See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278961764

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks in the Social and Management

Sciences

Research · June 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3210.7680

CITATIONS READS

28 78,003

2 authors:

Patrick Ngulube Elias R Mathipa

University of South Africa University of South Africa
190 PUBLICATIONS   2,329 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   71 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research Data Management in sub-Saharan Africa View project

Access and use of poultry management information in selected rural areas of Tanzania View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Patrick Ngulube on 22 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Chapter 41

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks in the Social and

Management Sciences
Patrick Ngulube, Elias R Mathipa and Mishack T Gumbo

4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, we consider two research frameworks: conceptual and theoretical.
The chapter complements and questions the existing conversations around the
theoretical and conceptual perspectives that inform the research process. Thus, the
intent in the chapter is both edifying and therapeutic. Although Bak (2004:17) posits
that there are a variety of ways of crafting a theoretical framework, for the most part,
this chapter will enable researchers to overcome theoretical struggles and appreciate
how a research framework might assist them to “interpret and understand the
findings of research” within a research framework which makes ‘“sense’ of the data”
(May, 1993:20). Some authors acknowledge three types of research frameworks,
namely, theoretical, practical (Scriven, 1986) and conceptual (Eisenhart, 1991),
although practical frameworks are beyond the scope of this chapter.

You will find this chapter useful if you are a postgraduate researcher, a research
supervisor, or examiner of theses, as it will assist you to come to terms with the
fundamental aspects of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in their diversity,
richness and depth. The primary aim is to provide researchers like you, with tools for
understanding such analytical research devices in order to appreciate their role and
function in social inquiry.

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

 Identify the key definitions of a conceptual and theoretical framework;
 Select a conceptual and theoretical framework for an inquiry;
 Discuss the context of applying conceptual and theoretical frameworks;
 Articulate differences between a conceptual and theoretical framework;
 Select an appropriate conceptual and theoretical framework for an inquiry;
 Describe the consequences of not employing conceptual and theoretical
frameworks; and
 Discuss the use of theoretical frameworks in qualitative traditions.

Research in the social and management sciences does not have a tradition of
adequately explicating the notion of conceptual and theoretical frameworks.
Consequently, the understanding of the development and use of theoretical and
conceptual frameworks may be limited. In fact, some researchers do not fully

1
How to cite this chapter: Ngulube, P., Mathipa, ER & Gumbo, MT. Theoretical and conceptual framework in
the social sciences, in Mathipa, ER & Gumbo, MT. (eds). Addressing research challenges: Making headway in
developing researchers. Mosala-MASEDI Publishers & Booksellers cc: Noordywk, pp. 43-66.
understand what it means to adopt a theoretical or conceptual framework (Lester,
2005:460; Ocholla & Le Roux, 2011:62). Theoretical and conceptual frameworks are
ignored or misunderstood because they are described and alluded to by many
methodologists, but very few of them fully explain or clarify the two constructs
(Leshem & Trafford, 2007:94; De Vos & Strydom, 2011:35) and their role in
research.

A Google Scholar search for the term “theoretical framework” yielded 3,810,000 hits,
while a similar search for “conceptual framework” found 2,350,000 results. In both
instances, the first 100 sources used the terms without clarifying their meanings or
providing a clear rationale for using theoretical or conceptual frameworks. De Vos
and Strydom (2011) also use the two concepts without fully explaining and
differentiating them, even if the editors of the text claim that the book is meant to
“accompany the novice researcher in both the social sciences and human service
professions, step by step through the research process” (De Vos & Strydom, 2011:
back cover). Furthermore, our experience while conducting workshops on research
writing for masters and doctoral students over the years revealed that graduate
programmes do not properly equip novice researchers with adequate preparation in
terms of theory. Consequently, there is widespread confusion among researchers
about what adopting a theoretical or conceptual perspective entails when conducting
research. The situation is not peculiar to east and southern Africa. Even in the United
States, Lester (2005:461) observed that graduate programmes were at some stage
“woefully lacking in courses and experiences that provide students with solid
theoretical and philosophical grounding for future research”.

Moreover, many research supervisors do not insist that students doing research
reports offer serious theory-based explanations for their findings. Such gaps and
omissions in the existing literature and practice partly explain why many
postgraduate students and research supervisors struggle with generating or
choosing, developing, refining and executing their theoretical and conceptual
frameworks. There is a dire need to prepare and equip researchers with an
understanding of the usefulness and importance of adopting theoretical and
conceptual frameworks when conducting their inquiries.

Developing and using theoretical and conceptual frameworks is not straightforward,

since they are not found “readymade in the literature” waiting for researchers to
utilise them (Maxwell, 2012: xi). The problem of understanding theoretical and
conceptual frameworks is compounded by the fact that there is a lack of a common
language regarding the notions of theoretical and conceptual frameworks (Leshem &
Trafford, 2007:94). Sometimes, theoretical frameworks are referred to as conceptual
frameworks (Anfara, 2008; Ocholla & Le Roux, 2011; Maxwell, 2013). Ravitch and
Riggan (2012: xiv) posit that a theoretical framework is an aspect of a conceptual
framework. The use of the two terms varies among different researchers and
scholarly traditions.

On the one hand, there are some scholars who refer to research paradigms such as
the interpretive approach, critical theory, symbolic interactionism (Denzin & Lincoln
2003; Henning, Van Rensburg & Smit, 2004; Anfara, 2008) and research
perspectives (Creswell, 2009) as theoretical and conceptual frameworks. On the
other hand, there are those who refer to general theories such as Maslow’s hierarchy
of needs theory, McClelland’s achievement theory, the theory of reasoned action,
gestalt theory, Lave’s and Wenger’s situated learning theory, Marxist theory,
Darwin’s theory of evolution, Einstein’s theory of relativity, Piaget’s developmental
learning theory, Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory and Bandura’s social learning
theory as a theoretical framework. The domain of definitions is not without its
difficulties. For instance, Schurink (2009:806) uses the definition provided by
Maxwell (1996:25) for a conceptual framework to define a theoretical framework,
albeit without any appropriate attribution of the idea (See table 4.1). Gunnell (1969)
posits that the terms ‘models’ and ‘theory’ are inappropriately used interchangeably,
and they are not distinguished from a conceptual framework. Thus:

…the use of these terms has a much wider range of application and possesses a
quite different reference in the natural sciences and the philosophy of science, it
would be misleading merely to use these terms and “conceptual framework”
interchangeably (Gunnell, 1969:143).

Researchers should appreciate that the use of terms in research is largely

dependent on their disciplines. Disregarding this fact has added to the conceptual
mayhem regarding the use of the terms conceptual framework and theoretical
framework. Methodologists and social science researchers can no longer be allowed
to use these terms loosely, without being intellectually compelled to make a
distinction between the notion of a conceptual and theoretical framework. We argue
that these terms are conceptually different.

4.2 Models, concepts and theories: reading from the same page
The building blocks of theory are models, concepts, constructs and propositions. The
precise difference between concepts and constructs is hard to come by. Creswell
(2009) seems to suggest that the difference between the two terms is dependent on
one’s academic field. For instance, psychologists tend to use the term construct
instead of variable (Creswell, 2009:50). Models derive from experiencing the world.
They may be in the form of verbal, visual or mathematical representations. A concept
derives from a given model and a theory is “a set of concepts used to define and/or
explain some phenomenon” (Silverman, 2000:77). Concepts allow us to differentiate
between social phenomena. A number of concepts form constructs (Anfara & Mertz,
2006). It may not be conceptually correct to use theories and models
interchangeably. Models are the main route for researchers to conceptual
frameworks, while theories lead to theoretical frameworks.

On the one hand, relationships among constructs are expressed in terms of

propositions. On the other hand, the relationship of propositions constitute a theory
(Anfara & Mertz, 2006), which is an abstraction of the concrete world (model in this
context). The model-theory continuum is illustrated in figure 4.1 below. The
relationship between these notions is iterative and cyclical, rather than linear, as
Silverman (2000:79) seems to suggest when depicting them diagrammatically. For
instance, in quantitative traditions, models may be produced after the formulation of
theories, whereas qualitative traditionalists start with models of the social
phenomenon. Models may lead to the formulation of theories, which in turn “lead to
the construction of another model for the verification of a theory” (Celine, 2011).
The arrows in figure 4.1 below pointing in opposite directions show the relationship
between theory and research from a positivist (i.e. deductive approach whereby
research mainly starts with a theory) and interpretivist perspective (i.e. inductive
approach which starts with observations in order to develop theories and
generalisations).

MODEL

CONCEPT

Inductive
THEORY
Deductive

Figure 4.1: Model-theory continuum

Social science researchers start out with models and then progress to concepts that
represent an identified research problem within a subject matter, and collect data to
understand and establish linkages between these concepts. Concepts become
theoretical structures, as they are the building blocks of theory. Concepts are
measurable, and measurement is the essence of operationalisation. Researchers
identify indicators of each concept in order to measure it. Each concept may have a
number of indicators, in which case the researcher is supposed to determine the
relative weight of each indicator. The distinction between model and theory is at
times not clearly defined (Sriraman & English, 2010). A model describes a
phenomenon and embodies a theory.

Unlike theories, which have the power to explain and predict, models merely
describe the phenomenon. Theories are tested through propositions or hypotheses
using a methodology that fits with the model or theory. According to Strauss and
Corbin (1994:278), “[t]heory consists of plausible relationships produced from
concepts and sets of concepts”. Puttergill (2000:19) posits that theories are
constituted through concepts, and certain aspects of a theory may therefore be used
as a conceptual framework. This partly explains why we talk of a model-theory
continuum in figure 4.1 above.
Consequently, researchers will be operating in the second circle when they use
aspects of a theory, rather than the whole theory. They can still operate at a lower
level using models. It is noteworthy that the system is flexible, but when you use the
whole theory, one is more on the level of a theoretical framework than a conceptual
framework.

4.3 Nature of conceptual frameworks

A conceptual framework is also known as an analytical framework (Gunnell,
1969:143). Although Gunnell (1969) stated that “any reasoned defense of the
conceptual framework remains to be presented” because of the difficulties in
evaluating a conceptual framework, scholars such as Anfara and Mertz (2006) and
Ravitch and Riggan (2012) have demonstrated, to the contrary, that there are tools
for evaluating conceptual frameworks. It is highly unlikely that a thesis without a
conceptual framework will obtain a pass at many universities (Trafford, 2003). It is
important to note that the author seems to use a conceptual framework simply as a
lense to explain and understand the world, just like a theoretical framework. We
argue that the two notions are different, although they may both be used as an
interpretive framework, theoretically and conceptually.

The notion of a conceptual framework is oxymoronic because concepts are

abstractions, which are theoretical rather than concrete. Concepts are labels that we
assign to dimensions or elements of the real world. They help us to understand the
real world. Concepts are an essential component of theories (Bryman, 2012:8). A
conceptual framework shows the relationship between concepts and their impact on
the phenomenon being investigated. The framework is derived from concepts or
constructs. Conceptual frameworks provide understanding, rather than offering a
theoretical explanation (Jabareen, 2009:51). The definitions of a conceptual
framework provided in table 4.1 below are instructive. Read them in conjunction with
Figure 4.1.
Table 4.1: Definitions of a conceptual framework
Definition Source
A conceptual framework is a “network, or “a plane,” of interlinked concepts that Jabareen
together provide a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon or (2009:51)
phenomena”.
“A conceptual framework is an argument that the concepts chosen for Lester
investigation, and any anticipated relationships among them, will be appropriate (2005:460)
and useful given the research problem under investigation”.
“A conceptual framework explains either graphically or in a narrative form, the Miles &
main things to be studied-the key factors, constructs or variable – and the Huberman
presumed relationships among them. Frameworks can be rudimentary or (1994:18)
elaborate, theory-driven or commonsensical, descriptive or casual”.
A conceptual framework is “the system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, Maxwell
beliefs and theories that supports and informs your research...” (1996:25)
The conceptual framework, as both a process and a framework that helps to direct Ravitch &
and ground researchers, is “an argument about why the topic of a study matters, Riggan (2012)
and why the methods proposed to study it are appropriate and rigorous”.
“A conceptual framework, which is simply a less developed form of a theory, Rudestam &
consists of statements that link abstract concepts to empirical data. Theories and Newton
conceptual frameworks are developed to account for or describe abstract (1992:6)
phenomena that occur under similar conditions”.
“A conceptual framework explains either graphically or in a narrative form, the Van der Walt
main dimensions to be studied − the key factors or variables and the presumed (2003)
relationships. A framework can be rudimentary or elaborate, theory driven or
commonsensical, descriptive or causal”.
“A ‘conceptual framework’ can be distinguished from a theoretical framework in Vithal, Jansen &
that it is a less-developed explanation of events”. Jansen
(2013:19)

Judging from the definitions given in table 4.1, conceptual frameworks can be
characterised as:
 a motivation for selecting concepts and linking them to a research problem;
 a set of concepts and aspects of theories that assist in establishing coherence
in research;
 less developed than theories;
 giving direction to research, just as the theoretical framework does;
 a diagrammatic representation of concepts and their relationship in a specific
research context; and
 linking abstractions to empirical data.

These characteristics partly show the differences between a conceptual framework

and a theoretical framework. According to Kumar (2005:37), a conceptual framework
“stems from a theoretical framework and concentrates, usually, on one section of
that theoretical" framework “which forms the basis of a research”. In other words, the
conceptual framework is an aspect(s) that is drawn from the theoretical framework
and becomes the basis for a research problem (Kumar, 2005:37). There may be
many theories related to a construct, but the researcher may be interested in testing
some aspect(s) of the theories or theory, and this becomes the conceptual
framework of the study.

A conceptual framework is best depicted diagrammatically. The use of flow charts to

depict the key concepts and their relationship was emphasised by Miles and
Huberman (1984:33) and Silverman (2000:67). The diagrammatic depiction of
concepts is variously known as concept maps, integrative diagrams, systems or
Venn diagrams, and conceptual modelling (Robson, 2002:63). As graphic tools,
concept maps are “a schematic device for representing a set of concept meanings
embedded in a framework of propositions” (Novak & Gowin, 1984:15). Concept
mapping links, differentiates, and relates concepts to one another (Daley & Torre,
2010; Novak & Gowin, 1984). The most general concept is placed at the top of the
map. The specific concepts that relate to the general concepts are then identified
and linked to each other and the general concepts at the top form a beautiful
conceptual framework for the inquiry, or a map of literature demarcating the
boundaries of the study. An example of a concept map or decision tree is provided in
Figure 9.1 in Chapter 9.

4.3.1 Role of conceptual frameworks in the research process

A conceptual framework clarifies, explains and justifies methodological decisions
(Ravitch & Riggan, 2012:9). In comparison to a theoretical framework, it may evolve
as the research progresses. A conceptual framework does the following:

 provides coherence for research (Berger & Patchener, 1988);

 provides a scheme for selecting and prioritising variables that are of interest to
the researcher;
 introduces explicitness to research processes (Leshem & Trafford, 2007);
  enables readers to be clear about what the research seeks to accomplish and
how it will be accomplished (King, Keohane & Verba, 1994);
 demonstrates coherence between empirical observations and conceptual
conclusions (Leshem & Trafford, 2007); and
 offers a self-audit facility to ensure cohesion and appropriate
conceptualisation for research conclusions (Leshem & Trafford, 2007).

There is a tendency among researchers to include a conceptual framework in their

research, with little attempt to link it to their study, because they think that it is
fashionable or meets the requirements of their research supervisors or journal
editors. The conceptual framework as an interpretive lens, similar to the theoretical
framework, is analogous to a washing line onto which one hooks washed clothes to
dry. Neglecting to use the identified interpretive lens is akin to having a washing line
and spreading one’s clothes on the ground or in the trees, in order for them to dry.
Like the theoretical framework, the conceptual framework is the golden thread
running through good research – it should inform the research questions,
methodologies and data analysis.

Ennis (1999:129) implores researchers to discipline themselves to use the

theoretical framework that they have chosen throughout the research process. The
same should also apply to using the conceptual framework to support the research
process. This is why researchers are urged to explain how their conceptual
framework has assisted them to:

 achieve some of the analytical goals suggested in the six bulleted points
above;
 design the research; and
 analyse the findings.

In this way, the utility of the washing line for drying clothes becomes apparent.

The risks associated with the failure to utilise any conceptual framework are outlined
by Leshem and Trafford (2007:95) as follows:

 Focus upon research methods at the expense of concepts;

 A framework is not devised nor its function appreciated ; and
 Lack of explicit and cohesive relationships throughout the research.

4.4 Theory and research

Research in the social and management sciences is partly theory-oriented. There is
a need to explain the role of theory and understand theory development in research.
Theory is identified and chosen from the literature. This partly explains why many
scholars assert that the two are inseparable. Researchers gain knowledge about
theories in their field through engaging with scholarship. They develop knowledge of
various theories used in a discipline and read exemplars of the “theory being used”
well (Henstrand, 2006:17), by engaging with the literature in order to have a solid
theoretical grounding.
Having a well thought-out theory on which to base their work enables researchers to
apply theory correctly. The key concepts in a study should guide the researcher in
the right direction. The major concepts and constructs should be consistent with the
theory’s framework. Stated differently, a review of the literature can help researchers
to discover a theory that will frame their understanding of the concept under
investigation, and influence their research values and beliefs. A discussion of the
theory often appears under the section of the literature review, or the theoretical
rationale, perspective or framework of many studies.

Theory provides a “backcloth and rationale for the research that is being conducted”
(Bryman, 2012:20). A splendid thesis exhibits “independent, critical thought” by
engaging with theory (Silverman, 2000:75). However, some scholars are sceptical
about the role of theory in research. Some of their reasons are listed below (Lester,
2005:459):

 Theorists make their data fit a single theory [an example of an

acknowledgment of this fact by Fowler (2006:56) is instructive: “Regardless of
what Mazzoni himself had said, I approached my data analysis with the
implicit assumption that one of Mazzoni’s models had to fit the Ohio data, or
there would be something seriously wrong with my study… Although there
were obvious discrepancies between my findings and the second model, I did
not acknowledge this in the article”];
 Data too often is stripped of context and local meaning in order to serve the
theory;
 Theory sets a standard for scholarly discourse that does not go beyond the
boundaries of an academic discipline, hence the logic of theoretical discourse
is too abstract to be applicable to the experience of practitioners; and
 The use of a single theoretical perspective to frame one’s research precludes
theoretical triangulation, as envisaged by Denzin (1978).

Although there is much debate about the definition and value of theory when
conducting empirical research, many scholars agree that there are substantial
advantages in linking research to theory. The conception and preference for a
particular theory influences the choice of the research questions and theoretical
framework in research (Sriraman & English, 2005:451). Theory is the mediator of
“connections between the vertices of the scholarship triangle, i.e. practices,
problems, and research” (Silver & Herbst, 2007:50). Some scholars are even bold
enough to argue that in the social and related sciences, “nothing can be studied
empirically in the absence of theory and research methods” (Bergman, 2011:99).

Furthermore, King, Keohane and Verba (1994:29) posit that: “No empirical
investigation can be successful without theory to guide its choice of questions”. The
development of a theoretical framework to guide one’s research is the central piece
in the research puzzle (Ennis, 1999:129). A theoretical framework should be
carefully chosen and used. In addition, it should be fit for purpose in order for it to
effectively inform an inquiry, because “unsound or unsupported theoretical
assertions create bad science no matter how strong the methodology” (Kaplan,
Saunders & Bryan, and 2011:625).
Many scholars agree that one cannot do scientific research without having a
theoretical framework, but there is no common understanding of what theory means
(Manion & Morrison, 2007; Bryman, 2012; Cohen, Van Peer, Hakemulder & Zyngier,
2012). This partly explains why Ennis (1999:132) suggests that the “most critical part
of the research plan is the theoretical framework”.

The term ‘theory’ is used in very different ways and there are competing and
contradictory notions of the concept. Morrison (in Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007)
characterised theories as empirical, grand and critical. Grand theories are
metanarratives that are not suitable for guiding social research(Bryman, 2012:22).
Middle range theories such as empirical and critical ones operate in a limited space.
On the other hand, Neuman (2000) distinguished between theories at micro-level,
meso-level and macro-level. Micro-level theories are limited in space and time (e.g.
individual theories), and those at meso-level deal with communities and
organisations (e.g. organisational and group theories), and they link the micro and
macro levels. Macro-level theories explain the broader aspects of systems or
society. According to Puttergill (2000:19), theory is “a framework of ideas that
provides an explanation of something”. The commonly quoted definition of theory is
that of Kerlinger (Anfara & Mertz, 2006; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007:12;
Creswell, 2009:51). According to Kerlinger (1979:64), a theory is:

a set of interrelated constructs (variables), definitions, and propositions that

presents a systematic view of phenomenon by specifying relations among
variables, with the purpose of explaining natural phenomena.

In the view of Mills and Birks (2014:260), a theory is an “explanation scheme

comprising a set of concepts related to each other through logical patterns of
connectivity”. In the same vein, Schwandt (2007:292) defines theory as “an
explanatory scheme comprising a set of concepts related to each other through
logical patterns of connectivity”.

Another difficulty in using theory arises from the fact that there is a diversity of
theories that may inform an inquiry. Some of the problems that researchers
investigate are entrenched in a number of theories in different domains. In order to
deal with many theories which may seem to be overlapping and sometimes
contradictory, researchers should appreciate that theory operates “at many levels in
research, such as formal theories, epistemological theories, methodological theories
and meta-theories” (Creswell, 2009:71). We are concerned here with formal theories
and how they constitute the theoretical framework.

4.4.1 Purpose of theory

The claim that “data speak for themselves” is unsustainable because “data don’t
generate theory – only researchers do that” (Mintzberg, 1979:584). Thus, data have
nothing to say because the fact that a set of data can count as evidence of
something or not partly depends on the researcher’s axiological, epistemological,
methodological and ontological assumptions, as well as the context in which it was
gathered. In other words, the theoretical perspectives and assumptions about what
counts as knowledge, and the nature of that knowledge and how it is acquired,
makes it possible to make sense of a set of data. Although theories take several
forms, many scholars agree that they assist in interpreting and understanding events
in the world. The purpose of theory in research is well documented (May, 1993;
Neuman, 2000; Creswell, 2009). In a nutshell, its purpose is to:

 provide tools for the interpretation of collected data;

 prevent the fragmentation of knowledge by ordering;
 give the inquiry a focus; and
 provide theoretical explanations and a deeper understanding of what is being
investigated.

Stated differently:

Theories and constructs are a bit like spectacles – some help you to see more
clearly the object you are concerned with, while others merely give you a foggy,
blurred image. Change the object of your concern, however, and the second pair of
spectacles might be more useful (Bishop, 1977:4).

The use of theory to explain the social world marks the maturity of a discipline.
According to May (1993:20):

[ t]he idea theory, or the ability to interpret and understand the findings of research
within a conceptual framework which makes ‘sense’ of the data, is the mark of a
discipline whose aim is the systematic study of a particular phenomenon.

One of the major functions of theory is to order experience with the help of concepts.
It also selects relevant aspects and data among the enormous multitude of “facts”
that confront the investigator of social phenomena (Coser, 1981:170).

Theories may be descriptive, explanatory and prescriptive, depending on the aims of

the research process. This goes back to a classical distinction which was introduced
by Dithey (1883) in the humanities between explaining (as an analysis of casual
relations) and understanding (as a dense description and the specification of sense,
e.g. from the actor’s inner perspective) (Bikner-Ahsbahs & Prediger, 2006:54).

Explanatory and descriptive theories aim to analyse the social world, while
prescriptive theories “formulate propositions on how reality should be” (Bikner-
Ahsbahs & Prediger, 2006:54).

A theory is chosen for its ability and elegance to explain a social phenomenon
(Vithal, Jansen & Jansen, 2013). The quality of a theory is judged by its explanatory
power, its predictive power and its “scope (the range of cases that they fit well)”
(Schoenfeld, 1998:4). A theory contextualises the research findings. It also tests,
applies and locates the proposed research within established theory (Vithal et al.,
2013). Specifically, the theory addresses the following questions:

 Where is the research coming from?

 How valid is a theory’s proposition in the problem being investigated, or which
theory is more robust than the others in explaining the phenomenon under
investigation?
 How can a theory’s propositions be utilised in the design and conduct of a
study?
Having identified a theory from the literature, researchers should explain how a
specific theory has a bearing on their research. The purpose of the selected theory,
which is used to inform the research, must be made explicit and not left to the
imagination of the reader.

4.4.2 Combining two or more theories in one study

Natural sciences, in contrast to social sciences, largely depend on one theory. Social
sciences have multiple, and at times competing, theories. Social scientists
sometimes combine theories to explain a set of data, in order to achieve fidelity.
Combining more than one theory in a given study is generally known as theoretical
triangulation (Denzin, 1978). Triangulating theories has the possibility of enhancing
the researcher’s understanding of the phenomenon under investigation and
increasing the validity of the explanations. A variety of theories may be used when
one monolithic theory may be inadequate to explain and describe a multi-faceted
phenomenon. Some phenomena may not be amenable to one all-embracing theory.
Two or more theories may be used to study one phenomenon, in such a way that the
theories complement each other. The major difficulty in certain contexts is
developing a grand “theory for everything.”.

Many researchers face problems when it comes to choosing a theory for their study,
because of existing multiple and frequently conflicting theoretical perspectives. This
is partly due to the fact that theoretical perspectives may be home-grown or
borrowed (Bergsten, 2007). Home-grown theories specifically deal with phenomena
in a given field of study, while borrowed ones exist within some other discipline and
are “imported” for use in another, with or without modification. Some scholars are not
happy when a “new” theory from outside a field feeds into an existing field. Home-
grown theories have a low level of interdisciplinarity.

The problem of combining theories is complicated by the notion of the

incommensurability of theories. Some scholars are preoccupied with theoretical
consistency. The argument is that there is no basis for comparing and understanding
theoretical perspectives, making it difficult to combine them (Cobb, 2007). However,
Cobb (2007) advises that researchers should act as bricoleurs by “adapting
theoretical perspectives from a range of theoretical sources” to suit their goals. 1 In
the words of Cobb (2007:29), “rather than adhering to one theoretical perspective,
we act as bricoleurs by adopting ideas from a range of theoretical resources”.
Furthermore, a bricoleur-theorist “works between and within competing and
overlapping perspectives…” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005:6). There is an element of
pragmatism in adapting ideas from a range of theories. One comes up with a
conceptual framework when one uses aspects of more than one theory and
perspective. Theories become more like conceptual tools than theoretical
frameworks, as alluded to in the foregoing sections.

4.5 Nature of theoretical frameworks

A theory is a specific kind of research frame which may be aptly be termed a
theoretical framework. An appropriate theoretical framework is selected through
conducting a literature review. The theoretical framework may change as the
researchers consult more sources. It is advisable to develop the theoretical
framework from the broader to the specific (Kumar, 2005:36). While research
methods influence how studies are conceptualised, measured and interpreted, the
theoretical framework of a discipline informs its methods. It provides the language to
interpret and talk about the social world. A theoretical framework has been variously
defined, as demonstrated in table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2: Definitions of a theoretical framework

Definition Source
“As noted above, the term theoretical framework [...] is defined as any Anfara (2008:871)
empirical or quasi-empirical theory of social and/or psychological processes, at
a variety of levels (e.g., grand, mid-range, and explanatory), that can be
applied to the understanding of phenomena".
Theoretical frameworks are “any empirical or quasi-empirical theory of social Anfara and Mertz
and/or psychological processes, at variety of levels (e.g., grand, mid-range, (2006: xxvii)
and explanatory), that can be applied to the understanding of phenomena”.
“The framework is vital for guiding the research, for ensuring coherence and Bak (2004:17)
for establishing the boundaries of the project”.
“A theoretical framework is a collection of interrelated concepts, like a theory Borgatti (1996-8)
but not necessarily so well worked-out. A theoretical framework guides your
research, determining what things you will measure, and what statistical
relationships you will look for.”
“The theoretical framework is a structure that identifies and describes the Ennis (1999:129)
major elements, variables, or constructs that organize your scholarship”.
“A theoretical framework of an empirical study refers to the system of Schurink (2009:806)
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs and theories that informs the
research...”
“A THEORY or THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK could be described as well- Vithal, Jansen and
developed, coherent explanation for an event...” Jansen (2013:17)
Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena, and University of
in most cases to challenge and extend knowledge within the limits of the Southern Carolina
critical bounding assumptions. The theoretical framework is the structure that (2012)
can hold the theory of a research study. The theoretical framework introduces
and describes the theory which explains why the research is being conducted.

Taken as a whole, these definitions show the nature of theoretical frameworks and
their usefulness when investigating the social world.

4.5.1 Utility of theoretical framework

In contrast to models, which are descriptive in nature, theories explain why
something occurs. A theoretical framework moves the research beyond the realm of
the descriptive into the sphere of the explanatory. According to Cohen, Manion and
Morrison (2007:12), “theory gathers together all the isolated bits of empirical data
into a coherent conceptual framework for wider applicability”. Thus, “having some
theoretical perspective guiding the research provides a framework within which to
attempt to answer Why questions. Without a theoretical orientation, “the researcher
can speculate at best or offer no explanation at all” (Lester, 2005:461).

The development of a theoretical framework is the central piece in the research

puzzle (Ennis, 1999:129). A theoretical framework assists a researcher and shapes
any inquiry in some of the following ways:

 It serves as a basis of a research plan;

  It situates the researcher within a scholarly discourse and links the study to
the broader body of literature;
 It provides a frame within which a problem under investigation can be
understood (Bryman, 2012:20);
 It shapes the research questions and helps to focus the study;
 It allows the researcher to narrow the project down to manageable size;
 It offers a plan for data collection;
 It operates as a tool to interpret research findings; and
 It provides a vehicle for generalizations to other contexts.

Researchers should describe their theoretical framework, including the origin of the
theory and how and why it was selected, adapted and used. The rationale for
selecting the theory should be linked to a discussion of the effects of the theoretical
framework on the study. Researchers may also elect to discuss an alternative
theoretical framework and demonstrate how the preferred one contributes to rigour in
their research. A critique of the strengths and weaknesses of the theory that is
employed by the researchers may be instructive. The same approach may be used
even when dealing with multiple frameworks and theories. The placement of the
theory should be critically considered. It is possible to choose between “theory first”
or “theory later”, as suggested by Wolcott (1995:187). Whatever the choice that they
make, researchers should not force their data to fit their theory. Instead, the
theoretical framework should guide and inform the whole research process.
Questions that do not relate to the theoretical framework must be excluded, even
though they might be interesting.

4.5.2 Research perspectives and theoretical frameworks

The researchers’ beliefs, values and worldviews influence the choice of research
perspective. A researcher may choose to use a certain "perspective" or viewpoint to
conceptualise and conduct the research. The perspectives may be discipline-based
(e.g. education, economics, information science), practice-oriented (e.g. formative
vs. summative evaluation), or philosophical (e.g. positivist, interpretivist, critical
theorist) (Lester, 2005:458). Perspectives may provide a special theoretical angle
and should not be confused with theoretical frameworks. Theoretical perspectives
are “the philosophical stance informing the methodology and thus providing a context
for the process and grounding its logic and criteria” (Crotty, 1998:3).

Epistemological considerations such as positivism, realism and interpretivism, which

are concerned with the question of what counts as or constitutes knowledge in a
discipline, and ontological positions such as objectivism and constructionism, which
are concerned with the nature of knowledge, should not be confused with theoretical
frameworks. These theoretical perspectives are not “developed at a later stage” in
the inquiry, but are conceptual tools that may be used to determine what research
questions to ask and what is to be researched.

The fact that ideological research methodologies, such as feminist perspectives and
critical approaches, which are associated with postmodern thinking, have been used
by some researchers as a qualitative lens to examine the social world, or as an
advocacy lens, does not make them synonymous with theoretical frameworks
(Anfara & Mertz, 2006). The question is whether or not critical approaches may be
used as a theoretical framework rather than a methodology, since they have a strong
theoretical orientation. We argue that ideological research approaches are more
methodological and philosophical positions than theoretical frameworks. Critical
approaches are an “influential paradigm” that has contributed ideology critique and
action research to research methods (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, and 2007: 30).

As grounded theory is an approach of generating theory out of data, rather than a

theory, we suggest, and it is merely a suggestion, which we hope will stimulate
debate, is that the notion of theoretical perspectives has been used somewhat
imprecisely within the research methodology community, in that it has not always
distinguished between methodological and epistemological theories. This has led to
some conceptual confusion and misunderstanding concerning whether paradigm or
research perspectives should indeed be viewed as a theoretical framework.

Although paradigms are models that provide an “overall framework for how we look
at reality” (Silverman, 2000:77), they should not be confused with theoretical
frameworks, as Henning, van Rensburg and Smit (2004) lead us to believe.
“Paradigms are philosophical frameworks that delineate assumptions about ethics,
reality, knowledge, and systematic enquiry’’ (Mertens, 2012:256). In the same vein,
Kuhn (1970: 10) defines a paradigm as “a set of interrelated assumptions about the
social world which provides a philosophical and conceptual framework for the
systematic study of the world”. Based on our explanation of concepts and theories in
section 4.2, it is clear that paradigms may be merely aspects of theories, rather than
full theories in themselves. Paradigms should simply be regarded as an “interpretive
framework”, as explained by Denzin and Lincoln (2005:22), rather than as theoretical
frameworks. At best, paradigms may be conceptualised as metatheories about the
nature of research and methods in a given field “concerned with the investigation,
analysis or description of theory itself” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2014) - theory
for methodology.

4.5.3 Theoretical frameworks in quantitative research

Many quantitative studies are theory-driven and are mainly concerned with testing or
verifying theories, rather than developing them. Being atheoretical is a luxury that
quantitative researchers cannot afford. Theories drive almost all phases of the
research cycle, since quantitative studies generally use a deductive approach.
Theory becomes a container into which data must be poured. The research process
begins with theory that is used to formulate research questions or a hypothesis,
followed by data collection and analysis. The findings assist in confirming or rejecting
the theory, and lead to a possible revision of the theory. This may ultimately lead to
the development of laws. The depiction of the relationship between theory and
research may appear as if it is linear, but this logic may change when investigating
the real world, as a result of, for example, new theoretical ideas coming to the fore.

Variables or constructs to be measured are specified and defined in advance. This is

possible if the researcher has a considerable conceptual understanding about the
problem to be investigated. The theory becomes the framework for the entire study.

The theoretical framework should include (Creswell, 2009:59) the following:

 the theory that the researcher proposes to utilise;

 statement on the central hypotheses of the theory;
  an account of precedence in the use of the theory (i.e. who else has used the
theory) and its appropriateness; and
 how the theory is going to be adapted to the variables or constructs of the
research.

4.5.4 Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research

There is widespread confusion regarding the use of theory and theoretical
frameworks in qualitative research (Anfara & Mertz, 2006). The general argument is
that qualitative studies employ the inductive approach and theories are the outcome
of the research process. However, studies have shown that a qualitative inquiry may
also test theory or broad explanations for a phenomenon (Silverman, 2000; Fowler,
2006; Creswell, 2009; Bryman, 2012). Therefore, a qualitative inquiry may use the
combined inductive-deductive approach

In the inductive approach, theory is derived from the data, rather than being formed
before data collection. In other words, the theory is “grounded” in data collected
during the study, since the theory or some broad explanation for the social
phenomenon is built from the data and the themes that emerge from it. Other than
theories and generalisations, the themes and categories may also be developed into
patterns that may be amplified by the researcher’s own experience or the existing
literature on the topic. Lincoln and Guba (1985) described the end point of a
naturalistic or qualitative inquiry as “pattern theories”, which emphasise the
interconnectedness of thoughts in an inductive way and, in the words of Neuman
(2000:38), “specify a sequence of phases or link parts to a whole”.

Not much theory is used as a background to qualitative studies. Glaser and Strauss
(1967:37) discouraged researchers from committing themselves to existing theory
when entering the field, especially when doing grounded theory research:

An effective strategy is, at first, literally to ignore the literature of theory and fact of
the area under study, in order to assure that the emergence of categories will not be
contaminated by concepts more suited to different areas.

We concede that certain theoretical preconceptions may be inimical to creativity and

what Glaser and Strauss (1967) called “theoretically sensitivity”, but we think that it
will be wrong to assume that this means that people should go into the field without
reviewing the literature. We must also bear in mind that they made this remark in
reference to the grounded theory design. Later on, Glaser (1998: 164-165) conceded
that theoretical sensitivity may be improved partly through wide reading and
familiarising oneself with concepts and theories in one’s discipline.

A researcher cannot run away from this reality because “our observations are guided
and influenced by some initial hunches and frame of references” (Siggelkow,
2007:21), and the “preliminary literature review is conducted on the understanding
that it is the generated theory that will determine the relevance of the literature”
(Urquhart & Fernández, 2006:5). The review of the literature provides theoretical
assumptions and a pre-understanding of the phenomenon under study, and the facts
can “be regarded as preliminary and should be exceeded with new, non-congruent
information” (Kleining, 1982, cited in Flick, 2002:43).
Qualitative research may start with a theory (Miles & Huberman, 1984; Merriam,
1998; Silverman, 2000; Creswell, 2009; Bryman, 2012). In fact:

…many believe mistakenly that theory has no place in a qualitative study. Actually,
it would be difficult to imagine a study without a theoretical or conceptual framework
(Merriam, 1998:45).

Unlike in the quantitative tradition, theories are not tested or confirmed, or rejected.
In qualitative research, the theories are used for a preliminary understanding of the
phenomenon under investigation (Flick, 2002). They become the theoretical
assumptions of the study, which may be reformulated and elaborated on as the
study progresses, just as in the formulation of theory in grounded theory. The focus
is on the exploration of the theory and its applicability to explaining the phenomenon,
rather than a deductive explanation.

In fact, most critical ethnography studies start with a theoretical assumption that
informs the study. Furthermore, qualitative research, especially grounded theory,
vacillates between testing emerging theories and collecting data in an iterative or
recursive manner, as explained in Chapter 8. Secondly, various themes that are
available in the extant literature may be used to provide broad explanations for the
behaviour and attitudes of people (Creswell, 2009:62), as “... qualitative studies have
already assembled a usable, cumulative body of knowledge” (Silverman, 2000:63).
Besides, any observation is “theory-saturated” (Silverman, 2000:72). However,
ethno-methodologists “generally decline to theorize about the social world, preferring
instead to go out and study it” (Ritzer, 2000:75).

In addition, there are qualitative theoretical perspectives that may be used to

interrogate the real world. In this instance, theory is linked to some research
methodologies and the epistemologies that inform these methods (Anfara & Mertz,
2006; Creswell, 2009). The link mainly stems from the conceptualisation of
theoretical frameworks as “paradigms” of social research (Guba & Lincoln, 2005).
Paradigms such as post-positivist, critical and feminist paradigms, which question
the agendas for research and the interests that it serves, should be viewed as
theoretical perspectives, rather than theoretical frameworks, as explained in section
4.5.2.

For instance, these theoretical lenses may be used to study the marginalisation of
women, homeless, minority groups, people with disabilities, and sexual orientation,
and to transform and empower those who are constrained by race, ethnicity, class,
political orientation, social status and gender. Brodio and Manning (2002) and
Creswell (2009) have identified perspectives such as feminist perspectives,
racialised discourses, critical theory, queer theory and disability inquiry in this regard.

These perspectives are more like theoretical approaches than theoretical

frameworks. They sensitise researchers to various researchable issues and the
primacy of historical, cultural, political and contextual factors in the research
enterprise. Added to these kinds of sensitivity is theoretical sensitivity, which is the
“awareness of the subtleties of the data” as “one can come to a research situation
with varying degrees of sensitivity depending upon previous reading and experience
with or relevant to that area” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990:41). However, readers who
would think that methodological perspectives may be theoretical frameworks should
not be dissuaded by anything that we might write, but should engage with this
discourse until common ground is established.

4.5.5 Theoretical frameworks in mixed methods research

The field of mixed methods is relatively new and still evolving. The use of theoretical
frameworks seems to be one of the unresolved issues in this emerging paradigm.
Many researchers struggle with mixed methods research. They fail to integrate the
qualitative and quantitative strands into all the research processes. Identifying and
using a theory that addresses both the qualitative and quantitative strands of an
inquiry seems to be a mammoth task. Some scholars point out that theory has a
place in mixed methods research.

Mixed methods research may both test and generate theories (Creswell, 2009:49).
The transformative lens has been touted as one of the theories or perspectives that
may be used in mixed methods research (Creswell, 2009). They serve as orientation
lenses used to select participants in a study, frame the questions to guide the
inquiry, collect data, and to make inferences about implications for transformation
and emancipation. Hodgkin (2008) used a feminist perspective to test the theory of
social capital using mixed methods. The qualitative strand assisted in establishing
and mapping different patterns of women’s roles in informal social participation,
social participation in groups and community participation, and the qualitative
research strategy explained the reasons behind women’s level of participation from
their point of view. In other words, the qualitative findings provided the story behind
the statistics. A discussion of the use of a theoretical framework in mixed methods
research is creeping into the literature (Greene, Caracelli & Graham, 1989; Creswell,
2009; Evans, Coon & Ume, 2011), but its full development and application will
require the skills of theoretical bricoleurs and connoisseurs of theoretical
frameworks.
4.6 Literature as proxy for theory or theoretical/conceptual
frameworks
While theory is valuable in conducting quality applied research, as rightly pointed out
by Robson (2002), to rebuff research that has no obvious links with theory as naïve
empiricism (Bryman, 2012:22) is to miss the point, because theory may be
entrenched or latent in the review of scholarship. Some exploratory studies may not
require an explicit theoretical framework, especially if the area of research does not
have a well-developed theory. The literature reviews may serve as conceptual
frameworks. Bak (2004:17) and Ocholla and Le Roux (2011:68) seem to agree, as
they consider both the literature review and the theoretical perspective as a
framework for guiding research, albeit without clearly distinguishing between the two.
Maxwell (2012: xi) seems to suggest that a conceptual framework may be referred to
as “theory” or “literature review”. This reverberates with Ravitch and Riggan (2012:
xiv), who posit that literature reviews are aspects of conceptual frameworks.

What is the difference between a theoretical framework and a typical literature

review? Background literature relating to a topic may act as the equivalent of a
theory if it fuels the focus of the study (Bryman, 2012:23). A literature review may
also constitute the conceptual framework of a study if it encompasses a review of
key concepts in the domain under investigation (Vithal, Jansen & Jansen, 2013).
Since theories are found in the literature, many researchers place them in the
literature review, making it difficult for other readers to understand the theoretical
foundation of the study in isolation from the literature. Admittedly, theory may be
implicit in the literature (Bryman, 2012:20). Researchers may in fact relate their
research findings to the literature reporting other investigations on the same subject.
Their findings may be illuminated by concepts from the subject field, as reflected in
the review of the notion of conceptual frameworks and literature reviews in their
discussions.

4.7 Differences and similarities between theoretical and

conceptual frameworks
Table 4.3 below summarises some of the differences and similarities between
theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

Table 4.3: Some differences and similarities between theoretical and conceptual
frameworks
Conceptual framework Theoretical framework
Differences
May be “based on different theories and various Generally based on one overarching theory
aspects of practitioner knowledge, depending on (Bergsten, 2007)
what the researcher can argue will be relevant and
important to address about a research problem”
(Lester, 2005:460)
Concerned with explanation (Lester, 2005:460) Deals with justification, which is why a
particular research question is proposed to be
answered in a particular way, and why certain
variables are more important than others
(Lester, 2005:460)
Best suited for qualitative research Best suited for quantitative studies
Similarities
Based on previous research
Essential elements of the research enterprise
Important analytical tools in social science research

4.8 Conclusion
This chapter has focused on the discourse around conceptual and theoretical
frameworks. Although there is a lot of confusion in the literature regarding the two
notions, we conclude that they have both similarities and differences. This partly
explains the contestations that have dominated the naming of the two concepts in
the realm of the literature. Conceptual frameworks are mainly used in qualitative
research and mixed methods research, as opposed to theoretical frameworks, which
are used in quantitative and mixed methods research. The use of these research
frameworks is not yet fully developed in the field of mixed methods research.
Researchers should explain and justify their choice of the research framework that
informs their studies. The summary and conclusion should be read together with the
activities outlined in Box 1 below.

Box 1: Activities to enhance the understanding of research frameworks

Activity 4.1
Plot diagrammatically the major concepts that inform your research. If you cannot draw it, you cannot
research it!
 Activity 4.2
Review ten current articles in your subject area that you are familiar with and identify those that:
 Have obvious connections with theory
 Have a latent connection with theory
 Deduce theory from the data
 Have no theoretical or conceptual considerations
What is your judgment about the soundness of the research that is associated with each of the four
categories of articles you have identified?

Activity 4.3
Cite ten researchers who present important issues and unique perspectives in your research area.
You should give a summary of the important issues that they raise.

Activity 4.4
Outline two social theories you have encountered in your field. Explain how each theory illuminates
your study and facilitates the formulation of research questions and the interpretation of your data.
Are you going to combine the theories in order to address your research problem, or you are going to
use only one theory, as it fully explains the phenomenon you are investigating? What other theoretical
frameworks have you considered for your study? Will another theoretical framework address the
problem? Why do you believe in the theoretical framework you have chosen? What are the strengths
and weaknesses of your theory?

Notes
1. Adapting perspectives from different theories “resembles the thinking process that Lawler
(1985) characterizes by the French word bricolage, a metaphor taken from Claude Levi–
Strauss. A bricoleur is a handy man who invents pragmatic solutions in practical
situations…. [T]he bricoleur has become adept at using whatever is available. The
bricoleur’s tools and materials are very heterogeneous: Some remain from earlier jobs,
others have been collected with a certain project in mind” (Gravemeijer, 1994: 447).

References
Anfara, V.A. Jr. (2008). Theoretical frameworks: The SAGE Encyclopedia of
qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 870-874.
Anfara, V.A. Jr. and Mertz, N.T. (eds). (2006). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bak, N. (2004). Completing your thesis: A practical guide. Pretoria: Van Schaik
Publishers.
Berger, R.M. & Patchener, M.A. (1988). Implementing the research plan. London:
Sage.

View publication stats