what is theoretical framework and literature review

Home » Education » What is the Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

What is the Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

The main difference between literature review and theoretical framework is their function. The literature review explores what has already been written about the topic under study in order to highlight a gap, whereas the theoretical framework is the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill that gap.

Literature review and theoretical framework are two indispensable components of research . Both are equally important for the foundation of a research study.

Key Areas Covered

1.  What is Literature Review       – Definition, Features 2.  What is Theoretical Framework      – Definition, Features 3.  Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework      – Comparison of Key Differences

What is a Literature Review

A literature review is a vital component of a research study. A literature review is a discussion on the already existing material in the subject area. Thus, this will require a collection of published (in print or online) work concerning the selected research area. In other words, a literature review is a review of the literature in the related subject area. A literature review makes a case for the research study. It analyzes the existing literature in order to identify and highlight a gap in the literature.

Moreover, a good literature review is a critical discussion, displaying the writer’s knowledge of relevant theories and approaches and awareness of contrasting arguments. A literature review should have the following features (Caulley, 1992)

• Compare and contrast different researchers’ views
• Identify areas in which researchers are in disagreement
• Group researchers who have similar conclusions
• Criticize the  methodology
• Highlight exemplary studies
• Highlight gaps in research
• Indicate the connection between your study and previous studies
• Indicate how your study will contribute to the literature in general
• Conclude by summarizing what the literature indicates

Furthermore, the structure of a literature review is similar to that of an article or essay . Overall, literature reviews help researchers to evaluate the existing literature, identify a gap in the research area, place their study in the existing research and identify future research.

What is a Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework is the research component that introduces and describes the theory that explains why the research problem under study exists. It is also the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill the research gap identified by the literature review. Moreover, it is the structure that holds the structure of the research theory.

The researcher may not easily find the theoretical framework within the literature. Therefore, he or she may have to go through many research studies and course readings for theories and models relevant to the research problem under investigation. In addition, the theory must be selected based on its relevance, ease of application, and explanatory power.

Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

A literature review is a critical evaluation of the existing published work in a selected research area, while a theoretical framework is a component in research that introduces and describes the theory behind the research problem.

Moreover, the literature review explores what has already been written about the topic under investigation in order to highlight a gap, whereas the theoretical framework is the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill that gap. Therefore, a literature review is backwards-looking while theory framework is forward-looking.

In conclusion, the main difference between literature review and theoretical framework is their function. The literature review explores what has already been written about the topic under study in order to highlight a gap, whereas the theoretical framework is the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill that gap.

1. Caulley, D. N. “Writing a critical review of the literature.” La Trobe University: Bundoora (1992). 2. “ Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Theoretical Framework .” Research Guide.

Image Courtesy:

About the Author: Hasa

Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.

​You May Also Like These

Leave a reply cancel reply.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of Theory and a Theoretical Framework

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

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

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

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

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

The theoretical framework strengthens the study in the following ways :

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

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

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

Strategies for Developing the Theoretical Framework

I.  Developing the Framework

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

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

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

II.  Purpose

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Borrowing Theoretical Constructs from Other Disciplines

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Undertheorize!

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

The key distinctions are:

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

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

Still Yet Another Writing Tip

Be Prepared to Challenge the Validity of an Existing Theory

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: The Research Problem/Question
• Next: 5. The Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: May 9, 2024 11:05 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

What Is A Theoretical Framework? A Practical Answer

• Published: 30 November 2015
• Volume 26 , pages 593–597, ( 2015 )

Cite this article

• Norman G. Lederman 1 &
• Judith S. Lederman 1  

211k Accesses

26 Citations

37 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Other than the poor or non-existent validity and/or reliability of data collection measures, the lack of a theoretical framework is the most frequently cited reason for our editorial decision not to publish a manuscript in the Journal of Science Teacher Education . A poor or missing theoretical framework is similarly a critical problem for manuscripts submitted to other journals for which Norman or Judith have either served as Editor or been on the Editorial Board. Often the problem is that an author fails to justify his/her research effort with a theoretical framework. However, there is another level to the problem. Many individuals have a rather narrow conception of what constitutes a theoretical framework or that it is somehow distinct from a conceptual framework. The distinction on lack thereof is a story for another day. The following story may remind you of an experience you or one of your classmates have had.

Doctoral students live in fear of hearing these now famous words from their thesis advisor: “This sounds like a promising study, but what is your theoretical framework?” These words instantly send the harried doctoral student to the library (giving away our ages) in search of a theory to support the proposed research and to satisfy his/her advisor. The search is often unsuccessful because of the student’s misconception of what constitutes a “theoretical framework.” The framework may actually be a theory, but not necessarily. This is especially true for theory driven research (typically quantitative) that is attempting to test the validity of existing theory. However, this narrow definition of a theoretical framework is commonly not aligned with qualitative research paradigms that are attempting to develop theory, for example, grounded theory, or research falling into the categories of description and interpretation research (Peshkin, 1993 ). Additionally, a large proportion of doctoral theses do not fit the narrow definition described. The argument here is not that various research paradigms have no overarching philosophies or theories about knowing. Clearly quantitative research paradigms are couched in a realist perspective and qualitative research paradigms are couched in an idealist perspective (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982 ). The discussion here is focused on theoretical frameworks at a much more specific and localized perspective with respect to the justification and conceptualization of a single research investigation. So, what is a theoretical framework?

It is, perhaps, easier to understand the nature and function of a theoretical framework if it is viewed as the answer to two basic questions:

What is the problem or question?

Why is your approach to solving the problem or answering the question feasible?

Indeed, the answers to these questions are the substance and culmination of Chapters I and II of the proposal and completed dissertation, or the initial sections preceding the Methods section of a research article. The answers to these questions can come from only one source, a thorough review of the literature (i.e., a review that includes both the theoretical and empirical literature as well as apparent gaps in the literature). Perhaps, a hypothetical situation can best illustrate the development and role of the theoretical framework in the formalization of a dissertation topic or research investigation. Let us continue with the doctoral student example, keeping in mind that a parallel situation also presents itself to any researcher planning research that he/she intends to publish.

As an interested reader of educational literature, a doctoral student becomes intrigued by the importance of questioning in the secondary classroom. The student immediately begins a manual and computer search of the literature on questioning in the classroom. The student notices that the research findings on the effectiveness of questioning strategies are rather equivocal. In particular, much of the research focuses on the cognitive levels of the questions asked by the teacher and how these questions influence student achievement. It appears that the research findings exhibit no clear pattern. That is, in some studies, frequent questioning at higher cognitive levels has led to more achievement than frequent questioning at the lower cognitive levels. However, an equal number of investigations have shown no differences between the achievement of students who are exposed to questions at distinctly different cognitive levels, but rather the simple frequency of questions.

The doctoral student becomes intrigued by these equivocal findings and begins to speculate about some possible explanations. In a blinding flash of insight, the student remembers hearing somewhere that an eccentric Frenchman named Piaget said something about students being categorized into levels of cognitive development. Could it be that a student’s cognitive level has something to do with how much and what he/she learns? The student heads back to the library and methodically searches through the literature on cognitive development and its relationship to achievement.

At this point, the doctoral student has become quite familiar with two distinct lines of educational research. The research on the effectiveness of questioning has established that there is a problem. That is, does the cognitive level of questioning have any effect on student achievement? In effect, this answers the first question identified previously with respect to identification of a theoretical framework. The research on the cognitive development of students has provided an intriguing perspective. That is, could it be possible that students of different cognitive levels are affected differently by questions at different cognitive levels? If so, an answer to the problem concerning the effectiveness questioning may be at hand. This latter question, in effect, has addressed the second question previously posed about the identification of a theoretical framework. At this point, the student has narrowed his/her interests as a result of reviewing the literature. Note that the doctoral student is now ready to write down a specific research question and that this is only possible after having conducted a thorough review of the literature.

The student writes down the following research hypotheses:

Both high and low cognitive level pupils will benefit from both high and low cognitive levels of questions as opposed to no questions at all.

Pupils categorized at high cognitive levels will benefit more from high cognitive level questions than from low level questions.

Pupils categorized at lower cognitive levels will benefit more from low cognitive level questions than from high level questions.

These research questions still need to be transformed into testable statistical hypotheses, but they are ready to be presented to the dissertation advisor. The advisor looks at the questions and says: “This looks like a promising study, but what is your theoretical framework?” There is no need, however for a sprint to the library. The doctoral student has a theoretical framework. The literature on questioning has established that there is a problem and the literature on cognitive development has provided the rationale for performing the specific investigation that is being proposed. ALL IS WELL!

If some of the initial research completed by Norman concerning what classroom variables contributed to students’ understandings of nature of science (Lederman, 1986a , 1986b ; Lederman & Druger, 1985 ) had to align with the overly restricted definition of a theoretical framework, which necessitates the presence of theory, it never would have been published. In these initial studies, various classroom variables were identified that were related to students’ improved understandings of nature of science. The studies were descriptive and correlational and were not driven by any theory about how students learn nature of science. Indeed, the design of the studies was derived from the fact that there were no existing theories, general or specific, to explain how students might learn nature of science more effectively. Similarly, the seminal study of effective teaching, the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (Tikunoff, Berliner, & Rist, 1975 ), was an ethnographic study that was not guided by the findings of previous research on effective teaching. Rather, their inductive study simply compared 40 teachers “known” to be effective and ineffective of mathematics and reading to derive differences in classroom practice. Their study had no theoretical framework if one were to use the restrictive conception that a theory needed to provide a guiding framework for the investigation. There are plenty of other examples that have guided lines of research that could be provided, but there is no need to beat a dead horse by detailing more examples. The simple, but important, point is that research following qualitative research paradigms or traditions (Jacob, 1987 ; Smith, 1987 ) are particularly vulnerable to how ‘theoretical framework’ is defined. Indeed, it could be argued that the necessity of a theory is a remnant from the times in which qualitative research was not as well accepted as it is today. In general, any research design that is inductive in nature and attempts to develop theory would be at a loss. We certainly would not want to eliminate multiple traditions of research from the Journal of Science Teacher Education .

Harry Wolcott’s discussion about validity in qualitative research (Wolcott, 1990 ) is quite explicit about the lack of theory or necessity of theory in driving qualitative ethnography. Interestingly, he even rejects the idea of validity as being a necessary criterion in qualitative research. Additionally, Bogdan and Biklen ( 1982 ) emphasize the importance of qualitative researchers “bracketing” (i.e., masking or trying to forget) their a priori theories so that it does not influence the collection of data or any meanings assigned to data during an investigation. Similar discussions about how qualitative research differs from quantitative research with respect to the necessity of theory guiding the research have been advanced by many others (e.g., Becker, 1970 ; Bogdan & Biklen, 1982 ; Erickson, 1986 ; Krathwohl, 2009 ; Rist, 1977 ; among others). Perhaps, Peshkin ( 1993 , p. 23) put it best when he expressed his concern that “Research that is not theory driven, hypothesis testing, or generalization producing may be dismissed as deficient or worse.” Again, the key point is that qualitative research is as valuable and can contribute as much to our knowledge of teaching and learning as quantitative research.

There is little doubt that qualitative researchers often invoke theory when analyzing the data they have collected or try to place their findings within the context of the existing literature. And, as stated at the beginning of this editorial, different research paradigms have large overarching theories about how one comes to know about the world. However, this is not the same thing has using a theory as a framework for the design of an investigation from the stating of research questions to developing a design to answer the research questions.

It is quite possible that you may be thinking that this editorial about the meaning of a theoretical framework is too theoretical. Trust us in believing that there is a very practical reason for us addressing this issue. At the beginning of the editorial we talked about the lack of a theoretical framework being the second most common reason for manuscripts being rejected for publication in the Journal of Science Teacher Education . Additionally, we mentioned that this is a common reason for manuscripts being rejected by other prominent journals in science education, and education in general. Consequently, it is of critical importance that we, as a community, are clear about the meaning of a theoretical framework and its use. It is especially important that our authors, reviewers, associate editors, and we as Editors of the journal are clear on this matter. Let us not fail to mention that most of us are advising Ph.D. students in the conceptualization of their dissertations. This issue is not new. In 1992, the editorial board of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching was considering the claim, by some, that qualitative research was not being evaluated fairly for publication relative to quantitative research. In their analysis of the relative success of publication for quantitative and qualitative research, Wandersee and Demastes ( 1992 , p. 1005) noted that reviewers often noted, “The manuscript had a weak theoretical basis” when reviewing qualitative research.

Theoretical frameworks are critically important to all of our work, quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. All research articles should have a valid theoretical framework to justify the importance and significance of the work. However, we should not live in fear, as the doctoral student, of not having a theoretical framework, when we actually have such, because an Editor, reviewer, or Major Professor is using any unduly restrictive and outdated meaning for what constitutes a theoretical framework.

Becker, H. (1970). Sociological work: Methods and substance . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Google Scholar  

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.

Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitative research traditions: A review. Review of Educational Research, 57 , 1–50.

Article   Google Scholar  

Krathwohl, D. R. (2009). Methods of educational and social science research . Logrove, IL: Waveland Press.

Lederman, N. G. (1986a). Relating teaching behavior and classroom climate to changes in students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Science Education, 70 (1), 3–19.

Lederman, N. G. (1986b). Students’ and teachers’ understanding of the nature of science: A reassessment. School Science and Mathematics, 86 , 91–99.

Lederman, N. G., & Druger, M. (1985). Classroom factors related to changes in students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22 , 649–662.

Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22 (2), 24–30.

Rist, R. (1977). On the relations among educational research paradigms: From disdain to détente. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 8 , 42–49.

Smith, M. L. (1987). Publishing qualitative research. American Educational Research Journal, 24 (2), 173–183.

Tikunoff, W. J., Berliner, D. C., & Rist, R. C. (1975). Special study A: An enthnographic study of forty classrooms of the beginning teacher evaluation study known sample . Sacramento, CA: California Commission for Teacher Preparation and Licensing.

Wandersee, J. H., & Demastes, S. (1992). An analysis of the relative success of qualitative and quantitative manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Research in Science Teaching . Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29 , 1005–1010.

Wolcott, H. F. (1990). On seeking, and rejecting, validity in qualitative research. In E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education (pp. 121–152). New York: Teachers College Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Chicago, IL, USA

Norman G. Lederman & Judith S. Lederman

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norman G. Lederman .

About this article

Lederman, N.G., Lederman, J.S. What Is A Theoretical Framework? A Practical Answer. J Sci Teacher Educ 26 , 593–597 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9443-2

Download citation

Published : 30 November 2015

Issue Date : November 2015

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9443-2

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

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Theoretical Framework

Definition:

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

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

Types of Theoretical Framework

Types of Types of Theoretical Framework are as follows:

Conceptual Framework

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

Deductive Framework

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

Inductive Framework

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

Empirical Framework

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

Normative Framework

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

Explanatory Framework

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

Components of Theoretical Framework

The components of a theoretical framework include:

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

How to Write Theoretical Framework

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

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

Theoretical Framework Examples

Here are some examples of theoretical frameworks:

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

When to Have A Theoretical Framework

Following are some situations When to Have A Theoretical Framework:

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

Purpose of Theoretical Framework

The purposes of a theoretical framework include:

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

Characteristics of Theoretical Framework

Some of the characteristics of a theoretical framework include:

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

Advantages of Theoretical Framework

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

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

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

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

Argumentative Review      This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

Integrative Review      Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

Historical Review      Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review      A review does not always focus on what someone said [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection and data analysis, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our study.

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

Theoretical Review      The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature."  Educational Researcher  36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2023 4:07 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Frequently asked questions

Is a theoretical framework part of a literature review.

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.

Frequently asked questions: Dissertation

When you mention different chapters within your text, it’s considered best to use Roman numerals for most citation styles. However, the most important thing here is to remain consistent whenever using numbers in your dissertation .

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

Formulating a main research question can be a difficult task. Overall, your question should contribute to solving the problem that you have defined in your problem statement .

However, it should also fulfill criteria in three main areas:

• Researchability
• Feasibility and specificity
• Relevance and originality

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

Results are usually written in the past tense , because they are describing the outcome of completed actions.

The abstract appears on its own page, after the title page and acknowledgements but before the table of contents .

Avoid citing sources in your abstract . There are two reasons for this:

• The abstract should focus on your original research, not on the work of others.
• The abstract should be self-contained and fully understandable without reference to other sources.

There are some circumstances where you might need to mention other sources in an abstract: for example, if your research responds directly to another study or focuses on the work of a single theorist. In general, though, don’t include citations unless absolutely necessary.

The abstract is the very last thing you write. You should only write it after your research is complete, so that you can accurately summarize the entirety of your thesis or paper.

An abstract is a concise summary of an academic text (such as a journal article or dissertation ). It serves two main purposes:

• To help potential readers determine the relevance of your paper for their own research.
• To communicate your key findings to those who don’t have time to read the whole paper.

Abstracts are often indexed along with keywords on academic databases, so they make your work more easily findable. Since the abstract is the first thing any reader sees, it’s important that it clearly and accurately summarises the contents of your paper.

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 .

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 thesis or dissertation outline is one of the most critical first steps in your writing process. It helps you to lay out and organise your ideas and can provide you with a roadmap for deciding what kind of research you’d like to undertake.

Generally, an outline contains information on the different sections included in your thesis or dissertation, such as:

• Your anticipated title
• Your abstract
• Your chapters (sometimes subdivided into further topics like literature review, research methods, avenues for future research, etc.)

Your list of tables and figures should go directly after your table of contents in your thesis or dissertation.

Usually, no title page is needed in an MLA paper . A header is generally included at the top of the first page instead. The exceptions are when:

• Your instructor requires one, or
• Your paper is a group project

In those cases, you should use a title page instead of a header, listing the same information but on a separate page.

The title page of your thesis or dissertation goes first, before all other content or lists that you may choose to include.

The title page of your thesis or dissertation should include your name, department, institution, degree program, and submission date.

A glossary is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. In contrast, dictionaries are more general collections of words.

Glossaries are not mandatory, but if you use a lot of technical or field-specific terms, it may improve readability to add one to your thesis or dissertation. Your educational institution may also require them, so be sure to check their specific guidelines.

A glossary is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. In contrast, an index is a list of the contents of your work organised by page number.

Definitional terms often fall into the category of common knowledge , meaning that they don’t necessarily have to be cited. This guidance can apply to your thesis or dissertation glossary as well.

However, if you’d prefer to cite your sources , you can follow guidance for citing dictionary entries in MLA or APA style for your glossary.

A glossary is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. Your glossary only needs to include terms that your reader may not be familiar with, and is intended to enhance their understanding of your work.

APA doesn’t require you to include a list of tables or a list of figures . However, it is advisable to do so if your text is long enough to feature a table of contents and it includes a lot of tables and/or figures .

A list of tables and list of figures appear (in that order) after your table of contents, and are presented in a similar way.

A list of figures and tables compiles all of the figures and tables that you used in your thesis or dissertation and displays them with the page number where they can be found.

Copyright information can usually be found wherever the table or figure was published. For example, for a diagram in a journal article , look on the journal’s website or the database where you found the article. Images found on sites like Flickr are listed with clear copyright information.

If you find that permission is required to reproduce the material, be sure to contact the author or publisher and ask for it.

Lists of figures and tables are often not required, and they aren’t particularly common. They specifically aren’t required for APA Style, though you should be careful to follow their other guidelines for figures and tables .

If you have many figures and tables in your thesis or dissertation, include one may help you stay organised. Your educational institution may require them, so be sure to check their guidelines.

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem. We are always here for you.

• Chat with us
• Email [email protected]
• Call +44 (0)20 3917 4242
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our support team is here to help you daily via chat, WhatsApp, email, or phone between 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. CET.

Our APA experts default to APA 7 for editing and formatting. For the Citation Editing Service you are able to choose between APA 6 and 7.

Yes, if your document is longer than 20,000 words, you will get a sample of approximately 2,000 words. This sample edit gives you a first impression of the editor’s editing style and a chance to ask questions and give feedback.

How does the sample edit work?

You will receive the sample edit within 24 hours after placing your order. You then have 24 hours to let us know if you’re happy with the sample or if there’s something you would like the editor to do differently.

Read more about how the sample edit works

Yes, you can upload your document in sections.

We try our best to ensure that the same editor checks all the different sections of your document. When you upload a new file, our system recognizes you as a returning customer, and we immediately contact the editor who helped you before.

However, we cannot guarantee that the same editor will be available. Your chances are higher if

• You send us your text as soon as possible and
• You can be flexible about the deadline.

Please note that the shorter your deadline is, the lower the chance that your previous editor is not available.

If your previous editor isn’t available, then we will inform you immediately and look for another qualified editor. Fear not! Every Scribbr editor follows the  Scribbr Improvement Model  and will deliver high-quality work.

Yes, our editors also work during the weekends and holidays.

Because we have many editors available, we can check your document 24 hours per day and 7 days per week, all year round.

If you choose a 72 hour deadline and upload your document on a Thursday evening, you’ll have your thesis back by Sunday evening!

Yes! Our editors are all native speakers, and they have lots of experience editing texts written by ESL students. They will make sure your grammar is perfect and point out any sentences that are difficult to understand. They’ll also notice your most common mistakes, and give you personal feedback to improve your writing in English.

Every Scribbr order comes with our award-winning Proofreading & Editing service , which combines two important stages of the revision process.

For a more comprehensive edit, you can add a Structure Check or Clarity Check to your order. With these building blocks, you can customize the kind of feedback you receive.

You might be familiar with a different set of editing terms. To help you understand what you can expect at Scribbr, we created this table:

View an example

When you place an order, you can specify your field of study and we’ll match you with an editor who has familiarity with this area.

However, our editors are language specialists, not academic experts in your field. Your editor’s job is not to comment on the content of your dissertation, but to improve your language and help you express your ideas as clearly and fluently as possible.

This means that your editor will understand your text well enough to give feedback on its clarity, logic and structure, but not on the accuracy or originality of its content.

Good academic writing should be understandable to a non-expert reader, and we believe that academic editing is a discipline in itself. The research, ideas and arguments are all yours – we’re here to make sure they shine!

After your document has been edited, you will receive an email with a link to download the document.

The editor has made changes to your document using ‘Track Changes’ in Word. This means that you only have to accept or ignore the changes that are made in the text one by one.

It is also possible to accept all changes at once. However, we strongly advise you not to do so for the following reasons:

• You can learn a lot by looking at the mistakes you made.
• The editors don’t only change the text – they also place comments when sentences or sometimes even entire paragraphs are unclear. You should read through these comments and take into account your editor’s tips and suggestions.
• With a final read-through, you can make sure you’re 100% happy with your text before you submit!

You choose the turnaround time when ordering. We can return your dissertation within 24 hours , 3 days or 1 week . These timescales include weekends and holidays. As soon as you’ve paid, the deadline is set, and we guarantee to meet it! We’ll notify you by text and email when your editor has completed the job.

Very large orders might not be possible to complete in 24 hours. On average, our editors can complete around 13,000 words in a day while maintaining our high quality standards. If your order is longer than this and urgent, contact us to discuss possibilities.

Always leave yourself enough time to check through the document and accept the changes before your submission deadline.

Scribbr is specialised in editing study related documents. We check:

• Graduation projects
• Dissertations
• Admissions essays
• College essays
• Application essays
• Personal statements
• Process reports
• Reflections
• Internship reports
• Academic papers
• Research proposals
• Prospectuses

Calculate the costs

The fastest turnaround time is 24 hours.

You can upload your document at any time and choose between three deadlines:

At Scribbr, we promise to make every customer 100% happy with the service we offer. Our philosophy: Your complaint is always justified – no denial, no doubts.

Our customer support team is here to find the solution that helps you the most, whether that’s a free new edit or a refund for the service.

Yes, in the order process you can indicate your preference for American, British, or Australian English .

If you don’t choose one, your editor will follow the style of English you currently use. If your editor has any questions about this, we will contact you.

Eureka! When I learnt how to write a theoretical framework

Feb 6, 2019

Have you checked out  the rest of  The PhD Knowledge Base ? It’s home to hundreds more free resources and guides, written especially for PhD students.  

Have you ever had a eureka moment? A moment where something that you’ve misunderstood for ages becomes crystal clear?

I did, about half way through my PhD.

Did I come up with a ground breaking discovery that would revolutionise my field? Did I develop a new theory that would change the way we think about the world?

I finally understood how to write a theoretical framework.

Sound silly? It isn’t. 

During the one-on-one PhD coaching sessions I run, the issue of how to write a theory framework comes up more frequently than any other. The theoretical framework is important, but many people find it difficult. I know I struggled with it. 

Then someone explained the theory framework to me in such a simple way. Here’s the eureka moment: The theoretical framework is like a toolbox.

Simple, right?

Let me explain. In the literature review you highlighted the problem that needs ‘fixing’. The theoretical framework – the ’toolbox’ – details the theories, propositions, hypotheses (if you’re using them) and concepts – the ’tools’ – that you will use to address or make sense of this problem.

So, your job in a theoretical framework chapter is to discuss in detail what the tools look like, how they behave, how they have been used before, how they relate to one another, how they are relevant to your aims and objectives and what the drawbacks are from using them. The methods chapter then discusses how you will use (operationalise) those tools.

Hello, Doctor…

Sounds good, doesn’t it?  Be able to call yourself Doctor sooner with our five-star rated How to Write A PhD email-course. Learn everything your supervisor should have taught you about planning and completing a PhD.

Now half price. Join hundreds of other students and become a better thesis writer, or your money back. 

What is a theoretical framework?

In the literature review you highlighted the problem that needs ‘fixing’. The theoretical framework – the ’toolbox’ – details the theories, propositions, hypotheses (if you’re using them) and concepts – the ’tools’ – that you will use to address or make sense of this problem.

The list of potential explanations for why responses differ is enormous.

You could approach this question with a focus on, say, psychology, power, gender, economics, and so on. The best we can typically hope for – and this is particularly true in much of the social sciences – is an interpretation of the truth.

So – and this is important – we use theory to focus our attention on a small sub-set of all potential explanations, on one particular viewpoint.

Now I know I’m getting into messy epistemological and ontological waters here. I am an interpretivist, so I see theory as a ‘lens’ that you apply to make sense of the world. That’s the shape of my toolbox.

But, even if you’re a positivist you still pick and choose theoretical concepts and hypotheses from a range of available options; you just use them in a different way (rather than a lens, they become testable propositions, or measurement tools).

Without a theoretical framework we are left with a potentially endless choice of potential viewpoints, which would make our data collection and analysis and our discussion hugely chaotic.

Master your lit review & theory framework.

Learn what goes where (and why), and how it all fit together with this free, interactive guide to the PhD literature review and theory framework.

In other words, if we don’t know how to focus our attention, how we can present a coherent explanation? 

The theoretical framework is a natural extension of the literature review. The purpose of the literature review, amongst other things, is to highlight gaps and shortcomings with the existing work in your field.

The theoretical framework details   the perspective you will take   to address that gap and shortcoming.

For example, in   my doctoral research,   my literature review focused on government responses to climate change and pointed out that there hadn’t been much discussion on local government.

The theoretical framework then made an informed decision to come at it from a particular theoretical perspective (institutional theory, if you’re interested) and then discussed what that theory looks like, highlighting the key concepts and ideas. 

In your own research you will also need to make an informed decision about the particular theory you will employ to guide you through the rest of the research.

The theoretical framework is a natural extension of the literature review. The purpose of the literature review, amongst other things, is to highlight gaps and shortcomings with the existing work in your field. The theoretical framework details the perspective you will take to address that gap and shortcoming.

So, the   job of the theoretical framework isn’t to repeat the literature review . Instead, think of it as a   separate, mini literature review , this time focusing on the theory you will employ. You don’t have to discuss every particular use and discussion of the theoretical position you employ. If you did, you’d quickly run out of space and time.

Remember, your examiners are likely to already be familiar with the theory, meaning that rather than discuss every possible thing that there is to discuss about it, you instead need to discuss how and why the theory has been adapted and adopted to the context of your research.

How to structure a theoretical framework

• You need to have a solid grasp of your aims and objectives. These define the space in which your research will sit and your goals when conducting it. You will need to briefly recap these when you start writing your theoretical framework, both to remind the reader and so that you can relate your theory to these overarching aims.
• What theory/theories are you using? Here you need to define and explain each theory you draw upon and, in doing so, discuss the leading proponents and applications. This shows that you understand the theory you are going to adopt.
• You then need to spend time critically arguing why you are adopting this particular theory. There are a lot of potential theories you could use. Why this one? Importantly, you should relate your choice to the discussions in the literature review and your aims and objectives.
• Can the theory/theories be broken down into different schools? Which one are you siding with and why?
• A theory contains a number of concepts. Which will you be drawing upon? Why these ones? Have you defined them properly? The way you approach this section will be influenced by your epistemological and ontological perspective and, thus, whether you use hypotheses or not. If you are using hypotheses, you need to state them as such.
• How do the concepts relate to your aims and objectives?
• Have you clearly stated your ontological and epistemological perspective?
• Are you the first to use this particular theory in this particular way? What benefits or drawbacks does that bring?
• Can you spot any drawbacks with applying this theory? Does it fail to account for a particular dimension of a phenomenon? Is it difficult to operationalize?
• How are your concepts related? Are you using them as hypotheses? Or as a model to make sense of the data? Somewhere in between? Be explicit about how they are all related and what you plan on doing with them.

The goal of writing up a theoretical framework is to tell the reader why you have chosen particular theories, how they relate to the gap in the literature, and how they relate to your aims and objectives.

A short (but necessary) note on ontology and epistemology 

How do i choose theories and create my framework.

Unless you are using an inductive methodological approach (where you generate theory from the data), you will likely approach your fieldwork with a theoretical framework in mind. Which theory or theories you choose is, in part, down to your aims and objectives and whether there is a relevant theory available ‘off-the-shelf’ that is appropriate for your needs.

There are generally three strategies that researchers use to develop their theoretical frameworks: 

• There may be theories in your field that have arisen on the basis of repeated observation and testing and which are widely accepted.
• Or, you might find that you need to select concepts from multiple theories and create a novel framework that is unique to your particular context.
• A growing and important trend in social research is to adopt an interdisciplinary perspective when trying to understand the social world. This can be achieved by looking beyond the dominant, well-established theories and thinking about how other theories, particularly those from other disciplines or sub-disciplines, can be used.

In any case, you must consider the following when selecting a theory:  

• Identify your ontological and epistemological beliefs.
• List several theories that align with your epistemological position and which can aid your understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.
• Engage in literature review around those theories, both to familiarise yourself with them but also to understand their relevance to your study.
• Ask yourself how each theory connects to your problem, aims & objectives.
• Select the theory or theories that provide more relevant tools for your thesis. 

I have more than one theory. What do I do?

  Often, you need to combine concepts, hypotheses or ideas from more than one theoretical school. Employing   more than one theory is entirely legitimate.   I did so in my PhD. 

  However, you need to  consider a few key questions : 

Are the theories you are bringing together epistemologically compatible? 

Have you discussed each theory in the same level of detail to adequately explain the theory, your justification for its inclusion, its relation to the literature and its potential drawbacks? 

What benefits does focusing on more than one theory bring? Perhaps one theory has shortcomings that the other addresses? 

What downsides are there to employing more than one theory? 

Has anyone else used this combination of theories before you? 

The theoretical framework is a tricky section to write, largely because the choice available to you is huge.

But   keep that toolbox metaphor in mind. 

  Each theory contains a number of tools. Your job in the theory framework is to take the tools you need for your project from the most relevant theory/theories and package them up into your own toolbox.

When you’re done, you should see that the theory framework offers:

• Structure, by detailing the key concepts, tools and, where relevant, hypotheses
• A way to connect to other research
• A coherent, joined up set of ideas that structure the writing and help to create an argumentative streak that can run throughout your thesis
• An approach that can be reused in additional contexts once you’re done

Along the way, you need to convince the reader that you’ve picked and applied the most appropriate tools possible, given your aims and objectives.

The theoretical framework frames the research. If you build that frame right, your research will shine. If you don’t then you’ll struggle.

If you need expert guidance to structure, plan or write your theory framework you can get in touch for a one-on-one coaching session . It’s like having a personal trainer, but for your PhD. 

Share this:

67 comments.

A great read. Quite some insight into my Phd journey. The conceptual framework?

Glad you found it useful. You having trouble with your conceptual framework?

This is enlightening. I was struggling with my Theoretical framework. I will apply the guidelines here and await feedback from my supervisor. Thanks

I’m glad you found the post useful. Thanks for your kind words.

I came across your posts while helping my wife with her work (I finished my PhD two years ago), and I keep thinking…hmmm the pain I went through to learn this… thank you for making it so easy for others…

Thanks for the kind words. I remember how difficult I found my own PhD, so my motivation is to make life easier for as many other PhD students as possible.

i need some more clear version to develop a theoretical framework. kindly contact me through email. thank you

Great insights. I have read through your thesis. You did a lot of quality work. I see the EM, Environmental Policy Capacity and the institutions theory all discussed. Really detailed and linked. Let me see how mine goes

I’ve sent you an email. I’d be glad to help.

This is very helpful because am really struggling to write my theoretical section. I have a question, I selected a framework but realised it has shortcomings, so I decided to include a model, but also I have another theory. All the three are confusing me how to structure them please I need your help. Thanks

Hi Carolyne,

Thanks for your email. Do you want to have a one-on-one coaching session with me? We’ll be able to get to the bottom of your confusion and clear up your theory problems once and for all. Click here for more details and to book yourself in.

Do you have a structured outline, similar to the overall diss outline, for the theoretical framework?

I sure do. You can find it here: https://www.thephdproofreaders.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Theoretical-Framework-Template_AW_20190208.pdf

What are the advantages of having a chapter on theoretical framework independent of the Literature Review chapter. Please assist.

Thanks for your comment. Whether or not you need a separate literature review and theory framework chapter depends on how distinct they are from one another and on how complex each chapter is. It may be the case that you need two chapters because to discuss both in one would make the chapter very large, complex and hard to follow. Also, it is often the case that the theory framework builds on and addresses gaps you’ve highlighted in your literature review, so for that reason it makes sense to keep them as two separate chapters.

But which one comes first? I thought theoretical framework comes earlier than literature review or is it in a proposal where it is structured that way?

Typically the lit review comes first, then the theory. The lit review makes the case for the research and the theory framework shows the approach you will take to conduct the research.

Thanks for the kind words 🙂

Dear Max, I am using multiple related concepts to frame my research. I am confused whether to dedicate a complete chapter to explain only these five concepts, or just operationalise them in one of the chapters. Again, is introducing these concepts early in my introductory chapter a good idea as it forms one of my research questions. This means I have answered the question in the introductory chapter

Thanks for your comment. Whether or not such concepts end up in your introduction/context discussion will depend in part on whether they are framing your research (as in, providing the background or context) or whether you’re using them to answer your research questions (in which case they’ll form part of your theory framework and will therefore come at a later stage).

Dear Max, I was searching how to structure Theoretical framework and came across your writing. Thank you for this, it is really helpful. I’m one of those phd students who struggles with Theoretical framework :/ I would appreciate your help if possible. Could you please outline, how can I reach you?

Thanks for your kind words. I’m glad you’re finding the phD Knowledge Base useful. You can reach me at max[at]thephdproofreaders.com

Speaks soon!

I’m so confused about my theoretical framework. Could you possibly help please?

Sure. Have you checked out the one-on-one PhD coaching service we offer? It sounds just that’s just what you need.

I couldn’t express how grateful I am. MAY YOU BE SHOWERED WITH BLESSINGS

Thanks! I’m glad you found the advice useful.

wow!!! thank you very much , I have been struggling to write my theoretical framework . thank you.

You’re welcome!

Dr. Max I am expecting to learn more on how to pick the right literatures, related to my theme. all of them seem very nice and informative. I am having hard time to select them. and also I have difficulties in starting the sentence of my Introduction. I am researching on “the impact of Prosperity gospel in Tanzanian mainline churches”. my topic is very popular and many has been said … I feel like I am saying what has been said .

Thanks for your comment. I wish you the best of luck.

Hi Max, Great read. Doing my MA Thesis after years away from academia has been a challenge to say the least. Your article provided clarity that I have been asking for/seeking elsewhere (supervision/consultant) for months. Wish I had of found it earlier but glad I came across it.

Thank you and all the best in these uncertain times.

Great! Glad you’re finding the resources useful. Good luck with the rest of the thesis.

Dear Max, thank you very much, many things got clear after reading this. I have a question, I am using political capability approach as my theoretical foundation which is part of RBW theory. So technically it is not a theory but just an approach, so does this indirectly mean that I am USING RBW Theory? Many Thanks

Hi – glad you found it useful. Without knowing more about your project I’m afraid I can’t advise about your choice of theory framework. Have you approached your supervisor with this question?

This is a very helpful article.

Glad you enjoyed it!

This has been one of the best articles that has clearly outlined the Theoretical framework. Kindly do a Youtibe video for auditory learners with real examples. It will greatly assist me especiall. I am glad I found this article.

Thanks for the kind words and for your feedback. I’ll take it on board for future guides.

Thanks so much for this which has helped me with a sticky bit as I move forward to discover new theoretical concepts from slightly outside my field that fit better than those I started out with. A part-time PhD has such a long life that it leaves too much room for changes and adaptations! A big thank you to Rebecca Baker on a Shut Up and Write Session who referred me to this!

I’m glad you found the guide useful. Thanks to you and to Rebecca Baker!

I found this post very helpful, thanks for sharing

Thanks for reading!

Thank you for this crisp advice on Theoretical framework. personally i have been experiencing difficulties selecting appropriate theory related to the study. However your advice was really beneficial. God bless you for your kindness towards us researchers.

Thanks for the kind words Roshni.

Thank you so much for sharing this information regarding the theoretical framework. I revisited my chapter and strengthened it based on the pointers you outlined here. This is a must read before drafting the chapter. Very helpful ?

Thanks for the kind words. I’m glad you found it useful.

This came just in time! I’m taking a research philosophy course and this week’s discussion is “Theory and Theoretical Frameworks”. I found this very helpful.

Great. I hope it helped deepen your understanding.

Thank you Dr Lempriere for this insightful article. I have just started my PhD journey and I found this article to be very useful and eye-opening.

Interesting and excellent read.

Thank you so very much for sharing your intellectual insights on this.

Hi this is really useful thank you. I have a question regarding one of my tools. I realise (quite late) that I am using one tool in a *generalised* way. I could put this another way – the context in which I found this tool constituted a more particular use of this more general tool, and I am seeking to retrieve it for a more general use. This opens the question – on what grounds am I employing a generalised form of this tool? What constraints govern this process of generalisation? Etc. I wish I’d dealt with this earlier… Do you have any thoughts on how I navigate this?

Hi – I’d love to give you advice, but without knowing more about your research and thesis any advice I would give wouldn’t be qualified. Sorry I can’t be of more help.

I loved your explanation, but what if you ARE doing an inductive project?

I found your article very useful, thank you! I am currently building a Foucauldian theoretical framework through which to discuss a phenomena (“Karens”).

Do you any academic articles which I can use to justify using the interpretavist approach (using theory as a lens)? I cant find anything through my searches.

Hi – sorry, we don’t I’m afraid.

Surely, this is a great lesson offered. How I pray I had your email, I would love to learn more from you. Thank you

Been struggling with my Phd and literature review . This has been very helpful. Is it possible for you to share your email so i can engage more with you and get some insights and help

Really really helpful guide, I am so grateful to you for providing this! It is helping me immensely in developing my own framework, a task which previously seemed scary, confusing and impossible!

Thanks for this. It is very useful. So should I first write my Lit review and then only the theoretical framework? TIA

Thanks! It’s hard to say without knowing more about your project, I’m afraid!

Thank you for the wonderful work. I want to know if theoretical frame work can presented in a diagram form

You’re welcome! Yes, your theory framework can be presented visually. It’s a great way of showing the framework in a clean, simplified way. It also serves as a useful reference guide for people to easily refer back to if they want to remind themselves of what your theory framework looks like.

I found your article highly informative. I recently enrolled for my PhD and my supervisor asked me to submit my Research outline. Does the outline have to have that detailed Theoretical framework. Again how best can I choose the theoretical framework suitable for my topic. If I may have a list of Theoretical frameworks I will be happy. I will also be grateful to have a direct contact with you.

A great insight into how to write a theoretical framework, simple and jargon free, the article makes the purpose and the method of writing the chapter explicit. Thank you.

That’s so kind of you Sethu. I’m glad you found it useful.

i WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IS THE IDEAL PLACE TO SITUATE THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK WITHIN THE LITERATURE REVIEW? Peter Nemaenzhe

The theory/conceptual framework is often its own chapter between the lit review and methods. Sometimes though you can include it in the literature review, but I would suggest including it towards the end. I.e. do the lit review first, then introduce the theory framework.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

The PhD Knowledge Base Categories

• Your PhD and Covid
• Mastering your theory and literature review chapters
• How to structure and write every chapter of the PhD
• How to stay motivated and productive
• Techniques to improve your writing and fluency
• Advice on maintaining good mental health
• Resources designed for non-native English speakers
• PhD Writing Template
• Explore our back-catalogue of motivational advice

Literature Review: Types of Literature Reviews

• Literature Review
• Purpose of a Literature Review
• Work in Progress
• Compiling & Writing
• Books, Articles, & Web Pages

Types of Literature Reviews

• Departmental Differences
• Citation Styles & Plagiarism
• Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers.

• First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish.
• Second, are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies.
• Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinions, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

Argumentative Review      This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

Integrative Review      Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

Historical Review      Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomenon emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review      A review does not always focus on what someone said [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection and data analysis, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our study.

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

Theoretical Review      The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomenon. The theoretical literature review help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

• << Previous: Books, Articles, & Web Pages
• Next: Departmental Differences >>
• Last Updated: Oct 19, 2023 12:07 PM
• URL: https://uscupstate.libguides.com/Literature_Review

• 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

Search NYU Steinhardt

Center for Policy, Research, and Evaluation

Theoretical frameworks and literature review.

To situate findings from this evaluation in a broader context, we root our data collection, analysis, and findings in theories on de-tracking, implementation of major educational reforms, and Critical Race Theory.

A review of research on de-tracking efforts reveals that simultaneous changes in three areas are necessary for de-tracking to be successful: 

• instruction
• institutional structures

Instruction should provide opportunities for diverse ways of learning, keep learners actively involved, provide support for individuals as needed, and create a safe and respectful learning community (Rubin, 2006). Institutional structures should allow for more time and resources for teacher professional development, collaborative time, and instructional retooling and should enable additional social and academic supports for students. Finally, belief systems should shift among educators, students, and families, whereby these stakeholder groups come to believe that all students can learn and engage in rigorous coursework.

When implementing large-scale reforms in schools, such as de-tracking, it is crucial to ask not just whether or not the reform worked, but also what conditions facilitated or impeded the success and sustainability of the reform. A longitudinal study across 22 Chicago elementary schools suggests that 5 “essential supports” contribute to school improvement over time (Bryk et al., 2010). These include:

• School leadership: e.g. teacher leadership, parent and community involvement, program coherence, and instructional leadership
• Parent-school-community ties : e.g. teachers’ knowledge about student culture and the local community and family engagement practices
• Professional capacity : e.g. quality of human resources, quality of professional development, professional dispositions, and professional community
• Student-centered learning climate : e.g. safety and order, teachers’ academic press and personalism, and supportive peer norms
• Instructional guidance : e.g. curriculum alignment, intellectual emphasis and pedagogical methods.

Bryk and colleagues (2010) found that schools strong on at least three of the five essentials were 10 times more likely to show substantial gains in student learning over time than schools weak on three or more of the five essentials. Additionally, a persistently low score in just one of the five essentials reduced the likelihood of improvement to less than 10 percent. Schools with higher levels of relational trust between teachers and school leaders, among teachers, and between teachers and families tended to have stronger essential supports.

In “So Much Reform, So Little Change,” educational scholar Charles Payne (2008) elaborates on how the common focus on “what works” is misplaced. As Bryk and colleagues suggest, more time should be allotted to understanding the conditions that allow for successful and sustainable implementation in schools. Such implementation is more likely where certain conditions are met. These conditions include elements based on the following list:

Teachers have a sense of efficacy and believe in students and their families.

• Teachers and school leaders have strong buy-in for the reform; as Payne says, “the Big Magic” is “in the thinking and understanding of the people who implement, in the approach they take, in the values they hold dear.” (p. 189)
• Principals are active, engaged, and supportive.
• Schools focus on doing less well and with coherence.
• There is ample time for teacher professional development, common planning, and for teachers to spend with the school leader and coach troubleshooting specific issues.
• A stable team of coaches and consultants are available to support implementation and help school’s problem-solve.
• Schools have several consecutive years to implement the reform; studies of one whole school reform model showed that effects increased substantially after the 5th implementation year.
• Scaling up occurs slowly and cautiously.

In response to these conditions, Payne suggests, “It ain’t the thing that you do, it’s the way you do it,” (p. 190). Thus, we would expect EFA to be implemented and adapted more successfully in schools with stronger levels of the five essential supports. We would also expect for EFA to be more successful if the conditions outlined above are met.

It is also important to recognize that EFA, like many urban district reforms, is situated within a broader district context, and thus implementation will be influenced by this context. The Public Education Leadership Project (PELP) Coherence Framework, derived from interactions with hundreds of U.S. public school leaders, offers a blueprint for district-wide school improvement efforts (Childress, Elmore, Grossman, & King, 2011). As shown in Figure 1, the framework centers the “instructional core,” which consists of teachers’ knowledge and skill, students’ engagement in their own learning, and academically challenging content. According tothe Framework, districts should create a theory of change that articulates a belief about how to improve the instructional core. This theory of change should then inform a high-leverage strategy that enhances all three components of the instructional core and their interaction. Leaders must engage various stakeholders in the development of this strategy and communicate it widely to ensure buy-in and ownership. They must also identify which elements of the strategy schools should adapt and where schools have freedom to adapt the strategy to their unique context. Implementation of strategies is influenced by culture (i.e. norms and behaviors), structure (e.g. departments, taskforces, informal power), systems (e.g. resource allocation, organizational learning, accountability), resources (people, financial resources, technology), and stakeholders (unions, parents, civic and community leaders and organizations, governing bodies). Finally, the influence of environmental elements beyond the district’s control, including regulations and statues, contracts, funding, and politics must always be considered.

It should be noted, however, that dismantling racial opportunity barriers is not a politically innocent endeavor, particularly in a school district with a long and infamous history of racial segregation and racism. Critical Race Theorists argue the permanence of racism and its consequential impacts on the educational opportunities for historically vulnerable students (Bell, 1992; Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, and Thomas, 1995; Ladson-Billings and Tate, 1995). Milner (2017) argued that inequities become “ingrained and deeply embedded in the policies, practices, procedures, and institutionalized systems of education” (p. 294). Efforts to implement district reforms to dismantle these systems, therefore, need to be intentional.

Specifically, a critical race theory approach to education“involves a commitment to develop schools that acknowledge the multiple strengths of communities of color in order to serve a larger purpose of struggle toward social and racial justice,” (Yosso, 2005, p. 69).

To better understand reform efforts in BPS, we examine academic literature on dismantling racism in urban public schools, barriers to learning opportunities for historically marginalized students, and academic enrichment similar to EFA being implemented across the US and their role in achieving student academic and socioemotional growth.

Dismantling Racism

Achieving educational equity means much more than addressing individual barriers. Educational equity involves systematically dismantling oppressive forces to achieve educational liberation and justice (del Carmen Salazar, 2013; Johnston, D’Andrea Montalbano, & Kirkland, 2017). Achieving educational equity to ensure that all students are world-class learners and best prepared for college or the workforce means having difficult conversations about race and its implications on student outcomes. Research demonstrates that children are most successful in classrooms where they feel valued, and their lived experiences are acknowledged and supported by their educators (Paris & Alim, 2017). However, the history of public education in the United States is one of exclusion and disenfranchisement, particularly for students of color (Yosso et al, 2005; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Paris, 2012).

A legacy of inequity in US public schools perpetuates various disadvantages for marginalized students, including access to academic enrichments, quality school environments, qualified educators, and access to quality school materials/resources (Picower 2009; Yosso et al, 2005; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). In fact, research demonstrates that schools that are majority comprised of students of color (90 percent or more) spend $733 less per student per year than schools with 90 percent or more white students (OCR, 2014). Subsequently, Black students are often located in schools with less qualified teachers, teachers with lower salaries, and novice teachers (OCR, 2014). Inequities such as these create unequal learning opportunities and perpetuate beliefs surrounding academic ability for students for color. In fact, students of color are fully capable of learning, but instead experience compounding disadvantage (e.g. poverty, inadequate schooling systems, targeted disciplinary action, etc.) that contributes to differences in academic attainment. Therefore, dismantling school policies and norms that reinforce oppressive educational practices is critical and calls for schooling systems to identify and examine factors that perpetuate racism.

Supporting the academic, social, and emotional well-being of students of color means working to dismantle racism in US public schools. Addressing the systemic inequities that have plagued the US public education system for decades requires hard work and a long-term commitment to serving historically marginalized communities (Paris & Alim, 2017; Ladson-Billings, 2014).

Implementing anti-racist policies as well as culturally relevant and linguistically sustaining practices can aid in shifting mindsets surrounding educating students of color.

Anti-Racist Education

In order to achieve true liberation and justice, schools should move toward becoming anti-racist institutions. Anti-racist education is described as a means to address racism directly (Kendi, 2019; Foster, 2019). Anti-racist teaching confronts prejudice through the discussion of past and present racism, stereotyping and discrimination in society by teaching the economic, structural and historical roots of inequality,” (McGregor, 1993, p. 2). When districts take a stance on being anti-racist, they are prioritizing the needs of students of color, acknowledging that systematic functions pose barriers to their academic achievement. The implementation of anti-racist education through teaching 1) disrupts color-evasiveness and engages in deep conversations about the prevalence of racism and white supremacist practices that impede on the learning of students of color, 2) identifies individual biases of school teachers and leaders as well as acknowledges the impact it can have on teaching policies and practices, and 3) ensures that school curriculum and instruction is culturally relevant and linguistically sustaining, which is detailed in the section below (Foster, 2019).

Through these practices, we distinguish anti-racist education from schools identifying as a multicultural space, as the focus is on the centering the needs of students of color, rather than immersing them into a schooling system that wasn’t built to serve or understand their specific needs (Tator and Henry, 1991; McGregor, 1993). Tator and Henry (1991) argued that anti-racist education differs from multicultural education, as a focus on being multicultural “... ignores the fact that racial differences, and the racial discrimination which flows from [those visible differences] must be challenged by changing the total organizational structures of the institutions.” (p.122). Thus, multicultural education can continue to perpetuate disadvantages for students of color by merely attempting to integrate their experiences into the curriculum rather than addressing the systemic and institutional barriers in place that may impede on the experiences of students of color in educative spaces.

The racial and ethnic mix of U.S. public school students is increasingly diverse, but schooling policies and practices have not evolved to effectively educate these changing demographics. Without educational strategies that acknowledge and incorporate the diverse backgrounds of their students, public school systems will continue to fail to adequately support low-income students of color and eliminate gaps in academic outcomes (Paris & Alim, 2017).

Culturally Relevant and Linguistically Sustaining Education

In order to best serve students of color, Emergent Bilingual students, SWDs, and economically disadvantaged students, school districts should focus on implementing practices that are culturally responsive and linguistically sustaining (Paris & Alim, 2017). Culturally responsive and linguistically sustaining education requires a focus on “sustain[ing] the lifeways of communities who have been and continue to be damaged and erased through schooling,” as longstanding negative perceptions has framed these populations through a deficit framework (Paris & Alim, 2017, p.1). Deficit thinking has not only contributed to oppressive school cultures and climates where the experiences of historically marginalized students are ignored but has also cultivated environments where white-middle class values are viewed as a superior prerequisite to successful educational outcomes.

The implementation of CRLS practices“explicitly calls for schooling to be a site for sustaining—rather than eradicating—the cultural ways of being of communities of color by perpetuat[ing] and foste[ing] linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of schooling for positive social transformation and revitalization,” (Paris & Alim, 2017). Within schools, these practices can be observed as 1) empowering students to share their unique perspectives, 2) incorporating varying learning styles, such as oral stories, to emulate culturally significant practices, 3) being inclusive in classroom materials so students are able to see themselves in the work, and 4) enhancing students’ learning by connecting material realities, and access to institutional power to their lived experiences (Paris, 2012; Paris & Alim, 2017). Culturally relevant and sustaining practices such as these support historically marginalized students by “linking school and culture,” (Ladson-Billings, 1995) to ensure that all students are supported in being academically, socially, and emotionally successful in their schooling. Thus, culturally responsive and sustaining pedagogy exists to further the pursuit for educational justice in an effort to dismantle racist institutions in “the place where the beat drops” (Ladson-Billings, 2014, p. 76).

Public schooling systems cannot be considered equitable until they truly serve the needs of all students. Thus, dismantling racism in schools must be a targeted effort in order for equity to be achieved.In the next section, we will discuss the barriers for students may exist around their race, gender, SES, language, and SWD status.

Barriers to Opportunities

There are many systematic barriers that impede the educative process of students (del Carmen Salazar, 2013; Cherng, 2017; Milner, 2013; Horsford, 2010). As previously highlighted, students of color often experience exclusionary practices that interfere with their classroom learning, peer interactions, and relationships with educators. Emergent bilingual students, SWDs, and economically disadvantaged students also experience oppressive forces within American schooling systems that ostracize and criminalize their existence (Ladson-Billings, 2014; del Carmen Salazar, 2013; Cherng, 2017; Paris & Alim, 2017). In this section, we will discuss specific factors needed to create equitable learning environments, such academic enrichments, resources,and school supports, cultural competency training, and educators of color, as well as discuss how disciplinary practices often criminalize historically marginalized students.

Differential Access to Academic Enrichments, Resources, and School Supports

In many large urban public-school districts, students take high-risk tests to place into academic advancement opportunities (e.g. advanced work courses, best performing district schools, etc.) However, as previously highlighted in this report, there are noted disparities in access to and availability of academic enrichments, resources, and school supports for historically marginalized students, contributing to an observable opportunity barrier. Rather than speaking to the persistent disparity in academic achievement between different student groups, the opportunity barrier highlights the role of race/ ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language proficiency, or other factors on perpetuating inequities (Milner, 2012; Welner & Carter, 2013). This narrative shifts the focus from blaming students for “academic failures” and examines the system that distributes inequitable access to resources and opportunities that promote student success (Milner, 2012; Welner & Carter, 2013).

For example, research outlines that Black students are less likely than white students to have access to enrichment classes, including college-readiness courses and honors placements (OCR, 2014). In fact, the United Negro College Fund (UNCF) (2016), reported that across the US in 2012, only 57% of Black students had access to a full range of math and science classes in comparison to 71% of white students. Additionally, Black and Latinx students are less likely to be in schools offering enrichment opportunities (OCR, 2014), and even when these resources are available, Black and Latinx students are less likely to be placed in honors or advanced placement courses. According to UNCF, Black and Latinx students combined represent only 29% of students enrolled in at least one advanced placement course, even though 38% of the schools these students attend offer AP (ACT & UNCF, 2016).

Ability grouping disproportionately impacts students of color, Emergent Bilinguals, and SWDs. These students are often placed into lower ability courses due to factors such as lower teacher expectations due to students racial/ethnic background, lack of necessary culturally responsive and sustaining engagement skills from educators to build critical relationships with families, and ineffective teaching strategies/lack of culturally responsive and sustaining curriculum and instruction. Until students of color are given the same resources and supports to be successful, barriers to learning will persist, causing differential outcomes in student academic performance.

Lack of Cultural Competency and Educators of Color

Students live complex lives both within and outside of school. Research details the challenge many historically marginalized students experience when matriculating in urban public schools during a period of intensified racist and xenophobic politics and policies (Rogers et all, 2017). At current, many historically marginalized students and their families are immersed in broader societal conflicts surrounding race, immigration, gender and sexual identity. The current environment can generate high levels of anxiety for many Americans, but especially for historically marginalized students and their families.

Hence, implementing culturally responsive and sustaining practices in schools, such as anti-oppressive trainings for teachers is critical (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Flynn, 2015; Lopes- Murphy & Murphy, 2016). Cultural competence trainings in schools should include 1) generating cultural knowledge and understanding about students, 2) stimulating conversations with students and families to best understand how to work in collaboration, 3) checking individual biases about particular groups of students, and 4) calling out racism and other discriminatory practices that systematically target a particular group of students (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris, 2012; Cherng, 2017; Morrison et al., 2008). Becoming culturally competent will not happen through the attendance of a singular workshop or professional development day. Rather cultural competency is achieved through the systematic implementation of policies, practices, and behaviors that support a culturally responsive and sustaining learning environment (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris, 2012; Howard, 2003).

Diversification of the teaching force by hiring more teachers of color has been proposed as the simplest solution to increase asset-based teaching in schools serving students who have been historically marginalized. Increasing the number of teachers of color could help to mitigate the structural inequities and the lack of cultural understanding amongst teachers (Lewis et al., 2008). This is especially critical as historically marginalized students are now the majority of public-school enrollees (NCES, 2017). For example, students of color have made up a majority of the student body since 2014, students in poverty since 2015, and more than 25% of public-school students are first- or second-generation immigrants, (NCES, 2017). Yet nationally, the teaching force is predominantly white (around 80% according to recent statistics), and New England reflects this national trend. In Massachusetts, students of color made up 38% of all public-school students in the 2018-19 school year (MA DESE, 2019), but only 10% of teachers were people of color (MA DESE, 2019). In Boston, these numbers are 82% and 46% respectively. While the teaching force in Boston is more racially diverse, it still does not fully reflect the student body and poses concern around educator ability to connect with the changing demographics and needs of students and their families.

Boston is a racially and ethnically diverse city. From the perspective of marginalized families, some are entering schools where white people hold positions of authority, namely as teachers and administrators (Vaught, 2008). Recent literature has indicated that the overrepresentation of white educators in urban schools has led to a lack of school-to-home collaboration and cultural understanding between schools and families. Researchers have described the significance of having culturally competent educators and educators of color to build these connections (Jupp & Slattery, 2012; Sleeter, 2017; Ullucci, 2011). For instance, research has highlighted the experiences of some teachers who have spoken about white resistance to and fatigue from learning about race and culture (Crowley & Smith, 2015; Flynn, 2015). Educators who are unable or unwilling to break down cultural barriers to understand the lived experiences of their students and families can cause a significant barrier for student achievement (Paris & Alim, 2017).

Lack of Student Voice

Similar to diversification of the teaching force, incorporating student voice and cultural knowledge into classroom instruction empowers students with direct ownership of their learning experience. However, in most US classrooms, the structure of K-12 schooling is hierarchical (Kohli, 2017).

A typical hierarchical model recognizes people who are in positions of authority and power, such as principals, administrators and teachers, while viewing students and their families as secondary participants (Kohli, 2017). Incorporating student voice into the classroom is a culturally responsive and sustaining practice that allows students to share who they are and what they believe with their fellow peers and educators (Paris, 2012; Ladson-Billings; 1995). Educators can promote student voice in their classrooms through 1) project-based learning, such as capstones, which encourage student-led learning, capacity-building, and critical thinking skills, 2) generating avenues for students to be creative, explore, and develop new ideas which can encourage students to deepen their knowledge and be open to new perspectives, including listening to the voices of students who are typically ignored or seldom heard, and 3) encouraging students to be classroom leaders through activities such as storytelling, which encourages students to share their experiences and passions and can encourage the development of confidence, aid in building connections, and help students understand their voice (Paris, 2012; Ladson-Billings; 1995).

Literature has shown the consequence of stifling student voice on the academic and socioemotional developments of children (Quiroz, 2001). For example, when the aforementioned strategies are implemented into classroom practices, there are observed differences in students’ civic skills (Conner, 2011; Delgado & Staples, 2008, Ginwright & James, 2002; Ginwright, 2010; Rogers et al., 2012; Torres-Fleming et al., 2010), and sociopolitical consciousness (Conner, 2011; Watts et al., 2003) which has long-term implications on their academic success (Perry, Tabb, and Mendenhall, 2015; Conner, 2011). Students who develop a sense of sociopolitical consciousness exhibit an increased resilience to oppressive forces, including the increased ability to critically analyze the relationship between their race, class, or gender (i.e., interlocking structures of oppression) and its impact on their lived experiences both within and outside of school (Perry, Tabb, and Mendenhall, 2015). However, when students lack the opportunity to develop voice and share their cultural knowledge, teachers and administrators maintain all positional power, which can serve as a barrier to student growth and achievement.

Extreme Discipline Practices

All students deserve to learn in environments that are nurturing, supporting, welcoming, and safe. However, school disciplinary practices, such as detention, suspension, and expulsion, pose a barrier to learning, especially for students of color and students with disabilities, who are disproportionally at-risk to experience extreme punishment and zero-tolerance discipline (Morris and Perry, 2016). Zero-tolerance policies disproportionately criminalize historically marginalized students based on the belief that severe disciplinary consequences are required to correct student behavior, regardless of the individual circumstances, (Kirkland et. al, 2019). For example, Black students comprised roughly 16% of the student body in K-12 public schools nationwide, but accounted for 32% of in-school suspensions, 42% of multi-day out-of-school suspensions, and 34% of school expulsions (OCR, 2014). Similarly, the numbers for Latinx students’ suspension and expulsion rates were 22%, 21%, and 22% respectively (OCR, 2014). Examining these numbers by gender, ability status, and SES only reveal more disparate findings. Black girls are suspended at higher rates than girls of any other race or ethnicity (OCR, 2014). Students with disabilities are more than twice as likely to receive an out-of-school suspension than students without disabilities (OCR, 2014). In fact, nearly one out of four Black boys with disabilities (two times the rate of white boys with disabilities) and nearly one in five Black girls with disabilities (three times the rate of white girls with disabilities) faces out-of-school suspension (OCR, 2014).

Morris and Perry (2016) asserted that school-based infractions account for roughly one-fifth of the White-Black opportunity barrier. Students who are continuously and excessively punished for minor offenses or violations in school, are not only having their needs silenced, but are also forced to miss out on quality classroom instruction time (Morris & Perry, 2016). When students are forced to miss out on classroom instruction, their overall school performance is impacted. Missing 3-10 days of classwork due to suspension, for instance, can put a student extremely behind, with implications on their comprehension of school material, and ability to perform on standardized exams.

Equity Reforms and Student Outcomes

When traditional models of schooling are interrupted by centering race/ racial equity, there are often improved student academic and socioemotional outcomes, such as higher student interest, motivation, and performance, as well as greater confidence and self-perception (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Ladson-Billings, 2010, Irvine, 2002; Gay, 2010; Aronson & Laughter, 2015).

Particularly, we see an increased ability to engage in discourse and strong racial/ethnic identity among students of color in schools where culturally responsive and sustaining education (CRSE) is the focus of reform (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Ladson-Billings, 2010, Irvine, 2002; Gay, 2010; Aronson & Laughter, 2015). In school reform efforts centering cross cultural knowledge, including acknowledging and respecting the importance of individual differences based on students’ identities, languages, and cultures, (Gay, 2002; 2010) emergent bilingual students often have increased multi-lingual development and academic achievement. Similarly, economically disadvantaged students have benefited from school reform efforts focused on being culturally responsive and sustaining to their ways of being, such as their norms and values, learning styles, and backgrounds (Ladson-Billings, 2009, 2010).

Similar to BPS, large urban districts across the country, including NYC, Baltimore, Chicago, Newark, and LA, have begun equity work similar to Excellence for All. For example, a Baltimore City Public Schools (City Schools) taskforce composed of community leaders and district partners proposed an equity policy to the school board in 2019. City Schools subsequently adapted 6 priorities to uphold pillars of excellence around student achievement, effective and efficient operations, and family/community engagement, including:

• Quality curricula and instruction to ensure all students will achieve high standards and annual growth that lead them to graduate prepared to be independent, creative, contributing members of society,
• Quality staff so that all students benefit from transformational leadership at all levels of the organization to ensures the success of district initiatives and sustain a culture of excellence that leads to academic success,
• Climate and facilities so that all students learn in environments that embody a culture and climate of excellence, mutual respect, and safety,
• Parent and community engagement that build resources and opportunities for student success,
• Responsible stewardship and excellent customer service where all students benefit from predictable, reliable, transparent management processes and systems that build internal and external trust and contribute positively to school outcomes, and
• Portfolio of great schools that meet the needs of students and communities. (Excellence and Equity 2020)

The City Schools Excellence and Equity 2020 report outlined the district’s plan to disrupt and dismantle institutional racism in a way that’s focused on honoring the culture, lived experiences, and humanity of students, their families, and the larger community. Through this equity work City Schools aimed to promote student success by ensuring access to high quality academic programing, as well as build equity-based educator capacity.

Similarly, in New Jersey, Newark Public Schools (NPS) recently implemented a Comprehensive Equity Plan with 6 priorities areas to promote student success, including:

• Unified and aligned systems for assessment, data collection, transportation, facilities support, communication, and family and community engagement within an equity culture that values people, diversity, inclusion, and collaboration,
• A rigorous and relevant framework for curriculum and instruction that is inquiry-based, culturally responsive, and student-centered for prekindergarten to grade twelve curricula in all content areas,

A strength-based and responsive culture to build strength-based learning and working environments that foster shared beliefs, build relationships, promote partnerships, establish accountability, and value transparency. Culture and climate benchmarks are to be in place to support and celebrate accomplishments, recognize growth, build relationships, respond to needs, learn continuously, and value our differences,

Continuous learning for all to develop a unified and well-designed professional learning framework for teachers and school leaders that differentiates learning to their particular needs while providing universal support around shared learning objectives,

Integrated system of supports to address students’ social, emotional, and behavioral challenges occurring at all levels, and

Strong reciprocal partnerships as student success is a collective endeavor. Partnerships serve a vital role in enveloping every child we serve in a well-designed continuum of support and enrichment that propels them into any future they envision for themselves.(NPS Clarity 2020)

Data for NPS district priorities resulted from deep engagement with various stakeholders across NPS (e.g. school leaders, teachers, and community members). However, this targeted effort is for students in grades Prek-12, whereas EFA focused on grades 4-6. Through these targeted efforts, NPS is aiming to “implement the systems that embrace, celebrate, and empower the diversity among all students and staff” to result in “systemic transformation,” (NPS Clarity 2020). Particularly, NPS is focused on the impact of poverty, racism, immigration and language needs on students’ academic, social, physical, and mental health (NPS Clarity 2020).

As aforementioned research on equity reform described, when schools center the needs of historically marginalized students, including highlighting their voice, lived experiences, assets, and future possibilities, students’ needs, strengths, academic, and socioemotional development are nurtured (Ladson-Billings, 2009, 2010; Gay, 2002, 2010). The above highlighted reforms in Baltimore City and Newark Public Schools align with EFA 5 Pillars of Practice. While outcomes from these equity initiatives are not yet available, based on research that determines success outcomes of equity reforms, (Payne, 2008), we would expect shifts in schooling cultures, conditions, policies, and practices to better support, honor, and uphold students’ cultures, identities, and educational needs.

Next Sections

This evaluation was designed to examine the facilitators and barriers of EFA implementation. As such, we relied heavily on qualitative methods.

Key findings presented in this section emerged from our analysis of individual and focus group interviews. Findings are presented thematically in two sections we label as highlights and challenges.

Already desiring more rigorous curriculum and pedagogy for all students, EFA gave schools the additional resources needed to turn this vision into a reality.

Recommendations

These recommendations support ways EFA can best serve BPS students through a culturally responsive and sustaining lens.

This report outlines clear guidelines to improve EFA implementation across sites as well as target efforts to meet the needs of historically marginalized students.

References for Excellence For All Report

Qualitative data was collected by four highly trained researchers. NYU Metro Center worked with BPS to identify four case study schools, and one researcher was assigned to each of the selected schools.

Previous Sections

Executive Summary

Our report provides a primarily qualitative analysis of fidelity and quality of support for student learning in the implementation of the EFA initiative in 16 Boston Public Schools serving 4-6th grade students.

Introduction

Excellence for All (EFA) is a Boston Public School (BPS) district initiative to address the need for equitable access and opportunity for student learning.

Return to Landing Page