Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapterpub 4
Chapterpub 4
net/publication/278961764
CITATIONS READS
40 101,470
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
We are finalizing a book titled: Reflections on professionalism. pedagogy and theories of teaching practice revisited View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Patrick Ngulube on 22 June 2015.
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.
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.
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).
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.
MODEL
CONCEPT
Inductive
THEORY
Deductive
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.
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.
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:
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):
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:
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.
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).
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:
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.