difference between literature review conceptual framework

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

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

Julie a. luft.

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

Sophia Jeong

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

Robert Idsardi

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

Grant Gardner

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

Associated Data

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

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

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

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

Building Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions and Advice

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

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

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

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

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

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

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

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

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

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

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

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

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

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

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

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

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

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

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

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

Supplementary Material

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

Theoretical vs Conceptual Framework

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

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

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

Overview: Theoretical vs Conceptual

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

• Theoretical vs conceptual: which one should I use?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

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

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

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

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

Theoretical framework vs conceptual framework

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

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

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

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

19 Comments

Thank you for giving a valuable lesson

good thanks!

VERY INSIGHTFUL

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

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

good, fantastic

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

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

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

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

Simple and clear!

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

Thank you great insight

Superb. Thank you so much.

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

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

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

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Table of Contents

A literature review and a theoretical framework are both important components of academic research. However, they serve different purposes and have distinct characteristics. In this article, we will examine the concepts of literature review and theoretical framework, explore their significance, and highlight the key differences between the two.

Defining the Concepts: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Before we dive into the details, let's clarify what a literature review and a theoretical framework actually mean.

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research and scholarly articles on a specific topic. It involves reviewing and summarizing the current knowledge and understanding of the subject matter. By examining previous studies, the scholar can identify knowledge gaps, assess the strengths and weaknesses of existing research, and present a comprehensive overview of the topic.

When conducting a literature review, the scholar delves into a vast array of sources, including academic journals, books, conference proceedings, and reputable online databases. This extensive exploration allows them to gather relevant information, theories, and methodologies related to their research topic.

Furthermore, a literature review provides a solid foundation for the research by establishing the context and significance of the study. It helps researchers identify the key concepts, theories, and variables that are relevant to their research objectives. By critically analyzing the existing literature, scholars can identify research gaps and propose new avenues for scientific investigation.

Moreover, a literature review is not merely a summary of previous studies. It requires a critical evaluation of the methodologies used, the quality of the data collected, and the validity of the conclusions drawn.

Researchers must assess the credibility and reliability of the sources they include in their review to ensure the accuracy and robustness of their analysis.

What is a Theoretical Framework?

A theoretical framework provides a conceptual explanation for the research problem or question being investigated. It serves as a foundation that guides the formulation of hypotheses and research objectives. A theoretical framework helps researchers to analyze and interpret their findings by establishing a set of assumptions, concepts, and relationships that underpin their study. It provides a structured framework for organizing and presenting research outcomes.

When developing a theoretical framework, researchers draw upon existing theories and concepts from relevant disciplines to create a conceptual framework that aligns with their research objectives. This framework helps researchers to define the variables they will study, establish the relationships between these variables, and propose hypotheses that can be tested through empirical research.

Furthermore, a theoretical framework provides a roadmap for researchers to navigate through the complexities of their study. It helps them to identify the key constructs and variables that need to be measured and analyzed. By providing a clear structure, the theoretical framework ensures that researchers stay focused on their research objectives and avoid getting lost in a sea of information.

Moreover, a theoretical framework allows researchers to make connections between their study and existing theories or models. By building upon established knowledge, researchers can contribute to the advancement of their field and provide new insights and perspectives. The theoretical framework also helps researchers interpret their findings in a meaningful way and draw conclusions that have theoretical and practical implications.

In summary, both a literature review and a theoretical framework play crucial roles in the research process. While a literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge and identifies research gaps, a theoretical framework establishes the conceptual foundation for the study and guides the formulation of research objectives and hypotheses. Together, these two elements contribute to the development of a robust and well-grounded research study.

The Purpose and Importance of Literature Reviews

Now that we have a clear understanding of what a literature review is, let's explore its purpose and significance.

A literature review plays a crucial role in academic research. It serves several purposes, including:

• Providing a comprehensive understanding of the existing literature in a particular field.
• Identifying the gaps, controversies, or inconsistencies in the current knowledge.
• Helping researchers to refine their research questions and objectives.
• Ensuring that the research being conducted is novel and contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

The Benefits of Conducting a Literature Review

There are numerous benefits to conducting a literature review, such as:

• Enhancing the researcher's knowledge and understanding of the subject area.
• Providing a framework for developing research hypotheses and objectives.
• Identifying potential research methodologies and approaches.
• Informing the selection of appropriate data collection and analysis methods.
• Guiding the interpretation and discussion of research findings.

The Purpose and Importance of Theoretical Frameworks

Moving on to theoretical frameworks, let us discuss their purpose and importance.

When conducting research, theoretical frameworks play a crucial role in providing a solid foundation for the study. They serve as a guiding tool for researchers, helping them navigate through the complexities of their research and providing a framework for understanding and interpreting their findings.

The Function of Theoretical Frameworks in Research

Theoretical frameworks serve multiple functions in research:

• Providing a conceptual framework enables researchers to clearly define the scope and direction of their study.
• Acting as a roadmap, guiding researchers in formulating their research objectives and hypotheses. It helps them identify the key variables and relationships they want to explore, providing a solid foundation for their research.
• Helping researchers identify and select appropriate research methods and techniques. When it comes to selecting research methods and techniques, theoretical frameworks are invaluable. They provide researchers with a lens through which they can evaluate different methods and techniques, ensuring that they choose the most appropriate ones for their study. By aligning their methods with the theoretical framework, researchers can enhance the validity and reliability of their research.
• Supporting the interpretation and explanation of research findings. Once the data has been collected, theoretical frameworks help researchers make sense of their findings. They provide a framework for interpreting and explaining the results, allowing researchers to draw meaningful conclusions. By grounding their analysis in a theoretical framework, researchers can provide a solid foundation for their findings and contribute to the existing body of knowledge.
• Facilitating the integration of new knowledge with existing theories and concepts. Theoretical frameworks also play a crucial role in the advancement of knowledge. By integrating new findings with existing theories and concepts, researchers can contribute to the development of their field.

The Advantages of Developing a Theoretical Framework

Developing a theoretical framework offers several advantages:

• Enhancing the researcher's understanding of the research problem. By developing a theoretical framework, researchers gain a deeper understanding of the research problem they are investigating.  This enhanced understanding allows researchers to approach their study with clarity and purpose.
• Facilitating the selection of an appropriate research design. Choosing the right research design is crucial for the success of a study. A well-developed theoretical framework helps researchers select the most appropriate research design by providing a clear direction and focus. It ensures that the research design aligns with the research objectives and hypotheses, maximizing the chances of obtaining valid and reliable results.
• Helping researchers organize their thoughts and ideas systematically. This organization helps researchers stay focused and ensures that all aspects of the research problem are considered. By structuring their thoughts, researchers can effectively communicate their ideas and findings to others.
• Guiding the analysis and interpretation of research findings. When it comes to analyzing and interpreting research findings, a theoretical framework provides researchers with a framework to guide their process. It helps researchers identify patterns, relationships, and themes within the data, allowing for a more comprehensive analysis.

Developing a theoretical framework is essential for ensuring the validity and reliability of a study. By aligning the research with established theories and concepts, researchers can enhance the credibility of their study. A well-developed theoretical framework provides a solid foundation for the research, increasing the chances of obtaining accurate and meaningful results.

Differences Between Literature Reviews and Theoretical Frameworks

Now, let's explore the key differences between literature reviews and theoretical frameworks.

Key Differences:

• Focus: A literature review focuses on summarizing existing research, while a theoretical framework focuses on providing a conceptual foundation for the study.
• Scope: A literature review covers a broad range of related research, while a theoretical framework is more specific to the research problem at hand.
• Timing: A literature review is typically conducted early in the research process, while a theoretical framework is often developed alongside the research design.
• Purpose: A literature review aims to inform the research and establish its context, while a theoretical framework aims to guide the interpretation and analysis of findings.

In conclusion

Understanding the distinction between a literature review and a theoretical framework is crucial for conducting effective and meaningful academic research. While a literature review provides an overview of existing research, a theoretical framework guides the formulation, analysis, and interpretation of research. Both components are essential for building a strong foundation of knowledge in any field. By comprehending their purpose, significance, and key differences, researchers can enhance the quality and rigor of their research endeavors.

Love using SciSpace tools? Enjoy discounts! Use SR40 (40% off yearly) and SR20 (20% off monthly). Claim yours here 👉 SciSpace Premium

Learn more about Literature Review

5 literature review tools to ace your reseach (+2 bonus tools)

Role of AI in Systematic Literature Review

Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

A complete guide on how to write a literature review

How to Use AI Tools for Conducting a Literature Review

You might also like

Introducing SciSpace’s Citation Booster To Increase Research Visibility

AI for Meta-Analysis — A Comprehensive Guide

How To Write An Argumentative Essay

Research Process Guide

• Step 1 - Identifying and Developing a Topic
• Step 2 - Narrowing Your Topic
• Step 3 - Developing Research Questions
• Step 4 - Conducting a Literature Review
• Step 5 - Choosing a Conceptual or Theoretical Framework
• Step 6 - Determining Research Methodology
• Step 6a - Determining Research Methodology - Quantitative Research Methods
• Step 6b - Determining Research Methodology - Qualitative Design
• Step 7 - Considering Ethical Issues in Research with Human Subjects - Institutional Review Board (IRB)
• Step 8 - Collecting Data
• Step 9 - Analyzing Data
• Step 10 - Interpreting Results
• Step 11 - Writing Up Results

Step 5: Choosing a Conceptual or Theoretical Framework

For all empirical research, you must choose a conceptual or theoretical framework to “frame” or “ground” your study. Theoretical and/or conceptual frameworks are often difficult to understand and challenging to choose which is the right one (s) for your research objective (Hatch, 2002). Truthfully, it is difficult to get a real understanding of what these frameworks are and how you are supposed to find what works for your study. The discussion of your framework is addressed in your Chapter 1, the introduction and then is further explored through in-depth discussion in your Chapter 2 literature review.

“Theory is supposed to help researchers of any persuasion clarify what they are up to and to help them to explain to others what they are up to” (Walcott, 1995, p. 189, as cited in Fallon, 2016). It is important to discuss in the beginning to help researchers “clarify what they are up to” and important at the writing stage to “help explain to others what they are up to” (Fallon, 2016).  

What is the difference between the conceptual and the theoretical framework?

Often, the terms theoretical framework and conceptual framework are used interchangeably, which, in this author’s opinion, makes an already difficult to understand idea even more confusing. According to Imenda (2014) and Mensah et al. (2020), there is a very distinct difference between conceptual and theoretical frameworks, not only how they are defined but also, how and when they are used in empirical research.

Imenda (2014) contends that the framework “is the soul of every research project” (p.185). Essentially, it determines how the researcher formulates the research problem, goes about investigating the problem, and what meaning or significance the research lends to the data collected and analyzed investigating the problem.  

Very generally, you would use a theoretical framework if you were conducting deductive research as you test a theory or theories. “A theoretical framework comprises the theories expressed by experts in the field into which you plan to research, which you draw upon to provide a theoretical coat hanger for your data analysis and interpretation of results” (Kivunja, 2018, p.45 ).  Often this framework is based on established theories like, the Set Theory, evolution, the theory of matter or similar pre-existing generalizations like Newton’s law of motion (Imenda, 2014). A good theoretical framework should be linked to, and possibly emerge from your literature review.

Using a theoretical framework allows you to (Kivunja, 2018):

• Increase the credibility and validity of your research
• Interpret meaning found in data collection
• Evaluate solutions for solving your research problem

According to Mensah et al.(2020) the theoretical framework for your research is not a summary of your own thoughts about your research. Rather, it is a compilation of the thoughts of giants in your field, as they relate to your proposed research, as you understand those theories, and how you will use those theories to understand the data collected.

Additionally, Jabareen (2009) defines a conceptual framework as interlinked concepts that together provide a comprehensive  understanding of a phenomenon. “A conceptual framework is the total, logical orientation and associations of anything and everything that forms the underlying thinking, structures, plans and practices and implementation of your entire research project” (Kivunja, 2018, p. 45). You would largely use a conceptual framework when conducting inductive research, as it helps the researcher answer questions that are core to qualitative research, such as the nature of reality, the way things are and how things really work in a real world (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

Some consideration of the following questions can help define your conceptual framework (Kinvunja, 2018):

• What do you want to do in your research? And why do you want to do it?
• How do you plan to do it?
• What meaning will you make of the data?
• Which worldview will you situate your study in? (i.e. Positivist? Interpretist? Constructivist?)

Examples of conceptual frameworks include the definitions a sociologist uses to describe a culture and the types of data an economist considers when evaluating a country’s industry. The conceptual framework consists of the ideas that are used to define research and evaluate data. Conceptual frameworks are often laid out at the beginning of a paper or an experiment description for a reader to understand the methods used (Mensah et al., 2020).

Writing it up

After choosing your framework is to articulate the theory or concept that grounds your study by defining it and demonstrating the rationale for this particular set of theories or concepts guiding your inquiry.  Write up your theoretical perspective sections for your research plan following your choice of worldview/ research paradigm. For a quantitative study you are particularly interested in theory using the procedures for a causal analysis. For qualitative research, you should locate qualitative journal articles that use a priori theory (knowledge that is acquired not through experience) that is modified during the process of research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Also, you should generate or develop a theory at the end of your study. For a mixed methods study which uses a transformative (critical theoretical lens) identify how the lens specifically shapes the research process.                                   

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2 018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.

Fallon, M. (2016). Writing up quantitative research in the social and behavioral sciences. Sense. https://kean.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,url,cpid&custid=keaninf&db=nlebk&AN=1288374&site=ehost-live&scope=site&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_C1

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2 (163-194), 105.

Hatch, J. A. ( 2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. SUNY Press.

Imenda, S. (2014). Is there a conceptual difference between theoretical and conceptual frameworks?  Journal of Social Sciences, 38 (2), 185-195.

Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8 (4), 49-62.

Kivunja, C. ( 2018, December 3). Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework. The International Journal of Higher Education, 7 (6), 44-53. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1198682.pdf  

Mensah, R. O., Agyemang, F., Acquah, A., Babah, P. A., & Dontoh, J. (2020). Discourses on conceptual and theoretical frameworks in research: Meaning and implications for researchers. Journal of African Interdisciplinary Studies, 4 (5), 53-64.

• Last Updated: Jun 29, 2023 1:35 PM
• URL: https://libguides.kean.edu/ResearchProcessGuide

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

Literature Review, Theoretical Review or Conceptual Review?

I was researching and refreshing what I learned about literature reviews and research methodology in the 6625 ESLTECH class and came across this post in ResearchGate:

While  I was interested in finding out how to conduct a lit review,  and what methodologies fit with my “Begin With the End in mind” framework, I remembered that I was actually conducting a conceptual analysis of the Hackathon through two instruments:  the opportunistic interviews and my observations.  Applying Backward Design as research methodology has been used in the biological sciences.  It is called Backward Design for Education Research (BDER) and basically it instructs how to apply teaching-as-research (based on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning(SoTL) model) to see what works in “providing evidence-based pedagogy and a deeper understanding of causal mechanisms for the broader education community.” (Jenkins, Bailey, Kummer & Weber, 2017). My approach was  more like “Backward Market Research,”  which consists of eight steps that ultimately resemble Wiggins and McTighe’s Backward Design for curriculum development. The key to backward market research lies in identifying the desired outcome (i.e., what data would answer the question you are asking) before embarking on the project …” (Jenkins, Bailey, Kummer & Weber, 2017). My question is broad  – what insights come out of the Hackathon – and the results are formative – data reports generate more questions and identify the need to code certain responses,  or to add a new question next year (as with the multitude of comments about Judging from 2017) – but a body or knowledge is being formed.

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.

How to write a PhD in a hundred steps (or more)

A workingmumscholar's journey through her phd and beyond, literature review or ‘contextual framework’.

Literature reviews are the one section of a PhD thesis, article or undergraduate assignment that strike fear into the hearts of even the most confident of students. Why are we so terrified of them? Reams of writing, many blogs and online advice pages, and hours of anxiety are devoted to literature reviews – the writing, reading, summarising, connecting, re-writing and re-reading that seem overwhelming at times. I am supervising a PhD student who is currently writing her literature review, and reading her 4th draft this week, a thought occurred to me: she isn’t writing a ‘review’ of the relevant literature; she is building, using the selected literature she has read as bricks and mortar, a contextual framework for her study. It seems to me that dropping the whole notion of a literature review  and replacing it with a notion of creating a contextual framework, or rationale and foundation, for your study would offer you a few helpful insights into what you are actually trying to achieve with this part of your writing.

The first is organisation : to write a PhD thesis, a book, or even a very well researched journal article, you need to do a large amount of reading. You will read many books and papers that are useful and clearly connected to your research, and you will read others that are less useful and may need to be left out of the writing. If you are writing a literature review, the temptation is often to use this part of the thesis or paper almost as proof of how much work you have done, and therefore how credible you are as a scholar. It is tempting to find a way to bring in every study you have read, and every paper and book, laboriously summarising for the reader every argument, valid point and connection with other similar or different texts. What may well happen then is a sense, for your reader, of a lack of organisation. Rather than selecting and situating relevant texts you have read in relation to one another and your study , you are simply showing them how much reading you have done and what all of the reading says about all the topics that may be relevant to your research. So it is a kind of literature review, but not one that will help your reader find their way into the specific context for your study.

The second thing thinking about a contextual framework, rather than a literature review, could offer you is focus . Start with your specific study, and your research questions: what is this study about, in a couple of sentences? What main research question are you trying to answer? The research question will be refined as your study progresses, but you need to have a good sense of it earlier on to ensure that you keep your reading on track  and relevant. What is the context you need to create for your readers, so that they understand a) what this research is about, b) why this research is so necessary or significant, and c) where or how what you propose to research will make a contribution to scholarship in your field of study (the gap you aim to fill)? By focusing on, and adapting for your study, these questions, you can better choose firstly to do the relevant or useful reading, and secondly choose the most relevant reading you have done to include in the framework, organising it to tell a more logical story about the research you are doing, how the questions emerged for you, and how what you are writing about will tie into or contribute to your field.

By thinking of this section of your study rather as a contextual framework, a structure that will provide a foundation for what will come next in terms of the conceptual/theoretical and methodological frameworks or sections, and the data analysis, findings and conclusions later on, you could avoid this literature review pitfall. This section of any thesis or paper will never be easy, I don’t think. For PhD students especially, working out what you actually think in relation to so many published voices who seem to have so much more authority and right to speak that you do can be scary, and overwhelming.

Often, I think, literature reviews that read as turgid lists of everything the student has read come from that place of being scared that they haven’t done enough, or read enough, and they so badly want to appear and be credible and authoritative. Part of becoming a doctor is learning to manage that fear, and find a way to focus your writing and research on what will make the clearest, most sensible and accessible argument for your readers. Thinking of creating a contextual framework – a holding structure for your thesis that will connect into your conceptual/theoretical and methodological frameworks to create a very clear foundation, set of tools and action plan for your thesis or paper, might be a way of doing just that. I’d love to hear from you if you feel this helps, or if you have found other ways to make literature review writing less scary and challenging.

Share this:

12 comments.

I love ‘contextual framework’! It makes so much more sense than literature review.

Me too! Thanks for the comment 🙂

When I worked in what was then called the Environmental Education Unit here at Rhodes I was intrigued that the assignment required of Masters students BEFORE coming to the first of a number of week-long sessions, was a reflective piece on their ‘context of practice’. The first major assignment, after the first session, was a detailed contextual profile of their practice (and therefore study). I followed this process when doing my PhD – and for all the reasons you state above – it seemed to be a really useful way to help frame thinking. Great blog!

Thanks, Karen :). Part of the inspiration was also seeing the number of undergraduate students that are being required to write literature reviews as stand-alone assignments with no research project context, which then are summary and synthesis exercises. I think that those who do become postgrads carry this way of reviewing literature through with them, and then really battle to move beyond it to a different, more authoritative and context-driven kind of writing about the literature that frames and founds their study.

I am on your side Sherran! I have never liked the idea of a ‘literature review’ as such. For me it is a process rather than a product. It is what we need to do – to review the literature in order to situate our study, but we also need to review the literature to frame our work theoretically and to inform it methodologically. We do it to inform every part of our research. So yes! Call it the ‘Contextual framework’ or any other appropriate title that blows your hair back – but I agree NOT the Literature Review!!

Thanks Sue! What other terms or metaphors would be useful?

[…] review): gap filling. Here, what I did was work put very carefully exactly what the gap in my contextual framework was, and what I needed by way of literature to fill it. I needed a few tight, clear paragraphs on […]

[…] the literature review I will be doing far more than copying and pasting from my summaries: I will be drawing out key […]

[…] Contextual frameworks ( https://phdinahundredsteps.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/literature-review-or-contextual-framework/ ) […]

[…] have written here and here and here about literature reviews, and Pat Thomson and Inger Mewburn have some useful […]

[…] what is known in relation to what you want to find out, and creating different kinds of necessary frameworks for your own research, is a significant, and vital, part of research. And there is so much to read […]

The contextual framework involves literature-based claims on how problems are addressed by referring to various countries, cultural backgrounds, beliefs, moral values and organisational structures.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

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

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Research Writing and Analysis

• NVivo Group and Study Sessions
• SPSS This link opens in a new window
• Statistical Analysis Group sessions
• Using Qualtrics
• Dissertation and Data Analysis Group Sessions
• Defense Schedule - Commons Calendar This link opens in a new window
• Research Process Flow Chart
• Research Alignment Chapter 1 This link opens in a new window
• Step 1: Seek Out Evidence
• Step 2: Explain
• Step 3: The Big Picture
• Step 4: Own It
• Step 5: Illustrate
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review This link opens in a new window
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• How to Synthesize and Analyze
• Synthesis and Analysis Practice
• Synthesis and Analysis Group Sessions
• Problem Statement
• Purpose Statement
• Conceptual Framework
• Theoretical Framework
• Quantitative Research Questions
• Qualitative Research Questions
• Trustworthiness of Qualitative Data
• Analysis and Coding Example- Qualitative Data
• Thematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Design
• Dissertation to Journal Article This link opens in a new window
• International Journal of Online Graduate Education (IJOGE) This link opens in a new window
• Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning (JRIT&L) This link opens in a new window

Designing the Theoretical Framework

What is it.

• A foundational review of existing theories. 
• Serves as a roadmap or blueprint for developing arguments and supporting research.
• Overview of the theory that the research is based on.
• Can be made up of theories, principles, and concepts.

What does it do?

• Explains the why and how of a particular phenomenon within a particular body of literature.
• Connects the research subject with the theory.
• Specifies the study’s scope; makes it more valuable and generalizable.
• Guides further actions like framing the research questions, developing the literature review, and data collection and analyses.

What should be in it?

• Theory or theories that the researcher considers relevant for their research, principles, and concepts.

Theoretical Framework Guide

• Theoretical Framework Guide Use this guide to determine the guiding framework for your theoretical dissertation research.

Making a Theoretical Framework

How to make a theoretical framework.

• Specify research objectives.
• Note the prominent variables under the study.
• Explore and review the literature through keywords identified as prominent variables.
• Note the theories that contain these variables or the keywords.
• Review all selected theories again in the light of the study’s objectives, and the key variables identified.
• Search for alternative theoretical propositions in the literature that may challenge the ones already selected.
• Ensure that the framework aligns with the study’s objectives, problem statement, the main research question, methodology, data analysis, and the expected conclusion.
• Decide on the final framework and begin developing.

Example Framework

• Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation This link offers an example theoretical framework.

Additional Framework Resources

Some additional helpful resources in constructing a theoretical framework for study:.

• https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/theoretical-framework/
• https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/theoretical-framework-example/
• https://www.projectguru.in/how-to-write-the-theoretical-framework-of-research/

Theoretical Framework Research

The term conceptual framework and theoretical framework are often and erroneously used interchangeably (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). A theoretical framework provides the theoretical assumptions for the larger context of a study, and is the foundation or ‘lens’ by which a study is developed. This framework helps to ground the research focus understudy within theoretical underpinnings and to frame the inquiry for data analysis and interpretation.  The application of theory in traditional theoretical research is to understand, explain, and predict phenomena (Swanson, 2013).

Casanave, C.P.,& Li,Y.(2015). Novices’ struggles with conceptual and theoretical framing in writing  dissertations and papers for publication. Publications,3 (2),104-119.doi:10.3390/publications3020104

Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, Selecting, and Integrating a Theoretical Framework in Dissertation Research: Creating the Blueprint for Your “House. ” Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 12–26

Swanson, R. (2013). Theory building in applied disciplines . San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

• << Previous: Conceptual Framework
• Next: Quantitative Research Questions >>
• Last Updated: Apr 29, 2024 1:16 PM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchtools

Unnecessary organizational burden: a conceptual framework

• Open access
• Published: 26 April 2024
• Volume 10 , article number  44 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Oren Ginzburg   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0001-2839-8810 1 , 2 ,
• Stefanie Weil 1 &
• Arjen van Witteloostuijn 2  

64 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This paper investigates the mechanisms that lead organizations to impose unnecessary burdens on their actors. The prevailing narrative in the literature is that unnecessary organizational burden (UOB) is created either on purpose—as a way for an organizational actor to assert control—or inadvertently through the passage of time as layers of policies, rules, and processes accumulate. Based on a wide review of relevant literature, we propose a different explanation: in our conceptual framework, the onset and mitigation of unnecessary burdens are explained, respectively, by organizational decision-makers’ weaknesses and strengths. Our framework combines (1) a typology of unnecessary burdens with (2) a typology of factors influencing the likelihood of UOB mitigation, and (3) a typology of managerial mitigation responses to such burdens. The conceptual framework, and a series of 12 propositions, aim to offer researchers and practitioners a shared language to empirically investigate unnecessary organizational burden, and implement effective solutions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Accounting for Blind Spots

A difficult burden to bear: the managerial process of dissonance resolution in the face of mandated harm-doing.

A holistic view on the opportunities and threats of normative control: a literature review

Introduction.

A rich literature explores the creation of unnecessary burden in organizations under concepts such as red tape [ 8 , 14 ], coercive bureaucracy [ 6 ], administrative burden [ 26 , 52 ], sludge [ 65 ], ordeals [ 80 ], over-formalization [ 11 ], unnecessarily complex organizational structure [ 27 , 68 ], over-collaboration [ 34 ], unnecessary pursuits [ 58 ], means-ends decoupling [ 13 ], and goal displacement [ 28 ]. This paper, which is the result of a broad review of relevant literature, presents a comprehensive and integrative framework to explain the mechanisms at play in the onset and mitigation of unnecessary burdens, joining the academic conversation on the “puzzling paradox” of organizations creating more burden than would be in their own interest [ 38 : 8].

To start our integration endeavour, we bring together disparate concepts under the umbrella term unnecessary organizational burden (UOB). We define a burden as any organizational element that demands an effort from organizational actors; and we define unnecessary organizational burden as a burden that is not deemed to contribute to the achievement of the organization’s purpose. We are guided by the following research question: What mechanisms are responsible for the development of unnecessary organizational burden and its mitigation? Our central theoretical contribution is in the proposition that organizational actors’ managerial strengths and weaknesses play a greater role in the mitigation and creation of UOB than they have been credited for so far.

Note that while we use “unnecessary organizational burden” as our umbrella concept throughout this paper, this expression also refers to the unnecessary parts of an organizational burden—mindful of the fact that “unambiguously negative frictions are hard to find” [ 38 : 11]. Moreover, note that, given the broad scope of our inquiry, which spans multiple concepts, thematic threads, and disciplinary boundaries, our literature review aligns more closely with the principles of a scoping review [ 54 ] than with those of a systematic literature review. Our methodology is exploratory, driven by a quest to uncover and organize a spectrum of concepts, theories, and perspectives. Employing a meticulous snowball approach, we heed Wohlin’s [ 78 ] guidance, utilizing reference lists and citations to iteratively unearth additional relevant literature. This method affords us the agility to conduct a comprehensive discovery of our research domain.

Theoretical base

Our conceptual framework is underpinned by two theoretical conversations. The first, within institutional theory, is concerned with organizational responses to the pressure of multiple institutional logics [ 44 , 46 , 47 , 55 ]; this theoretical underpinning allows us to investigate UOB created under pressure from internal and external organizational stakeholders. The second conversation theorizes the mechanisms at play in the onset of UOB. Here, actors are conceptualized as active rule agents—as opposed to passive rule followers—working (or failing) to reduce unnecessary organizational burden and its impact on performance [ 14 , 73 ]. In this protean theoretical approach [ 38 ], we build more specifically on the insights of the administrative burden literature in our discussion of intentional UOB creation [ 26 ], and on red tape literature regarding UOB identification and action [ 8 , 31 ]. Our contribution to the literature is a comprehensive and integrative framework that federates disparate concepts under a clear theoretical umbrella.

Our review of the literature reveals that the discussion of UOB’s onset mechanisms links closely to six overlapping scholarly discussions. A first conversation is on determinants (origins) of UOB and circumstances under which UOB arises, hence looking at UOB as a dependent variable and seeking to identify moderating contingencies [ 14 , 38 , 52 , 53 ]. A second conversation involves the consequences of unnecessary burdens, where UOB is studied as an independent variable [ 16 , 71 ]. A third conversation relates to the distinction between the necessary and unnecessary nature of organizational burdens [ 1 , 11 ]. A fourth conversation discusses the objective or subjective nature of organizational burdens’ necessity or lack thereof [ 49 ]. A fifth conversation examines factors that may mitigate UOB onset [ 2 ]. And finally, a sixth conversation deals with factors that may influence a decision-maker’s approach to mitigation [ 72 ]. In our framework, all of these find a place.

Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework presents three typologies that, together, explain the onset of UOB: (1) a typology of unnecessary burdens; (2) a typology of managerial mitigation responses to such burdens; and (3) a typology of factors influencing the likelihood of UOB mitigation. The framework also accounts for the intentional creation of UOB, a phenomenon governed by specific mechanisms. To be clear, our purpose is not to add UOB-onset related variables to the already large stock that can be found in the extant literature [ 76 ], but rather to map the variables known to be at play, develop their linkages, clarify the underlying (often implicit) assumptions that drive our understanding, and organize knowledge through a comprehensive and integrative lens.

The conceptual framework is summarized in Fig.  1 . The rest of the paper follows the structure of the framework, presenting in turn the three typologies, then developing detailed theoretical argumentation and propositions, and finally looking at implications and avenues for further research.

UOB onset mechanisms: outline of a proposed conceptual framework (Throughout, plain arrows suggest a positive relationship between variables and dotted arrows a negative one.)

A typology of unnecessary organizational burden

As illustrated in Fig.  2 , our typology of UOB is organized along two dimensions. The first dimension is a specification of the reason for which a burden is deemed unnecessary : is it because it serves an unnecessary goal, because it is in itself unnecessary, or because it mandates an unnecessary process? This distinction, not explicitly present in the extant literature, is an essential building block of our understanding of UOB. The second dimension is the objective versus subjective nature of a burden’s lack of necessity: is it factually unnecessary, or is it only perceived to be so by some organizational actors? We look at these two dimensions in turn.

A two-dimensional typology of UOB

Organizational burdens, the goals they serve, and the processes they mandate

Early work on red tape [ 8 ] focussed on the burden itself as manifested in objective UOB, when a burden adopted into the organization purports (but fails) to serve a necessary goal. Bozeman [ 9 : 12] defined red tape as “rules, regulations, and procedures that remain in force and entail a compliance burden but do not serve the legitimate purposes the rules were intended to serve”. This can be the case, for example, when implemented policies “have a weak relationship to the core tasks of an organization” [ 13 : 485].

But by qualifying as “legitimate” the purpose that a rule purports to serve [ 9 : 12], the early definition of red tape risks obfuscating unnecessary burden that originates not in the burden itself, but in the goal it serves—a goal that may not be legitimate or “desirable” [ 2 : 1657]. Here, a burden is unnecessary not because it is an ill-conceived way to pursue a legitimate (necessary) goal, but rather because the very goal that the burden pursues is deemed to be unnecessary.

We propose that, objectively, an unnecessary goal be defined as a goal that does not contribute to the organization’s legitimate purpose [ 2 ], but the purpose itself is actor-defined, time- and context-dependent, and is constantly negotiated and re-negotiated [ 39 ], making it difficult—except in rare cases—to identify objectively unnecessary goals. Subjectively, an unnecessary goal relies on an individual’s perception that (1) the goal pursues a contested purpose or (2) is otherwise, in itself, not seen as legitimate [ 66 ]. An example may illustrate this argument. Under point (1) above, if organizational actors believe that the organization exists to pursue purpose X and has ‘lost its way’ by focussing on purpose Y , these actors are likely to contest goals they understand to be serving purpose Y , and to consider that the organizational burdens created under these goals are unnecessary. Under point (2), organizational actors may consider, for instance, that a compliance goal adds no value; these actors will therefore be led to consider, by extension, that the organizational burden under this ‘illegitimate’ goal is unnecessary.

Burden-related and goal-related UOB can be thought of as substantive UOB : the very substance of the organizational burden is (or is experienced as) unnecessary, reducing the organization’s effectiveness by focussing actors’ efforts on ‘not the right thing’ [ 64 ]. By contrast, in processual UOB , the organizational burden is necessary and is experienced as such, but the process mandated by the burden is (or is experienced to be) unnecessary. By ‘process’, we refer to the formalization through which an organizational burden—and the effort it demands—is operationalized. Process-related UOB thus reduces the organization’s efficiency, focussing actors on doing the right thing, but ‘not in the right way’ [ 64 ]. Process-related UOB is closely linked to questions of over-burdening formalization [ 38 ], coercive bureaucracy [ 6 , 11 ], and sludge [ 65 ]. In their discussion of formalization and over-formalization, Adler and Borys [ 1 : 61] distinguish written rules, procedures, and instructions that sometimes increase effectiveness and provide “needed guidance”, from those that weigh down organizations and stifle innovation.

Objective and subjective UOB

The second dimension of our UOB typology concerns the objective or subjective nature of an organizational burden’s lack of necessity . It can be drawn from the literature that an organizational burden is composed of one, two, or three parts of varying sizes, as visualized in Fig.  3 . A first part may be objectively necessary and viewed as such by organizational actors; a second part may be objectively unnecessary ( objective UOB ), when the burden factually does not serve the organization’s purpose [ 2 , 8 , 14 ], and a third part, unsettled and possibly overlapping with the first two parts, may be contested—considered by some actors as necessary and by others as unnecessary ( subjective UOB ) [ 8 , 26 , 31 , 38 , 50 ]. Pandey and Kingsley [ 48 : 782] talk about “impressions on the part of managers that formalization (in the form of burdensome rules and regulations) is detrimental to the organization”.

Three parts of an organizational burden

A rich literature on objective and subjective unnecessary organizational burdens [ 2 ] spans questions of UOB measurement [ 49 ], the difficulty of identifying and measuring objective UOB [ 38 ], and factors that influence the perception of necessity —for example, outcome favorability (the extent to which actors feel that they got out of a process what they were hoping to get—Kaufmann and Feeney [ 32 , 41 ]), the alignment of outcomes with one’s job-related values [ 71 ], the extent to which actors feel disconnected from the organization [ 48 ], process transparency [ 31 ], political preferences [ 7 ], and the observed rule-breaking behaviour of others in the organization [ 16 ].

Three points in the objective/subjective dichotomy are of particular relevance to our discussion of UOB onset. The first concerns ways in which the onset mechanisms of subjective and objective UOB are similar or dissimilar [ 31 ]. Our conceptual framework suggests broad similarities, with two notable differences. The first difference is that subjective UOB (as opposed to objective UOB) can be reduced by information-sharing activities aimed at promoting a convergence of views among organizational actors [ 71 ]. The second difference is that objective UOB touches everyone who interacts with the burden (all efforts deployed towards an unnecessary part of a burden are unnecessary), while subjective UOB only weighs on those who consider that the burden lacks necessity [ 38 : 5]. The second point relates to a decision-maker’s perception of the necessity of the burden that he or she prepares to adopt. The literature is overwhelmingly focussed on the subjectivity of downstream actors who bear the brunt of UOB-related efforts—how they understand, interpret, and experience the burden [ 16 , 48 , 60 ]. Yet the subjectivity of decision-makers is central to our understanding of UOB onset: it will not only determine whether the burden is or is not eventually introduced into the organization—it may also influence whether the decision-maker seeks other views on the UOB-potential of that burden, and what UOB-mitigations he or she puts in place as the burden is introduced.

The third point is to underscore the importance of providing researchers and practitioners with a common language to discuss the necessary or unnecessary nature of a burden. Madsen et al. [ 38 : 376] propose a determination based on “the potential benefits of frictions relative to their costs”, and Campbell et al. [ 14 : 307] discuss the weighing of “compliance burden against rule effectiveness in a rational benefit–cost calculation… a fitting of the module made of dysfunction evaluation with the module made of burden evaluation” (see also [ 61 , 71 ]). For the purposes of our conceptual framework and theory development, we propose a UOB ratio capturing a burden’s added value in relation to the effort it mandates—with a higher ratio corresponding to higher UOB:

UOB ratio = effort/added value

Objectively, ‘added value’ refers to the burden’s contribution to the organization’s purpose, and subjectively to an actor’s assessment of that contribution. Objectively, ‘effort’ refers to the level of effort mandated by the burden, and subjectively to an actor’s sense of that mandated effort. We will refer to this ratio in subsequent developments.

The intentional creation of UOB

There is ample evidence in the UOB literature, and in particular in literature on ordeals [ 80 ] and administrative burdens [ 25 ], that some objective unnecessary organizational burdens are created intentionally, being deliberately imposed on organizational actors and other stakeholders. The aim of such intentional UOB creation may be to limit access to services [ 26 ] talk about “policymaking by other means”), to isolate specific actors [ 80 ], to assert power [ 21 , 63 ], or to exert managerial over-control [ 73 ].

The how and why of intentionally created UOB onset seems clear [ 38 : 8]: a decision-maker wants—and has the authority—to subject other actors to unnecessary organizational burden. In this scenario, questions of mitigation will be irrelevant at this decision-maker’s level, since he or she wants the UOB to exist, but will be relevant for other actors affected by the unnecessary burden thus created. When intentionally created, UOB can be seen as an instrument in the context of organizational politics, and its onset mechanisms need to be understood in light of the motives of those intentionally creating it.

The universality of UOB

The typology above suggests that an organizational burden may be unnecessary in at least four circumstances: (1) the organization pursues the wrong purpose; (2) goals are unnecessary; (3) the organizational burden does not serve a necessary goal; or (4) mandated processes are in part unnecessary to the delivery of a necessary organizational burden, sometimes as a result of intentional UOB creation. And even when these four circumstances are objectively absent, subjective UOB may still exist when actors (wrongly) retain a subjective sense that specific burdens, goals, or processes are unnecessary.

It may thus be tempting to conclude that UOB is created as if by default, as part of the normal decision-making process in organizations [ 70 ]. And indeed, a rich literature finds evidence of significant UOB in a host of organizations such as hospitals [ 62 ], universities [ 10 ], and private firms [ 18 ]. Our full conceptual framework, however, presents a different story—one in which decision-makers play a central role in the onset and mitigation of UOB. We now turn to the bottom layer of our conceptual framework (Fig.  1 , above): factors influencing the likelihood of UOB mitigation.

Factors influencing the likelihood of UOB mitigation

The literature identifies two prerequisites to UOB mitigation: a decision-maker’s capacity to recognize unnecessary burdens and to act on them.

Recognizing UOB

In the arguments below, we conceptualize organizations as composed of units and layers [ 24 , 69 , 70 ]. Horizontally, units can be co-located but relatively siloed, weakly linked, and seeking to reach functional aims that may not have much in common. Vertically, units have their own stack of hierarchical layers and command structure, where managers have subordinates who may in turn have subordinates of their own. Our conceptual framework suggests two explanations for why a decision-maker may not be able to recognize UOB: (1) a general lack of interest in whether UOB is created or not, and (2) an assessment of the burden that suggests a necessity where, objectively or in the eyes of others, there is none.

A general lack of interest in UOB

Peeters [ 52 : 568] sees one origin of administrative burden in “benign neglect”, defined as “the failure of organizations to look at the impact of their procedures and practices on citizens”: decision-makers not concerned with the potential creation of UOB will be unlikely to pay attention to a burden’s necessity or lack thereof, to look at the UOB impact of their decisions on other actors, or to seek UOB-related knowledge. A decision-maker may also be overly focussed on the finality of the decision, to an extent that obfuscates the negative/unnecessary effects of a burden [ 29 ]. We summarize these arguments in a first proposition:

Proposition 1.

Unnecessary organizational burden will increase in an organization when decision-makers are less aware of, or less concerned about, the objective consequences of their decisions on downstream actors or the subjective experience of downstream actors in relation to a burden.

A misaligned UOB assessment

In line with the UOB ratio presented above, a decision-maker’s likelihood of assessing an organizational burden as unnecessary will be the direct result of his or her ability to assess the burden’s added value to the organization’s purpose as low and/or the burden’s mandated effort as high. We look at the two parts of this proposition in turn.

An organization’s purpose is at times described as the foundation of the organization’s mission [ 51 , 59 ], chosen by the organization itself and bringing focus to its actions [ 20 , 33 ]. In reality, complex organizations often pursue a myriad of aims associated with the original purpose—aims that may jointly be referred to as a purpose cloud , composed of both the purpose itself (as described above) and key supporting aims (or derivative goals) that direct the organization both on how the purpose is pursued and what else needs to be accomplished in order to achieve the purpose [ 33 ]. Examples of supporting aims or derivative goals may include, to mention but a few, risk management, compliance requirements [ 42 ], change initiatives [ 75 ], fraud reduction [ 7 ], or pursuits aimed to deflect pressures stemming from external demands [ 23 ]. The phenomenon of goal-displacement [ 28 ] may lead to supportive aims or derivate goals displacing the organization’s original purpose, or to aims and goals in the purpose cloud shifting in their relative importance.

We suggest that while parts of the purpose cloud (for example, the existential or primary purpose) will tend to be known to, and understood and accepted by, successively lower layers of downstream organizational actors (or actors located in siloed units), the justification for other parts of the cloud, such as supportive aims or derivative goals, may be lost or misunderstood as we travel further down from the organization’s apex. Kerschbaum [ 33 : 7] notes that holistic knowledge of the organizational purpose may be reserved to a few actors “who are actually involved in the core business” of the organization; others may have an incomplete understanding of the purpose [ 73 : 267] or a different understanding of the prioritization of elements in the purpose cloud, with the sense that decision-making, concentrated near the top of an organization, is not sensitive to their needs. This argument relates to Oliver Williamson’s theory of control-loss driven by the garbling of information that travels across an organization’s hierarchy, as applied to the issue of ultimate organizational failure [ 70 ].

To illustrate, let us take the example of an actor at level L  + 1, high up in the organization’s hierarchy, with a holistic understanding of the organization’s purpose cloud, who delegates the pursuit of distinct aspects of that cloud to actors at the next lower-level L . These actors, in turn, in their respective spheres of control, create aims, goals, and burdens mandating effort from actors at yet the next lower-level L  − 1. In such a situation, it is possible to imagine that an actor at level L  − 1, with an incomplete understanding of the purpose cloud, may view the aim or goal (and associated burden) created at level L as unnecessary, bemoaning “the tendency for some organizations to concentrate upon activities and programs that contribute relatively little to the attainment of their major goals” [ 74 : 539]. This feeling will increase when different aspects of the cloud are siloed and L  − 1’s own hierarchical layer is less able to explain and justify burdens created under other purpose cloud elements. [ 2 : 1658] suggest that individuals at lower levels of the organization’s hierarchy “will experience burdensomeness but likely have less (or no) notion of the functionality and effectiveness of the relevant rules”. It should be noted that while downstream organizational actors may have less understanding of the higher-up purpose being pursued, these actors may nonetheless construct their own image of the “functionality and effectiveness” of a burden—or in other words, their own UOB ratio —based on the “local knowledge” available to them [ 79 : 23].

Turning to the effort part of the UOB ratio, following a similar logic, we suggest that actors’ higher level or apex-closer location in the organization will increase the distance that separates them from the site where burden-related effort is to be rendered, thus possibly limiting their understanding of the full mandated effort [ 19 ]. Downstream actors, or those in specific silos, possessing local knowledge and being closer to the actual action, would in contrast have a better understanding of the effort mandated by the organizational burden [ 48 ].

The arguments spelled out above lead to a second (compounded) proposition:

Proposition 2.

UOB will increase when decision-makers assess a burden’s added-value as higher, and/or the effort created by the burden as lower, than is objectively warranted or subjectively experienced by downstream actors. This is more likely to occur when …

Proposition 2.1.

… downstream actors have a lesser understanding of the organization's ‘purpose cloud’, a lower capacity to link burdens to necessary goals, and thus a lower capacity to understand the burden’s added value.

Proposition 2.2.

… decision-makers are higher up in the organization’s hierarchy, further away from the site at which burden-related efforts will be rendered, and thus less likely to fully understand the extent of these efforts.

In contrast, when a decision-maker pays attention to alternative assessments of an organizational burden’s added value and mandated effort, particularly assessments emanating from organizational actors further removed from the source of the burden, then his or her likelihood of identifying UOB increases. We touch here upon the broad issue of employee participation—“the extent to which an employee is involved, formally or informally, in decisions covering various domains in their own work role and organizational settings” [ 77 : 3200]. A radical form of participation takes the idea of participation one step further, combining employee participation, shared responsibility, and democratic decision-making rules and governance models. Examples can be found in non-hierarchical or democratic organizations (see, e.g. [ 17 , 36 ]). Research has shown that several types of meaningful formal or informal participation can have positive effects on an organization’s performance [ 36 ]. Participation has been called “a mess that organizations can’t afford to avoid” [ 5 : 203], and its importance in minimizing unnecessary organizational burden has been highlighted [ 2 ]. In the same vein, van de Mandele and van Witteloostuijn [ 70 ] argue that such participation can reduce control-loss related to information garbling—vertically across an organization’s hierarchy and horizontally across disconnected units. This leads us to a third proposition:

Proposition 3.

By taking account of other actors’ views of an organizational burden’s added value and mandated level of effort, especially when these actors are positioned further away from the purpose cloud and closer to the effort, a decision-maker increases his or her likelihood of recognizing UOB.

Figure  4 summarizes our arguments regarding the first prerequisite to UOB mitigation—its recognition by decision-makers.

Recognizing UOB (DM: decision-maker)

Acting to mitigate the onset of UOB

Having recognized UOB, will the decision-maker decide to act and engage in mitigation responses? We suggest that UOB mitigation will be influenced by two sets of factors, one concerned with an organizational actor’s individual strengths and weaknesses, and the other with organizational incentives. We first turn to psychological factors and mechanisms [ 2 ] that make decision-makers more likely to recognize unnecessary organizational burden and to subsequently take mitigating actions. Davis and Pink-Harper [ 16 : 182] note that few studies “have sought to elucidate the psychological processes that shape the way people understand, interpret, and experience rule burden and outcomes”. From our review of the literature, this holds true for both actors subjected to UOB and those creating UOB.

We suggest that decision-makers’ level of ambidexterity increases the likelihood that they take active steps towards UOB recognition and mitigation. Ambidexterity is defined as a person’s or an organization’s ability to simultaneously engage in two pursuits requiring different capabilities [ 35 ]—for example, exploitation and exploration [ 45 , 67 ]. We argue that an organizational actor mindful of (and actively mitigating) unnecessary organizational burden will, in a similar fashion, need to balance two simultaneous and competing priorities: on the one hand, making decisions that move the organization forward; and on the other hand, ensuring that burdens created through these decisions are not unnecessary [ 48 ]. Ambidextrous UOB mitigators thus balance decision-making (the creation of burdens) with a commitment to necessity, efficiency, and effectiveness (following [ 47 ]).

Ambidexterity is but one trait that influences an organizational actor’s approach to UOB. By way of illustration, we build on van Witteloostuijn et al. [ 72 ] for another potentially influential attribute—the positive influence of the personality traits of Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, and Agreeableness on what is known as ‘Public Service Motivation’ in the public administration and management literature. Similarly, we suggest that the same personality traits will lead an organizational actor to show greater concern for UOB, greater propensity for ambidexterity, a higher likelihood of listening to other views than one’s own in relation to the necessary/unnecessary nature of burdens, a greater capacity to question one’s own decisions, and a higher likelihood of attempting UOB mitigation. These arguments lead to the following proposition:

Proposition 4.

UOB will tend to decrease when …

Proposition 4.1.

… decision-makers are ambidextrous, able to balance decision-making (the creation of burdens) with a commitment to necessity, efficiency, and effectiveness.

Proposition 4.2

. … decision-makers show the personality traits of Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, or Agreeableness.

A second series of factors influencing UOB onset involves the structure of organizational incentives around UOB creation and reduction [ 12 ]. An organizational culture that values simplicity and efficiency is likely to push organizational decision-makers towards more effort in recognizing and acting upon subjective and objective UOB [ 3 , 36 , 79 ]. Sunstein [ 65 ], for example, advises organizations to conduct “sludge audits” to identify and reduce sludge such as excessive paperwork burdens. In line with a culture of simplicity, we expect that an increased number of elements in the purpose cloud, and their increasing degree of separation from one another, will increase the likelihood of subjective UOB creation: as the organization creates burdens in pursuit of goals that some actors do not consider as ‘legitimate’ (possibly because they do not fully understand their purpose), the sense of rendering unnecessary efforts will increase. Conversely, we expect that the creation of subjective UOB will decrease in an organization that promotes a simpler purpose cloud and communicates sufficiently to explain and justify elements in the cloud, specifically the goals and burdens that these elements give rise to. These arguments give the following proposition:

Proposition 5.

UOB will tend to decrease when the organizational culture promotes simplicity and when, in particular, elements in the organization’s purpose cloud are less numerous, more interconnected, and/or better explained to downstream actors.

Building on Figs.  4 and 5 summarizes our arguments regarding the likelihood of UOB-mitigation action by an organizational decision-maker. We now move to the middle layer of our conceptual framework, to explore strategies employed by organizational actors for UOB mitigation.

Acting to mitigate UOB (DM: decision-maker)

A typology of UOB mitigation responses

The institutional logics literature [ 23 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 55 ] provides a robust theoretical framework for our analysis and exploration of UOB mitigation strategies, and helps conceptualize UOB mitigation responses when an actor is under pressure to either adopt or implement UOB. However, we need to highlight four key differences between typologies of responses to multiple institutional logics and responses to UOB. First, unlike external logics, UOB does not always involve an element of external pressure: in our framework, decision-makers may be called on to mitigate potential UOB in their own decisions. Second, in terms of their scope, institutional logics play a role at the highest organizational level, while UOB can be created at the level of the logic/purpose, goals, burdens, or processes; we may therefore be discussing lower-level pressures when discussing UOB than when examining institutional logics. Third, the response to institutional logics is primarily organizational, whereas responses to UOB can be organizational or individual. And fourth, the pressure of institutional logics originates, by definition, outside of the organization, whilst UOB can be born out of external pressures, but also out of internal burden-creating decisions. The literature identifies four UOB mitigation strategies, which we propose to explore in turn: Explain, Adapt, Defy, and Pretend.

The explain response

In this first mitigation approach, an organizational decision-maker tries to influence other actors’ perception of a burden, which they believe is unnecessary, by presenting it as necessary [ 71 ]. Literature touching on this mitigation response discusses a number of possible ‘explanations’: rule rationale and process transparency [ 31 ], output legitimacy [ 2 ], or information on the clarity and legitimacy of organizational goals [ 43 ]. The Explain response is relevant to the mitigation of both accumulated UOB and UOB under creation; it is also relevant to the mitigation of UOB created by the actual mitigator or by others. However, when a decision-maker is under pressure from above to adopt an unnecessary burden, the Explain response is not an available mitigation option.

In the case of Explain there is no actual modification to the organizational burden—only an attempt to bring the views of downstream or siloed actors (who consider that the organizational burden is unnecessary) into increased alignment with the decision-maker (who considers the burden as necessary); this alignment is sought either by increasing these actors’ view of the burden’s added value—for example, by convincingly explaining the prioritization of the associated goal in the purpose cloud—or by reducing their assessment of the burden’s mandated effort. In the context of multiple institutional logics, Pache and Santos [ 47 : 649] suggest that such an approach calls for “high levels of emotional competence” and an ability “to understand the expectations and requirements of multiple institutional constituencies”.

The Explain response will only mitigate subjective UOB: all the decision-maker can do is work to reduce the gap between his/her (correct or incorrect) UOB assessment and that of other actors; no matter how convincing the decision-maker is about objective UOB actually being necessary , the reality of its lack of necessity will not be reduced. We visually summarize our Explain argument in Fig.  6 , and put forward the following proposition:

The Explain response (DM: decision-maker)

Proposition 6.

Subjective UOB among organizational actors may be mitigated by the provision of information explaining the burden’s justification and adoption process, or downplaying the effort mandated by the burden.

The adapt response

With the Adap t response, the decision-maker recognizes the existence of UOB and constructively works to decrease the UOB ratio—increasing the burden’s added value and/or decreasing the mandated level of effort. Adapt can be used in all cases of UOB creation: when the burden is created by the mitigator herself/himself or by others, and when it is created willingly or under pressure from above.

The first instance sees a decision-maker mitigate accumulated UOB that he or she has had no hand in creating and is under no pressure to maintain—a mitigation that does not involve self-questioning (questioning one’s own past actions) nor issues of power (e.g. resisting pressure). Mitigation here simply aims at reducing the unnecessary [ 56 ], and ensuring that the complexity of the organization fits the complexity of its environment [ 37 ]. The mitigated organizational burdens here are seen as having become useless, strained, or less effective [ 73 ], they are seen to have accumulated, passively and unintentionally, “through the exercise of habit, convention, convenience, or social obligation” [ 44 : 151], the ossification of processes and structures [ 56 ], or simply through the passage of time [ 3 ].

A decision-maker able to recognize and tackle accumulated UOB makes a cost–benefit analysis about the tackling effort itself, but takes little risk in terms of questioning his or her own decisions or those of higher-level actors, or organizational actors elsewhere in the organization’s structure. Accumulated UOB—at times described by organizational actors as “stupid rules and low-value activities… time-wasters” [ 4 : 12], “high management costs and bureaucracy”, 79 :5], or “useless complexity” [ 57 : 59]—is often not protected by any constituency; this example of “rule death” [ 30 : 148], when it occurs, is rarely followed by a period of mourning.

The second instance sees decision-makers mitigate through an Adapt response UOB created in their own decisions . This involves a response in which decision-makers need to internalize and act on alternative accounts of UOB across the organization, horizontally and vertically, that contradict their own initial account. This instance of mitigation calls for a decision-maker’s capacity to seek different points of view, to subsequently engage in self-questioning, rethink his or her own assumptions, and change course [ 22 ]—quite a challenge indeed.

In the third instance, the organizational decision-maker tries adapting under pressure —namely changing the content of external or internal demands that he or she considers unnecessary, and redefining the rules of the game in a way that better fits with his or her own worldview. In this manipulation-oriented response [ 47 : 652], an effort will be required to convince the source of the pressure that the adaptation makes sense—an effort more likely to succeed when the decision-maker’s standing in the organization is higher, and the source of the pressure is “relatively malleable” [ 47 : 652]. If that fails, the decision-maker’s mitigation response may switch to Defy . We visually summarize our Adapt argument in Fig.  7 , and put forward the following propositions:

The Adapt approach (DM: decision-maker)

Proposition 7.

The likelihood of a decision-maker mitigating UOB in his or her own decisions will increase with his or her greater capacity for self-questioning, rethinking, and changing.

Proposition 8.

The likelihood of a decision-maker mitigating UOB in decisions that he or she makes under pressure will increase with the increase in his or her higher standing in the organization, and the malleability of the source of pressure.

UOB cascades and waves

Before we present the Defy and Pretend responses, we need to say a few words about UOB cascades and waves—inspired from similar arguments in the red tape literature (see, e.g. [ 30 ]). While burden-creating decisions can be standalone events, the mechanisms of UOB creation may resemble a cascade in which “populations of rules are interrelated at different rule-making levels in a hierarchical way” [ 30 : 651].

A vertical cascade emerges when a burden is introduced into the organization at a certain level of the organizational hierarchy, and then cascades down the hierarchy through a series of decisions/adoptions at lower levels. At each level, the adoption of the burden will give rise to varying levels of pressure, resistance, and participation, as well as the possible creation of UOB. Our framework suggests that through this vertical trickle-down, the UOB ratio should increase [ 30 : 646] as actors have a better view of the effort to be rendered, a less clear understanding of the purpose cloud, and possibly less room for Adapt , Defy , or Pretend responses. UOB may also generate a horizontal wave when a unit, motivated by its local goals, introduces a burden that other units may view as unnecessary. An example could be the creation by a compliance unit of a procedure imposed on Finance and HR that actors in these two units view as over-formalized, overly bureaucratic, and unnecessary.

The Defy response

In the third mitigation approach, Defy , we look at an organizational actor facing an organizational burden, introduced from elsewhere (horizontally) or above (vertically), that he or she considers unnecessary, but with the actor being under pressure to either adopt (as a decision-maker in the decision cascade ) or implement the burden (as an actor at the receiving end).

With the Defy response, the actor attempts to minimize the burden by openly disagreeing with its adoption and trying to “exact some concessions” to have it modified [ 44 : 154]. The opposite of obedient adoption [ 44 : 152], defiance is at play when individuals “resist the pressure to engage with multiple logics and use only one logic to guide their actions” [ 66 : 1307]. Defiance strategies can see the decision-maker dismiss, ignore, challenge, contest, attack, or denounce a burden [ 44 ], the response can take the form of negotiation or compromise, frontal confrontation, or using various influence tactics [ 55 ]. It “may work when the institutional referents are relatively weak … or have little means of retaliation for noncompliance” [ 47 : 651]—and we would thus expect that the degree of coerciveness of the pressure will come to reduce an actor’s capacity to defy.

The decision to adopt a Defy response, and an actor’s degree of defiance (from minor adaptations to pure rejection), may be influenced by the extent to which the actor assesses the burden to lack necessity, and by the perceived cost of “active departure from expected behaviour” [ 44 : 158]—what the actor believes he or she may lose by displaying antagonism. Meyer and Rowan [ 40 : 356], for example, warn that rejection may lead to challenges in “documenting efficiency.” Because the decision-maker’s defiance response goes against the flow of the decision cascade, we expect questions of standing and “impression management” [ 47 : 651] to play a central role. We suggest that, in the spirit of social capital understood as a resource for action (see [ 15 ]), organizational actors possess a symbolic form of capital on which they draw to defy burdens. This ‘defiance capital’ will be depleted by instances of defiance (and increasingly depleted by increasingly radical forms of defiance). Conversely, it will be replenished by instances of obedience and displays of competence, both being appreciated by upstream actors. Pache and Santos [ 47 : 651] hint at another source of replenishment: the legitimacy that defiance provides to the decision-maker in the eyes of downstream and same-level actors (“constituencies who also resent the pressures”), who may feel that the Defy response buffers them from the consequences of UOB. We visually summarize our Defy argument in Fig.  8 , and put forward the following propositions:

The Defy mitigation response

Proposition 9.

When an organizational actor is under pressure to adopt a burden that he or she considers unnecessary, his/her ability to successfully defy the adoption will …

Proposition 9.1.

… increase with increasing levels of defiance capital;

Proposition 9.2.

… increase with the actor’s assessment of the burden’s increased lack of necessity; and.

Proposition 9.3.

… decrease when the degree of coerciveness of the pressure to introduce this burden increases.

The Pretend response

In the fourth mitigation approach, Pretend , an organizational decision-maker does not substantively comply with an organizational burden assessed as unnecessary, but only pretends to comply, and decouples the reality from the appearance of compliance [ 40 , 44 , 46 ]. Meyer and Rowan [ 40 ] highlight the importance of coordinating actions in violation of formal rules that would, if applied, generate internal inconsistencies. The mechanisms of the Pretend mitigation approach hold similarities with those of Defy , in particular in relation to the degree of coerciveness of the pressure (and thus the level of scrutiny exerted by institutional referents), the distance of referents from the site of the Pretend response, and the level of UOB as assessed by the decision-maker (see [ 47 ]). When the decoupling remains invisible from the pressure source, a decision-maker’s organizational standing or defiance capital will play a smaller role than in the case of Defy . However, when the pressure source becomes aware of the decoupling, we would expect the decision-maker’s defiance capital to decrease, possibly dramatically, because of a possible perception of duplicity.

An interesting point can be made here regarding the perception of ceremonial compliance by downstream actors: Oliver [ 44 : 154] notes that an organization may “establish elaborate rational plans and procedures in response to institutional requirements in order to disguise the fact that it does not intend to implement”—a case of creating burden to avoid burden [ 47 : 650]. If downstream and/or siloed actors understand that the decision-maker is only pretending to adopt the burden, they may understand that UOB has been averted, but if they only see the (ceremonial) effort and do not understand its deflecting rationale, the ceremonial part of the conformity may be lost on them, and the adoption may increase their subjective sense of UOB. We visually summarize our Pretend argument in Fig.  9 , and put forward the following propositions:

The Pretend mitigation response (DM: decision-maker)

Proposition 10.

When an organizational actor is under pressure to adopt a burden he or she considers unnecessary, his/her ability to ‘pretend’ will …

Proposition 10.1.

Proposition 10.2., proposition 11..

A Pretend response may substantially deplete an actor’s defiance capital when the source of the pressure to adopt a burden discovers the ceremonial (Pretend) nature of this actor’s compliance.

Mitigating intentionally created UOB

As we conclude this section, we briefly touch upon the mitigation of intentionally created UOB by an actor lower down in the organization’s hierarchy without coercive power. Organizational actors willingly creating unnecessary burden are unlikely to try to mitigate it themselves [ 14 : 11], and the high level of coercion connected with this type of UOB, its high level of formalization, and its targeting of the lowest actors in the UOB cascade, would probably make it very challenging for downstream actors to mitigate.

Proposition 12.

If UOB has been intentionally created higher up in the organizational hierarchy, the likelihood of successful mitigation by downstream actors will be low.

This paper’s starting point was the absence of a comprehensive and integrative account, in the academic literature, of the onset mechanisms of—and mitigation responses to—unnecessary organizational burden (UOB). This absence may explain why research on UOB reduction is still considered insufficient [ 31 ]. To fill that gap, we have proposed a conceptual framework composed of three layers. The first layer helps define a typology of unnecessary burdens: it clarifies that an unnecessary burden can be created intentionally or unintentionally; can be objectively or subjectively unnecessary; and can be deemed unnecessary because it serves an unnecessary goal, because it is in itself unnecessary, or because it mandates an unnecessary process. The second layer looks at factors influencing the likelihood of UOB mitigation by organizational actors. And the third layer presents a typology of four mitigation responses to such burdens: Explain , Adapt , Defy , and Pretend .

Our theoretical contribution highlights the fundamental role played by organizational decision-makers in the onset, prevention, mitigation, and reduction of UOB. In so doing, we depart from the idea of UOB onset as a natural and inevitable phenomenon, and tease out the managerial strengths and weaknesses that may lead decision-makers to not identify organizational burden as (potentially) unnecessary, not act to reduce the UOB they are aware of, not question the UOB consequences of their own decisions, and not resist internal or external pressure to create UOB.

This contribution has immediate practical ramifications. In today’s organizational practice, while functions related to risk, compliance, or human resource management are often assigned to dedicated organizational actors, the identification and mitigation of UOB continues to rest, at least implicitly, on the shoulders of some of the organization’s busiest actors—decision-makers who already carry the bulk of organizational responsibilities. Our framework suggests that organizations may be well advised to provide support to decision-makers in identifying and acting on UOB. One recommendation could be the creation of a Chief Purpose Officer role, in charge of UOB identification and mitigation; the Chief Purpose Officer would sensitize organizational actors to UOB, receive reports of unnecessary burdens that these actors identify, would assess, from different vantage points, added value and mandated effort, would advise decision-makers in relation to real-time mitigation and post hoc reduction, and would share information within the organization to socialize the rationale for decisions, processes, and pursuits (‘UOB reduction by design’).

Our paper suggests future research avenues. More thinking and analysis could be applied to several points discussed above, particularly with an eye on follow-up empirical research. A few examples relate to the operationalization of the ‘UOB ratio’ and its use in organizations; further exploration of actors’ understanding of the ‘purpose cloud’ and of how such understanding impacts assessments of burdens’ added value at different levels of the organization; and consideration to the idea of a ‘defiance capital’, to explore how such a concept could guide our understanding of UOB mitigation under pressure. Empirical research could helpfully test the logic of our framework and suggest corrections and additions. Research could look at the relationship between objective and subjective UOB; the construct of decision-makers’ concern for UOB and mitigation action; and the place of UOB ambidexterity as an antecedent to mitigation. Empirical research could also investigate other individual and organizational variables that motivate/demotivate and incentivize/disincentivize the mitigation of unnecessary organizational burden, as well as variables that influence a decision-maker’s capacity to question his or her own decisions in response to alternative accounts of UOB-creation. Finally, future research could attempt to model the flow of the entire framework through a computer simulation in order to move the UOB discussion forward and see how the framework could be further improved for use in theory development and practice.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Decision-maker

• Unnecessary organizational burden

Adler PS, Borys B (1996) Two types of bureaucracy: enabling and coercive. Admin Sci Q 61–89

Ahn Y, Campbell JW (2022) Red tape, rule legitimacy, and public service motivation: experimental evidence from Korean citizens. Adm Soc 54(9):1651–1688

Article   Google Scholar  

Ashkenas R (2007) Simplicity-minded management. A practical guide to stripping complexity out of your organization. Harv Bus Rev 85(12):101–109

Google Scholar  

Ashkenas R, Bodell L (2013) Seven strategies for simplifying your organization. Harv Bus Rev; https://hbr.org/2013/05/seven-strategies-for-simplifyi.html , 20 June 2023

Ashmos DP, Duchon D, McDaniel RR Jr, Huonker JW (2002) What a mess! Participation as a simple managerial rule to ‘complexify’ organizations. J Manag Stud 39(2):189–206

Bachmann M, Kurzmann A, Gutierrez BC, Neyer AK (2020) The paradox of agility: Reduce formalization? Introduce formalization! Die Unternehm 74(2):122–135

Bell E, Ter-Mkrtchyan A, Wehde W, Smith K (2021) Just or unjust? How ideological beliefs shape street-level bureaucrats’ perceptions of administrative burden. Public Adm Rev 81(4):610–624

Bozeman B (1993) A theory of government “red tape.” J Public Adm Res Theory 3(3):273–304

Bozeman B (2000) Bureaucracy and red tape. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

Bozeman B (2015) Bureaucratization in academic research policy: perspectives from red tape theory. In: 20th International conference of science and technology indicators, p 14

Bozeman B, Anderson DM (2016) Public policy and the origins of bureaucratic red tape: implications of the Stanford yacht scandal. Adm Soc 48(6):736–759

Brodkin EZ, Majmundar M (2010) Administrative exclusion: organizations and the hidden costs of welfare claiming. J Public Adm Res Theory 20(4):827–848

Bromley P, Powell WW (2012) From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: decoupling in the contemporary world. Acad Manag Ann 6(1):483–530

Campbell JW, Pandey SK, Arnesen L (2022) The ontology, origin, and impact of divisive public sector rules: a meta-narrative review of the red tape and administrative burden literatures. Public Adm Rev 83(2):296–315

Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 94:S95–S120

Davis RS, Pink-Harper SA (2016) Connecting knowledge of rule-breaking and perceived red tape: how behavioral attribution influences red tape perceptions. Public Perform Manag Rev 40(1):181–200

de Jong G, van Witteloostuijn A (2004) Successful corporate democracy: sustainable cooperation of capital and labor in the Dutch Breman Group. Acad Manag Perspect 18(3):54–66

de Jong G, van Witteloostuijn A (2015) Regulatory red tape and private firm performance. Public Adm 93(1):34–51

Gagné M (2018) From strategy to action: transforming organizational goals into organizational behavior. Int J Manag Rev 20:S83–S104

George G, Haas MR, McGahan AM, Schillebeeckx SJ, Tracey P (2023) Purpose in the for-profit firm: a review and framework for management research. J Manag 49(6):1841–1869

Graeber D (2018) Bullshit jobs: a theory. Simon and Schuster, New York

Grant AM (2021) Think again: the power of knowing what you don’t know. Viking Books, New York

Greenwood R, Díaz AM, Li SX, Lorente JC (2010) The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organ Sci 21(2):521–539

Hannan MT, Pólos L, Carroll GR (2003) Cascading organizational change. Organ Sci 14(5):463–482

Heinrich CJ (2016) The bite of administrative burden: a theoretical and empirical investigation. J Public Adm Res Theory 26(3):403–420

Herd P, Moynihan DP (2019) Administrative burden: policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

Book   Google Scholar  

Hopej-Kamińska M, Zgrzywa-Ziemak A, Hopej M, Kamiński R, Martan J (2015) Simplicity as a feature of an organizational structure. Argum Oecon 1(34):1233–5835

Huizinga K, de Bree M (2021) Exploring the risk of goal displacement in regulatory enforcement agencies: a goal-ambiguity approach. Public Perform Manag Rev 44(4):868–898

Jacobs G, Van Witteloostuijn A, Christe‐Zeyse J (2013) A theoretical framework of organizational change. J Org Change Manag

Kaufmann W, van Witteloostuijn A (2018) Do rules breed rules? Vertical rule-making cascades at the supranational, national, and organizational level. Int Public Manag J 21(4):650–676

Kaufmann W, Ingrams A, Jacobs D (2022) Rationale and process transparency do not reduce perceived red tape: evidence from a survey experiment. Int Rev Adm Sci 88(4):960–976

Kaufmann W, Feeney MK (2014) Beyond the rules: The effect of outcome favourability on red tape perceptions. Public Adm 92(1):178–191.

Kerschbaum C (2022) A beautiful strategy–bridging the gap between the (aesthetic) perception and (strategic) realization of the organizations purpose. VINE J Inf Knowl Manag sys

Kim A, Kim Y, Cho Y (2023) The consequences of collaborative overload: a long-term investigation of helping behavior. J Bus Res 154:113348

Koryak O, Lockett A, Hayton J, Nicolaou N, Mole K (2018) Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: exploration and exploitation. Res Policy 47(2):413–427

Laloux F, Wilber K (2014) Reinventing organizations: a guide to creating organizations inspired by the next stage of human consciousness. Nelson Parker, Brussels

Liu H, Ma L, Huang P (2015) When organizational complexity helps corporation improve its performance. J Manag Dev 34(3):340–351

Madsen JK, Mikkelsen KS, Moynihan DP (2022) Burdens, sludge, ordeals, red tape, oh my!: A user’s guide to the study of frictions. Public Adm 100(2):375–393

March JG (1962) The business firm as a political coalition. J Polit 24(4):662–678

Meyer JW, Rowan B (1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am J Sociol 83(2):340–363

Moon MJ, Kim J, Jung S, Cho B (2020) What makes administrative and hierarchical procedures more burdensome? Effects of degree of procedures, outcome favorability, and confucian values on red tape perception. Public Perform Manag Rev 43(6):1237–1259

McGregor-Lowndes M, Ryan C (2009) Reducing the compliance burden of non‐profit organisations: Cutting red tape. Aust. J Public Admin 68(1):21–38

Moynihan DP, Pandey SK, Wright BE (2012) Setting the table: how transformational leadership fosters performance information use. J Public Adm Res Theory 22(1):143–164

Oliver C (1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Acad Manag Rev 16(1):145–179

O'Reilly III CA, Tushman ML (2013) Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Acad Manag Perspect 27(4):324–338

Pache AC, Santos F (2010) When worlds collide: the internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Acad Manag Rev 35(3):455–476

Pache AC, Santos FM (2021) When worlds keep on colliding: exploring the consequences of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Acad Manag Rev 46(4):640–659

Pandey SK, Kingsley GA (2000) Examining red tape in public and private organizations: alternative explanations from a social psychological model. J Public Adm Res Theory 10(4):779–800

Pandey SK, Marlowe J (2015) Assessing survey-based measurement of personnel red tape with anchoring vignettes. Rev Public Pers Adm 35(3):215–237

Pandey SK, Scott PG (2002) Red tape: a review and assessment of concepts and measures. J Public Adm Res Theory 12(4):553–580

Parsons T (1956) Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations. Adm Sci Q 1:63–85

Peeters R (2020) The political economy of administrative burdens: a theoretical framework for analyzing the organizational origins of administrative burdens. Adm Soc 52(4):566–592

Peeters R, Trujillo Jimenez H, O’Connor E, Ogarrio Rojas P, Gonzalez Galindo M, Morales Tenorio D (2018) Low-trust bureaucracy: understanding the Mexican bureaucratic experience. Public Adm Dev 38(2):65–74

Powell JT, Koelemay MJ (2022) Systematic reviews of the literature are not always either useful or the best way to add to science. EJVES Vasc Forum 54:2–6

Raynard M (2016) Deconstructing complexity: Configurations of institutional complexity and structural hybridity. Strateg Organ 14(4):310–335

Reeves M, Levin S, Fink T, Levina A (2020) Taming complexity. Harv Bus Rev 98(1):112–121

Schwandt A (2009) Measuring organizational complexity and its impact on organizational performance—a comprehensive conceptual model and empirical study. PhD Thesis, der Technischen Universität Berlin

Schwarz GM, Bouckenooghe D, Vakola M (2021) Organizational change failure: framing the process of failing. Hum Relat 74(2):159–179

Scott WR, Davis GF (2006) Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Routledge, London

Scott PG, Pandey SK (2005) Red tape and public service motivation: findings from a national survey of managers in state health and human services agencies. Rev Public Pers Adm 25(2):155–180

Sharp Z (2020) Manipulating structure in institutional complexity scenarios: the case of strategic planning in nonprofits. Bus Soc 60(8):1924–1956

Sinsky C, Colligan L, Li L, Prgomet M, Reynolds S, Goeders L, Westbrook J, Tutty M, Blike G (2016) Allocation of physician time in ambulatory practice: a time and motion study in 4 specialties. Ann Intern Med 165(11):753–760

Soffia M, Wood AJ, Burchell B (2022) Alienation is not ‘Bullshit’: an empirical critique of Graeber’s theory of BS jobs. Work Employ Soc 36(5):816–840

Sundqvist E, Backlund F, Chronéer D (2014) What is project efficiency and effectiveness? Procedia Soc Behav Sci 119:278–287

Sunstein CR (2020) Sludge audits. Behav Public Policy 6(4):654–673

Svenningsen-Berthélem V, Boxenbaum E, Ravasi D (2018) Individual responses to multiple logics in hybrid organizing: the role of structural position. Management 21(4):1306–1328

Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA III (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manag Rev 38(4):8–29

Tworek K, Hopej M, Martan J (2018) Into organizational structure simplicity. Information Systems Architecture and Technology: Proceedings of 38th International Conference on Information Systems Architecture and Technology – Part III, pp. 173–183

van der Mandele H, van Witteloostuijn A (2013) Free to fail: creative destruction revisited. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

van der Mandele H, van Witteloostuijn A (2015) The inevitability and irreversibility of organizational uncontrollability. Comput Math Organ Theory 21(4):380–405

van Loon NM, Leisink PL, Knies E, Brewer GA (2016) Red tape: developing and validating a new job-centered measure. Public Adm Rev 76(4):662–673

van Witteloostuijn A, Esteve M, Boyne G (2017) Public sector motivation ad fonts: personality traits as antecedents of the motivation to serve the public interest. J Public Adm Res Theory 27(1):20–35

Walker RM, Brewer GA (2009) Can public managers reduce red tape? The role of internal management in overcoming external constraints. Policy Polit 37(2):255–272

Warner WK, Havens AE (1968) Goal displacement and the intangibility of organizational goals. Adm Sci Q 12:539–555

Wezel FC, van Witteloostuijn A (2006) From scooters to choppers: product portfolio change and organizational failure: evidence from the UK motorcycle industry 1895 to 1993. Long Range Plan 39(1):11–28

Whetten DA (1989) What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Acad Manag Rev 14(4):490–495

Wikhamn W, Wikhamn BR, Fasth J (2021) Employee participation and job satisfaction in SMEs: investigating strategic exploitation and exploration as moderators. Int J Hum Resour Manag 33(16):3197–3223

Wohlin C (2014) Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering, pp 1–10

Worren N (2018) Organizational simplification: a conceptual framework based on systems theories. Working Paper, Norwegian University of Life Sciences

Zeckhauser R (2021) Strategic sorting: the role of ordeals in health care. Econ Philos 37(1):64–81

Download references

Acknowledgements

No acknowledgements.

None to declare.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universiteit Antwerpen/Antwerp Management School, Prinsstraat 13, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

Oren Ginzburg & Stefanie Weil

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Oren Ginzburg & Arjen van Witteloostuijn

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Equal contributions (research, reflections, writing, editing, and approval of the final manuscript).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oren Ginzburg .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ginzburg, O., Weil, S. & van Witteloostuijn, A. Unnecessary organizational burden: a conceptual framework. Futur Bus J 10 , 44 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00330-8

Download citation

Received : 23 November 2023

Accepted : 07 April 2024

Published : 26 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00330-8

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

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