theoretical framework in research importance

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

What is a Theoretical Framework? | A Step-by-Step Guide

Published on 14 February 2020 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022.

A theoretical framework is a foundational review of existing theories that serves as a roadmap for developing the arguments you will use in your own work.

Theories are developed by researchers to explain phenomena, draw connections, and make predictions. In a theoretical framework, you explain the existing theories that support your research, showing that your work is grounded in established ideas.

In other words, your theoretical framework justifies and contextualises your later research, and it’s a crucial first step for your research paper , thesis, or dissertation . A well-rounded theoretical framework sets you up for success later on in your research and writing process.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why do you need a theoretical framework, how to write a theoretical framework, structuring your theoretical framework, example of a theoretical framework, frequently asked questions about theoretical frameworks.

Before you start your own research, it’s crucial to familiarise yourself with the theories and models that other researchers have already developed. Your theoretical framework is your opportunity to present and explain what you’ve learned, situated within your future research topic.

There’s a good chance that many different theories about your topic already exist, especially if the topic is broad. In your theoretical framework, you will evaluate, compare, and select the most relevant ones.

By “framing” your research within a clearly defined field, you make the reader aware of the assumptions that inform your approach, showing the rationale behind your choices for later sections, like methodology and discussion . This part of your dissertation lays the foundations that will support your analysis, helping you interpret your results and make broader generalisations .

• In literature , a scholar using postmodernist literary theory would analyse The Great Gatsby differently than a scholar using Marxist literary theory.
• In psychology , a behaviourist approach to depression would involve different research methods and assumptions than a psychoanalytic approach.
• In economics , wealth inequality would be explained and interpreted differently based on a classical economics approach than based on a Keynesian economics one.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

To create your own theoretical framework, you can follow these three steps:

• Identifying your key concepts
• Evaluating and explaining relevant theories
• Showing how your research fits into existing research

1. Identify your key concepts

The first step is to pick out the key terms from your problem statement and research questions . Concepts often have multiple definitions, so your theoretical framework should also clearly define what you mean by each term.

To investigate this problem, you have identified and plan to focus on the following problem statement, objective, and research questions:

Problem : Many online customers do not return to make subsequent purchases.

Objective : To increase the quantity of return customers.

Research question : How can the satisfaction of company X’s online customers be improved in order to increase the quantity of return customers?

2. Evaluate and explain relevant theories

By conducting a thorough literature review , you can determine how other researchers have defined these key concepts and drawn connections between them. As you write your theoretical framework, your aim is to compare and critically evaluate the approaches that different authors have taken.

After discussing different models and theories, you can establish the definitions that best fit your research and justify why. You can even combine theories from different fields to build your own unique framework if this better suits your topic.

Make sure to at least briefly mention each of the most important theories related to your key concepts. If there is a well-established theory that you don’t want to apply to your own research, explain why it isn’t suitable for your purposes.

3. Show how your research fits into existing research

Apart from summarising and discussing existing theories, your theoretical framework should show how your project will make use of these ideas and take them a step further.

You might aim to do one or more of the following:

• Test whether a theory holds in a specific, previously unexamined context
• Use an existing theory as a basis for interpreting your results
• Critique or challenge a theory
• Combine different theories in a new or unique way

A theoretical framework can sometimes be integrated into a literature review chapter , but it can also be included as its own chapter or section in your dissertation. As a rule of thumb, if your research involves dealing with a lot of complex theories, it’s a good idea to include a separate theoretical framework chapter.

There are no fixed rules for structuring your theoretical framework, but it’s best to double-check with your department or institution to make sure they don’t have any formatting guidelines. The most important thing is to create a clear, logical structure. There are a few ways to do this:

• Draw on your research questions, structuring each section around a question or key concept
• Organise by theory cluster
• Organise by date

As in all other parts of your research paper , thesis, or dissertation , make sure to properly cite your sources to avoid plagiarism .

To get a sense of what this part of your thesis or dissertation might look like, take a look at our full example .

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work based on existing research, a conceptual framework allows you to draw your own conclusions, mapping out the variables you may use in your study and the interplay between them.

A literature review and a theoretical framework are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work, a literature review critically evaluates existing research relating to your topic. You’ll likely need both in your dissertation .

A theoretical framework can sometimes be integrated into a  literature review chapter , but it can also be included as its own chapter or section in your dissertation . As a rule of thumb, if your research involves dealing with a lot of complex theories, it’s a good idea to include a separate theoretical framework chapter.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). What is a Theoretical Framework? | A Step-by-Step Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved 2 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/the-theoretical-framework/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, how to write a results section | tips & examples, how to write a discussion section | tips & examples.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of Theory and a Theoretical Framework

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

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

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

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

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

The theoretical framework strengthens the study in the following ways :

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

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

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

Strategies for Developing the Theoretical Framework

I.  Developing the Framework

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

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

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

II.  Purpose

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Borrowing Theoretical Constructs from Other Disciplines

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Undertheorize!

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

The key distinctions are:

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

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

Still Yet Another Writing Tip

Be Prepared to Challenge the Validity of an Existing Theory

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: The Research Problem/Question
• Next: 5. The Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Apr 5, 2024 1:38 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Building and Using Theoretical Frameworks

• Open Access
• First Online: 03 December 2022

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• James Hiebert 6 ,
• Jinfa Cai 7 ,
• Stephen Hwang 7 ,
• Anne K Morris 6 &
• Charles Hohensee 6  

Part of the book series: Research in Mathematics Education ((RME))

14k Accesses

1 Citations

Theoretical frameworks can be confounding. They are supposed to be very important, but it is not always clear what they are or why you need them. Using ideas from Chaps. 1 and 2 , we describe them as local theories that are custom-designed for your study. Although they might use parts of larger well-known theories, they are created by individual researchers for particular studies. They are developed through the cyclic process of creating more precise and meaningful hypotheses. Building directly on constructs from the previous chapters, you can think of theoretical frameworks as equivalent to the most compelling, complete rationales you can develop for the predictions you make. Theoretical frameworks are important because they do lots of work for you. They incorporate the literature into your rationale, they explain why your study matters, they suggest how you can best test your predictions, and they help you interpret what you find. Your theoretical framework creates an essential coherence for your study and for the paper you are writing to report the study.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Part I. What Are Theoretical Frameworks?

As the name implies, a theoretical framework is a type of theory. We will define it as the custom-made theory that focuses specifically on the hypotheses you want to test and the research questions you want to answer. It is custom-made for your study because it explains why your predictions are plausible. It does no more and no less. Building directly on Chap. 2 , as you develop more complete rationales for your predictions, you are actually building a theory to support your predictions. Our goal in this chapter is for you to become comfortable with what theoretical frameworks are, with how they relate to the general concept of theory, with what role they play in scientific inquiry, and with why and how to create one for your study.

As you read this chapter, it will be helpful to remember that our definitions of terms in this book, such as theoretical framework, are based on our view of scientific inquiry as formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses. We define theoretical framework in ways that continue the coherent story we lay out across all phases of scientific inquiry and all the chapters this book. You are likely to find descriptions of theoretical frameworks in other sources that differ in some ways from our description. In addition, you are likely to see other terms that we would include as synonyms for theoretical framework, including conceptual framework. We suggest that when you encounter these special terms, make sure you understand how the authors are defining them.

Definitions of Theories

We begin by stepping back and considering how theoretical frameworks fit within the concept of theory, as usually defined. There are many definitions of theory; you can find a huge number simply by googling “theory.” Educational researchers and theorists often propose their own definitions but many of these are quite similar. Praetorius and Charalambous ( 2022 ) reviewed a number of definitions to set the stage for examining theories of teaching. Here are a few, beginning with a dictionary definition:

Lexico.com Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 2021 ): “A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.”

Biddle and Anderson ( 1986 ): “By scientific theory we mean the system of concepts and propositions that is used to represent, think about, and predict observable events. Within a mature science that theory is also explanatory and formalized. It does not represent ultimate ‘truth,’ however; indeed, it will be superseded by other theories presently. Instead, it represents the best explanation we have, at present, for those events we have so far observed” (p. 241).

Kerlinger ( 1964 ): “A theory is a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions and propositions which presents a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting phenomena” (p. 11).

Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan ( 2007 ): The authors say that theories allow researchers to understand and predict outcomes of interest, describe and explain a process or sequence of events, raise consciousness about a specific set of concepts as well as prevent scholars from “being dazzled by the complexity of the empirical world by providing a linguistic tool for organizing it” (p. 1281).

For our purposes, it is important to notice two things that most definitions of theories share: They are descriptions of a connected set of facts and concepts, and they are created to predict and/or explain observed events. You can connect these ideas to Chaps. 1 and 2 by noticing that the language for the descriptors of scientific inquiry we suggested in Chap. 1 are reflected in the definitions of theories. In particular, notice in the definitions two of the descriptors: “Observing something and trying to explain why it is the way it is” and “Updating everyone’s thinking in response to more and better information.” Notice also in the definitions the emphasis on the elements of a theory similar to the elements of a rationale described in Chap. 2 : definitions, variables, and mechanisms that explain relationships.

Exercise 3.1

Before you continue reading, in your own words, write down a definition for “theoretical framework.”

Theoretical Frameworks Are Local Theories

There are strong similarities between building theories and doing scientific inquiry (formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses). In both cases, the researcher (or theorist) develops explanations for phenomena of interest. Building theories involves describing the concepts and conjectures that predict and later explain the events, and specifying the predictions by identifying the variables that will be measured. Doing scientific inquiry involves many of the same activities: formulating predictions for answers to questions about the research problem and building rationales to explain why the predictions are appropriate and reasonable.

As you move through the cycles described in Chap. 2 —cycles of asking questions, making predictions, writing out the reasons for these predictions, imagining how you would test the predictions, reading more about what scholars know and have hypothesized, revising your predictions (and maybe your questions), and so on—your theoretical rationales will become both more complete and more precise. They will become more complete as you find new arguments and new data in the literature and through talking with others, and they will become sharper as you remove parts of the rationales that originally seemed relevant but now create mostly distractions and noise. They will become increasingly customized local theories that support your predictions.

In the end, your framework should be as clean and frugal as possible without missing arguments or data that are directly relevant. In the language of mathematics, you should use an idea if and only if it makes your framework stronger, more convincing. On the one hand, including more than you need becomes a distraction and can confuse both you, as you try to conceptualize and conduct your research, and others, as they read your reports of your research. On the other hand, including less than you need means your rationale is not yet as convincing as it could be.

The set of rationales, blended together, constitute a precisely targeted custom-made theory that supports your predictions. Custom designing your rationales for your specific predictions means you probably will be drawing ideas from lots of sources and combining them in new ways. You are likely to end up with a unique local theory, a theoretical framework that has not been proposed in exactly the same way before.

A common misconception among beginning researchers is that they should borrow a theoretical framework from somewhere else, especially from well-known scholars who have theories named after them or well-known general theories of learning or teaching. You are likely to use ideas from these theories (e.g., Vygotsky’s theory of learning, Maslow’s theory of motivation, constructivist theories of learning), but you will combine specific ideas from multiple sources to create your own framework. When someone asks, “What theoretical framework are you using?” you would not say, “A Vygotskian framework.” Rather, you would say something like, “I created my framework by combining ideas from different sources so it explains why I am making these predictions.”

You should think of your theoretical framework as a potential contribution to the field, all on its own. Although it is unique to your study, there are elements of your framework that other researchers could draw from to construct theoretical frameworks for their studies, just as you drew from others’ frameworks. In rare cases, other researchers could use your framework as is. This might happen if they want to replicate your study or extend it in very specific ways. Usually, however, researchers borrow parts of frameworks or modify them in ways that better fit their own studies. And, just as you are doing with your own theoretical framework, those researchers will need to justify why borrowing or modifying parts of your framework will help them explain the predictions they are making.

Considering your theoretical framework as a contribution to the field means you should treat it as a central part of scientific inquiry, not just as a required step that must be completed before moving to the next phase. To be useful, the theoretical framework should be constructed as a critical part of conceptualizing and carrying out the research (Cai et al., 2019c ). This also means you should write out your framework as you are developing it. This will be a key part of your evolving research paper. Because your framework will be adjusted multiple times, your written document will go through many drafts.

If you are a graduate student, do not think of the potential audience for your written framework as only your advisor and committee members. Rather, consider your audience to be the larger community of education researchers. You will need to be sure all the key terms are defined and each part of your argument is clear, even to those who are not familiar with your study. This is one place where writing out your framework can benefit your study—it is easy to assume key terms are clear, but then you find out they are not so clear, even to you, when trying to communicate them. Failing to notice this lack of clarity can create lots of problems down the road.

Exercise 3.2

Researchers have used a number of different metaphors to describe theoretical frameworks. Maxwell (2005) referred to a theoretical framework as a “coat closet” that provides “places to ‘hang’ data, showing their relationship to other data,” although he cautioned that “a theory that neatly organizes some data will leave other data disheveled and lying on the floor, with no place to put them” (p. 49). Lester (2005) referred to a framework as a “scaffold” (p. 458), and others have called it a “blueprint” (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). Eisenhart (1991) described the framework as a “skeletal structure of justification” (p. 209). Spangler and Williams (2019) drew an analogy to the role that a house frame provides in preventing the house from collapsing in on itself. What aspects of a theoretical framework does each of these metaphors capture? What aspects does each fail to capture? Which metaphor do you find best fits your definition of a theoretical framework? Why? Can you think of another metaphor to describe a theoretical framework?

Part II. Why Do You Need Theoretical Frameworks?

Theoretical frameworks do lots of work for you. They have four primary purposes. They ensure (1) you have sound reasons to expect your predictions will be accurate, (2) you will craft appropriate methods to test your predictions, (3) you can interpret appropriately what you find, and (4) your interpretations will contribute to the accumulation of a knowledge base that can improve education. How do they do this?

Supporting Your Predictions

In previous chapters and earlier in this chapter, we described how theoretical frameworks are built along with your predictions. In fact, the rationales you develop for convincing others (and yourself) that your predictions are accurate are used to refine your predictions, and vice versa. So, it is not surprising that your refined framework provides a rationale that is fully aligned with your predictions. In fact, you could think of your theoretical framework as your best explanation, at any given moment during scientific inquiry, for why you will find what you think you will find.

Throughout this book, we are using “explanation” in a broad sense. As we noted earlier, an explanation for why your predictions are accurate includes all the concepts and definitions about mechanisms (Kerlinger’s, 1964 definition of “theory”) that help you describe why you think the predictions you are making are the best predictions possible. The explanation also identifies and describes all the variables that make up your predictions, variables that will be measured to test your predictions.

Crafting Appropriate Methods

Critical decisions you make to test your hypotheses form the methods for your scientific inquiry. As we have noted, imagining how you will test your hypotheses helps you decide whether the empirical observations you make can be compared with your predictions or whether you need to revise the methods (or your predictions). Remember, the theoretical framework is the coherent argument built from the rationales you develop as part of each hypothesis you formulate. Because each rationale explains why you make that prediction, it contains helpful cues for which methods would provide the fairest and most complete test of that prediction. In fact, your theoretical framework provides a logic against which you can check every aspect of the methods you imagine using.

You might find it helpful to ask yourself two questions as you think about which methods are best aligned with your theoretical framework. One is, “After reading my theoretical framework, will anyone be surprised by the methods I use?” If so, you should look back at your framework and make sure the predictions are clear and the rationales include all the reasons for your predictions. Your framework should telegraph the methods that make the most sense. The other question is, “Are there some predictions for which I can’t imagine appropriate methods?” If so, we recommend you return to your hypotheses—to your predictions and rationales (theoretical framework)—to make sure the predictions are phrased as precisely as possible and your framework is fully developed. In most cases, this will help you imagine methods that could be used. If not, you might need to revise your hypotheses.

Exercise 3.3

Kerlinger ( 1964 ) stated, “A theory is a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions and propositions which presents a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting phenomena” (p. 11). What role do definitions play in a theoretical framework and how do they help in crafting appropriate methods?

Exercise 3.4

Sarah is in the beginning stages of developing a study. Her initial prediction is: There is a relationship between pedagogical content knowledge and ambitious teaching. She realizes that in order to craft appropriate measures, she needs to develop definitions of these constructs. Sarah’s original definitions are: Pedagogical content knowledge is knowledge about subject matter that is relevant to teaching. Ambitious teaching is teaching that is responsive to students’ thinking and develops a deep knowledge of content. Sarah recognizes that her prediction and her definitions are too broad and too general to work with. She wants to refine the definitions so they can guide the refinement of her prediction and the design of the study. Develop definitions of these two constructs that have clearer implications for the design and that would help Sarah to refine her prediction. (tip: Sarah may need to reduce the scope of her prediction by choosing to focus only on one aspect of pedagogical content knowledge and one aspect of ambitious teaching. Then, she can more precisely define those aspects.)

Guiding Interpretations of the Data

By providing rationales for your predictions, your theoretical framework explains why you think your predictions will be accurate. In education, researchers almost always find that if they make specific predictions (which they should), the predictions are not entirely accurate. This is a consequence of the fact that theoretical frameworks are never complete. Recall the definition of theories from Biddle and Anderson ( 1986 ): A theory “does not represent ultimate ‘truth,’ however; indeed, it will be superseded by other theories presently. Instead, it represents the best explanation we have, at present, for those events we have so far observed” (p. 241). If you have created your best developed and clearly stated theoretical framework that explains why you expected certain results, you can focus your interpretation on the ways in which your theoretical framework should be revised.

Focusing on realigning your theoretical framework with the data you collected produces the richest interpretation of your results. And it prevents you from making one of the most common errors of beginning researchers (and veteran researchers, as well): claiming that your results say more than they really do. Without this anchor to ground your interpretation of the data, it is easy to overgeneralize and make claims that go beyond the evidence.

In one of the definitions of theory presented earlier, Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan ( 2007 ) say that theories prevent scholars from “being dazzled by the complexity of the empirical world” (p. 1281). Theoretical frameworks keep researchers grounded by setting parameters within which the empirical world can be interpreted.

Exercise 3.5

Find two published articles that explicitly present theoretical frameworks (not all articles do). Where do you see evidence of the researchers using their theoretical frameworks to inform, shape, and connect other parts of their articles?

Showing the Contribution of Your Study

Theoretical frameworks contain the arguments that define the contribution of research studies. They do this in two ways, by showing how your study extends what is known and by setting the parameters for your contribution.

Showing How Your Study Extends What Is Known

Because your theoretical framework is built from what is already known or has been proposed, it situates your study in work that has occurred before. A clearly written framework shows readers how your study will take advantage of what is known to extend it further. It reveals what is new about what you are studying. The predictions that are generated from your framework are predictions that have never been made in quite the same way. They predict you will find something that has not been found previously in exactly this way. Your theoretical framework allows others to see the contributions that your study is likely to make even before the study has been conducted.

Setting the Parameters for Your Contribution

Earlier we noted that theoretical frameworks keep researchers grounded by setting parameters within which they should interpret their data. They do this by providing an initial explanation for why researchers expect to find particular results. The explanation is custom-built for each study. This means it uniquely explains the expected results. The results will almost surely turn out somewhat differently than predicted. Interpreting the data includes revising the initial explanation. So, you will end up with two versions of your theoretical framework, one that explains what you expected to find plus a second, updated framework that explains what you actually found.

The two frameworks—the initial version and the updated version—define the parameters of your study’s contribution. The difference between the two frameworks is what can be learned from your study. The first framework is a claim about what is known before you conduct your study about the phenomenon you are studying; the updated framework is a claim about how what is known has changed based on your results. It is the new aspects of the updated framework that capture the important contribution of your work.

Here is a brief example. Suppose you study the errors fourth graders make after receiving ordinary instruction on adding and subtracting decimal fractions. Based on empirical findings from past research, on theories of student learning, and on your own experience, you develop a rationale which predicts that a common error on “ragged” addition problems will be adding the wrong numerals. One of the reasons for this prediction is that students are likely to ignore the values of the digit positions and “line up” the numerals as they do with whole numbers. For instance, if they are asked to add 53.2 + .16, they are likely to answer either 5.48 or 54.8.

When you conduct your study, you present problems, handwritten, in both horizontal and vertical form. The horizontal form presents the numbers using the format shown above. The vertical form places one numeral over the other but not carefully aligned:

You find the predicted error occurs, but only for problems written in vertical form. To interpret these data, you look back at your theoretical framework and realize that students might ignore the value of the digits if the format reminded them of the way they lined up digits for whole number addition but might consider the value of the digits if they are forced to align the digits themselves, either by rewriting the problem or by just adding in their heads. A measure of what you (and others) learned from this study is the change in possible explanations (your theoretical frameworks). This does not mean your updated theoretical framework is “correct” or will make perfectly accurate predictions next time. But, it does mean that you are very likely moving toward more accurate predictions and toward a deeper understanding of how students think about adding decimal fractions.

Anchoring the Coherence of Your Study (and Your Evolving Research Paper)

Your theoretical framework serves as the anchor or center point around which all other aspects of your study should be aligned. This does not mean it is created first or that all other aspects are changed to align with the framework after it is created. The framework also changes as other aspects are considered. However, it is useful to always check alignment by beginning with the framework and asking whether other aspects are aligned and, if not, adjusting one or the other. This process of checking alignment is equally true when writing your evolving research paper as when planning and conducting your study.

Part III. How Do You Construct a Theoretical Framework for Your Study?

How do you start the process? Because constructing a theoretical framework is a natural extension of constructing rationales for your predictions, you already started as soon as you began formulating hypotheses: making predictions for what you will find and writing down reasons for why you are making these predictions. In Chap. 2 , we talked about beginning this process. In this section, we will explore how you can continue building out your rationales into a full-fledged theoretical framework.

Building a Theoretical Framework in Phases

Building your framework will occur in phases and proceed through cycles of clarifying your questions, making more precise and explicit your predictions, articulating reasons for making these predictions, and imagining ways of testing the predictions. The major source for ideas that will shape the framework is the research literature. That said, conversations with colleagues and other experts can help clarify your predictions and the rationales you develop to justify the predictions.

As you read relevant literature, you can ask: What have researchers found that help me predict what I will find? How have they explained their findings, and how might those explanations help me develop reasons for my predictions? Are there new ways to interpret past results so they better inform my predictions? Are there ways to look across previous results (and claims) and see new patterns that I can use to refine my predictions and enrich my rationales? How can theories that have credibility in the research community help me understand what I might find and help me explain why this is the case? As we have said, this process will go back and forth between clarifying your predictions, adjusting your rationales, reading, clarifying more, adjusting, reading, and so on.

One Researcher’s Experience Constructing a Theoretical Framework: The Continuing Case of Martha

In Chap. 2 , we followed Martha, a doctoral student in mathematics education, as she was working out the topic for her study, asking questions she wanted to answer, predicting the answers, and developing rationales for these predictions. Our story concluded with a research question, a sample set of predictions, and some reasons for Martha’s predictions. The question was: “Under what conditions do middle school teachers who lack conceptual knowledge of linear functions benefit from five 2-hour learning opportunity (LO) sessions that engage them in conceptual learning of linear functions as assessed by changes in their teaching toward a more conceptual emphasis of linear functions?” Her predictions focused on particular conditions that would affect the outcomes in particular ways. She was beginning to build rationales for these predictions by returning to the literature and identifying previous research and theory that were relevant. We continue the story here.

Imagine Martha continuing to read as she develops her theoretical framework—the rationales for her predictions. She tweaks some of her predictions based on what other researchers have already found. As she continues reading, she comes across some related literature on learning opportunities for teachers. A number of articles describe the potential of another form of LOs that might help teachers teach mathematics more conceptually—analyzing videos of mathematics lessons.

The data suggested that teachers can improve their teaching by analyzing videos of other teachers’ lessons as well as their own. However, the results were mixed so researchers did not seem to know exactly what makes the difference. Martha also read that teachers who already can analyze videos of lessons and spontaneously describe the mathematics that students are struggling with and offer useful suggestions for how to improve learning opportunities for students teach toward more conceptual learning goals, and their students learn more (Kersting et al., 2010 , 2012 ). These findings caught Martha’s attention because it is unusual to find correlates with conceptual teaching and better achievement. What is not known, realized Martha, is whether teachers who learn to analyze videos in this way, through specially designed LOs, would look like the teachers who already could analyze them. Would teachers who learned to analyze videos teach more conceptually?

It occurred to Martha she could bring these lines of research together by extending what is known along both lines. Recall our earlier suggestion of looking across the literature and noticing new patterns that can inform your work. Martha thought about studying how, exactly, these two skills are related: analyzing videos in particular ways and teaching conceptually. Would the relationships reported in the literature hold up for teachers who learn to describe the mathematics students are struggling with and make useful suggestions for improving students’ LOs?

Martha was now conflicted. She was well on her way to developing a testable hypothesis about the effects of learning about linear functions, but she was really intrigued by the work on analyzing videos of teaching. In addition, she saw several advantages of switching to this new topic:

The research question could be formulated quite easily. It would be something like: “What are the relationships between learning to analyze videos of mathematics teaching in particular ways (specified from prior research) and teaching for conceptual understanding?”

She could imagine predicting the answers to this question based directly on previous research. She would predict connections between particular kinds of analysis skills and levels of conceptual teaching of mathematics in ways that employed these skills.

The level of conceptual teaching, a challenging construct to define with her previous topic (the effects of professional development on the teaching of linear functions), was already defined in the work on analyzing videos of mathematics teaching, so that would solve a big problem. The definition foregrounded particular sets of behaviors and skills such as identifying key learning moments in a lesson and focusing on students’ thinking about the key mathematical idea during these moments. In other words, Martha saw ways to adapt a definition that had already been used and tested.

The issue of transfer—another challenging issue in her original hypothesis—was addressed more directly in this setting because the learning environment—analyzing videos of classroom teaching—is quite close to the classroom environment in which participants’ conceptual teaching would be observed.

Finally, the nature of learning opportunities, an aspect of her original idea she still needed to work through, had been explored in previous studies on this new topic, and connections were found between studying videos and changes in teaching.

Given all these advantages, Martha decided to change her topic and her research question. We applaud this decision for two major reasons. First, Martha’s interest grew as she explored this new topic. She became excited about conducting a study that might answer the research question she posed. It is always good to be passionate about what you study. Second, Martha was more likely to contribute important new insights if she could extend what is already known rather than explore a new area. Exploring something quite new requires lots of effort defining terms, creating measures, making new predictions, developing reasons for the predictions, and so on. Sometimes, exploring a new area has payoffs. But, as a beginning researcher, we suggest you take advantage of work that has already been done and extend it in creative ways.

Although Martha’s idea of extending previous work came with real advantages, she still faced a number of challenges. A first, major challenge was to decide whether she could build a rationale that would predict learning to analyze videos caused more conceptual teaching. Or, could she only build a rationale that would predict that there was a relationship between changes in analyzing videos and level of conceptual teaching? Perhaps a cause-effect relationship existed but in the opposite direction: If teachers learned to teach more conceptually, their analysis of teaching videos would improve. Although most of the literature described learning to analyze videos as the potential cause of teaching conceptually, Martha did not believe there was sufficient evidence to build a rationale for this prediction. Instead, she decided to first determine if a relationship existed and, if so, to understand the relationship. Then, if warranted, she could develop and test a hypothesis of causation in a future study. In fact, the direction of the causation might become clearer when she understood the relationship more clearly.

A second major challenge was whether to study the relationship as it existed or as one (or both) of the constructs was changing. Past research had explored the relationship as it existed, without inducing changes in either analyzing videos or teaching conceptually. So, Martha decided she could learn more about the relationship if one of the constructs was changing in a planned way. Because researchers had argued that teachers’ analysis of video could be changed with appropriate LOs, and because changing teachers’ teaching practices has resisted simple interventions, Martha decided to study the relationship as she facilitated changes in teachers’ analysis of videos. This would require gathering data on the relationship at more than one point in time.

Even after resolving these thorny issues, Martha faced many additional challenges. Should she predict a closer relationship between learning to analyze video and teaching for conceptual understanding before teachers began learning to analyze videos or after? Perhaps the relationship increases over time because conceptual teaching often changes slowly. Should she predict a closer relationship if the content of the videos teachers analyzed was the same as the content they would be teaching? Should she predict the relationship will be similar across pairs of similar topics? Should she predict that some analysis skills will show closer relationships to levels of conceptual teaching than others? These questions and others occurred to Martha as she was formulating her predictions, developing justifications for her predictions, and considering how she would test the predictions.

Based on her reading and discussions with colleagues, Martha phrased her initial predictions as follows:

There will be a significant positive correlation between teachers’ performance on analysis of videos and the extent to which they create conceptual learning opportunities for their students both before and after proposed learning experiences.

The relationship will be stronger:

Before the proposed opportunities to learn to analyze videos of teaching;

When the videos and the instruction are about similar mathematical topics; and,

When the videos analyzed display conceptual misunderstandings among students.

Of the video analysis skills that will be assessed, the two that will show the strongest relationship are spontaneously describing (1) the mathematics that students are struggling with and (2) useful suggestions for how to improve the conceptual learning opportunities for students.

Martha’s rationales for these predictions—her theoretical framework—evolved along with her predictions. We will not detail the framework here, but we will note that the rationale for the first prediction was based on findings from past research. In particular, the prediction is generated by reasoning that if there has been no special intervention, the tendency to analyze videos in particular ways and to teach conceptually develop together. This might explain Kersting’s findings described earlier. The second and third predictions were based on the literature on teachers’ learning, especially their learning from analyzing videos of teaching.

Before leaving Martha at this point in her journey, we want to make an important point about the change she made to her research topic. Changes like this occur quite often as researchers do the hard intellectual work of developing testable hypotheses that guide research studies. When this happens to you, it can feel like you have lost ground. You might feel like you wasted your time on the original topic. In Chap. 1 , we described inevitable “failure” when engaged in scientific inquiry. Failure is often associated with realizing the data you collected do not come close to supporting your predictions. But a common kind of failure occurs when researchers realize the direction they have been pursuing should change before they collect data. This happened in Martha’s case because she came across a topic that was more intriguing to her and because it helped solve some problems she was facing with the previous topic. This is an example of “failing productively” (see Chap. 1 ). Martha did not succeed in pursuing her original idea, but while she was recognizing the problems, she was also seeing new possibilities.

Constantly Improving Your Framework

We will use Martha’s experience to be more specific about the back-and-forth process in which you will engage as you flesh out your framework. We mentioned earlier your review of the literature as a major source of ideas and evidence that will affect your framework.

Reviewing Published Empirical Evidence

One of the best sources for helping you specify your predictions are studies that have been conducted on related topics. The closer to your topic, the more helpful will be the evidence for anticipating what you will find. Many beginning researchers worry they will locate a study just like the one they are planning. This (almost) never happens. Your study will be different in some ways, and a study that is very similar to yours can be extraordinarily helpful in specifying your predictions. Be excited instead of terrified when you come across a study with a title similar to yours.

Try to locate all the published research that has been conducted on your topic. What does “on your topic” mean? How widely should you cast your net? There are no rules here; you will need to use your professional judgment. However, here is a general guide: If the study does not help you clarify your predictions, change your confidence in them, or strengthen your rationale, then it falls outside your net.

In addition to helping specify your predictions, prior research studies can be a goldmine for developing and strengthening your theoretical framework. How did researchers justify their predictions or explain why they found what they did? How can you use these ideas to support (or change) your own predictions?

By reading research on similar topics, you might also imagine ways of testing your predictions. Maybe you learn of ways you could design your study, measures you could use to collect data, or strategies you could use to analyze your data. As you find helpful ideas, you will want to keep track of where you found these ideas so you can cite the appropriate sources as you write drafts of your evolving research paper.

Examining Theories

You will read a wide range of theories that provide insights into why things might work like they do. When the phenomena addressed by the theory are similar to those you will study, the associated theories can help you think through your own predictions and why you are making them. Returning to Martha’s situation, she could benefit from reading theories on adult learning, especially teacher learning, on transferring knowledge from one setting to another, on professional development for teachers, on the role of videos in learning, on the knowledge needed to teach conceptually, and so on.

Focusing on Variables and Mechanisms

As you review the literature and search for evidence and ideas that could strengthen your predictions and rationales, it is useful to keep your eyes on two components: the variables you will attend to and the mechanisms that might explain the relationships between the variables. Predictions could be considered statements about expected behaviors of the variables. The theoretical framework could be thought of as a description of all the variables that will be deliberately attended to plus the mechanisms conjectured to account for these relationships.

In Martha’s case, the most obvious variables are the responses teachers give to questions about their analysis of the videos and the features observed in their teaching practices. The mechanism of primary interest is the (mental and social) process that transforms the skills, knowledge, and attention involved in analyzing videos into particular kinds of teaching practices—or vice versa. The definition of conceptual teaching she adopted from previous studies gave her a clue about the mechanisms—about how and why learning to analyze videos might affect classroom teaching. The definition included attending to key learning moments in a lesson and tracking students’ thinking during these moments. Martha predicted that if teachers learned to attend to these aspects of teaching when viewing videos, they might attend to them when planning and implementing their own teaching.

As Martha reviewed the literature, she identified a number of variables that might affect the likelihood and extent of this translation. Here are some examples: how well teachers understand the mathematics in the videos and the mathematics they will teach; the nature of the videos themselves; the number of opportunities teachers have to analyze videos and the ways in which these opportunities are structured; teachers’ analysis of videos and their teaching practices before the learning opportunities begin; and how much time they have to apply what they learn to their own teaching.

Martha identified these additional variables because she learned they might have a direct influence on the mechanisms that could explain the relationship between analyzing videos and teaching. Some variables might support these mechanisms, and some might interfere. Martha’s task at this point in her work is to identify and describe all the variables that could play a meaningful role in the outcome of her study. This means to identify each variable for which it is possible to establish a clear and direct connection between the variable and the relationship she planned to investigate. Using the outcome of this task, Martha then needs to update her description of the mechanisms that could account for the relationships she expects to see and review her predictions and theoretical framework with these variables and mechanisms in mind.

Exercise 3.6

Review the predictions that Martha made and identify the variables that play a role in these predictions. Even though you might not be immersed in this literature, think about the alignment between the variables included in the predictions and those that could impact the relationships in which Martha is interested. Are there other missing variables that should be included in her predictions?

How Do You Know When You Have Finished Building Your Theoretical Framework?

The question of when your theoretical framework is finished could be answered in several ways. First, it is never really finished. As you continue to write your evolving research paper, you will continue strengthening your framework. You might even refine the framework as you write the final draft of your paper, after you have collected and analyzed your data. Furthermore, if you do follow-up studies, you will continue to build your framework.

A second answer is that you should invest the time and effort to build a theoretical framework that is as finished as possible at each point in the research process. As you write each draft of your evolving research paper, you should feel as if you have the strongest, most robust rationale you can have for your current predictions. In other words, you should feel that with each succeeding draft you have finished building your framework, even though you are quite sure you have not.

A third answer addresses a common, related question: “How do I know when I have included enough ideas and borrowed from enough sources? Would including another idea or citing another source be useful?” The answer is that you should include only those ideas that contribute to building a stronger framework. When you wonder whether you should include another idea or reference, ask yourself whether doing so would make your framework stronger in all the ways we described earlier.

Exercise 3.7

In 2–3 pages (single spaced), write out the plan for your study. The plan should include your research questions, your predictions of the answers, your rationale for the predictions (i.e., your theoretical framework), and your imagined plan for testing the predictions. Be as explicit and precise as you can. Be sure you have identified the critical variables and described the mechanism(s) that could explain the phenomena, the relationships, and/or the changes you predict. Look back to see if the logic connecting the parts is obvious. Ask yourself whether the tests you plan are what anyone familiar with your framework would expect (i.e., there should be no surprises).

Part IV. Refining a Theoretical Framework: A Scholarly Dialogue

As we noted above, conversations with colleagues and other experts can help you refine your theoretical framework by clarifying your predictions and digging into the details of the rationales you develop to justify those predictions. This is as true for experienced researchers as it is for beginning researchers. The dialogue below is an example of how two colleagues, Adrian (A) and Corin (C), work together to gradually formulate a testable hypothesis. Some of their conversation will look familiar as they refine their prediction through multiple steps of discussion:

Narrowing the focus of their prediction.

Making their prediction more testable.

Being more specific about what they want to study.

Engaging their prediction in cycles of refinements.

Determining the appropriate level/grainsize of their prediction (zoom in, zoom out).

Adding more predictions.

Thinking about underlying mechanisms (i.e., what explains the relationships between their variables).

Putting their predictions on a continuum (going from black and white to grey).

In addition, they construct their theoretical framework to match their hypotheses through multiple steps:

Defining and rationalizing their variables.

Re-evaluating their initial rationales in response to changes in their initial predictions.

Asking themselves “why” questions about predictions and rationales.

Finding empirical evidence and theory that better supports their evolving predictions.

Keeping in mind what they are going to be measuring.

Making sure their rationales support each link in their chain of reasoning.

Identifying underlying mechanisms.

Making sure that statements are included in their rationale if and only if they directly support their predictions and are essential to the argument.

They begin with the following hypothesis:

Prediction: Students will exhibit more persistence in mathematical course taking in high school if they work in groups.

Brief Description of Rationale: When people work in groups, they feel more competent and learn better (Cohen & Lotan, 2014 ; Jansen, 2012). When people feel more competent, they persist in additional mathematical course taking (Bandura & Schunk, 1981 ; Dweck, 1986 ).

So, do we think this hypothesis is testable?

Well actually, who these students are is probably something we need to be more specific about.

Good point, and also, since Algebra 2 is the bridge to additional course taking (i.e., the first course students don’t have to take), perhaps we should target Algebra 2. How about if we change our prediction to the following: Algebra 2 students will exhibit more mathematical persistence in mathematical course taking in high school if they work in groups in Algebra 2.

Okay, but another problem is that it would take a long time to collect data that would inform a prediction about the courses students take, and over that amount of time I’m not sure we could even tell if groupwork was responsible. What if we limited our prediction to: Algebra 2 students will exhibit more mathematical persistence in Algebra 2 if they work in groups.

Good idea! But when we talk about persistence, do we mean students don’t quit, or that they don’t drop the course, or productively struggle during class, or turn in their homework, or is it something else we mean? To me, what would be testable about mathematical persistence would be persistence at the problem level, such as when students get stuck on a problem, but they don’t give up.

I agree. So, let’s predict the following: Algebra 2 students will exhibit more mathematical persistence in Algebra 2 when they get stuck on problems if they work in groups. That’s something I think we could test.

Yes, but I think we need to be even more specific about what we mean by mathematical persistence when students get stuck on problems.

Hmm, what if we focused specifically on mathematical persistence that involves staying engaged in trying to solve a problem for the duration of a problem-solving session or until the problem gets solved? But that also makes me wonder if we want to be focusing on persistence at the individual level or at the group level?

Umm, I think we should focus on persistence at the individual level, because that’s more consistent with our original interest in persistence in course taking, which is about individual students, not about groups.

Okay, that makes sense. So then how about this for a prediction: If Algebra 2 students work in groups, they will be more likely to stay engaged in trying to solve problems for the duration of a problem-solving session or until they solve the problem.

To this point in the dialogue, Adrian and Corin are developing a theoretical framework by sharpening what they mean by their prediction and making sure their prediction is testable. In the next part, they return to their original idea to make sure they have not strayed too far by making their prediction more precise. The dialogue illustrates how making predictions should support the goal of understanding the relationship between variables and the mechanisms for change.

Yes, I’m liking the way this prediction is evolving. However, I also feel like our prediction is now so focused that we’ve lost a bit of our initial idea of competence and learning, which is what we were initially interested in. Could we do something to bring those ideas back? Perhaps we could create more predictions to get at more of those ideas?

Great idea! Okay, so to help us see what we are missing now, let’s look back at the initial links in our chain of reasoning. We initially said that Working in Groups leads to Feeling Competent & Learning Better leads to Persistence in Math Course Taking. But our chain of reasoning has changed. I think it’s more like this: Working in Groups on Problems leads to Staying Engaged in Problem Solving leads to Greater Sense of Competence and Learning Better leads to More Persistence in Course Taking.

Okay, so if that’s the case, it looks like our new prediction just tests the first link in this chain, the link between Working in Groups on Problems and Staying Engaged in Problem Solving. It looks like there are three other potential predictions we could make; we could make a prediction about the relationship between Staying Engaged in Problem Solving and having a Greater Sense of Competence, between Staying Engaged in Problem Solving and Learning Better, and between having a Greater Sense of Competence/Learning Better and More Persistence in Course Taking.

Clearly that’s too many predictions for us to tackle in one study and actually I am aware of several studies that already address the third prediction. So, we can use those studies as part of our rationale and don’t need to study that link.

I agree. Let’s just add one prediction, one about the link between Staying Engaged and Sense of Competence. In our initial prediction, we just had a vague connection between Working in Groups and Sense of Competence. But in our new prediction, we were more specific that working in groups helps students stay engaged until the end of a problem-solving session. So, I guess we could say for a second prediction then that When Algebra 2 students stay engaged in problem solving until the end of a problem-solving session, they develop a greater sense of competence.

Okay so we will have two predictions to examine with our study: Prediction 1 is: If Algebra 2 students work in groups, they will be more likely to stay engaged in trying to solve problems for the duration of a problem-solving session or until they solve the problem. This prediction deals with the first link in our chain of reasoning. And then Prediction 2 is: If Algebra 2 students try to solve problems for the duration of a problem-solving session or until they solve the problem, they will be more likely to develop a sense of competence. Oh, as soon as I finished stating that prediction, the thought just came to me, “sense of competence about what?”

How about if we focused on sense of competence in being able to solve similar problems in the future? Actually, maybe that’s too limited. Maybe we should expand our prediction a bit more so we include a sense of competence that’s at least somewhat closer to more course taking? Something like sense of competence that involves feeling capable of understanding future Algebra 2 concepts. That’s at least bigger than sense of competence at solving similar problems. If students feel they’re capable of understanding future Algebra 2 concepts, then they will probably be more likely to persist in course taking too.

Okay, that makes sense. So, then our Prediction 2 could be: If Algebra 2 students try to solve problems for the duration of a problem-solving session or until they solve the problem, they will be more likely to feel they will be capable of understanding future Algebra 2 concepts.

Oh, I just had an additional idea! What if we changed the two predictions one more time to allow for more or less of the variables? For example, Prediction 1 could be: The more Algebra 2 students work in groups, the more likely they will stay engaged in trying to solve problems for the duration of a problem-solving session or until they solve the problem.

Yes, great. So, that would mean Prediction 2 could be: The more Algebra 2 students try to solve problems for the duration of a problem-solving session or until they solve the problem, the more likely they will feel they are capable of understanding future Algebra 2 concepts.

So, I think we’re happy with our predictions for now, but I think we need to work on our rationales for those predictions because they no longer apply very well.

Okay, to recap, our original chain of reasoning was Working in Groups leads to Feeling Competent & Learning Better leads to Persistence in Math Course Taking. Our initial rationales were the following: For the link between working in groups and feeling competent, we based that link on Cohen and Lotan’s ( 2014 ) book on Designing Groupwork, in which they explain why and how all students can feel competent through their engagement in groupwork. We also based this link on that 2012 Jansen study that found that groupwork helped students enact their competence in math. Then, for the link between competence and persistence, we based that link on the Bandura and Schunk ( 1981 ) study and on the work by Carol Dweck ( 1986 ) that show that children who feel more competent in arithmetic, tend to persist more.

Corin and Adrian have looked back at their initial research idea. In doing so, they illustrated how developing a theoretical framework involves developing and refining a chain of reasoning. They continue by working on developing rationales for their predictions.

Okay, so let’s think if any of our previous rationales still work. How about Elizabeth Cohen’s work? I still think her work applies because it shows that groupwork can affect engagement. But now that I think about it, another part of her work indicates that groupwork needs particular norms in order to be effective. So maybe we should tighten up our predictions to focus just on groupwork that has particular norms?

But, on the other hand, what about Jo Boaler’s ( 1998 ) “Open and Closed Mathematics” article? In that study, students at the Phoenix Park School did not have much structure, and in spite of that, groupwork worked quite well for those students, better than individual work did for students at the Amber Hill School who had highly structured instruction.

That’s a good point. So maybe we should leave our predictions about groupwork as is (i.e., not focus on particular norms). Also, the ideas in the Boaler article would be good to add to our theoretical framework because it deals with secondary students, which aligns better with the ages of the Algebra 2 students we are planning on studying.

Okay, so we’re adding the ideas in the Boaler article. I also think we need to find literature that specifies the kind of engagement we want to focus on. Looking at the engagement literature would sharpen our thinking about the engagement we are most interested in. We should consider Brigid Barron’s ( 2003 ) study, “When Smart Groups Fail.” In her study, students produced better products if they engaged with each other and with the content. But that makes me think that we are mostly just focused on the latter, namely on how individuals engage with the content.

I agree we’re focused on individuals’ engagement with the content. Come to think of it, the fact that we’re focused on how individuals engage with content rather than how groups engage further justifies why we’re not looking at groupwork norms. But let me ask a question we need to answer. Why are we focusing on how individuals engage with content? It’s not just a preference. It’s because we think individual engagement with content is related to feeling capable. So, our decision to focus on individual engagement aligns with our predictions. And even though we’re not including Barron’s work in our framework, considering her work helped sharpen our thinking about what we’re focusing on.

You know, we are kind of in a weird space because we’re focusing on individual engagement with content at the same time as we are predicting that groupwork leads to more engagement. In other words, we are and aren’t taking a social perspective. But what this reminds me of is how, from the perspective of the theory of constructivism, even though individuals have to make sense of things for themselves, social interactions are what drives sense making. In fact, here’s a quote from von Glasersfeld ( 1995 ): “Piaget has stressed many times that the most frequent cause of accommodation is the interaction” (p. 66). So, I think we can use constructivism as a theoretical justification for predicting that the social activity of groupwork is what is related to individual engagement with content.

Interesting! Yes, makes sense. When you were describing that, I had another insight from constructivism. You know how when someone experiences a perturbation, it also creates a need in them to resolve the perturbation, right? So maybe perturbations are the mechanism explaining why groupwork leads to more individual engagement with content. Groupwork potentially generates perturbations, meaning the person engages more to try to resolve those perturbations.

Okay, now that we have brought in the idea of perturbations as potentially being the mechanism that drives how working in groups leads to staying more engaged, perhaps we need to reconsider what we will be measuring in our study. Will it be perturbations, or will it be staying engaged that we should be measuring?

I think what we are saying is that the need to resolve perturbations is part of the underlying mechanism, but measuring the need to resolve perturbations would be difficult if not impossible. So, instead, I think we should focus on measuring the variable staying engaged , a variable we can measure. And then if we find that more working in groups leads to more staying engaged, that also gives us more evidence that our theoretical framework with perturbations as a mechanism is viable. In other words, mechanisms are part of our framework and by testing our prediction, we are testing our theoretical framework (i.e., our rationales) too.

This final part of the dialogue illustrates that the rationale for a study continues to develop as the predictions continue to be refined and testability continues to be considered. In other words, the development of the predictions and rationale (i.e., the theoretical framework) should be iterative and ongoing.

Through their discussion, Adrian and Corin have refined both their predictions and their rationales. In the process, the key ideas they have drawn on contributed to their rationales and thus to constructing their theoretical framework.

Part V. Distinctions Between Rationales, Theoretical Frameworks, and Literature Reviews

We have introduced a number of terms that play critical roles in the scientific inquiry process. Because they refer to related and sometimes overlapping ideas, keeping straight their meanings and uses can be challenging. It might be helpful to revisit each of them briefly to describe how they are similar to, and different from, each other.

To distinguish between rationales, theoretical frameworks, and literature reviews, it is useful to consider the roles they play as you plan and conduct a study compared to the roles they play when you write the report of your study.

Thinking Through a Study

The chronology of the thinking process often moves through many cycles of identifying a research problem or asking a question, and then reading the literature to learn more about the problem, and then refining and narrowing the scope of a question that would add to or extend what is known, and then predicting (guessing) an answer to the question and asking yourself why you predicted this answer and writing a first draft of your rationale, and then reading the literature to improve your rationale, and then realizing you can refine the question further along with specifying a clearer and more targeted prediction, and then reading the literature to further improve your rationale, and then realizing you can refine the question further along with a clearer and more targeted prediction, and so on.

The primary activity that generates more specific and clearer hypotheses is searching and reviewing literature . You can return to the literature as often as you need to build your rationales . As your rationales develop, they morph into your theoretical framework . The theoretical framework is a coherent argument that threads together the individual rationales and explains why your predictions are the best predictions the field can make at this time.

If you have one research question and one prediction you will have one rationale. In this case, your rationale is essentially the same as your theoretical framework. If you have more than one research question, you will have multiple predictions and multiple rationales. As you develop rationales for each prediction, you might find lots of overlap. Maybe the literatures you read to refine each prediction and develop each rationale overlap, and maybe the arguments you piece together include many of the same elements. Your theoretical framework emerges from weaving the rationales together into one coherent argument. Although this process is more complicated than the thinking process for one prediction, it is more common. If you find few connections among the rationales for each prediction, we recommend stepping back and asking whether you are conducting more than one study. It might make more sense to sort the questions into two or more studies because the rationales for the predicted answers are drawing from different literatures.

Writing the Evolving Research Paper

We recommend that you write drafts of the research report as you think through your study and make decisions about how to proceed. Although your thinking will be fluid and evolving, we recommend that you follow the conventions of academic writing as you write drafts. For example, we recommend that you structure the paper using the five typical major sections of a journal article: introduction, theoretical framework, methods, results, and discussion. Each of these sections will go through multiple drafts as you plan your study, collect the data, analyze the data, and interpret the results.

In the introduction, you will present the research problem you are studying. This includes describing the problem, explaining why it is significant, defining the special terms you use, and often presenting the research questions you will address along with the answers you predict. Sometimes the questions and predictions are part of the next section—the theoretical framework.

In the theoretical framework, you will present your best arguments for expecting the predicted answers to the research questions. You will not trace the many cycles in which you engaged to get to the best versions of your arguments but rather present the latest and best version. The report of a study does not describe the chronology of the back-and-forth messiness always involved in thinking through all aspects of the study. What you learned from reviewing the literature will be an integral part of your arguments. In other words, the review of research will be included in the presentation of your theoretical framework rather than in a separate section.

The literature you choose to include to present your theoretical framework is not all the literature you reviewed for conducting your study. Rather, the literature cited in your paper should be the literature that contributed to building your theoretical framework, and only that literature. In other words, the theoretical framework places the boundaries on what you should review in the paper.

Beginning researchers are often tempted to review much of what they read. Researchers put lots of time into reading, and leaving lots of it out when writing the paper can make all that reading feel like a waste of time. It is not a waste of time; it is always part of the research process. But, reviewing more than you need in the paper becomes a distraction and diverts the reader from the main points.

What should you do if the editor of the journal requires, or recommends, a section titled “review of research”? We recommend you create a somewhat more elaborated review for this section and then show exactly how you used the literature to build your rationale in the theoretical framework section.

Reviewers notice when the theoretical framework and the literature reviewed do not provide sufficient justification for the research questions (or the hypotheses). We found that about 13% of JRME reviews noted an especially important gap—the research questions in a paper were not sufficiently motivated. We expect the same would be true for other research journals. Reviewers also note when manuscripts either do not have an explicit theoretical framework or when they seem to be juggling more than one theoretical framework.

Part VI. Moving to Methods

A significant benefit of building rich and precise theoretical frameworks is the guidance they provide for selecting and creating the methods you will use to test your hypotheses. The next phase in the process of scientific inquiry is crafting your methods: choosing your research design, selecting your sample, developing your measures, deciding on your data analysis strategies, and so on. In Chap. 4 , we discuss how you can do this in ways that keep your story coherent.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 , 586–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586

Article   Google Scholar  

Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12 (3), 307–359. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1

Biddle, B. J., & Anderson, D. S. (1986). Theory, methods, knowledge, and research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching: A project of the American Educational Research Association . Macmillan.

Google Scholar  

Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29 , 41–62.

Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., Kramer, S. L., & Hiebert, J. (2019c). Theoretical framing as justifying. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50 (3), 218–224. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.3.0218

Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (2014). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogenous classroom (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.

Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the academy of management journal. The Academy of Management Journal, 50 (6), 1281–1303.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41 , 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040

Kerlinger, F. N. (1964). Foundations of behavioral research: Educational and psychological inquiry . Holt, Rinehardt, & Winston.

Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K., Sotelo, F., & Stigler, J. W. (2010). Teacher’s analysis of classroom video predicts student learning of mathematics: Further explorations of a novel measure of teacher knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education , 61(1–2), 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347875 , 172.

Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Thompson, B., Santagata, R., & Stigler, J. (2012). Developing measures of usable knowledge: Teachers’ analyses of mathematics classroom videos predict teaching quality and student learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49 (3), 568–590. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212437853

Oxford University Press. (2021). Theory. In Lexico.com dictionary . Lexico.com . https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/theory

Praetorius, A.-K., & Charalambous, C. (2022). Moving the field forward with respect to theorizing teaching: An introduction. In A.-K. Praetorius & C. Charalmabous (Eds.), Expert perspectives on theorizing teaching: Current status, problematic issues, and aspirations . Springer.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning . Falmer Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

James Hiebert, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee

Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), 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 license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license 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.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Hiebert, J., Cai, J., Hwang, S., Morris, A.K., Hohensee, C. (2023). Building and Using Theoretical Frameworks. In: Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_3

Published : 03 December 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-19077-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-19078-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

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

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

Strategies for developing the theoretical framework

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

Theoretical framework

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

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

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

Theoretical framework vs. theoretical perspective

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

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

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

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

Example of a theoretical framework

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

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

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

Put your theories into focus with ATLAS.ti

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

Other examples of theoretical frameworks

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

Political science

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

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

Educational research

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

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

Health services research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visualize your theories and analysis with ATLAS.ti

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

PhD Assistance

Why is theoretical framework important in research.

Academic supervisors look for the theoretical framework within any research manuscripts as a first parameter. Even an excellently written dissertation will be rejected if there is no theoretical framework. It is similar to the human skeleton upon which the body is built. Only on a well defined theoretical framework researches are done to give the desired results.

To know more about the theoretical framework and its importance in writing dissertations and research papers it is pertinent to know:

A theory is crucial for any research work to give its direction and also to validate or disapprove a phenomenon.  Theoretical basis helps to decipher the way the things are and the basis of specific actions.

Framework in research is like in buildings or software providing critical support for developing the research aspects over it.  Creating a framework on the theatrical basis will enhance investigations to arrive at a particular stand of for or against a phenomenon.

Research is using the scientific method for careful consideration of study regarding a specific problem or concern. It is one of the building blocks of societal advancement. It depends on many perspectives and phenomenon to thrive.  And it can come out with a valid argument of a summation.

Theoretical framework in research:

The role of the theoretical framework in research is to reduce the dreadful topic to two factors to simplify the concept, which include:

• The research problem
• The rationale of investigating the issue

Importance of theoretical framework in research:

The theoretical framework is one of the main parts of the research manuscript .  It should be presented in the first section of all dissertations.

It is the structure that holds or supports a theory by introducing and describing it as to what research problem it exists.

It demonstrates an understanding of theories and concepts relevant to the topic of the research.  And it provides the broader areas of knowledge under consideration.

The explicit statement of the theoretical assumptions enables its reader to evaluate it critically.

It connects the researcher to the existing knowledge through guidance by relevant theory, also, by providing the basis of the hypotheses and the choices of the research methods .

It helps researchers to generalize the various aspects of an observed phenomenon from simply describing it and also identifies their limits.

It specifies the key variables that influence a phenomenon of interest and highlights the necessity to examine them for what circumstances they might differ

It limits the scope of the relevant data by focusing on a specific variable, and also, defines the view the researcher should take in analyzing and interpreting the data to be collected

By validating and challenging theoretical assumptions, it facilitates the understanding of concepts and variables as per the given definitions and builds new knowledge.

It helps to address the questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ by articulating the theoretical assumptions of a research

The theoretical framework is vital to all researches to clarify the implicit theory in a manner that is more clearly defined. It may also provide researchers to consider their limitations and alternative theories that challenge their perspective.  It is what all academic supervisors check in the first place, and they better understand the research problem with the right theoretical framework.

• conceptual framework
• conceptual framework definition
• conceptual framework in research
• theoretical framework
• theoretical framework example
• theoretical framework in research
• theoretical literature review
• types of theoretical framework

Quick Contact

• Adversial Attacks
• Artificial Intelligence
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) and ML ( Machine Learning )
• Big Data Analysis
• Business and Management
• Categories of Research methodology – PhDAssistance
• Category of Research Proposal Services
• coding & algorithm
• Computer Data Science
• Category of Machine Learning – PhDassistance
• Computer Science/Research writing/Manuscript
• Course Work Service
• Data Analytics
• Data Processing
• Deep Networks
• Dissertation Statistics
• economics dissertation
• Editing Services
• Electrical Engineering Category
• Engineering & Technology
• finance dissertation writing
• Gap Identification
• Healthcare Dissertation Writing
• Intrusion-detection-system
• journals publishing
• Life Science Dissertation writing services
• literature review service
• Machine Learning
• medical thesis writing
• Peer review
• PhD Computer Programming
• PhD Dissertation
• Phd Journal Manuscript
• Annotated Bibliography
• PhD Publication Support
• Phd thesis writing services
• Phd Topic Selection
• Categories of PhdAssistance Dissertation
• Power Safety
• problem identification
• Quantitative Analysis
• quantitative research
• Recent Trends
• Referencing and Formatting
• Research Gap
• research journals
• Research Methodology
• research paper
• Research Proposal Service
• secondary Data collection
• Statistical Consulting Services
• Uncategorized

PhD Assistance | Blog

• Staff Directory
• Library Policies
• Hege Research Award
• Quaker Archives
• Art Gallery
• Student Support
• Teaching & Learning
• Reserving spaces
• Technology Lending
• Interlibrary Loan
• Course Reserves
• Copyright & Fair Use
• Poster Printing
• Virtual Reference
• Research Guides
• Off-campus access
• Digital Scholarship
• Guilford Sources
• Open Educational Resources
• Quaker Collections
• Digital Collections
• College Archives
• Underground Railroad
• Universities Studying Slavery
• Images & Exhibitions

Service Alert

Hege Library & Learning Technologies

Guide for Thesis Research

• Introduction to the Thesis Process
• Project Planning
• Literature Review
• Theoretical Frameworks
• Research Methodology
• GC Honors Program Theses
• Thesis Submission Instructions This link opens in a new window
• Accessing Guilford Theses from 1898 to 2020 This link opens in a new window

Some Articles About Theory

The following are articles that may help you understand the importance of theory as a fundamental aspect of academic research.

• It's Just a Theory
• Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions
• Use of Theoretical Frameworks in Research

Why is theory important?

Theories reflect previous study and analysis that has been conducted in your field.  They propose explanations for phenomena that occur in an area of study. Over time, theories are reexamined, refined, and sometimes discarded in favor of new ones, always with the purpose of providing ever more accurate explanations for the dynamics that operate in our world.

The following quote, taken from John Kuada's book Research Methodology: A Project Guide for University Students , helps to explain the importance of theory when developing a research project:

“Theory provides the language, the concepts, and assumptions that help researchers to make sense of the phenomenon that they seek to investigate. It enables researchers to connect the issues they are investigating to the existing body of knowledge in the area” (Kuada, 2012, p. 64).

A theory can help researchers make predictions about the phenomena they are setting out to study. They can be informative in terms of determining what variables should be observed, as well as how data should be collected, analyzed, and interpreted on the way to presenting and justifying conclusions. 

As a researcher working on a project, it is essential that you be aware of theories that have gained prominence in your field. Think of scholarship as an ongoing conversation. As people publish ideas and develop theories, they help shape that conversation. When you do research and present your findings and ideas, you are joining in on those discussions. You become a contributor. Therefore, it is good to have a sense of what has been said before.

Identify major theories in your field. Be conscious of the fundamental concepts that have guided scholars in your area, and be aware of emerging perspectives and trends. Try to identify a theoretical base from which you can develop your arguments. This will greatly strengthen your positions when the time comes to present your thesis.

Resources About Theory and Theoretical Frameworks

• << Previous: Literature Review
• Next: Research Methodology >>
• Last Updated: Jan 23, 2024 4:31 PM
• URL: https://library.guilford.edu/thesis-guide

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 22, Issue 2
• Integration of a theoretical framework into your research study
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Roberta Heale 1 ,
• Helen Noble 2
• 1 Laurentian University , School of Nursing , Sudbury , Ontario , Canada
• 2 Queens University Belfast , School of Nursing and Midwifery , Belfast , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Roberta Heale, School of Nursing, Laurentian University, Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, P3E2C6, Canada; rheale{at}laurentian.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2019-103077

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Often the most difficult part of a research study is preparing the proposal based around a theoretical or philosophical framework. Graduate students ‘…express confusion, a lack of knowledge, and frustration with the challenge of choosing a theoretical framework and understanding how to apply it’. 1 However, the importance in understanding and applying a theoretical framework in research cannot be overestimated.

The choice of a theoretical framework for a research study is often a reflection of the researcher’s ontological (nature of being) and epistemological (theory of knowledge) perspective. We will not delve into these concepts, or personal philosophy in this article. Rather we will focus on how a theoretical framework can be integrated into research.

The theoretical framework is a blueprint for your research project 1 and serves several purposes. It informs the problem you have identified, the purpose and significance of your research demonstrating how your research fits with what is already known (relationship to existing theory and research). This provides a basis for your research questions, the literature review and the methodology and analysis that you choose. 1 Evidence of your chosen theoretical framework should be visible in every aspect of your research and should demonstrate the contribution of this research to knowledge. 2

What is a theory?

A theory is an explanation of a concept or an abstract idea of a phenomenon. An example of a theory is Bandura’s middle range theory of self-efficacy, 3 or the level of confidence one has in achieving a goal. Self-efficacy determines the coping behaviours that a person will exhibit when facing obstacles. Those who have high self-efficacy are likely to apply adequate effort leading to successful outcomes, while those with low self-efficacy are more likely to give up earlier and ultimately fail. Any research that is exploring concepts related to self-efficacy or the ability to manage difficult life situations might apply Bandura’s theoretical framework to their study.

Using a theoretical framework in a research study

Example 1: the big five theoretical framework.

The first example includes research which integrates the ‘Big Five’, a theoretical framework that includes concepts related to teamwork. These include team leadership, mutual performance monitoring, backup behaviour, adaptability and team orientation. 4 In order to conduct research incorporating a theoretical framework, the concepts need to be defined according to a frame of reference. This provides a means to understand the theoretical framework as it relates to a specific context and provides a mechanism for measurement of the concepts.

In this example, the concepts of the Big Five were given a conceptual definition, that provided a broad meaning and then an operational definition, which was more concrete. 4 From here, a survey was developed that reflected the operational definitions related to teamwork in nursing: the Nursing Teamwork Survey (NTS). 5 In this case, the concepts used in the theoretical framework, the Big Five, were the used to develop a survey specific to teamwork in nursing.

The NTS was used in research of nurses at one hospital in northeastern Ontario. Survey questions were grouped into subscales for analysis, that reflected the concepts of the Big Five. 6 For example, one finding of this study was that the nurses from the surgical unit rated the items in the subscale of ’team leadership' (one of the concepts in the Big Five) significantly lower than in the other units. The researchers looked back to the definition of this concept in the Big Five in their interpretation of the findings. Since the definition included a person(s) who has the leadership skills to facilitate teamwork among the nurses on the unit, the conclusion in this study was that the surgical unit lacked a mentor, or facilitator for teamwork. In this way, the theory of teamwork was presented through a set of concepts in a theoretical framework. The Theoretical Framework (TF)was the foundation for development of a survey related to a specific context, used to measure each of the concepts within the TF. Then, the analysis and results circled back to the concepts within the TF and provided a guide for the discussion and conclusions arising from the research.

Example 2: the Health Decisions Model

In another study which explored adherence to intravenous chemotherapy in African-American and Caucasian Women with early stage breast cancer, an adapted version of the Health Decisions Model (HDM) was used as the theoretical basis for the study. 7 The HDM, a revised version of the Health Belief Model, incorporates some aspects of the Health Belief Model and factors relating to patient preferences. 8 The HDM consists of six interrelated constituents that might predict how well a person adheres to a health decision. These include sociodemographic, social interaction, experience, knowledge, general and specific health beliefs and patient preferences, and are clearly defined. The HDM model was used to explore factors which might influence adherence to chemotherapy in women with breast cancer. Sociodemographic, social interaction, knowledge, personal experience and specific health beliefs were used as predictors of adherence to chemotherapy.

The findings were reported using the theoretical framework to discuss results. The study found that delay to treatment, health insurance, depression and symptom severity were predictors to starting chemotherapy which could potentially be adapted with clinical interventions. The findings from the study contribute to the existing body of literature related to cancer nursing.

Example 3: the nursing role effectiveness model

In this final example, research was conducted to determine the nursing processes that were associated with unexpected intensive care unit admissions. 9 The framework was the Nursing Role Effectiveness Model. In this theoretical framework, the concepts within Donabedian’s Quality Framework of Structure, Process and Outcome were each defined according to nursing practice. 10 11  Processes defined in the Nursing Role Effectiveness Model were used to identify the nursing process variables that were measured in the study.

A theoretical framework should be logically presented and represent the concepts, variables and relationships related to your research study, in order to clearly identify what will be examined, described or measured. It involves reading the literature and identifying a research question(s) while clearly defining and identifying the existing relationship between concepts and theories (related to your research questions[s] in the literature). You must then identify what you will examine or explore in relation to the concepts of the theoretical framework. Once you present your findings using the theoretical framework you will be able to articulate how your study relates to and may potentially advance your chosen theory and add to knowledge.

• Kalisch BJ ,
• Parent M , et al
• Strickland OL ,
• Dalton JA , et al
• Eraker SA ,
• Kirscht JP ,
• Lightfoot N , et al
• Harrison MB ,
• Laschinger H , et al

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Patient and public involvement Not required.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation

Published on October 14, 2015 by Sarah Vinz . Revised on July 18, 2023 by Tegan George.

Your theoretical framework defines the key concepts in your research, suggests relationships between them, and discusses relevant theories based on your literature review .

A strong theoretical framework gives your research direction. It allows you to convincingly interpret, explain, and generalize from your findings and show the relevance of your thesis or dissertation topic in your field.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Sample problem statement and research questions, sample theoretical framework, your theoretical framework, other interesting articles.

Your theoretical framework is based on:

• Your problem statement
• Your research questions
• Your literature review

A new boutique downtown is struggling with the fact that many of their online customers do not return to make subsequent purchases. This is a big issue for the otherwise fast-growing store.Management wants to increase customer loyalty. They believe that improved customer satisfaction will play a major role in achieving their goal of increased return customers.

To investigate this problem, you have zeroed in on the following problem statement, objective, and research questions:

• Problem : Many online customers do not return to make subsequent purchases.
• Objective : To increase the quantity of return customers.
• Research question : How can the satisfaction of the boutique’s online customers be improved in order to increase the quantity of return customers?

The concepts of “customer loyalty” and “customer satisfaction” are clearly central to this study, along with their relationship to the likelihood that a customer will return. Your theoretical framework should define these concepts and discuss theories about the relationship between these variables.

Some sub-questions could include:

• What is the relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction?
• How satisfied and loyal are the boutique’s online customers currently?
• What factors affect the satisfaction and loyalty of the boutique’s online customers?

As the concepts of “loyalty” and “customer satisfaction” play a major role in the investigation and will later be measured, they are essential concepts to define within your theoretical framework .

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Below is a simplified example showing how you can describe and compare theories in your thesis or dissertation . In this example, we focus on the concept of customer satisfaction introduced above.

Customer satisfaction

Thomassen (2003, p. 69) defines customer satisfaction as “the perception of the customer as a result of consciously or unconsciously comparing their experiences with their expectations.” Kotler & Keller (2008, p. 80) build on this definition, stating that customer satisfaction is determined by “the degree to which someone is happy or disappointed with the observed performance of a product in relation to his or her expectations.”

Performance that is below expectations leads to a dissatisfied customer, while performance that satisfies expectations produces satisfied customers (Kotler & Keller, 2003, p. 80).

The definition of Zeithaml and Bitner (2003, p. 86) is slightly different from that of Thomassen. They posit that “satisfaction is the consumer fulfillment response. It is a judgement that a product or service feature, or the product of service itself, provides a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment.” Zeithaml and Bitner’s emphasis is thus on obtaining a certain satisfaction in relation to purchasing.

Thomassen’s definition is the most relevant to the aims of this study, given the emphasis it places on unconscious perception. Although Zeithaml and Bitner, like Thomassen, say that customer satisfaction is a reaction to the experience gained, there is no distinction between conscious and unconscious comparisons in their definition.

The boutique claims in its mission statement that it wants to sell not only a product, but also a feeling. As a result, unconscious comparison will play an important role in the satisfaction of its customers. Thomassen’s definition is therefore more relevant.

Thomassen’s Customer Satisfaction Model

According to Thomassen, both the so-called “value proposition” and other influences have an impact on final customer satisfaction. In his satisfaction model (Fig. 1), Thomassen shows that word-of-mouth, personal needs, past experiences, and marketing and public relations determine customers’ needs and expectations.

These factors are compared to their experiences, with the interplay between expectations and experiences determining a customer’s satisfaction level. Thomassen’s model is important for this study as it allows us to determine both the extent to which the boutique’s customers are satisfied, as well as where improvements can be made.

Figure 1 Customer satisfaction creation 

Of course, you could analyze the concepts more thoroughly and compare additional definitions to each other. You could also discuss the theories and ideas of key authors in greater detail and provide several models to illustrate different concepts.

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

• Anchoring bias
• Halo effect
• The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon
• The placebo effect
• Nonresponse bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Vinz, S. (2023, July 18). Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation. Scribbr. Retrieved April 6, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/theoretical-framework-example/

Is this article helpful?

Sarah's academic background includes a Master of Arts in English, a Master of International Affairs degree, and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. She loves the challenge of finding the perfect formulation or wording and derives much satisfaction from helping students take their academic writing up a notch.

Other students also liked

What is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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
• MedEdPORTAL

Applying Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks to Health Professions Education Research: An Introductory Workshop

Steven rougas.

1 Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine and Medical Science and Director, Doctoring Program, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University

Andrea Berry

2 Executive Director of Faculty Life, University of Central Florida College of Medicine

S. Beth Bierer

3 Director of Assessment and Evaluation and Professor of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University

Rebecca D. Blanchard

4 Director of Faculty Development, OnlineMedEd, and Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate

Anna T. Cianciolo

5 Associate Professor, Department of Medical Education, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine

Jorie M. Colbert-Getz

6 Assistant Dean of Education Quality Improvement and Associate Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine

Heeyoung Han

7 Associate Professor and Director of Postdoctoral Program, Department of Medical Education, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine

Kaitlin Lipner

8 Second-Year Resident, Department of Emergency Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University

Cayla R. Teal

9 Associate Dean for Assessment and Evaluation and Education Associate Professor of Population Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine

Associated Data

• Workshop Slides.pptx
• Facilitators’ Guide.docx
• Participant Worksheet.docx
• Workshop Evaluation.docx

All appendices are peer reviewed as integral parts of the Original Publication.

Introduction

Literature suggests that the quality and rigor of health professions education (HPE) research can be elevated if the research is anchored in existing theories and frameworks. This critical skill is difficult for novice researchers to master. We created a workshop to introduce the practical application of theories and frameworks to HPE research.

We conducted two 60- to 75-minute workshops, one in 2019 at an in-person national conference and another in 2021 during an online national education conference. After a brief role-play introduction, participants applied a relevant theory to a case scenario in small groups, led by facilitators with expertise in HPE research. The workshop concluded with a presentation on applying the lessons learned when preparing a scholarly manuscript. We conducted a postworkshop survey to measure self-reported achievement of objectives.

Fifty-five individuals participated in the in-person workshop, and approximately 150 people completed the online workshop. Sixty participants (30%) completed the postworkshop survey across both workshops. As a result of participating in the workshop, 80% of participants (32) indicated they could distinguish between frameworks and theories, and 86% (32) could apply a conceptual or theoretical framework to a research question. Strengths of the workshop included the small-group activity, access to expert facilitators, and the materials provided.

The workshop has been well received by participants and fills a gap in the existing resources available to HPE researchers and mentors. It can be replicated in multiple settings to model the application of conceptual and theoretical frameworks to HPE research.

Educational Objectives

By the end of this activity, learners will be able to:

• 1. Describe conceptual and theoretical frameworks commonly used in health professions education research.
• 2. Examine how the selection of a framework affects research design.
• 3. Discuss strategies for presenting results relative to a conceptual or theoretical framework.

Calls for improved rigor in health professions education (HPE) research have often focused on the need to incorporate theoretical and conceptual frameworks in research design, implementation, and reflective critique. 1 , 2 Theories, which explain how/why things are related to each other, and frameworks, which explain where a study originates and the implications on study design, are critical for conducting high-quality HPE research, yet many researchers struggle to apply them. 3 Ideally, conceptual or theoretical frameworks should provide a lens through which to identify gaps in the literature, operationalize constructs, hypothesize relationships, and design appropriate methodology. 4 Frameworks allow researchers to deepen their understanding of how societies, organizations, and people interact 5 and can help HPE researchers engage in the adequate preparation needed for a scholarly inquiry. 6

A robust literature emphasizes the importance of anchoring HPE research in existing theories and frameworks. 7 – 9 Frameworks ideally should be used early to influence the what (content) and the how (methodology) of a research project and then revisited to help situate the results. 10 Recent attention to terminology 11 and application 1 , 12 , 13 has provided additional resources to support HPE researchers. Yet selection and application of a suitable conceptual or theoretical framework are still underutilized, and the lack of such frameworks is a common reason for manuscript rejection in major HPE journals. 14

One reason for poor utilization may be a lack of consensus on how HPE researchers define theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework. 11 Despite references to conceptual and theoretical frameworks in reviews of manuscripts and grant submissions, there is a surprising absence of consistency in how these terms are used. After a review of relevant literature, we agreed upon the following focused definitions to guide our work:

• 1. Theory: an explanation of how/why things are related to each other.
• 2. Theoretical framework: the implications of the theory for study design.
• 3. Conceptual framework: the conceptual heritage (i.e., the central concepts used in a field of study) of the problem to be studied.

Another reason for poor utilization is inconsistent application of these concepts. The volume of theoretical and conceptual frameworks applicable to HPE research can be overwhelming, 15 and researchers often see framework selection as the end product of their effort rather than an initial step. The framework should resonate with the researcher and the conceptual heritage of the project 16 and be used in every part of the research process from development of the research question and methodology to analysis of the results and discussion of study findings. 12 , 13 Researchers often lose sight of this guiding principle once the theory or framework is selected.

A final reason may be the fact that many educators have received minimal training in HPE research, particularly the incorporation of conceptual or theoretical frameworks to guide such work. While faculty development programs have begun to address this need, the majority of such programs still tend to focus on teaching and learning topics. 17 To improve HPE research quality, considerable training in research methods must occur. 18 Though various workshops exist to expose HPE researchers to principles of scholarly writing, 19 method design, 20 statistics, 21 and academic career development, 22 there remains a gap in the knowledge and skills needed to apply conceptual and theoretical frameworks.

As members of the AAMC's Medical Education Scholarship Research and Evaluation (MESRE) section of the Group on Educational Affairs (GEA) who provide mentorship, consultation, and critical review for various HPE research projects locally, regionally, and nationally, we recognized the need for a structured professional development opportunity for novice researchers to learn application of these concepts. The goal of our project was to develop an interactive, case-based workshop to explore the application of conceptual and theoretical frameworks to HPE research.

Workshop Design

We designed this workshop for HPE researchers seeking guidance on how to apply conceptual and theoretical frameworks. The workshop included an introductory video role-play, small-group discussion of a case, and large-group debriefing. Although the case scenario used in the workshop featured educators studying written narrative feedback in undergraduate medical education, the workshop could appeal to any HPE researcher wishing to gain experience with using conceptual and theoretical frameworks. Participants did not need prerequisite knowledge of theories in order to achieve the workshop objectives.

The workshop planners included educators serving on the MESRE steering committee in 2019. All had experience mentoring others on how to use conceptual and theoretical frameworks, and a subset served on HPE journal editorial boards or as peer reviewers. We designed workshop materials and participated in the workshop as a featured speaker and/or small-group facilitator.

We developed the workshop to be offered in person at a conference and later adapted it to be presented virtually. We initially designed the workshop as a 75-minute session but learned, during the second offering, that 60 minutes provided sufficient time to meet the workshop objectives. When offering the workshop in a face-to-face venue, we used a large conference room with projection equipment and internet access to display slides and videos. The conference room had to have enough tables for participants to work in small groups of five to 10. When conducting the session virtually, we selected a platform that enabled the workshop facilitator to assign participants to breakout rooms and permitted small-group facilitators to share their screens with workshop participants.

We had a main facilitator for the workshop and several small-group facilitators for the small-group work. All facilitators reviewed information on situated learning theory (SLT), as this theory was used in the workshop case scenario. Facilitators also needed experience with using theory to inform the elaboration of research questions, the design of research projects, and the interpretation of research findings. Ideally, facilitators had experience with publishing peer-reviewed manuscripts including conceptual or theoretical frameworks and came from any HPE field. While it would be possible to run the workshop without all these essential skills, we highly recommend recruiting small-group facilitators with them. We also advise having at least one facilitator for every 10 workshop participants. The lesson plan and timeline for the workshop are outlined in Table 1 .

Preworkshop Preparation

We conducted a training session (approximately 45–60 minutes) with small-group facilitators prior to the workshop to review the workshop slides ( Appendix A ) and facilitation strategies for the case discussion ( Appendix B ).

Introduction (2 Minutes)

When feasible, participants were asked to introduce themselves at the beginning of the workshop. Following introductions, the workshop's learning objectives were presented. We kept the workshop overview short, as the first video vignette contextualized the workshop topic.

Video Vignette 1 (5 Minutes)

After introducing the session objectives, the main facilitator played a recorded role-play ( Appendix A , slide 4) demonstrating a conversation between a mentor and mentee about the importance of selecting a theory to guide the design of a research project. This case scenario provided participants with an authentic example emphasizing the importance of selecting an appropriate theory to publish a research project in HPE journals.

Define Key Terms (2 Minutes)

The main facilitator proceeded to define the key terms—conceptual framework, theory, and theoretical framework—mentioned in the role-play ( Appendix A , slides 5–6). Participants may not have fully recognized the distinction between a theoretical framework and conceptual framework at this point in the workshop.

Video Vignette 2 (3 Minutes)

The main facilitator showed a second recording of the role-play ( Appendix A , slide 7) to illustrate how theory contributes to the interpretation of key findings and, after the video, discussed how one's point of view could frame the ways in which one examined problems ( Appendix A , slides 8–11). Building upon the earlier case vignette scenario, the main facilitator presented a worked example to demonstrate how the theory of planned behavior could apply to the feedback study featured in the video vignette ( Appendix A , slides 12–13).

Small-Group Activity (25–30 Minutes)

Participants formed small groups of five to 10 (or joined breakout rooms) for a 30-minute small-group activity designed to apply a different theory to the case scenario. Small-group facilitators began the session by reviewing the key features of SLT summarized on the participant worksheet ( Appendix C ). Subsequently, small-group facilitators guided the small groups to think about how the research question provided could be refined using SLT and helped them consider how SLT could guide research design including study participants, setting, data sources, and data collection strategies. Before the small-group activity concluded, each small-group facilitator asked about any remaining questions or tips the participants wanted to share with the larger group and recorded these responses for subsequent large-group discussion.

Debriefing and Wrap-up (12 Minutes)

The main facilitator reconvened all small groups and reviewed guiding questions participants had discussed during the small-group activity. Small-group facilitators presented the remaining questions and tips their groups had identified. The main facilitator then concluded by presenting a journal editor's discussion of how these concepts applied to manuscripts and editorial review ( Appendix A , slides 15–19). Participants completed a workshop evaluation ( Appendix D ) at the end of the session.

Workshop Evaluation and Analysis

We developed the workshop evaluation ( Appendix D ) to assess the workshop's effectiveness and gather information to improve the workshop. For effectiveness questions, participants used a 3-point scale (“was able to do prior to workshop,” “am able to do as a result of the workshop,” and “unable to perform”) to rate their ability to perform workshop objectives. The workshop evaluation included four open-ended items (“What are the key points/messages you will take away?”, “How will you use them?”, “What did or did not work well and why?”, and “Please provide us with any additional comments about the session”) to identify strengths of the workshop as well as areas for improvement. For the virtual session, we also asked participants to rate their level of engagement with the large-group and breakout-room components. We calculated frequencies for scaled items using Microsoft Excel and analyzed written comments for major themes. We were particularly interested in determining the percentage of participants who could meet each workshop objective as a result of the workshop versus those who could not meet the objective; therefore, we included only those who selected these options in the denominator of the frequency calculation. Those who could meet an objective prior to the workshop were excluded from the calculations, as our goal was to guide those who lacked a skill prior to attending the workshop. We used a paper evaluation form for the face-to-face offering and an electronic form for the virtual session. We also included an item on engagement for the virtual offering, as there were fewer cues provided to facilitators in the online setting.

The workshop was delivered in person at Learn Serve Lead: the AAMC Annual Meeting in November 2019 and virtually at the GEA Regional Spring Meeting in April 2021. Workshop participants were medical school staff, faculty, and administrators. Fifty-five attendees participated in the in-person workshop, and approximately 150 participants participated in the virtual workshop. The postworkshop survey was completed by 26 individuals from the in-person session (47%) and 34 from the virtual session (23%).

Table 2 provides the frequency of participants’ self-reported ability to perform the workshop objectives relative to not being able to perform them. As a result of participating in the workshop, 80% of the included participants (32) indicated they could distinguish between conceptual frameworks and theories, 86% (32) could apply a conceptual or theoretical framework to a research question, 79% (34) could analyze how the selection of a conceptual or theoretical framework impacts research design, and 68% (27) could evaluate the results of a study through the lens of a conceptual or theoretical framework ( Figure ).

Participant comments on what did and did not work well and why were categorized by workshop elements, and frequencies for each element were computed based on terms referring to strengths or areas for improvement. The majority of comments highlighted strengths of the workshop, including the small-group/breakout activity (12 participants), having expert facilitators (nine participants), the role-play (seven participants), and the handouts (seven participants). Other positive aspects were the large-group discussion (four participants), use of examples (four participants), and time for questions (two participants). Participants felt the small-group activity, expert facilitators, and role-playing worked well because they were active, hands-on activities. A few participants mentioned areas for improvement, including small-group variability (seven participants), additional terms needing definitions (four participants), overall complexity of the topic (two participants), and wanting more resources (two participants).

Thirty-four virtual workshop participants rated the overall engagement of the large-group presentation and small-group (breakout-room) discussion. The large-group presentation was rated as highly engaging (53%, 18) or engaging (35%, 12) by 88% of participants. The small-group discussion was rated as highly engaging (71%, 24) or engaging (9%, 3) by 80% of participants.

This workshop enabled participants to work in small groups with a facilitator to apply a theory to an example research question and discuss the implications of the effort. The workshop was well received by participants, who mostly reported self-improvement regarding each of the learning objectives and valued the small-group activity, work with facilitators, and observation of the role-play. For facilitators, the workshop offered a unique opportunity to focus teaching on the application of a theoretical or conceptual framework, separate from other aspects of HPE research mentorship. The materials included here provide an accessible avenue for HPE research champions to engage novice researchers at their own institutions in a skill that is challenging to learn and to teach.

Our reflections presented valuable insight on the preparation and execution of a workshop designed to teach about a complex and typically unfamiliar topic. While careful selection of a facilitator and thoughtful preparation of materials generally result in better experiences for learners, in this workshop, those details are particularly important.

The workshop has been designed for novice HPE researchers. As a result, learner questions can be oversimplified, while the answers are nuanced. Facilitators must be able to navigate these conversations as well as hold reasonable goals for the development of learners on this complex topic. Appropriate facilitators for this workshop include those who are comfortable using frameworks in their own research and coaching/mentoring others. Being familiar with more than one theory or conceptual framework that could apply to the case scenario is particularly valuable, as the ability to compare and contrast frameworks is helpful for answering questions and reframing complex answers in an accessible way. Conducting the workshop virtually may assist in recruiting qualified small-group facilitators from other departments or institutions. Prior to each session, facilitators should meet virtually to discuss the facilitators’ guide ( Appendix B ). This allows for discussion of the case vignette and consensus on how to approach potential questions or roadblocks.

We found that small groups struggling to address the discussion questions often did not spend an adequate amount of time exploring SLT in the beginning of the small-group activity. Though we provided a paragraph of text and references describing the theory ( Appendices B and C ), a visual schema could simplify some of the connections and give novice researchers a clearer, more succinct way into the conversation. One potential approach is to use some of the small-group time to develop the schema with participants.

Similarly, comparing the application of one theory to another provides insight into how a study can be viewed through multiple lenses. While many of our facilitators employed this approach, it proved challenging given the timing. One potential approach is to use the theory of planned behavior (reviewed in the introductory slides, Appendix A ) as the comparative theory since it has already been referenced.

The small-group exercise was rated the most valuable. Discussions and pacing varied due to participants’ knowledge and comfort with speaking up and facilitators’ ability to manage the conversation. Therefore, we recommend ensuring adequate time for completing the small-group activity. Specifically, we recommend facilitators be mindful of how much time is allotted to reviewing the theory compared to the amount allotted for the discussion. We suggest sending out the background information on SLT in advance, so that participants have a chance to review the key information prior to the workshop.

We also suggest tailoring the description of the workshop and learning objectives in order to invite the appropriate audience. This may mean novice researchers who have engaged with research or who are currently planning research. Participants do not need to have the same level of knowledge entering the workshop, but because of the emphasis on small-group discussion, wide variation in participants’ knowledge may result in some not obtaining the insight they need to meet the learning objectives.

A common refrain from workshop participants was how to select the right answers to the discussion questions rather than trying to understand how the theory selected impacted the research question. This likely stemmed from a common misconception that there was only one right theory or framework for a research study. Confronting this expectation early in the session (in both the introduction and the small-group activity) is key.

Workshops are inherently limiting in that they can accommodate only a small number of learners. However, given the complexity of this topic, the small number of learners may improve the experience, as conversation can be guided towards specific learner gaps.

This workshop has additional limitations; however, with thoughtful preparation, they can be addressed to ensure a valuable learning experience. First, the workshop requires strong facilitators, which limits workshop size for institutions without access to experienced facilitators. Second, the amount of time needed to complete the workshop requires facilitators to pay careful attention to workshop timing. Third, small-group experiences can vary considerably with facilitator expertise and familiarity with SLT. Thoughtful recruitment and training of facilitators, perhaps relying on experienced facilitators to train new ones, will maximize participant benefit.

Finally, the evaluation data we collected postsession did not adequately account for knowledge or skills that participants had prior to the workshop. While the anecdotal feedback was that most participants were not very knowledgeable or skilled, a pre/post design would have helped clarify this issue. The rating scale forced participants to mark effectiveness items as being performable either prior to or as a result of the workshop. This did not take into account that some participants had prior knowledge or skill and still benefited from the workshop, making interpretation of the responses less clear. Additionally, the evaluation response rate was low, especially for the virtual session, and may not represent the perspectives of all participants.

This workshop has the potential to increase the application of theories and frameworks in HPE research. Frameworks are helpful to organize studies in the context of a greater conversation but are difficult to learn outside of formal educational programs. The workshop enables novice HPE researchers to explore how they might begin integrating frameworks into their work and why doing so is important.

The workshop provides scaffolding for HPE research mentors to introduce frameworks to novice and emerging researchers, and the materials included constitute a valuable reference. In addition, workshops like this one provide support and structure for institutions with few HPE research mentors. Future directions should focus on increasing accessibility of this information to more HPE researchers through the creation of an interactive, online session and a searchable repository of theories and frameworks commonly used in HPE research.

Disclosures

None to report.

Funding/Support

Prior presentations.

Rougas S, Berry A, Bierer B, et al. Practical approaches to applying conceptual and theoretical frameworks to medical education research: a MESRE session. Presented at: Learn Serve Lead: the AAMC Annual Meeting; November 8–12, 2019; Phoenix, AZ.

Rougas S, Berry A, Bierer B, et al. Practical approaches to applying conceptual and theoretical frameworks to medical education research. Presented virtually at: Group on Educational Affairs Regional Spring Meeting; April 20–22, 2021.

Ethical Approval

Reported as not applicable.

Organizing Academic Research Papers: Theoretical Framework

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• How to Manage Group Projects
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Acknowledgements

Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge, within the limits of the critical bounding assumptions. The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study. The theoretical framework introduces and describes the theory which explains why the research problem under study exists.

Importance of Theory

A theoretical framework consists of concepts, together with their definitions, and existing theory/theories that are used for your particular study. The theoretical framework must demonstrate an understanding of theories and concepts that are relevant to the topic of your  research paper and that will relate it to the broader fields of knowledge in the class you are taking.

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

The theoretical framework strengthens the study in the following ways .

• An explicit statement of  theoretical assumptions permits the reader to evaluate them critically.
• The theoretical framework connects the researcher to existing knowledge. Guided by a relevant theory, you are given a basis for your hypotheses and choice of research methods.
• Articulating the theoretical assumptions of a research study forces you to address questions of why and how. It permits you to move from simply describing a phenomenon observed to generalizing about various aspects of that phenomenon.
• Having a theory helps you to identify the limits to those generalizations. A theoretical framework specifies which key variables influence a phenomenon of interest. It alerts you to examine how those key variables might differ and under what circumstances.

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

The Conceptual Framework. College of Education. Alabama State University; Drafting an Argument . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006.

Strategies for Developing the Theoretical Framework

I.  Developing the Framework

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

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

A theoretical framework is used to limit the scope of the relevant data by focusing on specific variables and defining the specific viewpoint (framework) that the researcher will take in analyzing and interpreting the data to be gathered, understanding concepts and variables according to the given definitions, and building knowledge by validating or challenging theoretical assumptions.

II.  Purpose

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

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

*Adapted from: Torraco, R. J. “Theory-Building Research Methods.” In Swanson R. A. and E. F. Holton III , editors. Human Resource Development Handbook: Linking Research and Practice . (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 1997): pp. 114-137; Sutton, Robert I. and Barry M. Staw. “What Theory is Not.” Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (September 1995): 371-384.

Structure and Writing Style

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

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

• What is the research problem/question? [e.g., "How should the individual and the state relate during periods of conflict?"]
• Why is your approach a feasible solution? [I could choose to test Instrumentalist or Circumstantialists models developed among Ethnic Conflict Theorists that rely upon socio-economic-political factors to explain individual-state relations and to apply this theoretical model to periods of war between nations].

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

In writing this part of your research paper, keep in mind the following:

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

The Conceptual Framework. College of Education. Alabama State University; Conceptual Framework: What Do You Think is Going On? College of Engineering. University of Michigan; Drafting an Argument . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Lynham, Susan A. “The General Method of Theory-Building Research in Applied Disciplines.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 4 (August 2002): 221-241; Tavallaei, Mehdi and Mansor Abu Talib. A General Perspective on the Role of Theory in Qualitative Research. Journal of International Social Research 3 (Spring 2010); Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006.

Writing Tip

Borrowing Theoretical Constructs from Elsewhere

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Undertheorize!

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

Still Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

The key distinctions are:

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

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

• << Previous: The Research Problem/Question
• Next: 5. The Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
• URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
• QuickSearch
• Library Catalog
• Databases A-Z
• Publication Finder
• Course Reserves
• Citation Linker
• Digital Commons
• Our Website

Research Support

• Ask a Librarian
• Appointments
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Research Guides
• Databases by Subject
• Citation Help

Using the Library

• Reserve a Group Study Room
• Renew Books
• Honors Study Rooms
• Off-Campus Access
• Library Policies
• Library Technology

User Information

• Grad Students
• Online Students
• COVID-19 Updates
• Staff Directory
• News & Announcements
• Library Newsletter

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

The Plagiarism Checker Online For Your Academic Work

Start Plagiarism Check

Editing & Proofreading for Your Research Paper

Get it proofread now

Online Printing & Binding with Free Express Delivery

Configure binding now

• Academic essay overview
• The writing process
• Structuring academic essays
• Types of academic essays
• Academic writing overview
• Sentence structure
• Academic writing process
• Improving your academic writing
• Titles and headings
• APA style overview
• APA citation & referencing
• APA structure & sections
• Citation & referencing
• Structure and sections
• APA examples overview
• Commonly used citations
• Other examples
• British English vs. American English
• Chicago style overview
• Chicago citation & referencing
• Chicago structure & sections
• Chicago style examples
• Citing sources overview
• Citation format
• Citation examples
• College essay overview
• Application
• How to write a college essay
• Types of college essays
• Commonly confused words
• Definitions
• Dissertation overview
• Dissertation structure & sections
• Dissertation writing process
• Graduate school overview
• Application & admission
• Study abroad
• Master degree
• Harvard referencing overview
• Language rules overview
• Grammatical rules & structures
• Parts of speech
• Punctuation
• Methodology overview
• Analyzing data
• Experiments
• Observations
• Inductive vs. Deductive
• Qualitative vs. Quantitative
• Types of validity
• Types of reliability
• Sampling methods
• Theories & Concepts
• Types of research studies
• Types of variables
• MLA style overview
• MLA examples
• MLA citation & referencing
• MLA structure & sections
• Plagiarism overview
• Plagiarism checker
• Types of plagiarism
• Printing production overview
• Research bias overview
• Types of research bias
• Example sections
• Types of research papers
• Research process overview
• Problem statement
• Research proposal
• Research topic
• Statistics overview
• Levels of measurment
• Frequency distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Measures of variability
• Hypothesis testing
• Parameters & test statistics
• Types of distributions
• Correlation
• Effect size
• Hypothesis testing assumptions
• Types of ANOVAs
• Types of chi-square
• Statistical data
• Statistical models
• Spelling mistakes
• Tips overview
• Academic writing tips
• Dissertation tips
• Sources tips
• Working with sources overview
• Evaluating sources
• Finding sources
• Including sources
• Types of sources

Your Step to Success

Plagiarism Check within 10min

Printing & Binding with 3D Live Preview

Theoretical Framework – Purpose & Importance

How do you like this article cancel reply.

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

A theoretical framework is a fundamental component of any research study or dissertation , providing the lens through which the research problem is assessed and understood. It illustrates the concepts, theories, and existing research that contributes to supporting the study, creating a bridge between the research question and the methodology . This article delves into the overall concept, the purpose, and the construct of the theoretical framework.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• 1 Theoretical Framework – In a Nutshell
• 2 Definition: Theoretical framework
• 3 What is the purpose of a theoretical framework?
• 4 Theoretical framework – The literature review
• 5 Theoretical framework – Step by step
• 6 The structure of a theoretical framework

Theoretical Framework – In a Nutshell

• The theoretical framework of a research paper forms its blueprint.
• It gives an overview of the research question and its important elements.
• A well-formulated theoretical framework outlines the key ideas anchored around well-informed questions.

Definition: Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework of research is the foundation that constructs your ideas. It uses a pre-established theory. They are created by researchers to outline different theories, propose links between ideas, and make informed conclusions. The recommended length is usually three to five pages.

What is the purpose of a theoretical framework?

A theoretical framework is used to capture the ideas and lessons from existing theories in proposing solutions to a new research problem. There is a high likelihood that there are multiple existing theories that can support your research proposal. The theoretical framework guides the process of comparing and choosing the best theories to support your research.

Theoretical framework – The literature review

A literature review is one of the first steps in formulating a research topic and the existing works on the subject. It may be regarded as a summary of the literature sources used as research resources. It is organized systematically and contains key takeaways from the literature sources.

A well-conducted literature review should also have synthesis, i.e., a well-structured reorganization of the ideas to support the research proposal . It may give new takes on old sources or supplement them with new information. Literature reviews also track the progression of knowledge in a given field over time.

It considers the significant changes and revisions made to existing works and the factors behind significant changes. Literature review guides the theoretical framework by selecting the most relevant sources and highlighting gaps in the available literature.

Theoretical framework – Step by step

There are 4 main steps involved in formulating a theoretical framework.

Step 1 – Literature review

The literature review is a detailed recap of the literature sources you intend to use in your research. Writing a clear literature review helps to create a reference point for all the literature types for your research. The literature review process can be summarized as follows:

Step 2 – Create your research questions

A research question is the primary objective of a research paper . It is the question that the researcher answers through their research. Research goals include defining, analyzing, comparing, or testing different variables to come up with conclusions.

A good research question guides the research’s scope and dictates the data’s methodology and sources. The research question produces the core claim of your research, also known as the thesis . Extensive research cases may have several research questions focused on a central theme.

Step 3- Summarize key concepts and theories

There are key concepts and theories to support and answer research questions. Some concepts may have varying definitions in several contexts, so researchers should articulate the meaning of concepts in their research question.:

• Study existing concepts and theories
• Test how relevant they are in other contexts
• Critique their methodology

Step 4 – Identify how your research will contribute

Research aims to contribute to, challenge, or supplement the existing body of knowledge. The strides made by mankind in technology, automotive, energy, and healthcare are all products of research.

The theoretical framework of a research undertaking is formulated to ask the right questions and select the best methods and sources. By doing so, researchers establish a clear path to resolving research questions that add value to their fields.

The structure of a theoretical framework

The theoretical framework can have its own section or be nestled under the literature review section. There are many rules governing the structure of a theoretical framework, so it’s best to consult with your school department. However, you can note the following tips to create a consistent flow.

• Refer to your research questions to create sections that deal with each question separately.
• Arrange by theory cluster
• Order by date
• Cite all your sources

Click here and see and example of a theoretical framework !

Why is a theoretical framework important for research?

A theoretical framework is the central assertion on which your research is built. It involves literature review and formulating research questions to compare, dispute, or validate theories in research. It guides the research process through data collection , research methods, and sources.

How do you choose a theoretical framework?

Begin by defining your research title. Outline the key variables you consider important and compare them with existing ones. Look at the current standing of your thesis concept and examine similarities and observable differences. Update your list of key variables with new variables as you encounter them in the literature review. Pick the framework that sufficiently frames the most viable research question.

Where can I use a theoretical framework?

Theoretical frameworks can be used in both qualitative and quantitative research . Various variables can be included in this section as it applies in all fields and disciplines in research.

What is the structure of a theoretical framework?

The theoretical structure is often categorized under the literature review part of a research paper. However, it may have its own section depending on the preference of some institutions.

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential, while others help us to improve this website and your experience.

• External Media

Individual Privacy Preferences

Cookie Details Privacy Policy Imprint

Here you will find an overview of all cookies used. You can give your consent to whole categories or display further information and select certain cookies.

Accept all Save

Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.

Show Cookie Information Hide Cookie Information

Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us to understand how our visitors use our website.

Content from video platforms and social media platforms is blocked by default. If External Media cookies are accepted, access to those contents no longer requires manual consent.

Privacy Policy Imprint

• Open access
• Published: 30 August 2022

Barriers and facilitators to clinical behaviour change by primary care practitioners: a theory-informed systematic review of reviews using the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Wheel

• Melissa Mather   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9746-0131 1 ,
• Luisa M. Pettigrew 2 , 3 &
• Stefan Navaratnam 4  

Systematic Reviews volume  11 , Article number:  180 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

6662 Accesses

10 Citations

11 Altmetric

Metrics details

Understanding the barriers and facilitators to behaviour change by primary care practitioners (PCPs) is vital to inform the design and implementation of successful Behaviour Change Interventions (BCIs), embed evidence-based medicine into routine clinical practice, and improve quality of care and population health outcomes.

A theory-led systematic review of reviews examining barriers and facilitators to clinical behaviour change by PCPs in high-income primary care contexts using PRISMA. Embase, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, HMIC and Cochrane Library were searched. Content and framework analysis was used to map reported barriers and facilitators to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and describe emergent themes. Intervention functions and policy categories to change behaviour associated with these domains were identified using the COM-B Model and Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW).

Four thousand three hundred eighty-eight reviews were identified. Nineteen were included. The average quality score was 7.5/11. Reviews infrequently used theory to structure their methods or interpret their findings. Barriers and facilitators most frequently identified as important were principally related to ‘ Knowledge ’, ‘ Environmental context and resources ’ and ‘ Social influences ’ TDF domains. These fall under the ‘Capability’ and ‘Opportunity’ domains of COM-B, and are linked with interventions related to education, training, restriction, environmental restructuring and enablement. From this, three key areas for policy change include guidelines, regulation and legislation. Factors least frequently identified as important were related to ‘Motivation’ and other psychological aspects of ‘Capability’ of COM-B. Based on this, BCW intervention functions of persuasion, incentivisation, coercion and modelling may be perceived as less relevant by PCPs to change behaviour.

Conclusions

PCPs commonly perceive barriers and facilitators to behaviour change related to the ‘Capability’ and ‘Opportunity’ domains of COM-B. PCPs may lack insight into the role that ‘Motivation’ and aspects of psychological ‘Capability’ have in behaviour change and/or that research methods have been inadequate to capture their function. Future research should apply theory-based frameworks and appropriate design methods to explore these factors. With no ‘one size fits all’ intervention, these findings provide general, transferable insights into how to approach changing clinical behaviour by PCPs, based on their own views on the barriers and facilitators to behaviour change.

Systematic review registration

A protocol was submitted to the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine via the Ethics and CARE form submission on 16.4.2020, ref number 21478 (available on request). The project was not registered on PROSPERO.

Peer Review reports

Known as the “second translational gap” [ 1 ], a gap in translation between evidence-based interventions and everyday clinical practice has been shown across different clinical areas and international settings [ 2 , 3 , 4 ], with numerous organisational and individual factors influencing clinical behaviour. Existing literature has shown that there is particularly wide variation in clinical behaviour in the primary care setting, which cannot be explained by case mix and clinical factors alone [ 5 , 6 ]. This variation is of particular concern, as it is widely accepted that primary care is the cornerstone of a strong healthcare system [ 7 ], and stronger primary care systems are generally associated with better and more equitable population health outcomes [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. With an ageing population and unique evolving challenges faced in primary care, understanding the contextual barriers and facilitators to successful behaviour change by primary care practitioners (PCPs) is vital to inform the design and implementation of successful behaviour change interventions (BCIs), and is likely to offer the greatest potential improvement in quality of care and population health outcomes.

Behaviour change interventions

Changing behaviour of healthcare professionals is not easy, but has been shown to be easier when evidence-based theory informs intervention development [ 12 ]. BCIs aimed at healthcare professionals have traditionally been related to incentivisation schemes, guidelines, educational outreach, audit and feedback, printed materials and reminders [ 13 , 14 ]. These have often emerged from approaches to understanding behaviour change, focused on individual attitude-intention processes [ 15 ] and theories emphasising self-interest [ 16 , 17 ]. However, the impact of these interventions on changing clinicians’ behaviour has been found to variable [ 18 ]. Within the context of primary care, attitude-intention processes may not fully explain (lack of) behaviour change, where PCPs face competing pressures, such as caring for multiple patients with limited time, identifying pathology among undifferentiated symptoms, coping with emotional situations, managing uncertainty and keeping up-to-date with substantial volumes of new evidence. Similarly, theories of self-interest may not fully translate to PCPs. BCIs are often implemented through collective action across teams or based on financial levers [ 19 , 20 , 21 ]; however, the organisational context where PCPs work can vary from a single or group community-based practices with variable payment systems [ 22 ]. Therefore, while other healthcare professionals, patients and carers are likely to offer valuable insights, understanding PCPs’ own perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to behaviour change by PCPs is a vital starting point.

Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Wheel

The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) of behaviour change [ 23 ] simplifies and integrates 33 theories and 128 key theoretical constructs related to behaviour change into a single framework for use across multiple disciplines. Theoretical constructs are grouped into 14 domains in the final paper by Michie et al. [ 24 ], encompassing individual, social and environmental factors, with the majority relating to individual motivation and capability factors [ 25 ] (Fig. 1 ). Skills can be subcategorised into cognitive and interpersonal, and physical, although cognitive and inter-personal skills are more relevant to primary care (Table 1 ).

The Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) [ 26 ] (above) and the relationship with the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) [ 25 ] (below)

The TDF has been widely used to examine clinical behaviour change in healthcare settings [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. Key advantages of the TDF include a comprehensive range of domains useful for synthesising large amounts of data [ 24 ] and the domains can be used to identify the types of interventions and policy strategies necessary to change those mechanisms of behaviour, using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) [ 26 ]. Developed by Michie et al., the BCW can be used to characterise interventions by their “functions” and link these to behavioural targets, categorised in terms of capability (individual capacity to engage in the activity concerned), opportunity (all the factors that lie outside the individual that make the behaviour possible or prompt it) and motivation (brain processes that energize and direct behaviour), known as the COM-B System. Capability encompasses not only individual physical capability, but also psychological capability, defined as the capacity to engage in the necessary thought processes using comprehension, reasoning etc. Strategies to modify behaviour can be identified based on salient TDF and COM-B domains [ 35 ].

The evidence gap

Never having been done before, the aims of this systematic review of reviews were to:

Identify barriers and facilitators to clinical behaviour change by PCPs through the theoretical lenses of the TDF and BCW, from the perspective of PCPs.

Help inform the future development and implementation of theory-led BCIs, to embed EBM into routine clinical practice, improve quality of care and population health outcomes.

A systematic review of reviews was deemed an appropriate method to address these aims, as the literature is substantial and heterogeneous. Existing reviews of reviews have looked at different types of effective BCIs, both in primary care [ 36 , 37 ] and in healthcare in general [ 18 ], however none have looked at barriers and facilitators to PCPs’ behaviour change, using both the TDF and BCW models as a theoretical basis.

We aimed to answer the following questions:

Which TDF domains are most frequently identified as important by PCPs when barriers and facilitators to clinical behaviour change by PCPs are mapped to the TDF framework?

What important themes emerge within these TDF domains?

What intervention functions and policy strategies from the COM-B Model and BCW link to these TDF domains, and what are the implication of this?

Guidance presented in the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis [ 38 ] was used as methodological guidance to conduct the review, which provides guidance for umbrella reviews synthesising qualitative and quantitative data on topics other than intervention effectiveness. This guidance, alongside a modified version of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 39 ], were used for reporting (Additional file 1 ).

A comprehensive database search strategy was devised by MM with assistance from a librarian from LSHTM. The search was conducted by MM on April 16th 2020 without date restriction, using the following databases: Embase (1947 to 2020 April 14), MEDLINE (1946 to April week 1 2020), PsychInfo (1806 to April week 1 2020), Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) (1979 to March 2020) and Cochrane Library (inception to April 2020). The full search strategies are shown in Additional file 2 .

In addition, grey literature was hand-searched by MM on the following websites: Public Health England [ 40 ], the University College London (UCL) Centre for Behaviour Change [ 41 ] and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Evidence Search [ 42 ]. After screening and selection, reference lists of the included reviews were screened for additional relevant reviews.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

To be included, articles had to be reviews of qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods empirical studies examining barriers and facilitators to clinical behaviour change by PCPs. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined using the PICo framework (Population, phenomena of Interest, Context) [ 43 ], to enable transparency and reproducibility. The element of ‘types of studies’ was added to specify types of evidence included (Table 2 ).

In most HIC settings, general practitioners/family doctors are the main providers of primary care, however often included a mix of PCPs (healthcare professionals working in primary care).

PCPs usually provide the mainstay of care in high-income settings. Common barriers and facilitators across a wide range of high-income settings provides stronger evidence for context-specific recommendations.

Types of studies:

The inclusion of all types of reviews (including but not limited to narrative and realist reviews, meta-ethnography and meta-aggregation) allows for a broader review of available literature and they are not bound by the specificity of systematic reviews [ 44 , 45 ].

Only reviews published in English were included.

Screening and selection

Results from database searches were exported to EndNote X9 software and deduplicated. Titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers (MM and SN). If the abstract contained insufficient information to determine eligibility, a copy of the full text was obtained. The full texts of articles meeting the inclusion criteria were obtained and reviewed. A standardised form including elements of the PICo framework was used at the full text review stage to identify relevant articles in a consistent way. Articles which could not be accessed online were obtained by contacting authors. Authors were also contacted to obtain clarification where eligibility was unclear. Reference lists of included articles were hand searched by MM and SN to identify additional relevant articles, subject to the same screening and selection processes described.

Quality appraisal

The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses [ 38 ] was used for quality appraisal, conducted independently by MM and SN. This tool was applicable to reviews of observational studies, which constituted the majority of the included articles; therefore, all reviews, regardless of their type, were subject to quality appraisal using the JBI checklist. This also allowed for consistency in scoring and easier comparison between the reviews. A scoring system was pre-defined using a small sample of five articles and guidance in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [ 38 ]. Some articles fulfilled some but not all of the criteria for each question, which was believed to be reasonable, therefore an additional ‘partial yes’ response was added to reflect this (Additional file 3 ). With a maximum score of 11, scores were used to indicate low (≤ 4 points), moderate (> 4 and < 8 points) and high (≥ 8 points) quality. As outlined by Pope and Mays [ 46 ], the value of specific pieces of qualitative research may only emerge during the synthesis process and may still offer valuable insights despite low quality. No articles were therefore excluded on the basis of low quality scores.

Data extraction

The JBI Data Extraction Form for Reviews of Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses [ 38 ] was adapted to extract relevant data from included reviews. A citation matrix was created to map the included empirical studies of each review and identify duplicate references.

Data analysis and synthesis

Data analysis was conducted independently by MM and SN. Previously reported analysis methods [ 25 , 47 ] were used to guide data analysis and synthesis methods. A combination of content and framework analysis was used, described in five steps:

Data extraction: full-text versions of the included articles were imported into NVivo software and data were extracted from results and discussion sections and supplementary files. Data included barriers, facilitators and factors which could be both barriers and facilitators.

Deductive analysis: extracted barriers, facilitators and factors were mapped to relevant TDF domains using component constructs of each domain, outlined by Cane et al. [ 24 ]. Almost all reported barriers and facilitators related to skills were cognitive and interpersonal, therefore the TDF domain ‘skills: physical’ was removed.

Counts were used to identify the most frequently-reported TDF domains. Owing to the vast amount of information across the included reviews, counts were also used to identify the TDF domains most frequently reported as important by authors. This was done in three ways: where authors explicitly stated they were important or salient, where they were most frequently reported where authors used frequency counts, and where authors highlighted or focused on them in the discussion section to draw main conclusions.

Inductive analysis: thematic analysis was conducted to identify emergent themes within the TDF domains most frequently identified as important to provide context to the role each barrier, facilitator and factor plays in hindering or facilitating clinical behaviour change. Owing to the vast amount of information across the included reviews, themes reported as important or salient by five or more reviews were labelled as important overall.

TDF domains most frequently identified as important were mapped to the COM-B model of the BCW to identify the associated intervention functions and policy categories.

Discrepancies between reviewers at the screening, selection, quality appraisal and analysis stages were discussed until a consensus was reached.

Search results and selection

Database searches identified 6308 records. After duplicates were removed, there were 4374 records remaining. An additional 14 articles were identified from grey literature and reference list searches. The vast majority of these articles were either not a review of empirical studies, or they did not focus on behaviour change. Where they did focus on behaviour change, they focused on patient behaviour change, rather than that of PCPs. One hundred and nine full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Clarification was sought from 19 authors on participant roles, search strategies and synthesis methods, and was obtained from 11 authors. Nineteen reviews [ 33 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 ] were included in the data synthesis (Fig. 2 ).

Flow chart [ 66 ] of review process

Characteristics of included reviews

Of the 19 included reviews, 17 [ 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 65 ] were systematic reviews and 2 [ 33 , 63 ] were narrative reviews. The reviews were all published between 2005 and 2020. Four hundred and one empirical studies were included in total across a wide range of settings and healthcare systems. Almost all studies were conducted in high-income countries, the majority of which were conducted in Europe, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Five studies (1%) were conducted in upper-middle-income countries, including Jordan, Turkey, South Africa and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Seven reviews [ 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 65 ] only included qualitative studies, two [ 54 , 55 ] only included quantitative studies, and 10 [ 33 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 ] included qualitative, quantitative and/or mixed methods studies. Most studies were observational, utilising qualitative interviews and/or focus groups, or cross-sectional surveys. A minority of observational studies from six [ 55 , 58 , 59 , 62 , 63 , 64 ] reviews were part of larger intervention studies.

More than 72,000 PCPs were included in total. Seven [ 33 , 48 , 49 , 52 , 55 , 63 , 64 ] reviews only reported general practitioner (GP) or family physician (FP) data and 12 [ 50 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 65 ] reported a mix of PCP data, the majority of which were GPs, FPs, and community paediatrics and obstetrics and gynaecology physicians. Of these, five reviews [ 51 , 56 , 60 , 62 , 65 ] included primary care non-physicians, including nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants. Seven reviews [ 50 , 52 , 53 , 56 , 58 , 61 , 65 ] examined behaviour related to clinical management of a range of topics, of which three specifically examined prescribing behaviour; four reviews [ 33 , 51 , 59 , 63 ] examined diagnostic processes; two [ 49 , 54 ] examined prevention; two [ 55 , 57 ] examined communication and engagement with patients; two [ 48 , 64 ] examined the practice of EBM in general; one [ 62 ] examined collaborative practice; and one [ 60 ] examined service provision. Eighteen studies were referenced by two reviews each due to overlapping phenomena of interest. The most common data synthesis methods were thematic/narrative synthesis and meta-ethnography, used by 13 reviews [ 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 65 ]. Six reviews [ 33 , 54 , 57 , 59 , 63 , 64 ] used framework synthesis; only three reviews [ 33 , 59 , 64 ] used existing theoretical frameworks or models, such as the TDF and COM-B. A summary of review characteristics is shown in Table 3 . Additional information is shown in Additional file 4 .

Quality of empirical studies

Three reviews [ 33 , 55 , 63 ] did not conduct quality appraisal, two of which [ 33 , 63 ] were narrative reviews. The remaining reviews used a wide range of appraisal tools to suit the type of data they included, which were primarily existing tools in their original or adapted forms. Five reviews [ 56 , 57 , 60 , 62 , 64 ] used more than one tool. The most common appraisal tools used were CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) Checklists [ 67 ] for qualitative and quantitative research, used by seven reviews [ 48 , 52 , 53 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 65 ]. There was large variation in how authors used the appraisal tools, therefore quality of studies could not be reliably compared between reviews. Detailed information is shown in Additional file 3 .

Quality of reviews

Ten reviews were of high quality, seven were of moderate-quality and two were of low quality using the JBI checklist. The highest score was 10.5/11 and the lowest was 3/11. The average score was 7.5/11, which is considered moderate quality. Reviews generally included well-evidenced recommendations for policy and practice and appropriate directives for future research. On validity, reviews scored highest on appropriate inclusion criteria for the review question, and appropriate methods used to combine studies. Reviews scored poorly on using an appropriate search strategy and assessing for publication bias. Most reviews did not justify search limits and/or did not provide evidence of a search strategy. Scores for each of the criteria are shown in Additional file 3 .

Main findings

A large number of barriers, facilitators and factors were identified by authors, often interacting with each other in a complex way (Table 4 ). As a result, some barriers and facilitators were mapped to more than one TDF domain. All TDF domains were identified. All reviews identified ‘environmental context and resources’ as important, and all but two reviews identified ‘knowledge’ and ‘social influences’ as important. TDF domains identified least frequently as important were ‘goals’, ‘intentions’ and ‘optimism’. Although ‘social/professional role and identity’, ‘skills’ and ‘emotion’ TDF domains were frequently identified, they were less frequently highlighted as important by authors. Table 4 shows how each TDF domain and COM-B domains were mapped to each of the included reviews, as well as which domains were identified as important.

Forty-two themes were identified in total across all TDF domains, 12 of which were labelled as important overall. A theme was labelled as important overall if five or more reviews identified it as important or salient. Within the ‘Knowledge’, ‘Environmental context and resources’, and ‘Social influences’ TDF domains, nine important themes emerged, of which the most frequently cited as important were ‘knowledge, awareness and uncertainty’ and ‘time, workload and general resources’. Across the remaining TDF domains, other important themes included ‘skills and competence’, ‘roles and responsibilities’, and ‘confidence in own ability’. Additional file 5 shows how themes were mapped to each TDF domain and each review, with corresponding quotes.

Capability: psychological (COM-B domain)

Knowledge (tdf domain).

Knowledge, awareness and uncertainty (theme)

Identified as important by 13 reviews [ 33 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 65 ] (average quality score 7.2/11).

Inadequate knowledge and awareness and uncertainty were identified as important barriers to depression diagnosis and management [ 51 , 56 ], recognition of insomnia [ 33 ], antibiotic prescribing in childhood infections [ 50 ] and acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) [ 65 ], engagement in cancer care [ 58 ], integration of genetics services [ 60 ], discussing smoking cessation [ 55 ], collaborative practice [ 62 ], management of multimorbidity [ 52 ], breast and colorectal screening in older adults [ 54 ] and chlamydia testing [ 59 , 63 ]. This varied from a lack of knowledge of the topic as a whole, to more specific skills or outcomes. For example, PCPs reported a lack of knowledge around the epidemiology and presentation of chlamydia, benefits of testing, how to take specimens, and treatment options [ 59 ]. When prescribing antibiotics for childhood infections and ARTIs, PCPs reported they tend to prescribe “just in case” when they are uncertain of the consequences of not prescribing, such as when the diagnosis is unclear, or where there is no established doctor-patient relationship [ 50 , 65 ]. There was widespread lack of knowledge within the field of genetics, including uncertainty around cancer genetics, genetic testing, genetic discrimination legislation, and local genetics service provision [ 60 ]. As well as a lack of knowledge of national guidelines and strategy [ 60 , 63 ], inadequate guidelines were reported to exacerbate a lack of knowledge. For example, a lack of attention in guidelines on how social problems affect response to depression management was reported to exacerbate PCPs’ uncertainty around their role in managing depression [ 56 ]. Lack of knowledge and uncertainty were frequently reported to cause discomfort, low confidence, and reluctance to fill certain roles.

Opportunity: physical (COM-B domain)

Environmental context and resources (tdf domain).

Time, workload and general resources (theme)

Identified as important by 13 reviews [ 33 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 63 , 64 ] (average quality score 7.3/11).

A lack of time to implement a variety of different tasks and clinical behaviours was reported, compounded by a large and complex workload and lack of general resources. A prominent barrier was time-pressured consultations, where PCPs reported difficulty in ensuring the clinician and parents are satisfied with the outcome when treating childhood infections [ 50 ], offering alternative interventions [ 53 ], listening to patients with depression [ 56 ], discussing emotions in cancer care [ 58 ] or smoking cessation with patients [ 55 ], introducing chlamydia testing and addressing sexual health-related concerns [ 63 ], recognising, diagnosing and managing child and adolescent mental health problems [ 61 ], and negotiating with patients [ 48 ]. PCPs also reported a lack of time to read and assess evidence and guidelines and reflect on their own practice [ 48 , 64 ].

Guidelines, evidence and decision-making tools (theme)

Identified as important by five reviews [ 48 , 52 , 58 , 64 , 65 ] (average quality score 7.8/11).

Guidelines were a common factor reported to affect clinical behaviour, including a lack of guidelines/guidance, questionable evidence-base, and a disjunction between guidelines and personal experience. For example, PCPs reported difficulty in adapting recommendations to individual patient circumstances and practical constraints of the consultation [ 48 , 51 , 52 ]. PCPs felt that some guidelines lack the necessary flexibility when taking patient preferences and multi-morbidity into account, which can add to complexity and even cause harm in some cases [ 52 , 64 ]. PCPs questioned the evidence-base of the guidelines due to low generalisability and narrow inclusion criteria of trials [ 48 , 64 ] and potential biased sources of research, such as pharmaceutical companies [ 64 ]. The validity of criteria used for depression diagnosis was also questioned, with national guideline criteria defining depressive disorders using symptom counts, as opposed to viewing it as a syndrome requiring aetiological and conceptual thinking [ 51 ]. For non-English PCPs, access to evidence and guidelines in their native language was reported as a major barrier to implementing EBM [ 64 ].

Financial resources and insurance coverage (theme)

Identified as important by 6 reviews [ 49 , 54 , 58 , 61 , 62 , 64 ] (average quality score 8/11).

Poor remuneration and increasing costs were common barriers reported in areas such as PCP involvement in cancer care [ 58 ], child and adolescent mental health [ 61 ] and use of EBM [ 64 ]. A major barrier to recognition and management of child and adolescent mental health problems and cancer in older adults was inadequate insurance coverage, including inadequate coverage of screening tests [ 54 ], restrictions on the number of funded therapy visits, and lack of psychiatrists [ 61 ]. As a result, increased reimbursement was identified as a potential facilitator that could increase child and adolescent mental health diagnoses [ 61 ].

Education and training (theme)

Identified as important by five reviews [ 33 , 59 , 63 , 64 , 65 ] (average quality score 5.7/11).

A lack of education and training was highlighted as an important barrier to chlamydia testing [ 59 , 63 ], recognition of insomnia [ 33 ], antibiotic prescribing [ 65 ], and use of EBM [ 64 ]. PCPs reported that undergraduate sexual health teaching is inadequate [ 63 ] and that they have a lack of appropriate training and skills to discuss sexual health, take a sexual history, offer a test, manage treatment and notify partners. This has led to a reduction in knowledge and confidence to offer testing and discuss sexual health [ 59 ]. More education and training for PCPs and undergraduate students was frequently cited as a facilitator, as PCPs felt this would increase knowledge and confidence to change behaviour. Older male PCPs were identified as potentially in need of specific education on sexual health due to cultural differences with some patients receiving chlamydia testing [ 59 ]. Some PCPs reported that trustworthy and knowledgeable educational sources are important for PCPs to feel added value, with peer-led educational meetings given as an example [ 65 ].

Opportunity: social (COM-B domain)

Social influences (tdf domain).

PCP-patient relationship and patient-centred care (theme)

Identified as important by nine reviews [ 48 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 65 ] (average quality score 8.2/11).

Some PCPs reported that preservation of the PCP-patient relationship is prioritised over adherence to guidelines, particularly if guidelines recommend rationing services, or if PCPs feel empathetic towards anxious patients [ 48 ]. This dilemma was described as unpleasant and against the principles of patient-centred medicine, but sometimes necessary to avoid the potential litigation that rationing might bring [ 48 ] and loss of patients to other practices [ 53 ]. Similarly, the desire to maintain a good relationship is sometimes in competition with the PCP’s rationing role, leading some PCPs to give patients a “quick fix” when prescribing benzodiazepines [ 53 ]. Although not always reported as important, sensitive and emotive areas of medicine appear to be particularly affected, with PCPs reporting a concern for depriving patients of hope and/or damaging the relationship if they engage in the process of ACP [ 57 ], cancer care [ 58 ], or offer chlamydia testing [ 63 ]. Specifically, PCPs worried about appearing discriminatory and judgemental towards patients by offering chlamydia testing [ 63 ], and being too intrusive and paternalistic in recommending behaviour change to patients to prevent CVD [ 49 ]. This appears to be compounded by different religious and cultural norms between the PCP and patient, particularly if patients are of non-heteronormative orientation [ 63 ].

Establishing a rapport with patients and developing a long-standing, trusting doctor-patient relationship was identified as a facilitator for information-sharing, depression diagnosis [ 51 ], multimorbidity management [ 52 ], changing prescribing behaviour of benzodiazepines [ 53 ] and PCP engagement in ACP [ 57 ].

Patient/carer characteristics (theme)

Identified as important by eight reviews [ 49 , 50 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 59 , 64 , 65 ] (average quality score 8/11).

The majority of reviews identified perceptions of patient/carer perceived ideas, concerns, expectations and motivations as important barriers to preventing CVD [ 49 ], prescribing antibiotics [ 50 , 65 ] and benzodiazepines [ 53 ], chlamydia testing [ 59 ], cancer screening in older adults [ 54 ], and implementing EBM [ 64 ]. Attitudes were often born from stigma towards patients with mental health problems, and cultural diversity between the PCP and patient. For example, PCPs were found to have ambivalent attitudes towards working with depressed people, with some PCPs describing them as “burdens” and “people who bore you” [ 56 ]. Ethnic minorities were also felt to somatise their depression, and patients with social problems were seen to be avoiding work or seeking to medicalise their problems. This was compounded by a perception that management of patients presenting with social problems is complex. These beliefs were considered alongside other complex external factors, such as perceived pressure from parents to prescribe antibiotics [ 50 ], patient expectations different from the evidence [ 64 ], and a reluctance to medicalise unhealthy lifestyles [ 49 ].

Collaboration and communication with other health professionals (theme)

Identified as important by seven reviews [ 49 , 52 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 62 , 65 ] (average quality score 7.8/11).

Poor communication and uncoordinated care between PCPs and specialists were reported to hinder medication overviews, creating a feeling of uncertainty around the role of the PCP [ 52 ]. This was compounded by the perception of hierarchy between doctors and nurses [ 62 ] and negative attitudes towards handing over power [ 59 ]. Co-management with specialists was identified as an important facilitator in CVD prevention, to reinforce specialist advice and strengthen cohesive care [ 49 ]. Specialist input was desired by some PCPs to improve the awareness of the complexity of multimorbidity among specialists and ensure all doctors ‘speak with one voice’ to avoid provoking distrust [ 52 ]. Discussion with peers and personal or local prescribing feedback were identified as important facilitators to changing antibiotic prescribing [ 65 ]. Multiple facilitators to collaboration between nurse and medical practitioners in primary care were also identified [ 62 ]. These ranged from knowing the practitioner and having a good working relationship, reciprocity without hierarchy and control, effective communication including the use of technology, mutual trust and respect, shared responsibility and support from medical practitioners.

Norms, stigma and attitudes (theme)

Identified as important by five reviews [ 56 , 59 , 60 , 63 , 65 ] (average quality score 6.6/11).

The belief that patients would feel stigmatised or embarrassed was identified as an important barrier to depression diagnosis [ 56 ], chlamydia testing [ 59 , 63 ], discussing family history and genetics [ 60 ] and antibiotic prescribing for ARTIs [ 65 ]. Stigma towards depression was seen as an important barrier to addressing psychosocial aspects of depression and commencing treatment amongst patients from the Caribbean and South Asia [ 56 ]. Stigmatising attitudes towards depressed, obese and elderly people was also reported to impact clinical decision-making [ 49 , 56 ] (see ‘Patient and carer characteristics’ section). A major facilitator to reduce stigma and raise awareness was the normalisation of chlamydia testing [ 63 ]. This may include formal policy, guidelines or government programmes, feedback on testing rates, different methods of testing such as urine samples, and the use of non-heteronormative terminology.

BCW intervention functions and policy categories

COM-B components and intervention functions linked to the three TDF domains most frequently identified as important are shown in Table 5 . Based on this, five intervention functions from the BCW were identified as most likely to be successful in changing clinical behaviour by PCPs. Associated with improving ‘capability’ are education (increasing knowledge or understanding), training (imparting skills) and enablement (promoting collective action across networks to overcome barriers, such as behavioural support for smoking cessation) interventions. Associated with improving social and physical ‘Opportunity’ are restriction (using rules to engage in the target behaviour), environmental restructuring (changing the physical or social context) and enablement interventions. The TDF domains ‘intentions’, ‘goals’ and ‘optimism’, which all map to the ‘motivation’ domain of the COM-B, were perceived as the least influential on clinical behaviour change by PCPs. As a result, BCW intervention functions including persuasion, incentivisation, coercion and modelling may be perceived as less relevant by PCPs to change behaviour.

Using the BCW, the three policy categories most commonly associated with supporting the delivery of the five intervention functions identified include guidelines (creating documents that recommend or mandate practice, including all changes to service provision), regulation (establishing rules or principles of behaviour or practice, such as establishing voluntary agreements on advertising), and legislation (making or changing laws, such as prohibiting sale or use) (Table 5 ).

Summary of main results

Evidence across all reviews was heterogeneous, examining 16 different clinical behaviours across a range of primary care settings and healthcare systems. Most reviews were of moderate-to-high quality. All themes identified from the included reviews could be mapped to at least one domain from the TDF. Barriers, facilitators and factors most commonly reported by PCPs were related to ‘knowledge’, ‘environmental context and resources’ and ‘social influences’. Within these domains, ‘knowledge, awareness and uncertainty’ and ‘time, workload and general resources’ were by far the most important themes. Not only did factors affect various clinical behaviours such as diagnosis, management, and communication and collaboration with patients and other healthcare professionals, factors were also linked to each other in a complex way, often exacerbating each other in specific contexts and circumstances. For example, a lack of knowledge and uncertainty amongst PCPs is exacerbated by a poor or unestablished PCP-patient relationship, lack of time and resources, as well as patient characteristics, such as comorbidities and social problems.

Five out of nine intervention functions from the BCW (education, training, restriction, environmental restructuring and enablement) can be linked to the three TDF domains reported as most important by PCPs to help change clinical behaviour. These can be delivered through all seven policy categories of the BCW, although those most frequently associated policy categories with all five intervention categories are guidelines, regulation and legislation.

The TDF domains ‘intentions’, ‘goals’ and ‘optimism’, which all map to the ‘motivation’ domain of the COM-B, were perceived as the least influential on clinical behaviour change by PCPs. The TDF domains ‘behavioural regulation’, ‘memory, attention and decision processes’, ‘emotion’, ‘beliefs about consequences’, ‘reinforcement’, and ‘beliefs about capabilities’ were also perceived by PCPs as less important barriers or facilitators to behaviour change. ‘Behavioural regulation’, and ‘memory, attention and decision processes’ relate to the psychological aspect of ‘capability’ and the others, again, relate to the ‘Motivation’ domain of COM-B. This is a surprising finding, as the central premise of the TDF model is that domains linked to all three areas of the COM-B (capability, opportunity and motivation) model should interact to produce behaviour [ 25 ].

Linked to the automatic and reflective ‘motivation’ domain of COM-B are BCW interventions related to incentivisation, persuasion, coercion and modelling. It is therefore also surprising to find that PCPs did not identify these as important barriers and/or facilitators as substantial evidence exists regarding the widespread use of interventions associated with incentives (e.g. financial pay for performance or reputational league tables—albeit with mixed effects, and those which may utilise persuasion, modelling and even coercion (e.g. peer-to-peer outreach or public reporting) to change aspects of PCP behaviour [ 14 , 68 , 69 , 70 ].

The limited frequency and importance given to aspects of psychological ‘Capability’ and ‘Motivation’ raises questions as to whether PCPs may have less insight into these areas or less desire to identify them as barriers or facilitator. It is possible they may be neglecting the role of brain processes involved in developing psychological capabilities, i.e. the capacity to engage in the necessary thought processes using comprehension and reasoning, and those that energize or direct behaviour, such as habitual processes, emotional responding and automatic decision-making. With most studies using qualitative interviews or cross-sectional surveys, questions may also have focused on domains researchers and BCI designers believed to be relevant, such as external factors including time, guidelines and patients.

Key policy implications

Based on our findings, three TDF domains were most commonly reported across the majority of reviews, regardless of the type of behaviour change and context. This suggests that addressing these common factors through associated BCW intervention functions of education, training, restriction, environmental restructuring and enablement, and applying associated policy categories—namely guidelines, regulation and legislation, if not already addressed, could be prioritised to encourage PCPs to change clinical practice where needed across most clinical behaviours and settings.

Strengths and limitations

The robustness of our findings is supported by several features. A broad, sensitive search strategy maximised the number of eligible reviews identified. Although the extent to which findings are applicable to a specific healthcare system or clinical context is unclear, reviews meeting the inclusion criteria focused on 16 types of clinical behaviours across a breadth of healthcare systems and included over 72,000 PCPs, providing a good starting point to identify commonalities across PCPs from a variety of different primary care settings.

Large amounts of heterogeneous data was summarised in a clear way using two evidence-based frameworks, however precise mapping of barriers, facilitators and factors to the TDF proved challenging, owing to the complex interplay between factors and interpretation of the authors of where they fitted. The integration of the TDF and BCW means important barriers and facilitators can be linked to practical strategies to address them, which does, however, rely on the validity of the frameworks themselves.

Future research

Only a minority of reviews utilised a theory-based framework to synthesise evidence. To maximise the likelihood of intervention success and encourage the use of common terminology and understanding, future research should synthesise evidence using theory-informed frameworks, such as the TDF, paying particular attention to barriers and facilitators to behaviour change associated with PCPs’ own automatic and reflective motivation, and other aspects of psychological capability related to behaviour change. Methods exploring PCP motivation and aspects of psychological capability, as well as methods less reliant on PCPs’ insight, such as direct observation, may provide more valid conclusions.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first theory-led systematic review of reviews examining barriers and facilitators to clinical behaviour change by PCPs across a variety of primary care settings using the TDF and BCW. From the evidence available, PCPs perceive that factors related to knowledge, environmental context and resources and social influences are influential across a variety of primary care contexts, often interacting with each other in a complex way. It is vital that future research utilises theory-based frameworks and appropriate design methods to explore factors relating to automatic and reflective motivation, such as habitual processes, emotional responding and automatic decision-making that energize or direct behaviour, as well as psychological capability of PCPs, including the capacity to engage in the necessary thought processes using comprehension, reasoning etc. With no ‘one size fits all’ intervention, these findings go some way to offering general, transferable lessons in how to approach changing clinical behaviour by PCPs and improve quality of care and population health outcomes.

Availability of data and materials

All data analysed during this study are included in this published article and its additional information files.

Abbreviations

Acute respiratory tract infection

Behaviour Change Intervention

• Behaviour Change Wheel

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme

Capability Opportunity Motivation Behaviour

Cardiovascular disease

Evidence-based medicine

• Family physician
• General practitioner

Health Management Information Consortium

Joanna Briggs Institute

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

Nurse practitioner

Primary care practitioner

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Theoretical Domains Framework

Woolf SH. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA. 2008;299(2):211–3.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sederer LI. Science to practice: making what we know what we actually do. Schizophr Bull. 2009;35(4):714–8.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Runciman WB, Hunt TD, Hannaford NA, Hibbert PD, Westbrook JI, Coiera EW, et al. CareTrack: assessing the appropriateness of health care delivery in Australia. Med J Aust. 2012;197(2):100–5.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet. 2003;362(9391):1225–30.

Brookes-Howell L, Hood K, Cooper L, Little P, Verheij T, Coenen S, et al. Understanding variation in primary medical care: a nine-country qualitative study of clinicians’ accounts of the non-clinical factors that shape antibiotic prescribing decisions for lower respiratory tract infection. BMJ Open. 2012;2(4):e000796.

Jaramillo E, Tan A, Yang L, Kuo Y-F, Goodwin JS. Variation among primary care physicians in prostate-specific antigen screening of older men. JAMA. 2013;310(15):1622–4.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Shi L. The impact of primary care: a focused review. Scientifica. 2012;2012:432892.

Starfield B. Policy relevant determinants of health: an international perspective. Health Policy. 2002;60:201–18.

Macinko J, Starfield B, Shi L. The contribution of primary care systems to health outcomes within Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, 1970-1998. Health Serv Res. 2003;38(3):831–65.

Niti M, Ng TP. Avoidable hospitalisation rates in Singapore, 1991–1998: assessing trends and inequities of quality in primary care. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(1):17–22.

Starfield B. Primary care and health: a cross-national comparison. In: Isaacs SL, Knickman JR, editors. Generalist medicine and the US health system, Chapter 11. Princeton: Robert Wood Johnson; 2004. p. 187–96.

Google Scholar  

Abraham C, Kelly MP, West R, Michie S. The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence public health guidance on behaviour change: a brief introduction. Psychol Health Med. 2009;14(1):1–8.

Grimshaw JMSL, Thomas R, et al. Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care. 2001;39(8):II2–45.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ahmed K, Hashim S, Khankhara M, Said I, Shandakumar AT, Zaman S, et al. What drives general practitioners in the UK to improve the quality of care? A systematic literature review. BMJ Open Qual. 2021;10(1):e001127.

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

Article   Google Scholar  

Laffont JJ, Martimort D. The theory of incentives: the principal-agent model. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2009.

Becker G. The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1976.

Book   Google Scholar  

Johnson MJ, May CR. Promoting professional behaviour change in healthcare: what interventions work, and why? A theory-led overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open. 2015;5(9):e008592.

Thornton PH, Ocasio W, Lounsbury M. The institutional logics perspective: a new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 248.

Hernes T. A process theory of organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.

Czarniawska B. A theory of organizing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd; 2008.

Berenson RA, Rich EC. US approaches to physician payment: the deconstruction of primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(6):613–8.

Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(1):26–33.

Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):37.

Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, O’Connor D, Patey A, Ivers N, et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):77.

Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42.

Michie S, Pilling S, Garety P, Whitty P, Eccles MP, Johnston M, et al. Difficulties implementing a mental health guideline: an exploratory investigation using psychological theory. Implement Sci. 2007;2(1):8.

Islam R, Tinmouth AT, Francis JJ, Brehaut JC, Born J, Stockton C, et al. A cross-country comparison of intensive care physicians’ beliefs about their transfusion behaviour: a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implement Sci. 2012;7:93.

McSherry LA, Dombrowski SU, Francis JJ, Murphy J, Martin CM, O’Leary JJ, et al. ‘It’s a can of worms’: understanding primary care practitioners’ behaviours in relation to HPV using the theoretical domains framework. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):73.

Duncan EM, Francis JJ, Johnston M, Davey P, Maxwell S, McKay GA, et al. Learning curves, taking instructions, and patient safety: using a theoretical domains framework in an interview study to investigate prescribing errors among trainee doctors. Implement Sci. 2012;7:86.

Bussières AE, Patey AM, Francis JJ, Sales AE, Grimshaw JM, the Canada PPT. Identifying factors likely to influence compliance with diagnostic imaging guideline recommendations for spine disorders among chiropractors in North America: a focus group study using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):82.

Murphy K, O’Connor DA, Browning CJ, French SD, Michie S, Francis JJ, et al. Understanding diagnosis and management of dementia and guideline implementation in general practice: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):31.

Ogeil RP, Chakraborty SP, Young AC, Lubman DI. Clinician and patient barriers to the recognition of insomnia in family practice: a narrative summary of reported literature analysed using the theoretical domains framework. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21(1):1.

Craig LE, McInnes E, Taylor N, Grimley R, Cadilhac DA, Considine J, et al. Identifying the barriers and enablers for a triage, treatment, and transfer clinical intervention to manage acute stroke patients in the emergency department: a systematic review using the theoretical domains framework (TDF). Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):157.

Richardson M, Khouja CL, Sutcliffe K, Thomas J. Using the theoretical domains framework and the behavioural change wheel in an overarching synthesis of systematic reviews. BMJ Open. 2019;9(6):e024950.

Chauhan BF, Jeyaraman MM, Mann AS, Lys J, Skidmore B, Sibley KM, et al. Behavior change interventions and policies influencing primary healthcare professionals' practice-an overview of reviews. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):3.

Lau R, Stevenson F, Ong BN, Dziedzic K, Treweek S, Eldridge S, et al. Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):40.

Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey C, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Chapter 10: Umbrella reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI manual for evidence synthesis; 2020.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. 2020. Available from: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ . Accessed 1 June 2020.

PHE. Public Health England (PHE). https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england . Accessed 16 Apr 2020.

Change UCfB. UCL centre for behaviour change. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/behaviour-change/ . Accessed 16 Apr 2020.

NICE. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evidence search: https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search . Accessed 16 Apr 2020.

Stern C, Jordan Z, McArthur A. Developing the review question and inclusion criteria. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(4):53–6.

Collins JA, Fauser BCJM. Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11(2):103–4.

Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, DeCorby K, Bucknall TK, Kent B, et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):33.

Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Hoboken: Wiley; 2013.

Graham-Rowe E, Lorencatto F, Lawrenson JG, Burr JM, Grimshaw JM, Ivers NM, et al. Barriers to and enablers of diabetic retinopathy screening attendance: a systematic review of published and grey literature. Diabet Med. 2018;35(10):1308–19.

Carlsen B, Glenton C, Pope C. Thou shalt versus thou shalt not: a meta-synthesis of GPs’ attitudes to clinical practice guidelines. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57(545):971–8.

Ju I, Banks E, Calabria B, Ju A, Agostino J, Korda RJ, et al. General practitioners’ perspectives on the prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ Open. 2018;8(11):e021137.

Lucas PJ, Cabral C, Hay AD, Horwood J. A systematic review of parent and clinician views and perceptions that influence prescribing decisions in relation to acute childhood infections in primary care. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2015;33(1):11–20.

Schumann I. Physicians’ attitudes, diagnostic process and barriers regarding depression diagnosis in primary care: a systematic review of qualitative studies; 2012.

Sinnott C, McHugh S, Browne J, Bradley C. GPs’ perspectives on the management of patients with multimorbidity: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. BMJ Open. 2013;3(9):e003610.

Sirdifield C, Anthierens S, Creupelandt H, Chipchase SY, Christiaens T, Siriwardena AN. General practitioners’ experiences and perceptions of benzodiazepine prescribing: systematic review and meta-synthesis. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:191.

Vedel I, Puts MTE, Monette M, Monette J, Bergman H. Barriers and facilitators to breast and colorectal cancer screening of older adults in primary care: a systematic review. J Geriatr Oncol. 2011;2(2):85–98.

Vogt F, Hall S, Marteau TM. General practitioners’ and family physicians’ negative beliefs and attitudes towards discussing smoking cessation with patients: a systematic review. Addiction. 2005;100(10):1423–31.

Barley EA, Murray J, Walters P, Tylee A. Managing depression in primary care: a meta-synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research from the UK to identify barriers and facilitators. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12:47.

De Vleminck A, Houttekier D, Pardon K, Deschepper R, van Audenhove C, Stichele RV, et al. Barriers and facilitators for general practitioners to engage in advance care planning: a systematic review. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2013;31(4):215–26.

Lawrence RA, McLoone JK, Wakefield CE, Cohn RJ. Primary care physicians’ perspectives of their role in cancer care: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(10):1222–36.

McDonagh LK, Saunders JM, Cassell J, Curtis T, Bastaki H, Hartney T, et al. Application of the COM-B model to barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice for young people and primary care practitioners: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):130.

Mikat-Stevens NA, Larson IA, Tarini BA. Primary-care providers’ perceived barriers to integration of genetics services: a systematic review of the literature. Genet Med. 2015;17(3):169–76.

O'Brien D, Harvey K, Howse J, Reardon T, Creswell C. Barriers to managing child and adolescent mental health problems: a systematic review of primary care practitioners’ perceptions. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66(651):e693–707.

Schadewaldt V, McInnes E, Hiller JE, Gardner A. Views and experiences of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners with collaborative practice in primary health care - an integrative review. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:132.

Yeung A, Temple-Smith M, Fairley C, Hocking J. Narrative review of the barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice. Aust J Prim Health. 2015;21(2):139–47.

Zwolsman S, te Pas E, Hooft L, Wieringa-de Waard M, van Dijk N. Barriers to GPs’ use of evidence-based medicine: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2012;62(600):e511–21.

Tonkin-Crine S, Yardley L, Little P. Antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in primary care: a systematic review and meta-ethnography. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66(10):2215–23.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

CASP. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) appraisal checklists. Available from: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/ . Accessed 1 June 2020.

Khan N, Rudoler D, McDiarmid M, Peckham S. A pay for performance scheme in primary care: Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on the provider experiences of the quality and outcomes framework in the UK. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21(1):142.

Eijkenaar F, Emmert M, Scheppach M, Schoffski O. Effects of pay for performance in health care: A systematic review of systematic reviews. Health Policy. 2013;110(2-3):115–30.

Campanella P, Vukovic V, Parente P, Sulejmani A, Ricciardi W, Specchia ML. The impact of public reporting on clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:296.

Download references

Acknowledgements

LP is funded by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Doctoral Research Fellowship. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

This review was led by MM as her Master’s in Public Health thesis at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), no funding was received for this. LP is funded by a NIHR Doctoral Research Fellowship. No funding was received by SN.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Tunbridge Wells Hospital, Tonbridge Road, Pembury, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN2 4QJ, UK

Melissa Mather

Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Pl, London, WC1H 9SH, UK

Luisa M. Pettigrew

UCL Department of Primary Care and Population Health, UCL Medical School, Upper Third Floor, Rowland Hill Street, London, NW3 2PF, UK

Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust, North Devon District Hospital, Raleigh Heights, Barnstaple, EX31 4JB, UK

Stefan Navaratnam

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MM co-designed the project title and methods, conducted the searches, screening, selection, quality appraisal, data extraction, data analysis and synthesis, and drafted the report. LP co-designed the project title and methods and revised the draft. SN conducted screening, selection, quality appraisal, data extraction and data analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa Mather .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

PRISMA checklist.

Additional file 2.

Search strategy. Search concepts, keywords and MeSH terms used to derive search strategies. Search strategy.

Additional file 3.

Quality appraisal. Adapted scoring system for the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. Quality of empirical studies: appraisal instruments and quality scores. Quality appraisal criteria.

Additional file 4.

Additional data. Characteristics of included reviews.

Additional file 5.

Evidence mapping. Mapping of emergent themes to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Evidence table.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mather, M., Pettigrew, L.M. & Navaratnam, S. Barriers and facilitators to clinical behaviour change by primary care practitioners: a theory-informed systematic review of reviews using the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Wheel. Syst Rev 11 , 180 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02030-2

Download citation

Received : 13 April 2022

Accepted : 17 July 2022

Published : 30 August 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02030-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Primary care
• Family medicine
• General practice
• Family doctor
• Theoretical domains framework
• Behaviour change
• Quality improvement

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

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

A detailed analysis of the improved modified Korteweg-de Vries equation via the Jacobi elliptic function expansion method and the application of truncated M-fractional derivatives

• Farooq, Aamir
• Khan, Muhammad Ishfaq
• Nisar, Kottakkaran Sooppy
• Shah, Nehad Ali

Using the Jacobi elliptic function expansion method, which is improved by the novel use of truncated M-fractional derivatives, we thoroughly analyze the improved modified Korteweg-de Vries problem in this paper. Not only does this method provide new insight into the improved modified Korteweg-de Vries Equation, but it also represents a giant leap forward for nonlinear differential equations. Periodic, solitary, and trigonometric waves are among the answers found by us; all of them have important consequences for mathematical physics and engineering. The MATLAB-generated visual representations of our results are crucial because they provide a concrete shape to the once intangible mathematical ideas. In addition to showing the solutions, these images highlight the waves' dynamic behaviors and stability under various conditions, providing a better understanding of the physical processes that the improved modified Korteweg-de Vries equation attempts to explain. The graphic representations in this study demonstrate how the equation can be used to simulate complicated systems in many scientific disciplines. The relevance of our findings goes beyond only theoretical studies. Our study lays the groundwork for more accurate predictive models in fields including quantum physics, optical fibers, and fluid dynamics by giving exact and concrete solutions to the improved modified Korteweg-de Vries equation. The combination of the Jacobi Elliptic Function Expansion Method with truncated M-fractional derivatives provides a robust framework for solving comparable complicated differential equations, which in turn opens up new research and development opportunities. Overall, this research both deepens our understanding of the Improved Modified Korteweg-de Vries equation and provides more evidence that theoretical mathematics can be useful in solving practical problems. Mathematical modeling and computational visualization have the potential to make substantial contributions to engineering and the sciences, and our results support a multidisciplinary approach to study.

• Exact Solutions;
• Improved Modified Kortwedge-de Vries Equation;
• Truncated M-fractional derivative;
• Jacobi Elliptic Function Expansion Method