Sjetne IS, Holmboe O. Pasienters erfaringer med norske sykehus i 2019. Metodebeskrivelse og analyser for landet samlet [Patients’ experiences with Norwegian hospitals in 2019. Methods description and analyzes for the country as a whole]. In: PasOpp-rapport 2020 Folkehelseinstituttet; 2020. https://www.fhi.no/contentassets/1ed1cf501b0a43d58415dcbb3ab889e6/metodebeskrivelse-og-analyser-for-landet-samlet.pdf

Shaikh NM, Kersten P, Siegert RJ, Theadom A. Developing a comprehensive framework of community integration for people with acquired brain injury: a conceptual analysis. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(14):1615–31.

Arntzen C, Moe S, Aadal L, Pallesen H. Facilitating learning and change in the daily lives of stroke survivors: a comparative analysis of municipal stroke rehabilitation services in Norway and Denmark. Cogent Med. 2019;6(1):1608080.

Bettger JP, McCoy L, Smith EE, Fonarow GC, Schwamm LH, Peterson ED. Contemporary trends and predictors of postacute service use and routine discharge home after stroke. J Am Heart Assoc. 2015;4(2): e001038.

Fransson M, Quist J. Livshändelser för gemensamma medborgarmöten i svensk förvaltning: Ett diskussionsunderlag. In: Nationella rådet för innovation och kvalitet i offentlig verksamhet. 2011.

Hellstrom A. Design i tjanstesystem |Designing service systems|. In: Holmlid S, Wetter-Edman K, editors. Tjanstedesign Principer och praktiker [Service design Principles and practices] edn. Lund: Studentlitteratur; 2021. p. 147–78.

Forslund L, Arntzen C, Nikolaisen M, Gramstad A, Eliassen M. Physiotherapy as Part of Collaborative and Person-Centered Rehabilitation Services: The Social Systems Constraining an Innovative Practice. Physiother Theory Pract. 2023:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2023.2255893 .

Ellingsen G, Arntzen C, Forslund L, Nikolaisen M, Eliassen M, Gramstad A, Manskow U. Designing digital systems for rehabilitation practices. Tidsskrift Omsorgsforskning. 2023;2:67–78.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Cooperrider DL, Stavros JM, Whitney D. The appreciative inquiry handbook: for leaders of change. Berrett-Koehler; 2008.

Gustavsen B. Action research, democratic dialogue, and the issue of critical mass in change. Qual Inq. 1996;2(1):90–103.

Foronda C, MacWilliams B, McArthur E. Interprofessional communication in healthcare: an integrative review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2016;19:36–40.

Marion ADC, Pereira LC, Pinho DLM. The effect of interprofessional simulation practice on collaborative learning: a randomized controlled trial. J Interprof Care. 2023:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2022.2147153 .

Crosby BC, Bryson JM. Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. Leadersh Q. 2010;21(2):211–30.

Star SL, Griesemer JR. Institutional ecology,translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc Stud Sci. 1989;19(3):387–420.

Akkerman SF, Bakker A. Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Rev Educ Res. 2011;81(2):132–69.

Kimble C, Grenier C, Goglio-Primard K. Innovation and knowledge sharing across professional boundaries: political interplay between boundary objects and brokers. Int J Inf Manag. 2010;30(5):437–44.

Osborne SP, Brown L. Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK. The word that would be king? Public Adm. 2011;89(4):1335–50.

Wegener C. Improvisation: Innovation-Fra nyhed til nærvær. In: Samskaping: Sosial innovasjon for helse og velferd. edn. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget; 2020. p. 66–79.

Koppenjan JFM, Koppenjan J, Klijn EH. Managing uncertainties in networks: a network approach to problem solving and decision making. London: Psychology; 2004.

Book   Google Scholar  

Herr K, Anderson GL. The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. London: Sage publications; 2014.

WMA declaration of Helsinki. – Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ . Accessed 11 June 2023.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Our greatest gratitude to all the multiple actors in both the RehabLos and Kraftens Hus projects. Their contribution and engagement is what this article is all about.

Open access funding provided by UiT The Arctic University of Norway (incl University Hospital of North Norway) The Norwegian Fund for Post-Graduate Training in Physiotherapy (Grant ID 129514) and the Northern Norway Regional Health Authorities (Grant ID HNF1531-20) funded the project.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Health and Care Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, PO Box 6050 Langnes, Tromsø, 9037, Norway

Marianne Eliassen, Cathrine Arntzen, Lina Forslund, Morten Nikolaisen & Astrid Gramstad

Centre for Healthcare Improvement (CHI), Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, 412 96, Sweden

Patrik Alexandersson & Andreas Hellström

Division of rehabilitation Services, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, 9037, Norway

Cathrine Arntzen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors identified the aim and scope of the study. ME, CA, MN, LF and AG conducted preparations, data collection and analysis of the RehabLos project from Norway, while AH and PA conducted the Swedish Kraftens Hus project. All the authors have contributed to the analysis and discussions. ME and AH wrote the first draft of the paper, and the coauthors contributed to the revisions of the manuscript. All authors qualify according to the criteria from ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marianne Eliassen .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

All participants in the two co-innovation cases received information about the project beforehand and written informed consent to participate was obtained. Data collection was conducted in line with the WMA declaration of Helsinki [ 51 ]. The RehabLos study was approved by IRB of the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD) and Data Protection Official for Research (659996) that evaluated the data security.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare 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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Eliassen, M., Arntzen, C., Forslund, L. et al. Action researchers as “orchestrators” of co-innovation: a theoretical and methodological framework. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 445 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10779-6

Download citation

Received : 19 June 2023

Accepted : 25 February 2024

Published : 09 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10779-6

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

• Co-innovation
• Health care services innovation
• Democratic validity

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]