theory based dissertation

• Translators
• Graphic Designers
• Editing Services
• Academic Editing Services
• Admissions Editing Services
• Admissions Essay Editing Services
• AI Content Editing Services
• APA Style Editing Services
• Application Essay Editing Services
• Book Editing Services
• Business Editing Services
• Capstone Paper Editing Services
• Children's Book Editing Services
• College Application Editing Services
• College Essay Editing Services
• Copy Editing Services
• Developmental Editing Services
• Dissertation Editing Services
• eBook Editing Services
• English Editing Services
• Horror Story Editing Services
• Legal Editing Services
• Line Editing Services
• Manuscript Editing Services
• MLA Style Editing Services
• Novel Editing Services
• Paper Editing Services
• Personal Statement Editing Services
• Research Paper Editing Services
• Résumé Editing Services
• Scientific Editing Services
• Short Story Editing Services
• Statement of Purpose Editing Services
• Substantive Editing Services
• Thesis Editing Services

Proofreading

• Proofreading Services
• Admissions Essay Proofreading Services
• Children's Book Proofreading Services
• Legal Proofreading Services
• Novel Proofreading Services
• Personal Statement Proofreading Services
• Research Proposal Proofreading Services
• Statement of Purpose Proofreading Services

Translation

• Translation Services

Graphic Design

• Graphic Design Services
• Dungeons & Dragons Design Services
• Sticker Design Services
• Writing Services

Please enter the email address you used for your account. Your sign in information will be sent to your email address after it has been verified.

6 Steps to Mastering the Theoretical Framework of a Dissertation

As the pivotal section of your dissertation, the theoretical framework will be the lens through which your readers should evaluate your research. It's also a necessary part of your writing and research processes from which every written section will be built.

In their journal article titled Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your "house" , authors Cynthia Grant and Azadeh Osanloo write:

The theoretical framework is one of the most important aspects in the research process, yet is often misunderstood by doctoral candidates as they prepare their dissertation research study. The importance of theory-driven thinking and acting is emphasized in relation to the selection of a topic, the development of research questions, the conceptualization of the literature review, the design approach, and the analysis plan for the dissertation study. Using a metaphor of the "blueprint" of a house, this article explains the application of a theoretical framework in a dissertation. Administrative Issues Journal

They continue in their paper to discuss how architects and contractors understand that prior to building a house, there must be a blueprint created. This blueprint will then serve as a guide for everyone involved in the construction of the home, including those building the foundation, installing the plumbing and electrical systems, etc. They then state, We believe the blueprint is an appropriate analogy of the theoretical framework of the dissertation.

As with drawing and creating any blueprint, it is often the most difficult part of the building process. Many potential conflicts must be considered and mitigated, and much thought must be put into how the foundation will support the rest of the home. Without proper consideration on the front end, the entire structure could be at risk.

With this in mind, I'm going to discuss six steps to mastering the theoretical framework section—the "blueprint" for your dissertation. If you follow these steps and complete the checklist included, your blueprint is guaranteed to be a solid one.

Complete your review of literature first

In order to identify the scope of your theoretical framework, you'll need to address research that has already been completed by others, as well as gaps in the research. Understanding this, it's clear why you'll need to complete your review of literature before you can adequately write a theoretical framework for your dissertation or thesis.

Simply put, before conducting any extensive research on a topic or hypothesis, you need to understand where the gaps are and how they can be filled. As will be mentioned in a later step, it's important to note within your theoretical framework if you have closed any gaps in the literature through your research. It's also important to know the research that has laid a foundation for the current knowledge, including any theories, assumptions, or studies that have been done that you can draw on for your own. Without performing this necessary step, you're likely to produce research that is redundant, and therefore not likely to be published.

Understand the purpose of a theoretical framework

When you present a research problem, an important step in doing so is to provide context and background to that specific problem. This allows your reader to understand both the scope and the purpose of your research, while giving you a direction in your writing. Just as a blueprint for a home needs to provide needed context to all of the builders and professionals involved in the building process, so does the theoretical framework of your dissertation.

So, in building your theoretical framework, there are several details that need to be considered and explained, including:

• The definition of any concepts or theories you're building on or exploring (this is especially important if it is a theory that is taken from another discipline or is relatively new).
• The context in which this concept has been explored in the past.
• The important literature that has already been published on the concept or theory, including citations.
• The context in which you plan to explore the concept or theory. You can briefly mention your intended methods used, along with methods that have been used in the past—but keep in mind that there will be a separate section of your dissertation to present these in detail.
• Any gaps that you hope to fill in the research
• Any limitations encountered by past researchers and any that you encountered in your own exploration of the topic.
• Basically, your theoretical framework helps to give your reader a general understanding of the research problem, how it has already been explored, and where your research falls in the scope of it. In such, be sure to keep it written in present tense, since it is research that is presently being done. When you refer to past research by others, you can do so in past tense, but anything related to your own research should be written in the present.

Use your theoretical framework to justify your research

In your literature review, you'll focus on finding research that has been conducted that is pertinent to your own study. This could be literature that establishes theories connected with your research, or provides pertinent analytic models. You will then mention these theories or models in your own theoretical framework and justify why they are the basis of—or relevant to—your research.

Basically, think of your theoretical framework as a quick, powerful way to justify to your reader why this research is important. If you are expanding upon past research by other scholars, your theoretical framework should mention the foundation they've laid and why it is important to build on that, or how it needs to be applied to a more modern concept. If there are gaps in the research on certain topics or theories, and your research fills these gaps, mention that in your theoretical framework, as well. It is your opportunity to justify the work you've done in a scientific context—both to your dissertation committee and to any publications interested in publishing your work.

Keep it within three to five pages

While there are usually no hard and fast rules related to the length of your theoretical framework, it is most common to keep it within three to five pages. This length should be enough to provide all of the relevant information to your reader without going into depth about the theories or assumptions mentioned. If you find yourself needing many more pages to write your theoretical framework, it is likely that you've failed to provide a succinct explanation for a theory, concept, or past study. Remember—you'll have ample opportunity throughout the course of writing your dissertation to expand and expound on these concepts, past studies, methods, and hypotheses. Your theoretical framework is not the place for these details.

If you've written an abstract, consider your theoretical framework to be somewhat of an extended abstract. It should offer a glimpse of the entirety of your research without going into a detailed explanation of the methods or background of it. In many cases, chiseling the theoretical framework down to the three to five-page length is a process of determining whether detail is needed in establishing understanding for your reader.

Use models and other graphics

Since your theoretical framework should clarify complicated theories or assumptions related to your research, it's often a good idea to include models and other helpful graphics to achieve this aim. If space is an issue, most formats allow you to include these illustrations or models in the appendix of your paper and refer to them within the main text.

Use a checklist after completing your first draft

You should consider the following questions as you draft your theoretical framework and check them off as a checklist after completing your first draft:

• Have the main theories and models related to your research been presented and briefly explained? In other words, does it offer an explicit statement of assumptions and/or theories that allows the reader to make a critical evaluation of them?
• Have you correctly cited the main scientific articles on the subject?
• Does it tell the reader about current knowledge related to the assumptions/theories and any gaps in that knowledge?
• Does it offer information related to notable connections between concepts?
• Does it include a relevant theory that forms the basis of your hypotheses and methods?
• Does it answer the question of "why" your research is valid and important? In other words, does it provide scientific justification for your research?
• If your research fills a gap in the literature, does your theoretical framework state this explicitly?
• Does it include the constructs and variables (both independent and dependent) that are relevant to your study?
• Does it state assumptions and propositions that are relevant to your research (along with the guiding theories related to these)?
• Does it "frame" your entire research, giving it direction and a backbone to support your hypotheses?
• Are your research questions answered?
• Is it logical?
• Is it free of grammar, punctuation, spelling, and syntax errors?

A final note

In conclusion, I would like to leave you with a quote from Grant and Osanloo:

The importance of utilizing a theoretical framework in a dissertation study cannot be stressed enough. The theoretical framework is the foundation from which all knowledge is constructed (metaphorically and literally) for a research study. It serves as the structure and support for the rationale for the study, the problem statement, the purpose, the significance, and the research questions. The theoretical framework provides a grounding base, or an anchor, for the literature review, and most importantly, the methods and analysis. Administrative Issues Journal

Related Posts

How To Write a Rhetorical Analysis Essay

Understanding Dependent Variables

• Academic Writing Advice
• All Blog Posts
• Writing Advice
• Admissions Writing Advice
• Book Writing Advice
• Short Story Advice
• Employment Writing Advice
• Business Writing Advice
• Web Content Advice
• Article Writing Advice
• Magazine Writing Advice
• Grammar Advice
• Dialect Advice
• Editing Advice
• Freelance Advice
• Legal Writing Advice
• Poetry Advice
• Graphic Design Advice
• Logo Design Advice
• Translation Advice
• Blog Reviews
• Short Story Award Winners
• Scholarship Winners

Need an academic editor before submitting your work?

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper

What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing

Published on October 14, 2022 by Sarah Vinz . Revised on November 20, 2023 by Tegan George.

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 paper or dissertation topic is relevant and grounded in established ideas.

In other words, your theoretical framework justifies and contextualizes 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.

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, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about theoretical frameworks.

Before you start your own research, it’s crucial to familiarize 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 generalizations .

• In literature , a scholar using postmodernist literary theory would analyze The Great Gatsby differently than a scholar using Marxist literary theory.
• In psychology , a behaviorist 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.

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 summarizing 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
• Organize by theory cluster
• Organize by date

It’s important that the information in your theoretical framework is clear for your reader. Make sure to ask a friend to read this section for you, or use a professional proofreading service .

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 .

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

• Survivorship bias
• Self-serving bias
• Availability heuristic
• Halo effect
• Hindsight 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

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.

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, November 20). What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing. Scribbr. Retrieved April 5, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/theoretical-framework/

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 research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

• Coaching Services
• All Articles
• Is Dissertation Coaching for Me?
• Dissertation First Steps
• Research Strategies
• Writing Workshop
• Books & Courses & Other Resources
• Professional Development
• In The Media

What is Theory and How to Use it in Your Dissertation

A key question for many dissertation students just getting started on their proposals is, “what is theory in dissertations, anyway?”

A post on the topic of “what is theory” could expand to fill a whole book – and indeed, many books have been written on this topic. this post is your quick intro guide to theory for dissertation students..

What is theory?

Theory at the most basic level is an attempt to explain something..

When you conduct research, you will come across two types of source: theory and applied research. If you see a source that describes finding participants, gathering data, analyzing data, and so on, you are most likely looking at applied research. This type of research gathers data in an attempt to develop or test a theory.

On the other hand, if you see a source that attempts to provide an overarching explanation, you are looking at theory. There are a lot of theories out there. For example, feminist theory attempts to provide an overarching explanation for the unequal treatment of women in society. Addiction theory attempts to explain how and why people become addicted. And so on.

Theories are not set in stone. Researchers – including dissertation students – seek to test, disprove, or build theories. It’s worth remembering that you can never prove a theory correct with research, although you can add to its strength and validity.

What is a theoretical framework?

A theoretical framework is the particular theory you choose to give direction and focus to your dissertation research study..

Your chosen theory will determine how you present the context and problem statement, how you choose your research questions, what you include in your literature review, and how you interpret your data.

Theory and the Context, Research Questions, and Problem Statement

Theory will help you determine how you present the context of your study..

It provides a lens through which you filter the topic, allowing you to present the background information in a way that relates logically to your research questions. It also enables you to choose specific research questions that relate to a theory-specific problem.

For example, (some) feminist research focuses specifically on social problems as they relate to women. A researcher approaching the problem of underaged drinking via feminist theory might therefore choose to ask questions about the impact of underaged drinking on violence toward women, the impact of underaged drinking women’s professional trajectories, and so on. The researcher will most likely aim to address a problem relating to the social impact on women of underaged drinking.

The same researcher will probably choose to present background information relating to gender differences in underaged drinking convictions, drop-out rates for underaged female college students, and so on.

Theory and the Lit Review

Your literature review will need to begin by presenting your theoretical framework in detail..

Your reader needs to know what theory you have chosen to work with, why you have chosen it, how it addresses your chosen problem and questions, and whether you are seeking to test it, disprove it, or add to/replace it.

You should aim to summarize key ideas and historical developments in the theory, as well as presenting the main theorists and the work currently being done with the theory in your field.

Theory and the Study Design/Methodology

Theorists have also explored the question of how and why research happens, which means you will need to touch on theory in your methodology..

First, aim to explain the theory that underpins your chosen method. Why is that method perfect for the questions you are trying to answer, at a theoretical level? A good book on research design or theory of research will help enormously when it comes to answering this question.

Second, aim to show how your chosen theoretical framework can be applied to your study design. For example, a researcher using feminist theory might want to describe the appropriateness of qualitative methods for substantiating women’s voices and lived experiences.

Theory and Data Analysis

Finally, you will want to use your theoretical framework as a starting point for interpreting your data to answer your research questions..

You can start by asking yourself some basic questions, such as:

• Does my data support or refute some part of the theory?
• Does my data suggest a modification is needed to the existing theory?
• Is a new theory needed to explain my data?
• Can the theory help explain the significance of my data?

Assuming you chose a theoretical framework well aligned to your research questions, these sorts of approaches to the data will help you answer the research questions systematically and logically.

How to Get Good at Theory

Read. thank you and goodnight..

But seriously, the only way to get good at using theory is to get comfortable with it – read everything you can until you understand your theory inside and out. Read other studies in your field to see how others are engaging with the theory. Apply the theory to everything in your everyday life until your friends and family stop speaking to you.

Theory is complex and difficult – mastering it is part of what makes you a researcher.

Need more help?

Need some help developing your theoretical framework? Book a free session to find out how dissertation coaching can help.

Related Articles

• Current Issue
• Journal Archive
• Current Call

Search form

Building a Dissertation Conceptual and Theoretical Framework: A Recent Doctoral Graduate Narrates Behind the Curtain Development

Dr. Jordan Tegtmeyer

This article examines the development of conceptual and theoretical frameworks through the lens of one doctoral student’s qualitative dissertation. Using Ravitch and Carl’s (2021) conceptual framework guide, each key component is explored, using my own dissertation as an example. Breaking down each framework section step-by-step, my journey illustrates the iterative process that conceptual framework development requires. While not every conceptual framework is developed in the same way, this iterative approach allows for the production of a robust and sound conceptual framework.

Introduction

While progressing on my doctoral journey I struggled to learn, and then navigate, what it meant to do quality academic research. While I had worked in higher education for over 15 years when I entered into my doctoral program in Higher Education at Penn, and had earned multiple master’s degrees, I felt wholly unprepared to complete a dissertation. It felt, at first, beyond my reach. Now that I have completed the dissertation, my hope is to pay it forward by sharing reflections on the process as a guide to help other researchers navigate the development of a robust conceptual and theoretical framework for their own dissertations.

My journey into this doctoral inquiry began before I even realized it. I entered the program with a strong idea of what I wanted to study but no “academic” frameworks to help me chart the journey. Little did I know that that is in fact what conceptual frameworks do, they help guide you from early ideation to a finalized study. The turning point in my own learning, let’s call it an epiphany of sorts, happened in a qualitative research methods course that introduced Ravitch and Carl’s Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological. I was introduced to the basic concepts needed to turn my own research ideas into actionable research questions. While this was not the only source to guide me on this journey, conversations with peers and professionals, other courses and independent studies also moved me along, it was reading this text that gave me the academic terminology and frameworks I needed to build a robust and rigorous dissertation research design.

To guide the development of strong conceptual and theoretical frameworks I use Ravitch and Carl’s (2021) components of a conceptual framework graphic (p. 38) below:

Using this visual of the framework as a guide, I share how I developed and used theoretical frameworks in a case study dissertation and how the development of my conceptual framework played out in my study. 

Building a Dissertation Study

For context, I describe my dissertation study to bridge the theoretical with the reality of my dissertation. Seeing these ideas and terms applied in a real-world context should provide some guidance on how to address them in the construction of your own conceptual framework.

My dissertation study examined gender equity in college sports, specifically examining institutional characteristics and their potential impact on Title IX compliance. Using case study research, I examined two institutions and then contrasted them to see if there were particular characteristics about those institutions that made them more likely to comply with Title IX’s three-part test. Overall, the study found that there are some institutional characteristics that impact Title IX compliance.

The evolution of a research idea into a study design is useful for understanding the impact that developing a conceptual framework has on this work. Adding the academic structure required to go from idea to fully realized conceptual framework is integral to a sound study. Going into the doctoral program I had a couple of broad ideas I wanted to bring together in a formal study. I knew I wanted to study college sports for a number of reasons including that I am a huge sports fan working in higher education who wanted to better understand the college sports context. I also wanted to integrate issues of gender disparities into my work to better understand disparities around athletic participation between the sexes as outlined by Title IX legislation. For me, the goal was  to bring these broad topics and interests together. Turning these topics into a problem my study could address was critical. Once I made this shift to problem statement, it became about transitioning from problem to research questions from which I could use to drive the potential study.

Understanding this evolution, from a research idea into a study design, is important as it speaks to the understanding the two are not the same. A researcher has to work through an iterative process in order to take a research idea, and through developing their study’s conceptual framework, turn it into a study. Starting with research interests you are passionate about is important, but it is only the first step in a journey to a high-quality research study. For me this meant understanding what made my ideas important and how they could be studied. Why was gender equity in college sports important and what was causing the inequities in athletic participation between the genders? Say a bit more on this–how did you do this?

Developing Guiding Research Questions        

I began with the Ravitch and Carl (2021) conceptual framework diagram as a guide, starting with the research questions positioned at the top. It's important to note that the development of research questions is an active and iterative process that evolves and changes over time. Looking back at notes I took throughout my dissertation journey, I found at least a dozen different iterations of my own research questions. Looking back at the evolution of my own research question, allowed me to see just how iterative of a process this really is. Second, developing research questions is largely about whittling down your broad ideas and interests into something that is scoped in such a way as to be doable.

For me, I started with these broad areas of interest and whittled them down from there, focusing and iterating. Next, I sought to understand the goals of my study and who the intended audiences were (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). I knew I wanted to develop something that was useful for practitioners. Being a higher education practitioner myself, I wanted something people in the field could use and learn from. Knowing this was extremely important to developing the study’s research questions since it helped me to map them onto the goals and audiences I imagined for the study.

The research questions should address the problem you are trying to solve and why it's important (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). For me, the goal was to explore what was causing gender athletic participation inequities and how that fit into broader gender disparities in higher education and the country .

My final research questions show how far they had come from my topics of interest.

• What is the relationship between gender and varsity participation opportunities in collegiate sports?
• What is the relationship of institutional characteristics to gender equity in collegiate sports participation?

Additional questions related to institutional characteristics are:

• What is the range and variation of institutional characteristics among schools that are in compliance with the three-part test of Title IX?
• How do contextual factors mediate their compliance?

At first these questions focused on understanding gender disparities in regards to athletic participation opportunities in college sports. I sought to understand the extent of the disparities and which institutions had them. From there I wanted to understand potential institutional characteristics that could serve as predictors of Title IX compliance. For this, I wanted to explore the impact general institutional characteristics like, undergraduate gender breakdown, might have on creating potential difficulties with navigating Title IX compliance. It was important to investigate the similarities and differences between the two cases in my study. This would help inform whether there were unique things about each institution that were having an effect on Title IX compliance at that institution. This was about understanding what is happening at each of the cases and the reason I chose the methodological approach I did.

Developing Study Goals

A study’s goals are the central part of the conceptual framework as they help turn an interest or concern into a research study. Goal mapping for a study is this process that maps out, or theoretically frames the key goals of the study (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). The study’s goals come from many different sources including personal and professional goals, prior research, existing theory, and a researcher’s own thoughts, interests, and values (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). In my dissertation study, it was a combination of all of those things, although I didn’t realize it at first. The truth is, I didn’t realize I was building conceptual and theoretical frameworks at the time, but in fact I was incrementally building up to them. I talked with experts, advisors, my professors, mentors, academic peers and practitioners to slowly build my own contextual understanding of the research questions, theory, and methodology along the way.

The study goals for my dissertation emerged from multiple vantage points. I thought it was senseless that after 50 years of Title IX, schools were still ignoring the law (willfully or not). Some of the best athletes I’ve known have been women, including my sister. This gave me an appreciation for women’s sports at an early age. From a practitioner-scholar’s standpoint, I didn’t see anything that was usable in “real life.” At least nothing that didn’t require a law degree or extensive knowledge of the law, something most people do not have. I had also come across Charles Kennedy’s 2007 Gender Equity Scorecard in a prior class that gave me the idea for the compliance model. This study was designed to measure schools’ compliance with various aspects of Title IX, but only examined the proportionality requirement of the three-part test (Kennedy, 2007). This was a good start because it provided a template from which to assess compliance when examining gender equity in college sports but helped me to see the need for an easy-to-understand model that covered all aspects of the three-part test that practitioners could use on their own campuses. As a way to better understand Title IX compliance among institutions I then built the compliance model that addressed the entire three-part test with a lawyer friend and used it to do an almost test run of the sampling.

Lastly, as I refined my topic, there seemed to be something missing from the literature. This missing piece gave me the idea for merging the theoretical and the practical dimensions of Title IX compliance within the context of college athletics. A compliance model, using a legal and statutory approach but also grounded in theory, that could be used by practitioners in real life. This model could then help researchers understand why Title IX non-compliance was still an issue today. For me and my study, applying this model to publicly available data, helped to understand why women athletes are not getting their fair share of athletic participation opportunities guaranteed by a law passed over 50 years ago. This process of having to seek out data, taught me the continued need for a proactive approach to measuring compliance with all the participation aspects of Title IX.

Understanding Contexts of the Work

Understanding the contexts of your intended study is critical as it helps set the stage for your study’s position in the real world. Knowing the actual setting of your study and its context are important as it speaks to the micro contexts. The who and what aspects of that setting are central to your research. It is this context within the context that helps us understand the aspects that influence what we study and how we frame the study (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). At the micro level, my study sought to focus on the institutional structures and workings of two universities. I chose case study research because it allowed me to focus on those two institutions, and that was very intentional, as I wanted to understand their specific institutional structures and their potential impacts on Title IX compliance.

Understanding the macro level contexts impacting my study was also important. It is the combination of social, historical, national, international, and global level contexts that create the conditions in which your study is conducted. As Ravitch and Carl (2021) state it is these broad contexts “that shape society and social interactions, influence the research topic, and affect the structure and conditions of the settings and the lives of the people at the center of your research and you” (p. 52). This has two important implications for conceptual framework development. First, it is important to investigate and thoroughly understand the setting of the study that reflects the conditions as lived by the stakeholders (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). As you design your study it is important to consider what’s happening in that moment and how your study is situated in a specific moment in time which impacts both the context and setting of your study but also how you come to view and approach it (Ravitch & Carl, 2021).

For my dissertation, understanding college sports and higher education in the broadest sense was important when thinking about the macro contexts influencing my study. Things like: how does the NCAA and conferences play a role in this area? How does higher education handle gender equity in college sports as it relates to the missions of the institutions? And even more broadly, how does this study fit into broader societal structures regarding equality? Given everything that was going on in college sports at the time (issues at the NCAA’s women’s basketball tournament, volleyball, softball), the contexts illustrated the broader need for understanding this issue in that moment of time. This illuminates the importance of taking the time to understand the different contexts impacting your study and why they are important.

Researcher Reflexivity

When thinking about social identity and positionality, it is vital to understand that the researcher is viewed as a vital part of the study itself, the primary instrument and filter of interpretation (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). Positionality refers to the researcher’s role and social identity in relationship to the context and setting of the research. I think of this as what we as researchers bring to the table—who we are and what we know and how that impacts what we do and how we do it. Understanding how these aspects of oneself all interact and make me who I am, while also understanding my potential impact on my research is critical to a strong conceptual framework.

For my study, I worried about my positionality in particular: my gender and my fandom. I was worried my various identities would influence my approach negatively in ways I would be unaware of. I, someone who identifies as male, wanted to be taken seriously while addressing a gender equity issue from a privileged gender position. I also didn’t want to overlook or discount anything because of who I am and how I viewed the world of college sports. This illuminates the importance of understanding one’s identities and their potential impact on the study. There were numerous ways I addressed this through the study including engaging my critical inquiry group, drafting memos, and using a researcher interview to elicit self-reflection.

Theoretical Framework Development

When working through the development of a theoretical framework within a conceptual framework, one must account for the integration of formal theory and the use of the literature review. Formal theory is those established theories that come together to create the frame for your research questions. The researcher must seek out formal theories to help understand what they are studying and why they are studying it (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). Ravitch & Carl said this best, “the theoretical framework is how you weave together or integrate existing bodies of literature…to frame the topic, goals, design, and findings of your specific study” (p. 58).

It is important to point out that the process of creating a theoretical framework is separate from a literature review. The theoretical framework does impact the literature review and the literature review impacts it, but they are separate. You may discover theories that strengthen your theoretical framework as you review literature, and you may seek out theories to validate a hypothesis you have related to your study. This is important because your formal theories do not encompass all the theories related to your topic, but the specific theories that bind your study together and give it structure.

For my study, formal theories ended up being an equity-equality framework developed by Espinoza (2007) and a structuralism-subordination framework derived from Chamallas (1994). The equity-equality framework was used to address what I had seen as confusion between the two terms, using them interchangeably, when reviewing literature examining Title IX. I wanted to understand if the confusion about the terms, equity and equality, led to a misunderstanding about the true intent of Title IX and intercollegiate athletics. For the structuralism-subordination framework, I wanted to understand if there were institutional structures that institutions had built that led to the subordination of women. I also wanted to understand if those structures manifest themselves in ways that hinder institutions’ Title IX compliance, leaving women without the participation opportunities required by law.

Both of these formal theories had an impact on and were impacted by my literature review. The structuralism-subordination framework was discovered after my initial review of Title IX literature, while the equity-equality framework was needed to reflect inconsistencies in the use of those terms in texts reviewed for the literature review. These formal theories also helped me refine my research questions and the purpose of my study. The formal theories impact on the different aspects of my conceptual framework then required me to refine and redefine by literature in order to incorporate their impact. This understanding of formal theory as the framework to construct a study is central to constructing a robust theoretical framework.

What helped me arrive at these theories in the great morass of theories was Title IX’s application to college sports, feminist scholar’s work related to college sports, and the use and misuse of the equity and equality in the literature.

Naming Tacit Theories

It is not just your role as the researcher that impacts your study, it is also all the informal ways in which we understand the world. We all have working hypotheses, assumptions, or conceptualizations about why things occur and how they operate (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). This is a result of how we were raised and socialized which has a direct impact on the ways that we see our work and the contexts in which it takes place. For me as the researcher for this study, three tacit theories emerged upon examination through memos and dialogic engagement with peers and advisors, described in the next section. One, was related to what I call, college sports fandom or the ESPN culture. For me, I grew up on ESPN as did many of my friends. We got most of our sports news through these mediums and it greatly impacted how we viewed and thought of college sports. The problem with this is that ESPN has helped propagate many false narratives and misconceptions about college sports. A few examples include: big time college sports and programs make money (most do not), men’s sports are more popular than women’s (men get the majority of airtime), and college sports make a lot of money (where it gets its “money” is not where you think). There was also the continual sexualization and diminishment of women athletes.

Family dynamics also played a major role in my sports fandom and its importance. Sports were big in my family as most members played but we also watched a lot together. It was a bonding mechanism for us. For our family, my sister was our best athlete. This meant attending a lot of her games which led to an appreciation of women’s sports at an early age. Lastly, I had a general lack of knowledge around gender equity in college sports, mostly related to my fandom described above. I didn’t develop a true understanding until graduate school when I went out of my way to do deep dives into the topic whenever I could. This process of self-discovery and reflection with my own tacit theories teaches the importance of examining oneself, our socialization and its impact on your research. The dissertation reflection process was cathartic, it brought together these various strands of my identity, history, and interests and helped me to identify and then reckon with my unconscious biases, assumptions, and drivers.

Structured Reflexivity and Dialogic Engagement

I relied on structured reflexivity and dialogic engagement as my main reflexivity strategy, reflecting on my research through purposeful engagement with others a lot throughout my study. I went back and forth many times between different aspects of my conceptual framework as “new” information was discovered. Sometimes this reflexivity was planned, for example, after completing one part of my conceptual framework I would review other aspects to consider the impact. This would help me to ensure the potential impact of this new information was assessed against all parts of the conceptual framework. Other times it was completely spontaneous such as an illuminating reading or discovery would spark me to think about a piece of conceptual framework differently and adjust. In one particular moment, I came across some conflicting information during one of the cases that required me to rethink aspects of my entire conceptual framework. This conflicting information indicated another approach to measuring Title IX compliance which was at conflict with mine. I met with various members of my critical inquiry group to decide on a path forward and then wrote a memo outlining what happened and the decision made. This incident caused me to not only conduct dialogic engagement but also structured reflexivity as I reviewed all aspects of my conceptual framework to ensure everything still made sense as it was structured given the new information.

The key structured reflexivity mechanisms I used in my study were memos, a critical inquiry group, a researcher interview and case reports. Each of these proved to be an invaluable resource when navigating the construction of my conceptual framework. I used different kinds of memos to highlight key decisions which were useful later when writing my dissertation.

My critical inquiry group, composed of college sports experts, peers, women’s rights advocates, Title IX consultants and lawyers, had multiple functions throughout my study. They challenged me on assumptions and decision making, helped me work through challenges and served as sounding boards to bounce ideas off of. My researcher interview, which is when the researcher is interviewed to pull out tacit knowledge and assumptions, was particularly useful as it allowed for a non-biased critique to focus on process, procedure, and theory (both the theoretical and conceptual). My interviewer also called out my tacit theories and biases which were helpful in structuring that section of my conceptual framework. Lastly, I used case reports as a way to summarize my cases individually in their own distinct process guaranteeing each received a deep dive. This also allowed me to make refinements after the first case and also helped lay the groundwork for a cross-case analysis. The entire process taught me that having these structured mechanisms adds validation points and reflection opportunities from which I could refine my work.

Methodological Approach and Research Methods

For any researcher the methodological approach is guided by the study’s research questions. This section is also partly shaped and derived from the conceptual framework. For some, they will arrive at the methodological approach that best fits their study along the way, picking it up from other pieces of their conceptual framework. For others, the approach is clear from the beginning and drives some of their conceptual framework decision making. For me, I arrived at my methodological approach as it became clear as my conceptual framework developed. As I worked through the interactions of my research questions, informed by my developing conceptual framework, it became clear that case study research was the right methodological approach for my study.

The methodological approach I chose for my dissertation was case study research, which made sense given that the primary goal was to gain a clear understanding of the “how” and “why” of each case, which is especially important when examining the two cases in this study (Yin, 2018). Understanding the complexities and contextual circumstances of Title IX cases is especially crucial given its real-world impact on universities (Yin, 2018). The in-depth focus of case study research allowed for a much richer understanding of the potential impacts of institutional and athletics department characteristics impacting Title IX compliance today (Yin, 2018).

I used a multi-case approach because I wanted to compare and contrast one school that was “good” at Title IX compliance and one that was not. Each case was completed separately for a deep dive and better understanding using thematic analysis for the data analysis. After each case report was completed, themes were reviewed. After both cases were completed a cross-case analysis was done to compare and contrast the cases using the themes derived from each case. For the data collection process, I used the following: archival records and documents including meeting minutes and institutional reports, memos for data collection and data analysis, dialogic engagement, and a researcher interview. My learning throughout the dissertation process illuminates the importance and generative value of using a methodological approach that aligns with the goals of the study and is guided by the research questions.

Key Takeaways

If you remember anything from this, please remember these three things:

• Developing a conceptual framework is an iterative process. It will feel like you are constantly making changes. That’s ok. That’s what good research is, constantly evolving and getting better. My research questions looked nothing like what they started as. They evolved and were informed by newer and better research over time. That is what this process is meant to do, make your research better as you move along.
• When you get a new piece of information, use it to inform the next part of your process and refine the last. You should use each new finding or insight to refine your work and inform the next piece.
• Engage your classmates and professors for guidance. You have access to incredible resources in these two populations, use them to help you along the way. And of course, be a resource to them as well. I can’t remember how many times I sought out a classmate who shared something insightful in class to find out more information. You are surrounded by smart, motivated people, who want you to succeed, actively use that support system.

Parting Wisdom

My last bits of wisdom as you are embarking on this journey are meant to serve as things that I wish I had known at the beginning that I wanted to be sure others knew too.

• First and foremost, love your topic. I cannot stress this enough. You are going to be spending a lot of time and investing a lot of energy in it, you should love it. That’s not to say you won’t be frustrated, tired and “over it” at times, but at the end of the day you should love it.
• Second, use your classmates as a resource and be a resource to them. Although they aren’t likely to know your topic as in-depth as you do, they can offer valuable insights, largely because they are not you. You can “stress test” your ideas, research questions, frameworks or just have a fresh set of eyes on your work. You should be the same for them as it only makes your own work stronger as well. Reciprocity is key.
• Third, don’t be afraid to ask questions. The old adage is true, there are no dumb questions. Ask all of your questions, in whatever manner you are comfortable doing so, just be sure to ask them. You’ll find that once you give them air, they do get answered and the path gets that much more clear.
• Fourth, don’t be afraid to admit possible mistakes or confusions and ask for help mid-concern. No one is perfect and mistakes happen. Acknowledging those mistakes sooner rather than later can only make your work stronger. I had a setback towards the end of my dissertation that at first froze me and I didn’t know what to do. It was only after I acknowledged the mistake and talked with my advisor and critical inquiry group that I could come up with a path forward. My work was better and stronger because of the help I received, even though in the moment I felt vulnerable fessing up.
• Fifth, memos are your best friends. I cannot stress this enough. I wish I could go back and tell myself this at the very beginning of my journey to chart more at that stage. Documenting decision making, mistakes, rationales, conversations and anything else of even possible importance to your methods is invaluable when you get to the writing stage. Being able to refer to those documents and reflect on them makes your methods more specific and your dissertation stronger.
• Sixth, know when to stop. This is especially true during your literature review. There is so much material out there, you will never read it all. Take that in. Knowing when you should stop and move on is extremely important. For me, I read about 2 months too long and it set me behind. I still had huge stacks of reading that I could have done but pulling more and more sources from more and more readings was a never-ending path. Get what you need, cover your ground, trust yourself to call it when it's covered. Ask people if you can stop if you aren’t sure.

Finally, and this may feel challenging, let yourself enjoy the ride! Parts will be smooth, others bumpy. By the end you will be tired, burnt out and just want to be done. But stop along the way and enjoy the moments of learning and connection. Those middle of the night texting sessions with your classmates about some obstacle or interesting article you found do matter. Those coffees with professors discussing your topic (and your passion for it) stay with you. Those classes with other really smart and engaged classmates continue to teach you. I can tell you that, looking back almost a year after defending, I miss it all. You will never have this moment in your life again, try to enjoy it.

Chamallas, M. (1994). Structuralist and cultural domination theories meet Title VII: Some contemporary influences. Michigan Law Review , 92(8), 2370–2409.

Espinoza, O. (2007). Solving the equity-equality conceptual dilemma: A new model for analysis of the educational process. Educational Research , 49(4), 343–363.

Kennedy, C. L. (2007). The Gender Equity Scorecard V. York, PA. Retrieved from  http://ininet.org/the-gender-equity-scorecard-v.html .

Ravitch S. M. & Carl, M. N. (2021). Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological. (2nd Ed.). Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.

Articles in this Volume

[tid]: building a dissertation conceptual and theoretical framework: a recent doctoral graduate narrates behind the curtain development, [tid]: family income status in early childhood and implications for remote learning, [tid]: the theater of equity, [tid]: including students with emotional and behavioral disorders: case management work protocol, [tid]: loving the questions: encouraging critical practitioner inquiry into reading instruction, [tid]: supporting the future: mentoring pre-service teachers in urban middle schools, [tid]: embracing diversity: immersing culturally responsive pedagogy in our school systems, [tid]: college promise programs: additive to student loan debt cancellation, [tid]: book review: critical race theory in education: a scholar's journey. gloria ladson-billings. teachers college press, 2021, 233 pp., [tid]: inclusion census: how do inclusion rates in american public schools measure up, [tid]: in pursuit of revolutionary rest: liberatory retooling for black women principals, [tid]: “this community is home for me”: retaining highly qualified teachers in marginalized school communities, [tid]: a conceptual proposition to if and how immigrants' volunteering influences their integration into host societies.

Report accessibility issues and request help

Copyright 2024 The University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education's Online Urban Education Journal

• Doctoral Writing Center
• Doctoral Support
• Dissertation Specific: Framework

What is a Theoretical Framework?

We know based on the word ‘theoretical’ that this framework will deal with theories (that is, principles set to explain phenomena that have already been tested and are supported by data). This type of framework will provide your readers with an idea of what you expect to find throughout your research by focusing on the principles that have already been established that will help you evaluate, connect, clarify, and identify limits within the existing knowledge surrounding your research.

Theory vs. Hypothesis

Steps to finding a theoretical framework.

Here are some ways that you can develop a solid theoretical framework:

There is a disconnect between the perception of beneficial/effective feedback by graduate students and their instructors

Possible factors affecting perception of quality feedback: practicality, usefulness, andragogy, timeliness, hierarchical cultural power dynamic, the review of the literature should cover research that has already been conducted on how students and instructors perceive quality feedback, the common factors that influence perception of quality, how adult learning influences expectations in learning (andragogy), and how the hierarchical cultural power dynamic in the united states has influenced teacher/student interactions..

Make a list of the constructs and variables.

What constructs/variables do you believe may be important to your study? These variables should be grouped into two categories: dependent and independent.

Dependent variables are the variables that you are testing in your study (how they are impacted). In this study, my dependent variable could be the perception of the effectiveness of feedback. Independent variables are variables that the researcher manipulates in order to figure out how a dependent variable is affected. In this study, my independent variables could be adult expectations and feedback techniques.

Consider what theories you have encountered in your readings and decide which theory would best explain the relationships between the most important variables in your study.

Andragogy theory

Discuss how your chosen theory will help you answer your research question. then, discuss how this theory will assist you as you conduct your research. in other words, how will your chosen theory serve as a basis for your work in this study, i would look at how andragogy theory stipulates that adult learners have different needs in the educational setting. i would look at how such needs influence students’ perceptions of feedback as useful or effective for this stage of their life., purpose of the framework.

Theory can assist you because it can guide your theoretical framework. This allows:

• New research data to be interpreted and coded for use in the future
• A possible solution to new problems for which solutions have not yet been discovered
• A way to put a name and definition to problems that are being researched
• A way to prescribe (advise) or evaluate solutions to problems that are being researched
• A way to learn about specific facts that are contained within the larger body of scholarship (and decide which are essential to a researcher’s project and which are not)
• A way of interpreting old data using new methods
• A way to identify new key issues and decide what are the key research questions that should be addressed to best understand the problem being studied
• A way of giving members of a specific discipline a universal language and a conceptual frame for defining their profession’s specific boundaries
• A way to give guidance and clarity to research so that it can assist researchers in their work and help them make improvements when practicing within their profession

Structure of a Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework is the basis of a certain theory.

If this is so, make sure your research tests whether or not that existing theory is valid in relation to a specified phenomena, event, or issue that is studied in your dissertation.

Questions to Consider

• What is the research problem or question?
• Why is the use of this framework a good solution to the problem?

Tips to Remember

• 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

• How it works

Theoretical Framework for Dissertation – What and How

Published by Anastasia Lois at August 13th, 2021 , Revised On August 22, 2023

The theoretical framework is one of the most infamous aspects of a  dissertation , but it provides a strong scientific research base. You are likely to produce a first-class dissertation if the theoretical framework is appropriate and well-thought-out.

But what is a theoretical framework? And how do you develop a theoretical framework for your dissertation?

Content for Theoretical Framework

Your theoretical framework of a dissertation should incorporate existing theories that are relevant to your study. It will also include defining the terms mentioned in the hypothesis ,  research questions , and problem statement . All these concepts should be clearly identified as the first step.

Theoretical Framework Goals

• You will need to identify the ideas and theories used for your chosen subject topic once you have determined the  problem statement and research questions .
• You can frame your study by presenting the theoretical framework, reflecting that you have enough knowledge about your topic, relevant models, and theories.
• The theories you choose to investigate will provide direction to your research, and you can continue to make informed choices at  different stages of the dissertation writing process .
• The theoretical framework bases are the scientific theories that justify your research; therefore, you must use them appropriately for referencing your investigation.

1. Select Key Concepts Sample problem statement and research questions: According to the company X report, many customers do not return after an online purchase. The company director wants to improve customer satisfaction and loyalty to achieve the long-term goal of the company. To investigate this issue, the researcher can base their research around the following problem statement, objective, and research questions: Problem: Many customers do not return after an online purchase. Objective: To improve customer satisfaction and thereby achieve long-term goals. Research question: How can online customers’ loyalty increase by increasing customer satisfaction? Sub-Questions: 1. How can you relate customer satisfaction with customer loyalty? 2. How are the online customers of company X loyal and satisfied at present? 3. What are the factors affecting online customers’ loyalty and satisfaction? The satisfaction and loyalty concepts are critical to this research; therefore, will be determined as part of this study. These are the key terms that will have to be defined in the theoretical framework for the dissertation.

2. Define and Evaluate Relevant Concepts, Theories, and Models

You will be required to review existing relevant literature to determine how other researchers have defined the key terms in the past. The definitions proposed by different scholars can then be compared critically and analytically. The last step is to choose the best concepts and their definitions matching your case.

It is also necessary to identify the relationships between the terms. Whether you are applying or not applying the existing concepts and models in your study, you will need to present your arguments and justify your choices.

3. Adding Value to the Existing Knowledge

In addition to analyzing concepts and theories proposed by other theorists, you might also want to demonstrate how your own research will contribute to the existing knowledge. Here are some questions for you to consider in this regard;

• Are you going to contribute new evidence through  primary research or testing an existing theory?
• Will you understand and interpret data with the help of a theory?
• Do you wish to challenge, critique, or evaluate an existing theory?
• Is there a new exclusive method through which you will combine different theories proposed by other scholars?

Types of Research Questions you can Answer

The descriptive research questions only use the theoretical framework because their answer requires literature research. For instance, ‘how can you relate customer satisfaction with customer loyalty?’ A single theory can answer this question sufficiently.

The sub-question, ‘How the online customers of company X are loyal and satisfied at present?’ cannot be answered theoretically because it requires qualitative and quantitative research data.

Theoretical Framework Structure

There is no fixed pattern to structure the  theoretical framework for the dissertation . However, you can create a logical structure by drawing on your hypothesis/research question and defining important terms.

For instance, write a paragraph containing key terms, hypotheses, or research questions and explain the relevant models and theories.

Also See:  Organizing Academic Research Papers: Theoretical Framework

Length of Theoretical Framework of Dissertation

The length of the theoretical framework is usually three to five pages. You can also include the graphical framework to give your readers a clear insight into your theoretical framework. For instance, below is the graphical figure of an example theoretical framework for classroom management.

Sample Theoretical Framework of a Dissertation

Here is a  theoretical framework example to provide you with a sense of the essential parts of the dissertation.

How can ResearchProspect Help?

ResearchProspect is a UK-registered firm that provides academic support to students around the world.

We specialize in completing design projects,  literature reviews ,  essays ,  reports ,  coursework ,  exam notes ,  statistical analysis , primary and empirical research,  dissertations , case studies,  academic posters , and much more.

Getting help from our expert academics is quick and simple. All you have to do is complete our online order form and get your paper delivered to your email address well before your due deadline.

Looking for dissertation help?

Researchprospect to the rescue then.

We have expert writers on our team who are skilled at helping students with dissertations across a variety of disciplines. Guaranteeing 100% satisfaction!

Frequently Asked Questions

How do i choose a theoretical framework for my dissertation.

To choose a theoretical framework for your dissertation:

• Define research objectives.
• Identify relevant disciplines.
• Review existing theories.
• Select one aligning with your topic.
• Consider its applicability.
• Justify your choice based on relevance and depth.

You May Also Like

This article is a step-by-step guide to how to write statement of a problem in research. The research problem will be half-solved by defining it correctly.

Have you failed dissertation, assignment, exam or coursework? Don’t panic because you are not alone. Get help from our professional UK qualified writers!

Dissertation Methodology is the crux of dissertation project. In this article, we will provide tips for you to write an amazing dissertation methodology.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

blog @ precision

Choosing a theoretical framework: popular theories for dissertation research.

One of the most important steps in topic development  for your dissertation is picking out a theory or theories that will help to create the theoretical framework for your study. Because this is such a crucial and yet tricky task, our quantitative and qualitative research methods experts often help with this step when collaborating with our dissertation consulting clients on developing their research topics. Maybe you’re reading this and thinking, “What exactly IS a theoretical framework, anyway?” If so, you might check out this previous blog post on this topic, as it addresses this foundational question in more depth.

Whether you are using your framework to develop a qualitative research interview protocol  or to frame a study using statistical analysis of pertinent variables, the theoretical lens for your dissertation needs to be chosen carefully. This is because it has to provide a suitable explanatory structure, connecting the problem , purpose, research questions, and data collection instruments. Making a poor choice of theory for this purpose can result in having to do major rewrites to your proposal down the road (shudder!), so it’s best to choose mindfully. Keep in mind that we can definitely help with this crucial early decision in your dissertation or thesis writing process.

To help you start thinking over this decision for your dissertation, this article will provide a handful of possibilities for your theoretical framework. We compiled this list of popular theories based on our dissertation assistance clients’ choices, although this is by no means an exhaustive list. But, this should at least get you started thinking about some possibilities.

Self-Determination Theory

Deci and Ryan’s (2000) self-determination theory is a very common choice for the theoretical framework among our dissertation assistance  clients. Central to self-determination theory is the proposition that our motivation stems from satisfaction of three basic psychological needs: competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Competence refers to our sense that we are capable of accomplishing specific tasks, and autonomy is the feeling that we have control and choice. Our sense of relatedness refers to the perception that we have meaningful social relationships.

Many of our dissertation consulting clients are interested in examining intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, which develop in relation to different experiences of need satisfaction. When we feel intrinsic motivation, we have a sense of pleasure, interest in, and enjoyment of the activity. The experience of greater needs satisfaction related to certain environments or activities helps to develop intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2008). On the other hand, extrinsic motivation comes about when we receive outside incentives to engage in certain actions.

Because self-determination theory deals with basic psychological needs, we find when working with our dissertation consulting clients that it is widely applicable across many different topics in the social sciences. Self-determination theory can help to explain different forms of motivation, which makes it useful in dissertations that focus centrally on how motivation is shaped in arenas such as school or the workplace. Furthermore, the experience of self-determination has been associated with a variety of physical and psychological health outcomes, which makes it a great choice for examinations of conditions that influence health. Our dissertation assistance clients have used self-determination theory to frame studies on diverse topics ranging from a statistical analysis  of predictors of motivation among call center workers to a qualitative research exploration of conditions perceived to influence psychological well being in congregate care facilities.

Social Cognitive Theory

Another very popular theory among our dissertation assistance clients is Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory. The theory can help with explaining how behaviors develop, and one of the key tenets of social cognitive theory is that we learn behaviors through our observations of other people. This is not to say that we imitate every single behavior we observe indiscriminately, though. We are more or less likely to replicate behavior we observe based on whom we see doing it—or in other words, who the “model” is. 

Our dissertation consulting clients who are interested in how powerful people exert influence often love this theory, as Bandura (1977) posited that we are much more likely to imitate behavior when we observe others who are perceived as having elevated power or status modeling the behavior. This is especially so in the case of vicarious reinforcement, which is when the model is rewarded in some way for the behavior. If we see that certain behaviors elicit negative outcomes, however, we might avoid those behaviors due to the expectation that we would also be penalized for them. Our observations of others’ experiences, along with the results of our own behavior, also influence self-efficacy, which is a person’s sense of capability to handle challenges effectively.

Social cognitive theory is a really useful framework when you’re interested in examining how people develop behavioral patterns or ways of thinking about their own competence. Our dissertation consulting clients have used social cognitive theory to frame qualitative analysis  of influences on aggressive behavior in youths, statistical analysis of the predictors of self-efficacy in novice teachers, and qualitative research exploring the influence of social relationships on health behaviors.

Ecological Systems Theory

Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological systems theory is another very popular theory among our dissertation consulting clients. According to the theory, a variety of influences help to shape children’s growth and development over time. As children interact with their environments, they are exposed to a variety of influences that Bronfenbrenner conceptualized as nested spheres that radiate outward from proximal to distal. For example, the most immediate and influential social circle (i.e., family) is referred to as the microsystem. The mesosystem is a bit more removed from the child’s immediate network and may include influences such as friends and teachers. Beyond the mesosystem is the exosystem, which includes influences such as the media, government systems, and extended family. The macrosystem is even more distal and includes influences such as cultural narratives and societal ideals. 

Ecological systems theory is a favorite among our dissertation assistance clients who are studying education or human development, as it applies to so many important aspects of growth and development for children and youths. It lends itself well to qualitative research explorations of student, parent, or educator perceptions on child development as well as to statistical analysis  of the impact of variables (e.g., parent involvement, teacher efficacy) that can be located in one or another of the levels of influence in Bronfenbrenner’s model.

Tinto’s Theory of Student Persistence

Tinto’s theory of student persistence and retention is very much appreciated by our dissertation consulting clients studying higher education. In this theory, Tinto (1993) proposed that students have a collection of personal characteristics that exert influence over their commitment to their higher education institutions. Some of these factors reside at the individual level, such as gender, race, and age. Background factors like socioeconomic level and previous achievement in academics can also come into play. 

Beyond these factors, Tinto (1993) posited that the degree to which the student feels a sense of social and academic integration can affect their sense of commitment to the college or university. This means that feeling a greater sense of social and academic integration can help to support academic persistence, thus resulting in higher retention rates (Tinto, 1993). Among our dissertation assistance clients conducting research in higher education leadership, Tinto’s theory is a top choice. Validated survey instruments derived from this theory make it a useful choice for quantitative studies involving statistical analysis of factors related to persistence and retention. And, it makes a great lens through which to explore student perspectives on their experiences of integration and persistence using a qualitative research and analysis  approach.

Adult Learning Theory

Another favorite of our dissertation assistance clients in higher education is adult learning theory. In his theory, Knowles (1973) proposed that adults learn differently from children, which means that educators can help to enhance adults’ learning if they take their specific needs into account. There are six key dimensions to adult learning (Knowles, 1973): 

• Self-concept: Adults are self-directed and independent, and so they will learn best when learning conditions allow them autonomy.
• Experience: Adults have plenty of life experience, and tying new concepts or facts in with their own experiences enhances their learning.
• Readiness to learn: Adults experience a greater readiness or motivation to learn new information when they see a true need for learning the information.
• Orientation to learning: Using a task- or problem-focused approach optimizes learning of new information by adults.
• Internal motivation: Adults are driven by intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivators when learning new information.
• Need to know: It helps adults to learn when new information is clearly relevant to or applicable in their lives.

One of the great things about this theory is its broad application—it applies to adult learning across many contexts. This makes it a popular theory among our dissertation consulting clients conducting research in a variety of fields. For example, the theory might frame a qualitative research  exploration of adult learning in traditional university settings while also serving quite well as the guiding framework in a statistical analysis of factors associated with learning a new enterprise resource planning system in the workplace.

Transformative Learning Theory

Another theory of adult learning is Mezirow’s (2009) transformative learning theory. This theory is popular among our dissertation assistance clients who are examining processes of learning that significantly change an adult’s foundational beliefs and assumptions. Mezirow (2009) posited that certain types of learning experiences help induce important shifts to an adult’s basic beliefs systems. Transformative learning, then, describes the processes that change the ways that an adult thinks about and interacts with the world around them. Specifically, discussion with others and self-reflection are key processes that can transform an adult’s values, beliefs, and behavior in significant ways. 

Transformative learning may happen spontaneously or as the result of formal education or training (Taylor, 2007). This makes the theory applicable when investigating such learning as the result of classroom or workplace instruction, but it also can help to frame inquiry into transformation as the result of personal experiences or everyday events. For example, our dissertation assistance clients have used the theory as lens for qualitative analysis of trauma as transformative of individuals’ spiritual beliefs, and they have also used it to frame statistical analysis  in quasi-experimental investigations of educational interventions aimed at developing cultural sensitivity in adult learners.

Transformational Leadership Theory

Among our dissertation consulting clients who wish to take a statistical analysis approach to the study of leadership, one of the most widely used leadership theories for frameworks is transformational leadership theory. The roots of this theory lie in the work of Burns (1978), who conceptualized transforming leadership as an approach that inspired employee performance through appeals to their values and morality. Bass (1985) elaborated upon Burns’ theory through development of dimensions that reflect underlying psychological processes at work within the relationships between transformational leaders and employees. These four dimensions of transformational leadership are (a) intellectual stimulation, (b) charisma or idealized influence, (c) inspirational motivation, and (d) individualized consideration (Avolio et al., 1999; Bass, 1991). 

The associated Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is a frequently used tool in the statistical analysis of workplace predictors or outcomes that are associated with transformational leadership. The MLQ is definitely a favorite among our dissertation assistance clients studying in fields such as business management and industrial/organizational psychology. However, the dimensions of transformational leadership often create intriguing lenses through which to explore workplace phenomena through a qualitative research perspective. An example is a qualitative analysis of employees’ perspectives on individualized consideration and its influence on their experiences of stress and coping on the job.

Job Demands-Resources Model

The job demands-resources model (JD-R) is a popular choice of framework for our dissertation assistance clients who are conducting quantitative or qualitative research  on the workplace. According to this model, the overall balance between job demands and job resources has an effect on employees’ stress levels (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Job demands can be psychological or physical aspects of jobs that elevate a worker’s stress. These might include such factors as physical demands, emotional demands, work pressure, workload, role conflict, and role ambiguity.

On the other hand, job resources can function to relieve or lessen stress for workers. These resources can be physical, social, or organizational dimensions of a job that help to ease stress deriving from job demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Job resources can take many forms, such as workplace practices that support employees to perform their job tasks effectively, supportive relationships in the workplace, conditions that increase an employee’s sense of autonomy, and a strong organizational climate.

The availability of validated survey instruments for the JD-R model make it a great choice to frame statistical analysis of variables that are related to job demands and resources. For example, job demands and resources may derive from organizational features such as justice or culture, or they may be predictive of outcomes such as employee performance and well being. Exploring perceptions related to demands and resources on the job via qualitative research methods can also reveal important insights, and our dissertation consulting clients in fields like industrial/organizational psychology have used this model to frame such inquiry.

Diffusion of Innovations Theory 

Diffusion of innovations is a theory that was developed by Rogers (2003), and it continues to occupy a very useful role as a theoretical framework for our dissertation consulting clients in fields from information technology to business management and leadership. This theory can help to frame studies that focus on how different types of innovations are embraced. A core underlying assumption of the theory is that information related to new innovations diffuses throughout communication channels in a social system over the course of time. Although we often think of technologies when we think of innovations, an innovation can really be any practice or idea that is viewed as novel or new by people and that induces a sense of uncertainty. This might include technologies, but it might also include things like new practices or policies within formal or informal organizations. 

According to Rogers (2003), there are five factors that influence the rate of adoption of a new innovation: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. According to the theory, these five factors generally influence how quickly a new innovation is accepted and adopted. Additionally, though, different people tend to respond to innovations with varying degrees of acceptance, and their communication amongst one another may also influence how quickly any given group adopts a new innovation. 

Rogers (2003) proposed distinct categories related to openness to innovations. Innovators are the most willing to adopt new innovations, followed by early adopters and then early majority. Those who are more reluctant generally to accept new innovations fall into the late majority and laggard categories. These are people who need a lot of help to accept new innovations, and they tend to do so only after the people surrounding them have successfully adopted the innovation.

Our dissertation assistance clients from a range of fields have applied this theory as their framework, as the nature of “innovation” is quite broad. For example, this theory made a great framework for a qualitative analysis of teachers’ perceptions of and reactions to the introduction of a new data-based decision making process. It applied equally well in a quantitative study that used statistical analysis to determine the factors that most strongly impacted customers’ behavioral reactions to online versus in-person car sales.

Finally, a big favorite among our dissertation assistance clients who are conducting research on technology adoption is the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). It was formulated by Venkatesh et al. (2003) using eight different models that addressed technology acceptance and adoption in different ways. The updated version of the theory, UTAUT2, still includes the dimensions from the first version of the theory (i.e., performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions), which are proposed as predictors of an individual’s behavioral intention and actual use of technology. To tailor UTAUT2 to the consumer population, the authors added dimensions of price value, hedonic motivation, and experience or habit (Venkatesh et al., 2012). 

There are seven dimensions of UTAUT2 that correspond with expectations and perceptions related to the use of a specific technology (Venkatesh et al., 2012). These are:

• performance expectancy, which refers to perceived benefits of technology use;
• effort expectancy, which refers to expected ease or difficulty of technology use; 
• social influence, which refers to a person’s sense of how other people feel about their use of technology, especially valued others like friends or family; 
• facilitating conditions, which are resources a person views as available to support them in their use of the technology; 
• hedonic motivation, which refers to the sense of joy or pleasure a person derives from using technology;
• experience/habit, which refers to the degree to which a person has already used technology; and
• price value, which refers to the value a person expects to derive from use of the technology. 

According to the UTAUT2 model, each of these dimensions exerts influence on a person’s behavioral intentions to use technology, which then influences the person’s actual use of the technology (Venkatesh et al., 2012). 

Our dissertation consulting clients have made great use of the UTAUT2 survey to guide statistical analysis of technology acceptance and use variables across technologies that range from learning management systems to smart devices. Shaping qualitative research data collection  around the various dimensions of UTAUT2 can also yield rich insights into the thinking and reasoning behind technology resistance or acceptance. A great example of this is a qualitative analysis that explored perceptions of social influence with regard to ride sharing services.

Because your guiding theory ties your whole study together within an explanatory framework, it is important to choose wisely as you develop this vital piece of your research topic. If you are choosing a quantitative method for your dissertation, many theories have associated survey instruments that can help to ensure that your data collection and statistical analysis align well with your framework. For qualitative research , it is important to develop data collection instruments (e.g., interview protocols) that align with key dimensions of the theoretical framework. If you would like help with these essential steps for creating alignment, our dissertation coaches  are happy to provide guidance during your topic development process. There are so many theories to choose from—this article provided just a glimpse of your possibilities—and we’re here to help if you need us!

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 72 (4), 441-462. https://doi.org/10/1348/096317999166789

Bakker, A., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22 (3), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Prentice Hall.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations . Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics , 18 (3), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32 (7), 513-531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership . Harper and Row.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry , 11 (4), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology , 49 (3), 182-185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801

Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species . Gulf Publishing Company. 

Mezirow, J. (2009). An overview of transformative learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists…in their own words (pp. 90-105). Routledge.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5 th ed.). Free Press.

Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education , 26 (2), 173-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370701219475

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2 nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly , 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly , 36 (1), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

Dissertation Essentials

• Dissertation Essentials: Home
• Doctoral Record
• Working Ahead Guidelines

Differentiating between Doctorate Degrees

Contribution of new knowledge.

• Student Experience Feedback Buttons
• Technology Resources
• Published Dissertations
• School of Health Professions
• Scholarly Writing This link opens in a new window
• Qualitative & Quantitative Research Support with the ASC This link opens in a new window
• Library Basic Training for Doctoral Students This link opens in a new window
• Dissertation Toolkit Series with the Library This link opens in a new window
• Template Formatting Help This link opens in a new window
• APA 7th Edition Help This link opens in a new window

This section outlines various characteristics of doctoral programs and the associated research processes and resources that help to distinguish research degrees (Ph.D.) from applied degrees: DHA*, DBA, EdD*, DNP*, DMFT*.

The key research design differences between an applied and research degree are scope and significance. Both degree tracks require that the stated research design demonstrate scientific rigor. However, the applied degree will be limited in scope to the specific study context and the results should be significant to leaders and practitioners in the field. Research (Ph.D.) studies must have theoretical implications and make a contribution to the literature.

*Students in the EdD, DMFT, DHA, DNP program will complete a doctoral project/dissertation-in-practice via the Applied Doctoral Experience (ADE) vs completing a dissertation as part of the Doctoral Student Experience (DSE). 

The current guidelines are that a dissertation must:

• Summarize, analyze, and integrate scholarly literature and research relevant to a topic area, focusing on developments in the area in the previous five years, and,
• Present original research in an area related to a student’s program and specialization.

While Ph.D. dissertations demonstrate how the research contributes to theoretical development in an area, applied doctorate dissertations typically contribute to practice.

The current DSE standards include the non-negotiable requirement of every doctoral manuscript (Ph.D. or applied doctorate) to include a comprehensive, up-to-date, and critically evaluative review of the professional and scientific, peer-reviewed literature pertaining to its topic. A Ph.D. requires original ideas about a specialized topic, as well as a high degree of methodological/scientific rigor (Nelson, & Coorough, 1994). As is traditional in higher education, a Ph.D. is only going to be awarded for a piece of work that will actually make a difference to the theoretical context of the field --- the Ph.D. dissertation is a new contribution to the body of knowledge.

An applied dissertation requires the practical application of scholarship (Nelson, & Coorough,1994; Wergin, 2011). Examples of an applied investigation may include a replication study, a case study, program evaluation, or a special project (such as, for example, the creation of a curriculum, training program, clinical protocol or policy, or educational artifact), followed by an evaluation. A doctoral project for a professional degree does not have to be an original contribution to the body of knowledge that impacts the theories in the field but typically responds to a practical problem or proposed innovation (Archibald, 2010).

The fundamental differentiation between Ph.D. research programs and professional degree research programs is that the focus of the Ph.D. is to contribute new knowledge to the field. The focus of professional degree research programs is to apply theoretical knowledge to the advancement of practice in the field (solve complex problems) (Archibald, 2010; Corley & Giola 2011; Huba, Shubb & Shelley, 2006).

Archibald, D. (2010). “Breaking the mold” in the dissertation: Implementing a problem-based, decision-oriented thesis project. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 58(2), 99-107. 

Corley, K. G. & Giola, D. (2011). Building Theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12-32. 

Huba, M. Shubb, J. & Shelley, J. (2006). Recasting doctoral education in an outcomes-based framework. In P. Maki & N. Borkowski (Eds.), The assessment of doctoral education: Emerging criteria and new models for improving outcomes (239-272). Sterling VA: Stylus. 

Nelson, J.K., & Coorough, C. (1994). Content analysis of the Ph.D. versus Ed.D. dissertation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(2), 158-168.

Wergin, J.F. (2011). Rebooting the Ed.D.. Harvard Educational Review, 81(1), 119-140.

Differentiating scholarly contribution of new knowledge between Ph.D. and applied doctorates (e.g., DBA, EdD, DMFT) includes two criteria to determine contribution: originality and utility.

Originality

Originality is measured by assessing whether the knowledge derived in the research has the quality of being either, "incremental" (appropriate for professional degrees such as a DBA, Ed.D. or Psy.D.) or "revelatory" (most sought-after for the Ph.D.). This means that the research adds value in such a way that it either advances our understanding of prevailing theory (incremental), or it allows us to see something that we have never seen before (revelatory).

Utility means the research must generate knowledge that is of either "scientific value" or “practical value.” Scientific value (predominate measure for Ph.D.) advances our conceptual rigor or enhances its potential for operationalization and testing, broadly. That means the scope of a project must be great enough such that it contributes to, extends, or facilitates extension, of theory. Practical value advances our ability to apply theory directly, in managerial and organizational pursuits, in education and healthcare settings, or in therapeutic or counseling settings.

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Working Ahead Guidelines
• Next: Technology Resources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 13, 2024 9:17 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/c.php?g=1005138

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

Example Theoretical Framework of a Dissertation or Thesis

Published on 8 July 2022 by Sarah Vinz . Revised on 10 October 2022.

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, allowing you to convincingly interpret, explain, and generalise from your findings.

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

Sample problem statement and research questions, sample theoretical framework, your theoretical framework, frequently asked questions about sample theoretical frameworks.

Your theoretical framework is based on:

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

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 .

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

Below is a simplified example showing how you can describe and compare theories. 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 and 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 analyse 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.

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.

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 .

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.

Vinz, S. (2022, October 10). Example Theoretical Framework of a Dissertation or Thesis. Scribbr. Retrieved 2 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/example-theoretical-framework/

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 | a step-by-step guide, dissertation & thesis outline | example & free templates, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

Innovative Social Sciences Teaching and Learning pp 147–165 Cite as

Supervising Dissertations

• Katharina Rietig 2  
• First Online: 13 January 2024

32 Accesses

This chapter discusses central elements and steps in the research supervision process. The chapter proceeds to explore the key steps in the supervision process such as finding and specifying/narrowing down the topic, identifying the research question and contribution, discussing the research strategy and methods, the literature review and finding the path through the literature forest, identifying and selecting theoretical frameworks and theories, and subsequently proceeding to the case study/empirical part of the dissertation. It discusses the difference between primary/secondary literature-based dissertations (e.g., in philosophy or history) and case study-based dissertations that include the collection and/or analysis of primary/secondary empirical data. It reflects on different approaches and strategies around primary data collection through interviews, field work, and participant observation, as well as complying with risk assessment and research ethics in the process, and then proceeds to the analysis of quantitative/qualitative data. It closes with key considerations around writing the central discussion chapter that links the theoretical framework/theory to the empirical findings and discusses how they fit within the broader academic literature on the topic, before moving to the conclusion chapter that summarizes the contribution and offers broader implications for theory and policy/practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

The reflections offered in this chapter are based on supervising over 50 undergraduate and Master dissertations across environmental studies, political science, and international relations with a focus on empirical or case-study based dissertations.

Clementino, E., & Perkins, R. (2021). How Do Companies Respond to Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Ratings? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, 171 , 379–397.

Article   Google Scholar  

Corner, P. D., & Pio, E. (2017). Supervising International Students’ Theses and Dissertations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16 (1), 23–38.

Dweck, C. (2017). Mindset. Changing the Way You Think to Fulfil Your Potential . Random House.

Google Scholar  

Evans, K. (2013). Pathways Through Writing Blocks in the Academic Environment . Birkhäuser Boston.

Book   Google Scholar  

Fernando, D. M., & Hulse-Killacky, D. (2006). Getting to the Point: Using Research Meetings and the Inverted Triangle Visual to Develop a Dissertation Research Question. Counselor Education and Supervision, 46 (2), 103–115.

Fleming, R. S., & Kowalsky, M. (2021). Survival Skills for Thesis and Dissertation Candidates (1st ed.). Springer.

Ginn, F. (2014). “Being like a Researcher”: Supervising Masters Dissertations in a Neoliberalizing University. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 38 (1), 106–118.

Macfadyen, A., English, C., Kelleher, M., Coates, M., Cameron, C., & Gibson, V. (2019). ‘Am I Doing It Right?’ Conceptualising the Practice of Supervising Master’s Dissertation Students. Higher Education Research and Development, 38 (5), 985–1000.

O’Connor, J. (2017). Inhibition in the Dissertation Writing Process: Barrier, Block, and Impasse. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 34 (4), 516–523.

Reguant, M., Martínez-Olmo, F., & Contreras-Higuera, W. (2018). Supervisors’ Perceptions of Research Competencies in the Final-Year Project. Educational Research, 60 (1), 113–129.

Rietig, K. (2014). ‘Neutral’ Experts? How Input of Scientific Expertise Matters in International Environmental Negotiations. Policy Sciences, 47 (2), 141–160.

Sharman, A., & Holmes, J. (2010). Evidence-Based Policy or Policy-Based Evidence Gathering? Biofuels, the EU and the 10% Target. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20 , 309–321.

Todd, M. J., & Smith, K. (2020). Supervising Undergraduate Dissertations. In A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (5th ed., pp. 135–144). Routledge.

Todd, M. J., Smith, K., & Bannister, P. (2006). Supervising a Social Science Undergraduate Dissertation: Staff Experiences and Perceptions. Teaching in Higher Education, 11 (2), 161–173.

Woolhouse, M. (2002). Supervising Dissertation Projects: Expectations of Supervisors and Students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39 (2), 137–144.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Sage.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Katharina Rietig

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Rietig, K. (2023). Supervising Dissertations. In: Innovative Social Sciences Teaching and Learning. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41452-7_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41452-7_8

Published : 13 January 2024

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-41451-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-41452-7

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

Dissertation Structure & Layout 101: How to structure your dissertation, thesis or research project.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) Reviewed By: David Phair (PhD) | July 2019

So, you’ve got a decent understanding of what a dissertation is , you’ve chosen your topic and hopefully you’ve received approval for your research proposal . Awesome! Now its time to start the actual dissertation or thesis writing journey.

To craft a high-quality document, the very first thing you need to understand is dissertation structure . In this post, we’ll walk you through the generic dissertation structure and layout, step by step. We’ll start with the big picture, and then zoom into each chapter to briefly discuss the core contents. If you’re just starting out on your research journey, you should start with this post, which covers the big-picture process of how to write a dissertation or thesis .

*The Caveat *

In this post, we’ll be discussing a traditional dissertation/thesis structure and layout, which is generally used for social science research across universities, whether in the US, UK, Europe or Australia. However, some universities may have small variations on this structure (extra chapters, merged chapters, slightly different ordering, etc).

So, always check with your university if they have a prescribed structure or layout that they expect you to work with. If not, it’s safe to assume the structure we’ll discuss here is suitable. And even if they do have a prescribed structure, you’ll still get value from this post as we’ll explain the core contents of each section.  

Overview: S tructuring a dissertation or thesis

• Acknowledgements page
• Abstract (or executive summary)
• Table of contents , list of figures and tables
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Literature review
• Chapter 3: Methodology
• Chapter 4: Results
• Chapter 5: Discussion
• Chapter 6: Conclusion
• Reference list

As I mentioned, some universities will have slight variations on this structure. For example, they want an additional “personal reflection chapter”, or they might prefer the results and discussion chapter to be merged into one. Regardless, the overarching flow will always be the same, as this flow reflects the research process , which we discussed here – i.e.:

• The introduction chapter presents the core research question and aims .
• The literature review chapter assesses what the current research says about this question.
• The methodology, results and discussion chapters go about undertaking new research about this question.
• The conclusion chapter (attempts to) answer the core research question .

In other words, the dissertation structure and layout reflect the research process of asking a well-defined question(s), investigating, and then answering the question – see below.

To restate that – the structure and layout of a dissertation reflect the flow of the overall research process . This is essential to understand, as each chapter will make a lot more sense if you “get” this concept. If you’re not familiar with the research process, read this post before going further.

Right. Now that we’ve covered the big picture, let’s dive a little deeper into the details of each section and chapter. Oh and by the way, you can also grab our free dissertation/thesis template here to help speed things up.

The title page of your dissertation is the very first impression the marker will get of your work, so it pays to invest some time thinking about your title. But what makes for a good title? A strong title needs to be 3 things:

• Succinct (not overly lengthy or verbose)
• Specific (not vague or ambiguous)
• Representative of the research you’re undertaking (clearly linked to your research questions)

Typically, a good title includes mention of the following:

• The broader area of the research (i.e. the overarching topic)
• The specific focus of your research (i.e. your specific context)
• Indication of research design (e.g. quantitative , qualitative , or  mixed methods ).

For example:

A quantitative investigation [research design] into the antecedents of organisational trust [broader area] in the UK retail forex trading market [specific context/area of focus].

Again, some universities may have specific requirements regarding the format and structure of the title, so it’s worth double-checking expectations with your institution (if there’s no mention in the brief or study material).

Acknowledgements

This page provides you with an opportunity to say thank you to those who helped you along your research journey. Generally, it’s optional (and won’t count towards your marks), but it is academic best practice to include this.

So, who do you say thanks to? Well, there’s no prescribed requirements, but it’s common to mention the following people:

• Your dissertation supervisor or committee.
• Any professors, lecturers or academics that helped you understand the topic or methodologies.
• Any tutors, mentors or advisors.
• Your family and friends, especially spouse (for adult learners studying part-time).

There’s no need for lengthy rambling. Just state who you’re thankful to and for what (e.g. thank you to my supervisor, John Doe, for his endless patience and attentiveness) – be sincere. In terms of length, you should keep this to a page or less.

Abstract or executive summary

The dissertation abstract (or executive summary for some degrees) serves to provide the first-time reader (and marker or moderator) with a big-picture view of your research project. It should give them an understanding of the key insights and findings from the research, without them needing to read the rest of the report – in other words, it should be able to stand alone .

For it to stand alone, your abstract should cover the following key points (at a minimum):

• Your research questions and aims – what key question(s) did your research aim to answer?
• Your methodology – how did you go about investigating the topic and finding answers to your research question(s)?
• Your findings – following your own research, what did do you discover?
• Your conclusions – based on your findings, what conclusions did you draw? What answers did you find to your research question(s)?

So, in much the same way the dissertation structure mimics the research process, your abstract or executive summary should reflect the research process, from the initial stage of asking the original question to the final stage of answering that question.

In practical terms, it’s a good idea to write this section up last , once all your core chapters are complete. Otherwise, you’ll end up writing and rewriting this section multiple times (just wasting time). For a step by step guide on how to write a strong executive summary, check out this post .

Need a helping hand?

Table of contents

This section is straightforward. You’ll typically present your table of contents (TOC) first, followed by the two lists – figures and tables. I recommend that you use Microsoft Word’s automatic table of contents generator to generate your TOC. If you’re not familiar with this functionality, the video below explains it simply:

If you find that your table of contents is overly lengthy, consider removing one level of depth. Oftentimes, this can be done without detracting from the usefulness of the TOC.

Right, now that the “admin” sections are out of the way, its time to move on to your core chapters. These chapters are the heart of your dissertation and are where you’ll earn the marks. The first chapter is the introduction chapter – as you would expect, this is the time to introduce your research…

It’s important to understand that even though you’ve provided an overview of your research in your abstract, your introduction needs to be written as if the reader has not read that (remember, the abstract is essentially a standalone document). So, your introduction chapter needs to start from the very beginning, and should address the following questions:

• What will you be investigating (in plain-language, big picture-level)?
• Why is that worth investigating? How is it important to academia or business? How is it sufficiently original?
• What are your research aims and research question(s)? Note that the research questions can sometimes be presented at the end of the literature review (next chapter).
• What is the scope of your study? In other words, what will and won’t you cover ?
• How will you approach your research? In other words, what methodology will you adopt?
• How will you structure your dissertation? What are the core chapters and what will you do in each of them?

These are just the bare basic requirements for your intro chapter. Some universities will want additional bells and whistles in the intro chapter, so be sure to carefully read your brief or consult your research supervisor.

If done right, your introduction chapter will set a clear direction for the rest of your dissertation. Specifically, it will make it clear to the reader (and marker) exactly what you’ll be investigating, why that’s important, and how you’ll be going about the investigation. Conversely, if your introduction chapter leaves a first-time reader wondering what exactly you’ll be researching, you’ve still got some work to do.

Now that you’ve set a clear direction with your introduction chapter, the next step is the literature review . In this section, you will analyse the existing research (typically academic journal articles and high-quality industry publications), with a view to understanding the following questions:

• What does the literature currently say about the topic you’re investigating?
• Is the literature lacking or well established? Is it divided or in disagreement?
• How does your research fit into the bigger picture?
• How does your research contribute something original?
• How does the methodology of previous studies help you develop your own?

Depending on the nature of your study, you may also present a conceptual framework towards the end of your literature review, which you will then test in your actual research.

Again, some universities will want you to focus on some of these areas more than others, some will have additional or fewer requirements, and so on. Therefore, as always, its important to review your brief and/or discuss with your supervisor, so that you know exactly what’s expected of your literature review chapter.

Now that you’ve investigated the current state of knowledge in your literature review chapter and are familiar with the existing key theories, models and frameworks, its time to design your own research. Enter the methodology chapter – the most “science-ey” of the chapters…

In this chapter, you need to address two critical questions:

• Exactly HOW will you carry out your research (i.e. what is your intended research design)?
• Exactly WHY have you chosen to do things this way (i.e. how do you justify your design)?

Remember, the dissertation part of your degree is first and foremost about developing and demonstrating research skills . Therefore, the markers want to see that you know which methods to use, can clearly articulate why you’ve chosen then, and know how to deploy them effectively.

Importantly, this chapter requires detail – don’t hold back on the specifics. State exactly what you’ll be doing, with who, when, for how long, etc. Moreover, for every design choice you make, make sure you justify it.

In practice, you will likely end up coming back to this chapter once you’ve undertaken all your data collection and analysis, and revise it based on changes you made during the analysis phase. This is perfectly fine. Its natural for you to add an additional analysis technique, scrap an old one, etc based on where your data lead you. Of course, I’m talking about small changes here – not a fundamental switch from qualitative to quantitative, which will likely send your supervisor in a spin!

You’ve now collected your data and undertaken your analysis, whether qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. In this chapter, you’ll present the raw results of your analysis . For example, in the case of a quant study, you’ll present the demographic data, descriptive statistics, inferential statistics , etc.

Typically, Chapter 4 is simply a presentation and description of the data, not a discussion of the meaning of the data. In other words, it’s descriptive, rather than analytical – the meaning is discussed in Chapter 5. However, some universities will want you to combine chapters 4 and 5, so that you both present and interpret the meaning of the data at the same time. Check with your institution what their preference is.

Now that you’ve presented the data analysis results, its time to interpret and analyse them. In other words, its time to discuss what they mean, especially in relation to your research question(s).

What you discuss here will depend largely on your chosen methodology. For example, if you’ve gone the quantitative route, you might discuss the relationships between variables . If you’ve gone the qualitative route, you might discuss key themes and the meanings thereof. It all depends on what your research design choices were.

Most importantly, you need to discuss your results in relation to your research questions and aims, as well as the existing literature. What do the results tell you about your research questions? Are they aligned with the existing research or at odds? If so, why might this be? Dig deep into your findings and explain what the findings suggest, in plain English.

The final chapter – you’ve made it! Now that you’ve discussed your interpretation of the results, its time to bring it back to the beginning with the conclusion chapter . In other words, its time to (attempt to) answer your original research question s (from way back in chapter 1). Clearly state what your conclusions are in terms of your research questions. This might feel a bit repetitive, as you would have touched on this in the previous chapter, but its important to bring the discussion full circle and explicitly state your answer(s) to the research question(s).

Next, you’ll typically discuss the implications of your findings? In other words, you’ve answered your research questions – but what does this mean for the real world (or even for academia)? What should now be done differently, given the new insight you’ve generated?

Lastly, you should discuss the limitations of your research, as well as what this means for future research in the area. No study is perfect, especially not a Masters-level. Discuss the shortcomings of your research. Perhaps your methodology was limited, perhaps your sample size was small or not representative, etc, etc. Don’t be afraid to critique your work – the markers want to see that you can identify the limitations of your work. This is a strength, not a weakness. Be brutal!

This marks the end of your core chapters – woohoo! From here on out, it’s pretty smooth sailing.

The reference list is straightforward. It should contain a list of all resources cited in your dissertation, in the required format, e.g. APA , Harvard, etc.

It’s essential that you use reference management software for your dissertation. Do NOT try handle your referencing manually – its far too error prone. On a reference list of multiple pages, you’re going to make mistake. To this end, I suggest considering either Mendeley or Zotero. Both are free and provide a very straightforward interface to ensure that your referencing is 100% on point. I’ve included a simple how-to video for the Mendeley software (my personal favourite) below:

Some universities may ask you to include a bibliography, as opposed to a reference list. These two things are not the same . A bibliography is similar to a reference list, except that it also includes resources which informed your thinking but were not directly cited in your dissertation. So, double-check your brief and make sure you use the right one.

The very last piece of the puzzle is the appendix or set of appendices. This is where you’ll include any supporting data and evidence. Importantly, supporting is the keyword here.

Your appendices should provide additional “nice to know”, depth-adding information, which is not critical to the core analysis. Appendices should not be used as a way to cut down word count (see this post which covers how to reduce word count ). In other words, don’t place content that is critical to the core analysis here, just to save word count. You will not earn marks on any content in the appendices, so don’t try to play the system!

Time to recap…

And there you have it – the traditional dissertation structure and layout, from A-Z. To recap, the core structure for a dissertation or thesis is (typically) as follows:

• Acknowledgments page

Most importantly, the core chapters should reflect the research process (asking, investigating and answering your research question). Moreover, the research question(s) should form the golden thread throughout your dissertation structure. Everything should revolve around the research questions, and as you’ve seen, they should form both the start point (i.e. introduction chapter) and the endpoint (i.e. conclusion chapter).

I hope this post has provided you with clarity about the traditional dissertation/thesis structure and layout. If you have any questions or comments, please leave a comment below, or feel free to get in touch with us. Also, be sure to check out the rest of the  Grad Coach Blog .

Psst… there’s more (for free)

This post is part of our dissertation mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project. 

You Might Also Like:

36 Comments

many thanks i found it very useful

Glad to hear that, Arun. Good luck writing your dissertation.

Such clear practical logical advice. I very much needed to read this to keep me focused in stead of fretting.. Perfect now ready to start my research!

what about scientific fields like computer or engineering thesis what is the difference in the structure? thank you very much

Thanks so much this helped me a lot!

Very helpful and accessible. What I like most is how practical the advice is along with helpful tools/ links.

Thanks Ade!

Thank you so much sir.. It was really helpful..

You’re welcome!

Hi! How many words maximum should contain the abstract?

Thank you so much 😊 Find this at the right moment

You’re most welcome. Good luck with your dissertation.

best ever benefit i got on right time thank you

Many times Clarity and vision of destination of dissertation is what makes the difference between good ,average and great researchers the same way a great automobile driver is fast with clarity of address and Clear weather conditions .

I guess Great researcher = great ideas + knowledge + great and fast data collection and modeling + great writing + high clarity on all these

You have given immense clarity from start to end.

Morning. Where will I write the definitions of what I’m referring to in my report?

Thank you so much Derek, I was almost lost! Thanks a tonnnn! Have a great day!

Thanks ! so concise and valuable

This was very helpful. Clear and concise. I know exactly what to do now.

Thank you for allowing me to go through briefly. I hope to find time to continue.

Really useful to me. Thanks a thousand times

Very interesting! It will definitely set me and many more for success. highly recommended.

Thank you soo much sir, for the opportunity to express my skills

Usefull, thanks a lot. Really clear

Very nice and easy to understand. Thank you .

That was incredibly useful. Thanks Grad Coach Crew!

My stress level just dropped at least 15 points after watching this. Just starting my thesis for my grad program and I feel a lot more capable now! Thanks for such a clear and helpful video, Emma and the GradCoach team!

Do we need to mention the number of words the dissertation contains in the main document?

It depends on your university’s requirements, so it would be best to check with them 🙂

Such a helpful post to help me get started with structuring my masters dissertation, thank you!

Great video; I appreciate that helpful information

It is so necessary or avital course

This blog is very informative for my research. Thank you

Doctoral students are required to fill out the National Research Council’s Survey of Earned Doctorates

wow this is an amazing gain in my life

This is so good

How can i arrange my specific objectives in my dissertation?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis) - Grad Coach - […] is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

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
• BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

Identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks: a qualitative study to inform the development of a decision support tool

Lisa strifler.

1 Institute of Health Policy Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M6 Canada

2 Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8 Canada

Jan M. Barnsley

Michael hillmer.

3 Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, 900 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M7A 1R3 Canada

Sharon E. Straus

4 Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Toronto, 27 King’s College Circle, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1 Canada

Associated Data

Not applicable.

Implementation theories, models and frameworks offer guidance when implementing and sustaining healthcare evidence-based interventions. However, selection can be challenging given the myriad of potential options. We propose to inform a decision support tool to facilitate the appropriate selection of an implementation theory, model or framework in practice. To inform tool development, this study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks in research and practice, as well as end-user preferences for features and functions of the proposed tool.

We used an interpretive descriptive approach to conduct semi-structured interviews with implementation researchers and practitioners in Canada, the United States and Australia. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data were inductively coded by a single investigator with a subset of 20% coded independently by a second investigator and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Twenty-four individuals participated in the study. Categories of barriers/facilitators, to inform tool development, included characteristics of the individual or team conducting implementation and characteristics of the implementation theory, model or framework. Major barriers to selection included inconsistent terminology, poor fit with the implementation context and limited knowledge about and training in existing theories, models and frameworks. Major facilitators to selection included the importance of clear and concise language and evidence that the theory, model or framework was applied in a relevant health setting or context. Participants were enthusiastic about the development of a decision support tool that is user-friendly, accessible and practical. Preferences for tool features included key questions about the implementation intervention or project (e.g., purpose, stage of implementation, intended target for change) and a comprehensive list of relevant theories, models and frameworks to choose from along with a glossary of terms and the contexts in which they were applied.

Conclusions

An easy to use decision support tool that addresses key barriers to selecting an implementation theory, model or framework in practice may be beneficial to individuals who facilitate implementation practice activities. Findings on end-user preferences for tool features and functions will inform tool development and design through a user-centered approach.

Over 100 different theories, models and frameworks exist to guide effective implementation and sustainability of evidence-based interventions or programs [ 1 , 2 ]. The myriad of implementation theories, models and frameworks differ in complexity, such as their aim, scope and intended target for change. For example, they may describe the different stages of implementation (e.g., process models); identify barriers and facilitators that influence implementation (e.g., determinant frameworks); or predict or explain implementation success by offering an underlying mechanism or theory of change (e.g., implementation theories) [ 3 ]. Further, some theories, models and frameworks are broad and address the entire implementation process, while others focus on a particular implementation aspect such as intervention sustainability. Implementation theories, models and frameworks also operate at one or more levels of change, from a health system to an individual. In many cases, using multiple theories, models and frameworks is useful to inform or address the scope and aims of an implementation project and to guide intervention development and testing at multiple levels [ 4 – 6 ].

Despite a growing interest in the appropriate selection and use of implementation theories, models and frameworks [ 7 – 11 ], it can be difficult to sift through and make sense of the various options available – especially when most are used in practice only once or with limited justification [ 2 , 12 ]. For instance, participants in an implementation practice training course [ 13 ] reported that they struggled to identify and select suitable theories, models or frameworks to guide their work. Studies also suggest that implementation theories, models and frameworks may not be used appropriately [ 8 , 14 ].

Implementation researchers and practitioners looking to identify a theory, model or framework to inform their work can access existing tools and publicly available resources such as guidance documents (e.g., [ 15 – 17 ]). For example, drawing on their personal experience working with novice implementation practitioners, Lynch and colleagues [ 10 ] suggested five questions to consider when selecting a theory, model or framework: who are you working with, when in the process are you going to use theory, why are you applying theory, how will you collect data and what resources are available. Birken and colleagues [ 9 ] developed a checklist of 16 criteria (organized within four categories: usability, validity, applicability, acceptability) for implementation researchers or practitioners to consult when selecting a theory, model or framework. A major limitation identified by the tool developers is the prerequisite of a candidate list of suitable theories, models or frameworks to draw from and compare [ 9 ]. Rabin and colleagues developed a database of models and frameworks, www.dissemination-implementation.org , however the content is based on the findings of a narrative review of theories, models and frameworks [ 18 ] and is not comprehensive.

To address this problem, we propose to use the findings from a rigorous scoping review of over 300 implementation theories, models and frameworks [ 2 ] to develop a decision support tool, with input from implementation researchers and practitioners using qualitative research methods. A decision support tool provides structured guidance to help users make an explicit decision [ 19 ]. In this case, a decision support tool may facilitate appropriate selection of one or more implementation theories, models or frameworks by engaging the user to answer key questions, resulting in relevant options to consider. The decision support tool will be developed using rigorous methods guided by theory and evidence on user-centered design and implementation science. The overarching approach will be informed using the Knowledge-to-Action Cycle [ 20 ] and the United Kingdom Medical Research Council Framework for Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions [ 21 ]. These methods have been used for creation of other decision support tools [ 22 ]. As tool development is not the focus for this paper, details on the methods will be described in a subsequent development and evaluation paper.

To inform tool development, we sought the perspectives of implementation researchers and practitioners working in healthcare. Specifically, this study aimed to identify 1) barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks in research and practice, and 2) preferences for features (i.e., content items) and functions of the proposed decision support tool.

Thorne’s interpretive descriptive approach [ 23 ] guided all aspects of this research, including the design and analysis. Interpretive description is grounded in traditional qualitative methodologies (e.g., phenomenology) that are derived from the social sciences; yet, it is oriented toward applied health disciplines such as implementation practice and designed to address real-world knowledge gaps [ 23 ].

Study design

We used Thorne’s interpretive descriptive approach to elicit the perspectives of implementation researchers and practitioners through individual interviews. We chose to conduct individual, semi-structured interviews to understand individual perspectives, including challenges and successes related to identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks in research and practice. While focus groups would have allowed for group interactions and may have helped participants generate and share their ideas [ 24 ], we were most interested in individual opinions and decision processes [ 23 ]. Therefore, we felt that interviews would be more informative for tool development. Feasibility was also a factor, as our participants were from a wide geographic area. We followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist [ 25 ] (Additional file  1 ). We obtained research ethics board approval from Unity Health Toronto (REB #16–335) and the University of Toronto (REB #33907). Ethics approval covered recruitment at the conferences and workshops, which covered the study participants in the United States (USA) and Australia. Verbal informed consent was approved by the ethics boards and obtained (and audio-recorded) from all participants using a predetermined script prior to the phone interview.

Participant selection

Eligible study participants included implementation researchers and practitioners (e.g., administrators, clinicians, knowledge brokers) working in healthcare environments such as hospitals, academic research centers or universities, or broader community settings (e.g., public health or regulatory organizations). We defined implementation researchers as individuals who conducted implementation science, and implementation practitioners as individuals who facilitated implementation practice activities (including those who provided support through training and capacity building or knowledge brokering activities).

Study recruitment followed three approaches. First, we recruited in person at two international implementation conferences, one held in the USA in 2016 and one in Canada in 2017. At both conferences, we presented a poster on our scoping review of implementation theories, models and frameworks [ 2 ], distributed study information sheets to attendees who stopped to read the poster, and collected contact information from individuals who were interested in participating in our study. We then sent a personalized email to each individual to verify their interest and eligibility and schedule a phone interview. Second, we sent a personalized email to past participants of an implementation practice training course developed by the Knowledge Translation Program (St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Canada) [ 13 ] and delivered in Canada and Australia between 2015 and 2017. Third, we asked study participants to share the study information sheet with colleagues who might be interested in participating. We sent a personalized email to individuals referred to us by study participants. Up to two more emails were sent to non-responders.

These different recruitment approaches were selected because they targeted diverse implementation researchers and practitioners who were interested in, and had experience with, implementation. The sample was expected to reflect the perspectives of our target end-users of the proposed decision support tool. A sample size of 20–30 participants was expected to provide sufficient information to answer the research question through semi-structured interviews and was considered a feasible range given the available resources [ 23 , 26 ].

Data collection

Interviews were conducted over the phone by one investigator (LS) between September 2017 and January 2018. A semi-structured interview guide (Additional file  1 ) was prepared and revised as needed throughout data collection. Part 1 of the interview explored the barriers and facilitators to identifying, selecting and using implementation theories, models or frameworks in research and practice. It included participants’ views and understanding of theories, models and frameworks and the processes used for considering one or more to inform their implementation activities. The interview guide questions were informed loosely by the Theoretical Domains Framework [ 27 ] as a starting point, to allow for inductive analysis. Direct questions inquiring about perceived barriers and facilitators were also included to allow for free-flowing discussion. The Theoretical Domains Framework is a validated determinant framework [ 28 ] that has been applied in numerous implementation studies to uncover the underlying barriers to and facilitators of behaviour change. Further, the framework includes a comprehensive set of barriers at the individual or person level, along with the organizational-level (e.g., groups of individuals), which we felt were most important to understand when developing a decision support tool to meet the needs of our targeted end-user. Part 2 of the interview explored the features and functions of a hypothetical decision support tool that would be important to participants as target end-users of the tool. The interview guide was reviewed by and pilot tested with three individuals, all experienced in qualitative research and implementation science and practice, and one of whom was also a clinician. Each interview lasted 30–60 min and was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Data analysis

Following an interpretive descriptive approach, we conducted a thematic analysis of the data to synthesize meanings across codes and generate a narrative of the key themes to inform subsequent tool development [ 23 , 29 ]. Data analysis occurred concurrently with data collection. We used NVivo 12 qualitative data analysis software (QSR International, Cambridge, MA) to organize and code the transcripts. Once the audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and verified for accuracy, they were de-identified using a master linking log, prior to being imported into NVivo. After reading through the first few transcripts to become familiar with the data, we used open coding to create codes from the text and drafted a coding framework. This coding framework was revised iteratively throughout data collection and analysis. All data were coded inductively by a single investigator (LS), with a subset of 20% (i.e., 5 transcripts in total) coded by a second investigator (JB) with high concordance achieved. This duplicate coding process was done at the start and end of data collection to ensure consistency of themes. Representative quotes from participants were selected to support the themes and study findings. The final manuscript was shared with participants for feedback on the research findings.

Participant characteristics

Twenty-four individuals consented to participate: 16 were from Canada, seven from the USA and one from Australia (Table  1 ). One eligible participant declined consent due to a confidentiality agreement with their current employer. Of the eligible workshop participants contacted, 2 were not reached due to undeliverable email addresses and 33 did not respond to our email invitation. Participants were recruited until no new themes were identified; therefore, not all workshop participants were sent a study invitation. Participants worked in a variety of healthcare environments including hospitals, academic research centers, universities, government organizations, and regulatory organizations. Participants had a range of experience supporting implementation activities in healthcare environments and reported working in implementation for 1.5 to over 20 years. Of the 24 participants, 11 (46%) had completed a “Practicing Knowledge Translation” course developed by the Knowledge Translation Program at St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Canada [ 13 ]. In terms of knowledge, 14 (58%) participants rated themselves as very or extremely knowledgeable or familiar with implementation theories, models and frameworks, and 13 (54%) as very or extremely confident in selecting and applying them to their work. Sixteen (67%) participants reported frequently or always selecting an implementation theory, model or framework and applying it to their work.

*Not mutually exclusive

^Workshop (Moore et al., [ 13 ]) delivered at either St. Michael’s Hospital, Canada or Bond University, Australia

Barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting implementation theories, models or frameworks

Four broad categories and 10 factors, generated from the data, influenced identification and selection of implementation theories, models and frameworks and were relevant to tool development (Fig.  1 ). Illustrative interview excerpts are presented in Tables  2 and ​ and3 3 .

Categories and factors influencing the identification and selection of an implementation theory, model or framework

Interview excerpts supporting key factors related to category 1 ‘characteristics of individual or team conducting implementation’

Interview excerpts supporting key factors related to category 2 ‘characteristics of implementation theory, model or framework’

Category 1: characteristics of the individual or team conducting implementation

Factor 1: attitudes about the importance of selecting theories, models and frameworks.

Participants reported having a general understanding of theories, models and frameworks and described several uses in implementation research and practice. For example, many participants found Nilsen’s 2015 taxonomy [ 3 ] was useful for defining a theory versus a model versus a framework and referred to the taxonomy when describing their similarities and differences. Some participants said their understanding was grounded in their learnings from the “Practicing Knowledge Translation” course. Others described their understanding of implementation theories, models and frameworks in terms of their clinical or health discipline, such as the Iowa Model for Evidence-based Practice to Promote Quality Care [ 30 ] which originates in the nursing field. In general, frameworks and models were described as being descriptive and useful for clarifying aspects of a complicated process. Theories were viewed as being more explicit about how certain phenomena are operating and how change might be occurring.

Participants mentioned using 28 different implementation theories, models and frameworks to inform their work (Table  4 ). Participants described the important role that theories, models and frameworks play in advancing implementation understanding, especially regarding planning, developing and sustaining effective interventions and implementation strategies. Some of the described uses of theories, models and frameworks included: informing the research question; justifying and organizing an implementation project; guiding the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies; helping to achieve intended outcomes; and analyzing, interpreting, generalizing, or applying the findings of an implementation project. Other benefits to their use included providing a good starting point for implementation, providing a systematic or pragmatic approach for implementation, avoiding overlooking key categories or processes of implementation, and increasing methodological rigor. Participants commented on the importance of engaging in practices that are informed by theories, models and frameworks and evidence.

Implementation theories, models and frameworks used by participants

Note: nearly half of the 24 participants attended the same training course, which may have limited the range of theories, models and frameworks identified. See Additional file  1 for citations for the theories, models and frameworks.

While all participants agreed on the utility of frameworks and models, such as the Knowledge-to-Action Cycle [ 20 ], a few were skeptical of the value of using theory to enhance knowledge of the complexity of implementation; they preferred to avoid selecting a formal theoretical approach. Others lacked experience with theory-driven implementation. A few believed that implementation practitioners may not feel the same level of “pressure” to use a theory, model or framework in their role compared to an implementation researcher.

Factor 2: knowledge of existing implementation theories, models and frameworks

Knowledge of existing implementation theories, models and frameworks and where to find them were perceived to be important. Some participants struggled to identify new theories, models or frameworks to inform their work, and identified their lack of knowledge of the breadth of options as an important barrier. Most participants favoured one or more implementation theories, models or frameworks and used them repeatedly, stating that it was easy to use what was familiar. Many did not follow an explicit process for identifying a new theory, model or framework. Access to a comprehensive repository or database of existing implementation theories, models and frameworks was perceived as helpful. Participants also suggested having at least one implementation team member with up-to-date knowledge of what implementation theories, models and frameworks exist, where to find them and their uses.

Factor 3: training related to implementation theories, models and frameworks

Participants talked about the relationship between selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks in research or practice and their training experience. For example, most participants selected theories, models and frameworks for which they received specific training. Major barriers to selection included inadequate background or research training in implementation theories, models and frameworks, and lack of training or expertise in implementation research methods or practice. Some participants spoke about the challenge of getting others (e.g., senior administrators, healthcare providers) to buy into the use of a certain theory, model or framework, especially if they were not familiar with the application of theory. Facilitators to selection included gaining appropriate training through participation in capacity building activities, such as accessing implementation workshops, conferences, coaching, mentoring, train-the-trainer approaches or communities of practice. Examples included working with someone who was formally trained on the theory, model or framework, or receiving feedback from implementation experts who used it to inform their work.

Category 2: characteristics of the implementation theory, model or framework

Factor 4: language and terminology used to describe the theory, model or framework.

Language and terminology were key factors for identification and selection. Participants described the language used in implementation theories, models and frameworks as “complex”, “abstract”, “complicated” and “confusing”. In particular, the use of jargon and lack of clear construct definitions were identified as major barriers. Further, several participants struggled with overlapping constructs, and the inconsistent terms used to describe them across theories, models and frameworks. For example, the same term or definition may be used for different constructs, or different terms or definitions may be used for the same constructs. A few participants commented on the inaccurate and inconsistent use of the term theory versus model versus framework, both in research and in practice settings. This appeared to be common with theories versus frameworks (e.g., calling something a theory but referring to a framework). Facilitators included the importance of clear and concise language, and clearly-defined constructs to help differentiate among the various theories, models and frameworks.

Factor 5: fit of the theory, model or framework to the implementation project

Another key factor for identification and selection was the level of fit or appropriateness of the theory, model or framework to the implementation project. Specifically, a poor fit between the context in which the theory, model or framework was developed or had been applied, and the context of the implementation project was identified as a major barrier. For example, many theories, models and frameworks were developed for a specific condition or health behaviour and had not yet been applied in different contexts. Important aspects of the context included the research question, purpose or goal; health problem; setting; population; and level of behaviour change. Evidence that the theory, model or framework had been applied in practice in a similar context (such as relevant examples of applications in the literature) facilitated appropriate selection. Participants stated that seeing a description of the contexts in which the theory, model or framework was previously used was helpful when determining fit. Being aware of a theory, model or framework’s underlying assumptions and its limitations also informed appropriateness and applicability. Other related challenges included the interchangeability, compatibility and adaptability of implementation theories, models and frameworks. For example, some participants struggled with the trade-offs of selecting one theory, model or framework over another. Participants perceived that guidance on comparing different options would facilitate appropriate selection. Some noted that theories, models and frameworks often overlap or are highly derivative of each other, which adds to the complexity of combining more than one within an implementation project. It was deemed helpful to highlight theories, models or frameworks that fit well together, such as the research by Michie and colleagues linking Capabilities Opportunities Motivation Behaviour with the Theoretical Domains Framework [ 31 ]. For others, implementation theories, models or frameworks that allowed for some modification were appealing, but participants struggled with how to modify or change aspects to improve fit while maintaining fidelity to key elements.

Factor 6: ease of use of the implementation theory, model or framework

Ease of use in practice was perceived to influence selection of a theory, model or framework. Some participants described implementation theories, models and frameworks as “not intuitive to use” and difficult to operationalize in the context of their own implementation project, even when the theory, model or framework was viewed as a relevant option. Facilitators to selection and use included existing online tools and publicly available resources, such as websites dedicated to specific theories, models or frameworks (e.g., the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research). In terms of measurement challenges, a few participants cited a lack of relevant measures for key variables across theories, models and frameworks, as well as variability in the extent to which measures were developed to assess constructs. Participants preferred theories, models or frameworks that were “highly actionable”, “pragmatic” and “easy to operationalize” in practice, with detailed processes for the measures themselves that were compatible with their setting.

Factor 7: evidence supporting the implementation theory, model or framework

Empirical evidence of effectiveness, including strength of evidence supporting the theory, model or framework, influenced selection. Implementation theories were described as “fairly loose” and “without solid evidence” compared to theories in other scientific fields (e.g., physical sciences). Further, within a theory, model or framework, the level of evidence was perceived to be uneven across domains or specific processes. A summary of the evidence supporting a theory, model or framework, including the evidence used to create it and evidence of its effectiveness, was deemed to be an important facilitator. Participants also felt it was important that the theory, model or framework constructs and concepts had face validity and made sense in terms of the implementation research question or goal.

Categories 3 and 4

Other important barriers and facilitators mentioned by participants were related to characteristics of the healthcare environment (Category 4) and, to a lesser extent, characteristics of the implementation intervention or project (Category 3).

Availability of resources (Factor 10) within complex healthcare environments (Category 4), such as time, staffing and capacity, funding and access to data were identified as both barriers and facilitators to selection. Many participants also described a “tension” between time and robustness of implementation. For example, a lack of time to invest in the understanding and use of a theory, model or framework (e.g., competing demands or pressure to fix the problem right away) was a major barrier, while taking the time to create an implementation plan that included consideration of theories, models or frameworks at implementation onset was a facilitator. Theory, model or framework selection was also influenced by staff and stakeholder support, such as having an inadequate number of project staff available or being the sole implementation practitioner within an organization. It was deemed important to “assemble the right people at the right table” to avoid siloed practice and redundancy.

Finally, a few participants mentioned factors related to the implementation project (Category 3), such as consideration of the purpose, problem or goal and intended outcome (Factor 8). For instance, it may be inappropriate to select a theory when part of the research question or outcome of an implementation project was to further develop theory. Another relevant factor that presented a challenge to selection was the level of intervention complexity (Factor 9), including the type of intended behaviour change (e.g., individual, program, practice, policy), and the implementation stage (e.g., planning, evaluation, sustainability) for the project.

Features and functions of a decision support tool

Participants were enthusiastic and receptive to the idea of a decision support tool targeted to implementation practitioners. The following key features and functions were suggested to inform tool development. Illustrative interview excerpts are presented in Table  5 .

Interview excerpts supporting key tool features and functions

Features or content items

Most importantly, the tool should include a comprehensive list of existing implementation theories, models and frameworks to choose from. Suggested content items included characteristics of the theories, models and frameworks matched with characteristics of the end-user’s implementation project (e.g., aim, scope and level of change). Participants suggested organizing the theories, models and frameworks according to their purpose (including their intended aim, scope and level of change) to align them with end-users’ needs. Alternatively, one participant (ID1) suggested starting with the project end goal or outcome, and reviewing theories, models and frameworks that include that outcome as a relevant construct. Many participants also suggested including the context in which the theories, models and frameworks have been applied, along with links to seminal articles and examples of real-world use. Linking the tool with seminal articles would allow end-users to see examples of what has been done, and perhaps gauge ease of use, as well as where the literature may or may not be saturated. Some participants suggested summarizing the evidence supporting each theory, model and framework to highlight those that have been validated. A few participants suggested content items related to the availability of implementation resources, such as the project timelines, number of stakeholders, guidance and team expertise, and financial support.

Participants suggested that the tool be simple and easy to use by the target end-user (i.e., implementation practitioners). They identified that it should provide the user with a modest set of key questions or prompts that start off broad and become more specific. For example, the tool could respond to the user’s input by guiding them toward more specific theories, models and/or frameworks. The tool should also be practical in that the level of content detail fits the intended tool audience and purpose. Being highly accessible through an open access web-based platform was also important. Further, accommodating a team-based approach (e.g., permitting access and use of the tool by an entire multi-disciplinary implementation team) would foster collaboration. Other suggested features included: interactive viewing or search capabilities (e.g., clicking on an interactive theory, model or framework diagram or figure for more information, or searching by key word or construct name); webinars or instructional videos led by experts on when (and how) to use the theory, model or framework; the use of “storytelling” (e.g., case studies) to increase personal connection; and built-in chat room capabilities to connect or collaborate with and receive feedback from others in the field who have experience selecting and using the implementation theory, model or framework. Finally, a few participants suggested an embedded evaluation component whereby users may consent to complete a survey to provide feedback on the tool.

Our findings revealed that factors related to the theory, model or framework, the individual or team conducting implementation and the implementation project are critical to consider when developing a decision support tool. Key barriers to selection related to characteristics of the theory, model or framework included: inaccurate and inconsistent language, poor fit with the implementation context, lack of appropriate measures and limited empirical evidence of effectiveness. These findings are supported by a recent, international survey of over 200 implementation researchers and practitioners who rated ‘empirical support’ and ‘application to a specific population or setting’ as the most important criteria for selection; nevertheless, survey respondents also reported selecting a theory, model or framework based on convenience or familiarity [ 1 ]. Similarly, we found that a lack of knowledge of and familiarity with existing implementation theories, models and frameworks, along with a lack of proper training on their use, were key individual/team-level barriers to selection. These knowledge and skills barriers were not surprising given the abundance of implementation theories, models and frameworks coupled with low citation rates in the literature, indicating they are not commonly used [ 2 , 12 ]. Our study reaffirmed this finding by demonstrating that a group of implementation researchers and practitioners with high self-rated knowledge and experience generated a list of 28 theories, models, and frameworks, which represent less than 20% of those identified in a scoping review. While there may be benefits to selecting a highly-cited theory, model or framework (such as comparability of results across populations or health behaviours [ 32 ] or greater availability of resources for operationalization and measurement [ 12 ]), a systematic and comprehensive approach to theory, model and framework identification and selection is necessary to advance implementation science and practice.

There are numerous determinant frameworks that we could have chosen to inform our interview guide. For example, our team recently mapped over 300 implementation theories, models and frameworks to Nilsen’s taxonomy [ 3 ] and identified over 50 determinant frameworks targeting at least individual-level change; however, many did not include a comprehensive set of barriers and facilitators ( unpublished data ). Our findings on the barriers and facilitators to selection of a theory, model or framework, in the context of informing a decision support tool, are supported by the Theoretical Domains Framework. For example, the domain ‘knowledge’ considers having the knowledge to locate and understand existing theories, models and frameworks. The ‘skills’ and ‘beliefs about capabilities’ domains focus on having the skills required to know how to select a theory, model or framework in practice and considers how easy or difficult this task is for an individual or team. The ‘social/professional role and identity’ and ‘optimism’ domains consider attitudes about the importance of using theories, models and frameworks, specifically whether an individual believes that selecting and using them is part of their role as an implementation researcher or practitioner and that doing so will benefit their implementation work. The ‘goals’ and ‘intentions’ domains focus on wanting to select and use theories, models and frameworks and then making a conscious decision to include them in implementation work, for example, by using a decision support tool. Finally, the ‘environmental resources’ domain considers having the time and funds to invest in the selection process.

A decision support tool addressing our findings on barriers and facilitators to selection might include a comprehensive list of theories, models and frameworks, a glossary of key terms, the contexts in which the theories, models and frameworks have been developed and applied (including examples of application), and any available evidence to support their validity. Other suggested features for consideration during tool development included the purpose, goal or intended outcome of the implementation project as well as the target population and the intended target for change. It would be quite challenging as tool developers, to systematically categorize existing theories, models and frameworks according to factors such as the amount of time or funding required for use; it may be more beneficial for end-users to reflect on these environment-level factors as key considerations associated with the selection of a particular theory, model or framework from the options provided by the tool. Findings on end-user preferences for tool features and functions will inform tool development and design through a user-centered approach [ 33 ].

Limitations

The following study limitations should be considered. First, we used a convenience sample of implementation conference and course attendees. As a result, close to half of our participant sample completed a “Practicing Knowledge Translation” course. As such, we were mindful during recruitment to ensure representatives from different types of healthcare environments, roles, and level of experience. Although we did not intend to saturate these fields given our sample size, we did obtain saturation of themes and had a good sample size for qualitative interviews [ 23 ]. Second, we chose to interview implementation researchers and practitioners with some implementation practice experience (i.e., as the target end-users of our tool) because we felt that this experience would be necessary to identify the underlying barriers and facilitators. As such, all study participants described having a baseline understanding of at least a few implementation theories, models and frameworks. While many participants rated their knowledge and confidence with identifying, selecting and using implementation theories, models and frameworks as fairly high, for many this rating reflected their knowledge and confidence regarding the theories, models or frameworks that they were most familiar with and used repeatedly to guide their work.

Individuals who are doing implementation work face many challenges, including how to identify and select appropriate implementation theories, models and frameworks to inform their projects. Key barriers to selection identified in this study included inconsistent language, poor fit and limited knowledge about and training in theories, models and frameworks. These barriers, together with the findings of our scoping review on existing theories, models and frameworks, will inform and tailor the features and functions of a proposed decision support tool for use by implementation practitioners. Our findings from this interview-based study suggest the tool should be easy to use, accessible and feature questions about the implementation project’s purpose, scope and intended target for change, in addition to presenting a comprehensive list of relevant theories, models and frameworks and the contexts in which they were applied.

Supplementary information

Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Melissa Courvoisier, Dr. Julia Moore and Dr. Rae Thomas for their assistance with recruitment from the Practicing Knowledge Translation course; Christine Marquez for her qualitative research expertise; and all the individuals who participated in the interviews, for their support and contribution to this work.

Authors’ contributions

LS and SES conceptualized and designed the study. LS, JMB and SES collected, analysed and/or interpreted the data. LS drafted the manuscript and JMB, MH and SES provided input and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Lisa Strifler is funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Banting Doctoral Research Award (#146261). Sharon E. Straus is funded by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Translation and the Mary Trimmer Chair in Geriatric Medicine. The funders had no role in the design of the study, the collection, analysis or interpretation of data, or the writing of the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Research ethics board approval was obtained from Unity Health Toronto (REB #16–335) and the University of Toronto (REB #33907). Ethics approval covered recruitment at the conferences and workshops, which covered the study participants in the USA and Australia. Verbal informed consent was approved by the ethics boards and obtained and recorded at the start of the phone interview using a predetermined script.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

All authors declare no potential (or perceived) conflicts of interest.

Publisher’s Note

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

Contributor Information

Lisa Strifler, Email: [email protected] .

Jan M. Barnsley, Email: [email protected] .

Michael Hillmer, Email: moc.sregor@remllihm .

Sharon E. Straus, Email: [email protected] .

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12911-020-01128-8.