what is conceptual and theoretical framework in research

Theoretical vs Conceptual Framework

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

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

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

Overview: Theoretical vs Conceptual

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

• Theoretical vs conceptual: which one should I use?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

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

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

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

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

Theoretical framework vs conceptual framework

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

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

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

Psst… there’s more (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. 

16 Comments

Thank you for giving a valuable lesson

good thanks!

VERY INSIGHTFUL

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

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

good, fantastic

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

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

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

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

Simple and clear!

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

Thank you great insight

Superb. Thank you so much.

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

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

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

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

• Introduction and overview
• What is qualitative research?
• What is qualitative data?
• Examples of qualitative data
• Qualitative vs. quantitative research
• Mixed methods
• Qualitative research preparation
• Theoretical perspective
• Theoretical framework
• Literature reviews
• Research question
• Conceptual framework
• Introduction

Revisiting theoretical frameworks

Revisiting conceptual frameworks, differences between conceptual and theoretical frameworks, examples of theoretical and conceptual frameworks, developing frameworks for your study.

• Data collection
• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research
• Case studies
• Ethnographical research
• Ethical considerations
• Confidentiality and privacy
• Power dynamics
• Reflexivity

Conceptual vs. theoretical framework

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks are both essential components of research, guiding and structuring the research. Although they are closely related, the conceptual and theoretical framework in any research project serve distinct purposes and have different characteristics. In this section, we provide an overview of the key differences between theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks are foundational components of any research study. They each play a crucial role in guiding and structuring the research, from the formation of research questions to the interpretation of results .

While both the theoretical and conceptual framework provides a structure for a study, they serve different functions and can impact the research in distinct ways depending on how they are combined. These differences might seem subtle, but they can significantly impact your research design and outcomes, which is why it is important to think through each one of them.

The theoretical framework describes the broader lens through which the researcher views the topic and guides their overall understanding and approach. It connects the theoretical perspective to the data collection and data analysis strategy and offers a structure for organizing and interpreting the collected data.

On the other hand, the conceptual framework describes in detail and connects specific concepts and variables to illustrate potential relationships between them. It serves as a guide for assessing which aspects of the data are relevant and specifying how the research question is being answered. While the theoretical framework outlines how more abstract-level theories shape the study, the conceptual framework operationalizes the empirical observations that can be connected to theory and broader understanding.

Understanding these differences is crucial when designing and conducting your research study. In this chapter, we will look deeper at the distinctions between these types of frameworks, and how they interplay in qualitative research . We aim to provide you with a solid understanding of both, allowing you to effectively utilize them in your own research.

Theoretical frameworks play a central role in research, serving as the bedrock of any investigation. This section offers a refresher on the essential elements and functions of theoretical frameworks in research.

A theoretical framework refers to existing theory, concepts, and definitions that you use to collect relevant data and offer meaningful empirical findings. Providing an overall orientation or lens, it guides your understanding of the research problem and directs your approach to data collection and analysis .

Your chosen theoretical framework directly influences your research questions and methodological choices . It contains specific theories or sets of assumptions drawn from relevant disciplines—such as sociology, psychology, or economics—that you apply to understand your research topic. These existing models and concepts are tools to help you organize and make sense of your data.

The theoretical framework also plays a key role in crafting your research questions and objectives. By determining the theories that are relevant to your research, the theoretical framework shapes the nature and direction of your study. It's essential to note, however, that the theoretical framework's role in qualitative research is not to predict outcomes. Instead, it offers a broader structure to understand and interpret your data, enabling you to situate your findings within the broader academic discourse in a way that makes your research findings meaningful to you and your research audience.

Conceptual frameworks , though related to theoretical frameworks , serve distinct functions within research. This section reexamines the characteristics and functions of conceptual frameworks to provide a better understanding of their roles in qualitative research .

A conceptual framework, in essence, is a system of concepts, assumptions, and beliefs that supports and informs your research. It outlines the specific variables or concepts you'll examine in your study and proposes relationships between them. It's more detailed and specific than a theoretical framework, acting as a contextualized guide for the collection and interpretation of empirical data.

The main role of a conceptual framework is to illustrate the presumed relationships between the variables or concepts you're investigating. These variables or concepts, which you derive from your theoretical framework, are integral to your research questions , objectives, and hypotheses . The conceptual framework shows how you theorize these concepts are related, providing a visual or narrative model of your research.

A study's own conceptual framework plays a vital role in guiding the data collection process and the subsequent analysis . The conceptual framework specifies which data you need to collect and provides a structure for interpreting and making sense of the collected data. For instance, if your conceptual framework identifies a particular variable as impacting another, your data collection and analysis will be geared towards investigating this relationship.

Rigorous research starts with ATLAS.ti

Turn your data into insights easily and efficiently with our intuitive software. Download a free trial of ATLAS.ti.

Though interconnected, theoretical and conceptual frameworks have distinct roles in research and contribute differently to the research. This section will contrast the two in terms of scope, purpose, their role in the research process, and their relationship to the data analysis strategy and research question .

Scope and purpose of theoretical and conceptual frameworks

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks differ fundamentally in their scope. Theoretical frameworks provide a broad and general view of the research problem, rooted in established theories. They explain phenomena by applying a particular theoretical lens. Conceptual frameworks, on the other hand, offer a more focused view of the specific research problem. They explicitly outline the concrete concepts and variables involved in the study and the relationships between them.

While both frameworks guide the research process, they do so in different ways. Theoretical frameworks guide the overall approach to understanding the research problem by indicating the broader conversation the researcher is contributing to and shaping the research questions.

Conceptual frameworks provide a map for the study, guiding the data collection and interpretation process, including what variables or concepts to explore and how to analyze them.

Study design and data analysis

The two types of frameworks relate differently to the research question and design. The theoretical framework often inspires the research question based on previous theories' predictions or understanding about the phenomena under investigation. A conceptual framework then emerges from the research question, providing a contextualized structure for what exactly the research will explore.

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks also play distinct roles in data analysis. Theoretical frameworks provide the lens for interpreting the data, informing what kinds of themes and patterns might be relevant. Conceptual frameworks, however, present the variables concepts and variables and the relationships among them that will be analyzed. Conceptual frameworks may illustrate concepts and relationships based on previous theory, but they can also include novel concepts or relationships that stem from the particular context being studied.

Finally, the two types of frameworks relate differently to the research question and design. The theoretical framework basically differs from the conceptual framework in that it often inspires the research question based on the theories' predictions about the phenomena under investigation. A conceptual framework, on the other hand, emerges from the research question, providing a structure for investigating it.

Using case studies , we can effectively demonstrate the differences between theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Let’s take a look at some real-world examples that highlight the unique role and function of each framework within a research context.

Consider a study exploring the impact of classroom environments on student learning outcomes. The theoretical framework might be grounded in Piaget's theory of cognitive development, which offers a broad lens for understanding how students learn and process information.

Within this theoretical framework, the researcher formulates the conceptual framework. The conceptual framework identifies specific variables to study such as classroom layout, teacher-student ratio, availability of learning materials, and student performance as the dependent variable. It then outlines the expected relationships between these variables, such as proposing that a lower teacher-student ratio and well-equipped classrooms positively impact student performance.

Another study might aim to understand the factors influencing the job satisfaction of employees in a corporate setting. The theoretical framework could be based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, interpreting job satisfaction in terms of fulfilling employees' physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization needs.

From this theoretical perspective, the researcher constructs the conceptual framework, identifying specific variables such as salary (physiological needs), job security (safety needs), teamwork (social needs), recognition (esteem needs), and career development opportunities (self-actualization needs). The conceptual framework proposes relationships among these variables and job satisfaction, such as higher salaries and more recognition being related to higher job satisfaction.

After understanding the unique roles and functions of these types of frameworks, you might ask: How do I develop them for my study? It's essential to remember that it's not a question of choosing one over the other, as both frameworks can and often do coexist within the same research project.

The choice of a theoretical and a conceptual framework often depends on the nature of your research question . If your research question is more exploratory and requires a broad understanding of the problem, a theoretical framework can provide a useful lens for interpretation. However, your conceptual framework may end up looking rather different to previous theory as you collect data and discover new concepts or relationships.

Consider the nature of your research problem as well. If you are studying a well-researched problem and there are established theories about it, using a theoretical framework to interpret your findings in light of these theories might be beneficial. But if your study explores a novel problem or aims to understand specific processes or relationships, developing a conceptual framework that maps these specific elements could prove more effective.

Your research methodology could also inform your choice. If your study is more interpretive and aims to understand people's experiences and perceptions, a theoretical framework can outline broader concepts that are relevant to approaching your study. Your conceptual framework can then shed light on the specific concepts that emerged in your data. By carefully thinking through your theoretical and conceptual frameworks, you can effectively utilize both types of frameworks in your research, ensuring a solid foundation for your study.

Turn data into theory with ATLAS.ti

Use our software for every stage of your research project. Trya free trial of ATLAS.ti today.

• Library databases
• Library website

Theories and Frameworks: Introduction

Theoretical & conceptual frameworks.

The terms theoretical framework and conceptual framework are often used interchangeably to mean the same thing. Although they are both used to understand a research problem and guide the development, collection, and analysis of research, it's important to understand the difference between the two. When working on coursework or dissertation research, make sure to clarify what is being asked and any specific course or program requirements. 

Theoretical framework 

A theoretical framework is a single formal theory. When a study is designed around a theoretical framework, the theory is the primary means in which the research problem is understood and investigated. Although theoretical frameworks tend to be used in quantitative studies, you will also see this approach in qualitative research.  

Conceptual framework

A conceptual framework includes one or more formal theories (in part or whole) as well as other concepts and empirical findings from the literature. It is used to show relationships among these ideas and how they relate to the research study. Conceptual frameworks are commonly seen in qualitative research in the social and behavioral sciences, for example, because often one theory cannot fully address the phenomena being studied.

Investigate theory

Identifying and learning about theories requires a different search strategy than other types of research. Even though the steps are different, you will still use many of the same skills and tools you’ve used for other library research.

• psychology:  human development, cognition, personality, motivation
• sociology:  social change, race, class, gender
• business:  leadership, management
• health:  patient care, well-being, environment
• course textbooks
• encyclopedias and handbooks
• credible websites

Theory in doctoral research

Identifying a theory that aligns with your dissertation or doctoral study takes time. It’s never too early to start exploratory research. The process of identifying an appropriate theory can seem daunting, so try breaking down the process into smaller steps.

• your theory courses
• completed dissertations and doctoral studies
• the scholarly literature on your topic
• Keep a list of theories and take notes on how and why they were used.
• Identify and learn more about relevant theories.
• Locate influential and seminal works  related to those theories.
• Next Page: Discover Theories
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

Theoretical vs. conceptual frameworks: Simple definitions and an overview of key differences

Understanding the differences between theoretical and conceptual frameworks in research, including thesis writing, can be challenging. Therefore, here are easy-to-understand explanations and definitions of both theoretical and conceptual frameworks, along with frequently asked questions and a detailed comparison. Additionally, a helpful comparison table of key differences will help you grasp the distinction between theoretical and conceptual frameworks once and for all.

Does every research have a theoretical framework?

What is the scope of a theoretical framework in research, how do i develop a theoretical framework, does every research have a conceptual framework, do you develop a conceptual model for both quantitative and qualitative research, what is the relationship between a conceptual framework and a theoretical framework, level of detail, application, an easily understandable definition of a theoretical framework.

A theoretical framework forms the backbone of every new research endeavor; we never start from complete scratch but always have some preconceived ideas in mind.

In academic papers, the literature review section is sometimes even labeled as the ‘theoretical framework.’ This practice underscores the foundational role of existing theories and academic research in shaping theoretical frameworks.

Let’s first understand what a theory is. According to the Oxford Language Dictionary , a theory is “ a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. ” In simpler terms, a theory represents general principles or rules that apply to many situations.

Once we understand what a theory is, a theoretical framework becomes easy to define:

A theoretical framework can be defined as the general principles or rules that can be applied to understand and explain your research topic.

Thus, in research, a theoretical framework guides us by using existing theories and general principles to analyze a research topic.

We build a theoretical framework for our research by identifying relevant theories and presenting existing knowledge on the topic.

Every research includes a theoretical framework. While some researchers explicitly state and apply their chosen framework, others may not mention it overtly. Regardless, every research inherently relies on a theoretical foundation, which shapes new insights and principles based on existing knowledge. Whether implicit or explicit, the theoretical framework is an integral part of the research process.

The scope of a theoretical framework varies. For instance, a theoretical framework for a PhD thesis is typically much more detailed than one for a bachelor’s thesis. Additionally, some researchers choose to use a single specific theory as the primary lens for their research. Others may define a more expansive theoretical framework that includes different theories, elements, and related discussions.

Developing a theoretical framework involves thoroughly reviewing discussions on your research topic, usually through a literature review. Explore the theories that scholars employ to explain phenomena related to your research, and look for patterns in their findings. This can aid in establishing general principles or rules that may also be applicable to your specific topic.

You may also like: How to harness theoretical and conceptual frameworks for groundbreaking research

An easily understandable definition of a conceptual framework

Theoretical frameworks often cover a broad spectrum of elements and dynamics. However, effective research is typically precise and focused. This is where conceptual frameworks play a crucial role.

A conceptual framework is like a practical version of a theoretical framework. It’s closely related to a theoretical model but gives a more focused explanation of what you will study, zooming in on several key concepts and variables.

Therefore, in academic language, it is often stated that a conceptual framework operationalizes the general principles of theoretical frameworks. Operationalizing refers to the process of turning abstract concepts or variables into more concrete, measurable terms.

Therefore, a conceptual model primarily helps you organize your research by serving as a guide, clarifying the key concepts you plan to investigate.

A theoretical framework relies more on existing research, while a conceptual framework incorporates more of your own ideas about which variables to analyze and which relationships to explore.

Every research project includes a conceptual framework, but some researchers emphasize it more clearly. In thesis writing, for example, the conceptual framework is often prominently featured. This is sometimes done in a conceptual model—a visual representation of the concepts and variables being studied. However, some researchers choose not to explicitly mention it. Nonetheless, as a student at any level, it’s beneficial to clearly explain your conceptual framework.

Yes, you can develop a conceptual model for both quantitative and qualitative research. In quantitative research, the conceptual model typically includes hypotheses about the relationships between variables, which are tested for instance by using statistical analysis. In qualitative research, the conceptual model helps to guide the exploration of concepts and relationships through in-depth qualitative analysis of data. So, while the specific elements and methods of application may differ between quantitative and qualitative research, the conceptual model plays a crucial role in both approaches.

Conceptual and theoretical frameworks are closely intertwined. The conceptual framework translates abstract theoretical ideas into tangible elements for study, ensuring that the research remains grounded in established theories and hypotheses. In essence, the conceptual framework is built upon the theoretical framework, as it directly applies theoretical concepts to the research context, helping to structure and guide the investigation. Therefore, you should always ensure that any variable included in your conceptual framework has been addressed in some manner within your theoretical framework.

Key differences between theoretical and conceptual frameworks

In research, frameworks play crucial roles in guiding studies, but they differ in various aspects. Nonetheless, it is imperative to bear the following in mind:

Though distinct, conceptual and theoretical frameworks are not mutually exclusive; rather, they complement each other in the research process.

That said, understanding the fundamental distinctions between theoretical and conceptual frameworks, including their nature, purpose, origin, level of detail, and application, is essential for conducting good research.

In the table below, you can find a summary of the key differences between theoretical and conceptual frameworks. And if you want to know more about how to apply these frameworks in practice, check out this post.

Theoretical frameworks encapsulate abstract principles in a field, providing an overarching view of established theories that guide research. This is often achieved through a comprehensive review of existing academic literature and research findings within the field of study. Conversely, conceptual frameworks adopt a more hands-on approach, emphasizing practicality and specificity. They engage in the operationalization of abstract concepts, translating them into measurable variables tailored to the particulars of a given study.

The primary objective of theoretical frameworks lies in explaining underlying principles, assumptions, and relationships between variables, thus providing researchers with a theoretical lens to interpret findings and generate hypotheses. Conceptual frameworks, on the other hand, aim to provide structure and understanding within the confines of a specific study. They offer researchers a roadmap for organizing and comprehending key concepts and variables, facilitating a more focused research journey.

Theoretical frameworks often originate from established theories and bodies of research within a discipline, offering a solid foundation upon which to build further investigations. Conceptual frameworks, while drawing from existing theories, are more flexible. They may introduce additional concepts specific to the research topic or context, thus allowing for customization and adaptability in research design.

Theoretical frameworks provide a big-picture perspective, offering an overview of fundamental principles in a field. On the other hand, conceptual frameworks offer a detailed roadmap, guiding researchers on how to translate abstract concepts into practical variables for their study.

Theoretical frameworks find application across various research studies within a specific field or discipline. They provide a theoretical basis for understanding phenomena and generating hypotheses, contributing to the advancement of theoretical understanding within the field. Conversely, conceptual frameworks are commonly employed in empirical research studies. They guide researchers through the practical aspects of data collection, analysis, and interpretation, laying a solid foundation for empirical investigations.

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox!

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

The best AI tools for academic paraphrasing: tested and ranked

How to harness theoretical and conceptual frameworks for groundbreaking research, related articles.

Why and how to conduct a systematic literature review

How to write a literature review introduction (+ examples)

A guide to industry-funded research: Types, examples & getting started

75 linking words for academic writing (+examples)

Research Process Guide

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

Step 5: Choosing a Conceptual or Theoretical Framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing it up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• MedEdPORTAL

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

Steven rougas.

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

Andrea Berry

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

S. Beth Bierer

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

Rebecca D. Blanchard

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

Anna T. Cianciolo

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

Jorie M. Colbert-Getz

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

Heeyoung Han

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

Kaitlin Lipner

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

Cayla R. Teal

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

Associated Data

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Educational Objectives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Workshop Design

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

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

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

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

Preworkshop Preparation

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

Introduction (2 Minutes)

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

Video Vignette 1 (5 Minutes)

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

Define Key Terms (2 Minutes)

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

Video Vignette 2 (3 Minutes)

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

Small-Group Activity (25–30 Minutes)

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

Debriefing and Wrap-up (12 Minutes)

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

Workshop Evaluation and Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclosures

None to report.

Funding/Support

Prior presentations.

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

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

Ethical Approval

Reported as not applicable.

Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks for Thesis Studies: What you must know

A theoretical framework is a conceptual model that provides a systematic and structured way of thinking about a research problem or question. It helps to identify key variables and the relationships between them and to guide the selection and interpretation of data. Theoretical frameworks draw on existing theories and research and can be used to develop new hypotheses or test existing ones. They provide a foundation for research design, data collection, and analysis and can help to ensure that research is relevant, rigorous, and coherent. Theoretical frameworks are common in many disciplines, including social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities, and are essential for building knowledge and advancing understanding in a field.

This article explains the importance of frameworks in a thesis study and the differences between conceptual frameworks and theoretical frameworks. It provides guidelines on how to write a thesis framework, definitions of variable types, and examples of framework types.

What is a research framework and why do I need one?

When planning your thesis study, you need to justify your research and explain its design to your readers. This is called the research framework.

When planning your thesis study, you need to justify your research and explain its design to your readers. This is called the research framework. Think of it as the foundation of a building. A good building needs a strong foundation. Similarly, your research needs to be supported by reviewing and explaining the existing knowledge in the field, describing how your research study will fit within or contribute to the existing literature (e.g., it could challenge or test an existing theory or address a knowledge gap), and informing the reader how your study design aligns with your thesis question or hypothesis.

Important components of the framework are a literature review of recent studies associated with your thesis topic as well as theories/models used in your field of research. The literature review acts as a filtering tool to select appropriate thesis questions and guide data collection, analysis, and interpretation of your findings. Think broadly! Apart from reviewing relevant published papers in your field of research, also explore theories that you have come across in your undergraduate courses, other published thesis studies, encyclopedias, and handbooks.

There are two types of research frameworks: theoretical and conceptual .

What is a conceptual framework?

A conceptual framework is a written or visual representation that explains the study variables and their relationships with each other. The starting point is a literature review of existing studies and theories about your topic.

Steps to develop a conceptual framework

• Clarify your study topic by identifying and defining key concepts in your thesis problem statement and thesis question. Essentially, your thesis should address a knowledge gap.
• Perform a literature review to provide a background to interpret and explain the study findings. Also, draw on empirical knowledge that you have gained from personal experience.
• Identify crucial variables from the literature review and your empirical knowledge, classify them as dependent or independent variables, and define them.
• Brainstorm all the possible factors that could affect each dependent variable.
• Propose relationships among the variables and determine any associations that exist between all variables.
• Use a flowchart or tree diagram to present your conceptual framework.

Types of variables

When developing a conceptual framework, you will need to identify the following:

• Independent variables
• Dependent variables
• Moderating variables
• Mediating variables
• Control variables

First, identify the independent (cause) and dependent (effect) variables in your study. Then, identify variables that influence this relationship, such as moderating variables, mediating variables, and control variables. A moderating variable changes the relationship between independent and dependent variables when its value increases or decreases. A mediating variable links independent and dependent variables to better explain the relationship between them. A control variable could potentially impact the cause-and-effect relationship but is kept constant throughout the study so that its effects on the findings/outcomes can be ruled out.

Example of a conceptual framework

You want to investigate the hours spent exercising (cause) on childhood obesity (effect).

Now, you need to consider moderating variables that affect the cause-and-effect relationship. In our example, the amount of junk food eaten would affect the level of obesity.

Next, you need to consider mediating variables. In our example, the maximum heart rate during exercise would affect the child’s weight.

Finally, you need to consider control variables. In this example, because we do not want to investigate the role of age in obesity, we can use this as a control variable. Thus, the study subjects would be children of a specific age (e.g., aged 6–10 years).

What is a theoretical framework?

A theoretical framework provides a general framework for data analysis. It defines the concepts used and explains existing theories and models in your field of research.

A theoretical framework provides a general framework for data analysis. It defines the concepts used and explains existing theories and models in your field of research. It also explains any assumptions that were used to inform your approach and your choice of specific rationales. Theoretical frameworks are often used in the fields of social sciences.

Purpose of a theoretical framework

• Test and challenge existing theories
• Establish orderly connections between observations and facts
• Predict and control situations
• Develop hypotheses

Steps to develop a theoretical framework

• Identify and define key concepts in your thesis problem statement and thesis question.
• Explain and evaluate existing theories by writing a literature review that describes the concepts, models, and theories that support your study.
• Choose the theory that best explains the relationships between the key variables in your study.
• Explain how your research study fills a knowledge gap or fits into existing studies (e.g., testing if an established theory applies to your thesis context).
• Discuss the relevance of any theoretical assumptions and limitations.

A thesis topic can be approached from a variety of angles, depending on the theories used.

• In psychology, a behavioral approach would use different methods and assumptions compared with a cognitive approach when treating anxiety.
• In literature, a book could be analyzed using different literary theories, such as Marxism or poststructuralism.

Structuring a theoretical framework

The structure of a theoretical framework is fluid, and there are no specific rules that need to be followed, as long as it is clearly and logically presented.

The theoretical framework is a natural extension of your literature review. The literature review should identify gaps in the field of your research, and reviewing existing theories will help to determine how these can be addressed. The structure of a theoretical framework is fluid, and there are no specific rules that need to be followed, as long as it is clearly and logically presented. The theoretical framework is sometimes integrated into the literature review chapter of a thesis, but it can also be included as a separate chapter, depending on the complexity of the theories.

Example of a theoretical framework

The sales staff at Company X are unmotivated and struggling to meet their monthly targets. Some members of the management team believe that this could be achieved by implementing a comprehensive product-training program, but others believe that introducing a sales commission structure will help.

Company X is not achieving their monthly sales targets

To increase monthly sales.

Research question:

How can Company X motivate their sales team to achieve its monthly sales targets?

Sub-questions:

• Why do the sales staff feel unmotivated?
• What is the relationship between motivation and monetary rewards?
• Do the sales staff feel that they have sufficient product knowledge?

Theoretical framework:

A literature search will need to be performed to understand the background of the many different theories of motivation in psychology. For example, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (basic human needs—physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization—have to be fulfilled before one can live up to their true potential), Vroom’s Theory of Expectancy (people decide upon their actions based on the outcomes they expect), and Locke’s Goal-Setting Theory (goals are a key driver of one’s behavior). These theories would need to be investigated to determine which would be the best approach to increase the motivation of the sales staff in Company X so that the monthly sales targets are met.

A robust conceptual or theoretical framework is crucial when writing a thesis/dissertation. It defines your research gap, identifies your approach, and guides the interpretation of your results.

A thesis is the most important document you will write during your academic studies. For professional thesis editing and thesis proofreading services, check out Enago's Thesis Editing service s for more information.

Editor’s pick

Get free updates.

Subscribe to our newsletter for regular insights from the research and publishing industry!

What type of framework is used in the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) domain? +

Theoretical frameworks are typically used in the HSS domain, while conceptual frameworks are used in the Sciences domain.

What is the difference between mediating versus moderating variables? +

The difference between mediators and moderators can be confusing. A moderating variable is unaffected by the independent variable and can increase or decrease the strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. A mediating variable is affected by the independent variable and can explain the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. T he statistical correlation between the independent and dependent variables is higher when the mediating variable is excluded.

What software should I use to present my conceptual framework? +

The software program Creately provides some useful templates that can help you get started. Other recommended programs are SmartDraw , Inkscape , and diagrams.net .

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation

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

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

Your theoretical framework is based on:

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

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

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

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

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

Some sub-questions could include:

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

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.

Try for free

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

Customer satisfaction

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

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

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

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

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

Thomassen’s Customer Satisfaction Model

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

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

Figure 1 Customer satisfaction creation 

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

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

Research bias

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

 (AI) Tools

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Vinz, S. (2023, July 18). Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation. Scribbr. Retrieved March 28, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/theoretical-framework-example/

Is this article helpful?

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

Other students also liked

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

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 01 April 2024

Theoretical framework for mixed-potential-driven catalysis

• Mo Yan   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0008-4465-7342 1 ,
• Nuning Anugrah Putri Namari 1 ,
• Junji Nakamura   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2837-0535 2 , 3 , 4 &
• Kotaro Takeyasu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4472-6992 2 , 3 , 5  

Communications Chemistry volume  7 , Article number:  69 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Catalytic mechanisms
• Electrocatalysis
• Energy transfer

Mixed-potential-driven catalysis is expected to be a distinctive heterogeneous catalytic reaction that produces products different from those produced by thermal catalytic reactions without the application of external energy. Electrochemically, the mechanism is similar to that of corrosion. However, a theory that incorporates catalytic activity as a parameter has not been established. Herein, we report the theoretical framework of mixed-potential-driven catalysis, including exchange currents, as a parameter of catalytic activity. The mixed potential and partitioning of the overpotential were determined from the exchange current by applying the Butler–Volmer equation at a steady state far from equilibrium. Mixed-potential-driven catalysis is expected to open new areas not only in the concept of catalyst development but also in the field of energetics of biological enzymatic reactions.

Introduction

Heterogeneous catalysis is crucial for solving various problems related to environment, energy, biology, and materials 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 . Generally, heterogeneous catalysis occurs thermally or electrochemically 5 , 6 , 7 . Recently, it has been suggested that thermal heterogeneous catalysis indeed includes electrochemical processes, leading to markedly different selectivity compared to conventional thermocatalysis 8 , 9 , 10 . In particular, electrode reactions that form mixed potentials typified by corrosion phenomena have attracted attention. Alternatively, the anodic and cathodic half-reactions occur in pairs on a single catalyst surface, where a mixed potential is expected to form if the catalyst is electrically conductive and a suitable electrolyte is present near the active sites, as shown in Fig.  1a . Here, we introduce the concept of “mixed-potential-driven catalysis” as such catalytic systems. The characteristic point of mixed-potential-driven catalysis is that anode and cathode catalysts are exposed to identical reactants, diverging from conventional electric cells where distinct reactants are supplied to each electrode. Intriguingly, it has been reported that some heterogeneous catalytic reactions of gas molecules involve mixed-potential-driven catalysis 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 . For example, it has been reported that H 2 O 2 is selectively produced on various monometallic and bimetallic catalysts, which is considered to consist of an anodic reaction H 2  → 2H + + 2e − and a cathodic reaction O 2  + 2H + + 2e −  → H 2 O 2 9 . Mixed-potential-driven catalysis has also been suggested for the oxidation of formic acid 10 and hydroquinone 11 . The occurrence of a mixed-potential-driven reaction during 4-nitrophenol hydrogenation was also proposed previously 15 . More interestingly, the mixed-potential-driven mechanism is caused by binary heterogeneous catalysts. The oxidation of alcohols (hydroxymethylfurfural) on Au-Pd binary catalysts seems to proceed via mixed-potential-driven catalysis 12 , 13 , 16 . It is also worth noting that ethanol is produced with surprisingly high selectivity by CO 2 hydrogenation on CuPd binary powder catalysts in the presence of water, which is an unexpected product in thermal catalysis 14 . These reports strongly suggest that electrochemical processes play a role in controlling the activity and selectivity of heterogeneous catalysis without the need for external energy. Mixed-potential-driven catalysis is expected to open up a new category of heterogeneous catalysis in both basic research and industrial applications. However, the determining principle behind both the activity and selectivity, specifically the partitioning of the driving force for each half-reaction, has not been considered.

a Electrons released in the oxidation reaction from reductant R 1 to oxidant O 1 are used in the reduction reaction from oxidant O 2 to reductant R 2 . b Illustrative polarization curves for the cathodic and anodic half-reactions. The mixed potential is the point at which the net of the cathodic and anodic currents is zero.

Mixed-potential-driven reactions have been mainly discussed in the field of electrochemistry, but not in heterogeneous catalysis. The mixed potential theory was first introduced by Wagner and Traud in 1938 in corrosion science 17 . As shown in Fig.  1b , the basic principle can be understood in terms of the polarization curves of two electrochemical reactions described by the Butler–Volmer equation, where \({i}_{1}\) , \({i}_{2}\) and \({\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) , \({\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) represent the current and equilibrium potential of two redox reactions \({{{{{{\rm{R}}}}}}}_{1}\rightleftarrows {{{{{{\rm{O}}}}}}}_{1}+{{{{{{\rm{e}}}}}}}^{-}\) and \({{{{{{\rm{O}}}}}}}_{2}+{{{{{{\rm{e}}}}}}}^{-}\rightleftarrows {{{{{{\rm{R}}}}}}}_{2}\) , with \({\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}} > {\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) . When the two reactions proceed concurrently, \({i}_{1}+{i}_{2}=0\) is satisfied owing to the conservation of electric charge forming a mixed-potential \({\phi }^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}\) . Here, \({\phi }^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) and \({\phi }^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) act as the overpotentials \({\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}\) and \({\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}\) in the two reactions 18 . In the literature 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , mixed potentials and reaction currents have been formulated for simple pair and parallel reactions with the effects of mass diffusion. Notably, an overpotential accelerates the electrochemical reactions 33 , 34 . Therefore, the partitioning of the overpotential is essential because some kinetically unfavorable half-reactions can be accelerated with a high overpotential by coupling a kinetically favorable half-reaction. It is argued that to achieve the same rate, a larger overpotential is required to conduct the electrode reaction with a higher activation barrier 9 . Despite advances in the understanding of mixed-potential-driven catalysis, determining the overpotential as the driving force based on the catalytic activity has not been elucidated so far.

Mixed-potential-driven catalysis is classified as a non-equilibrium thermodynamic phenomenon. The chemical potential drop between the reactants and products becomes the driving force for the reaction, overcoming the activation energy and converting it into energy to increase the reaction rate 35 . When the equilibrium state is achieved, the driving force becomes zero, which is converted to the heat of reaction 36 . Prigogine constructed a theoretical framework based on entropy change to conserve the energy 37 , 38 . However, it has not been explicitly stated that d i S (entropy production) corresponds to the overpotentials that promote the reaction in the case of mixed-potential-driven catalysis. In this paper, we extend Prigogine’s theory to the mixed-potential-driven catalysis and present the kinetic equations. Enzymatic reaction systems in living organisms, such as glucose oxidase and lactate oxidase, may also proceed via a mixed-potential-driven reaction, in which the anodic and cathodic reactions are paired 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 . Thus, the framework of mixed-potential-driven catalysis is fundamental for considering the energy pathways of how entropy is generated in the body, which is used to drive metabolic reactions, maintain body temperature as heat, and dissipated outside. The non-equilibrium theory of mixed-potential-driven catalysis is expected to improve our understanding of the energetics of biological systems.

In this study, we present an equation for the conversion of the Gibbs free energy drop between the cathodic and anodic half-reactions into overpotentials by the formation of a mixed potential. In particular, the equation explains how the catalytic activity plays a pivotal role in determining the mixed potential, overpotentials, reaction current, and selection of the cathodic and anodic reactions. This is the equation for the concept of mixed-potential-driven catalysis. This concept is important in the development of kinetically difficult catalytic reactions, understanding the energy transfer of enzymatic reactions in living organisms, and in the non-equilibrium theory of chemical reactions.

Driving force of mixed-potential-driven catalysis

First, we show how the total driving force of the entire mixed-potential-driven catalytic reaction system is distributed to the overpotentials for accelerating the anodic and cathodic half-reactions, depending on the catalytic activity of the catalysts. We consider a mixed potential system, as shown in Fig.  2a , where we assume one-electron transfer processes of anodic reaction 1 and cathodic reaction 2 occurring at both components I and II of the catalyst.

a Schematic of a mixed-potential-driven catalytic reaction occurring on the catalyst composed of component I and II. Cathodic and anodic half-reactions can occur in each of the component I and II. Electrons are transferred within and between the component I and II. b Illustration of the four polarization curves for the cathodic and anodic half-reactions on catalyst component I and II. The mixed potential is the point at which the sum of the four currents is zero.

The net reaction is expressed by the following equation.

Electrochemically, microelectrodes I and II can be regarded as short-circuited, with both electrodes exposed to identical gas or liquid conditions, regardless of whether they are spatially separated. Unlike ordinary electrochemical cells, the distinction between the anode and cathode is not fixed before starting the reaction. Consequently, Eqs. ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) each occur on two different catalyst components leading to \({i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}\) , \({i}_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}\) , \({i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{II}}}}}}}\) , and \({i}_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{II}}}}}}}\) , where one assumes that equilibrium potential of reaction 1 ( \({\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) ) is lower than that of reaction 2 ( \({\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) ). The potential difference of \({\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) corresponds to the total driving force of the net reaction Eq. ( 3 ).

To estimate the mixed potential and current at the mixed potential, it is necessary to analyze the polarization curve, which depends on the catalytic activity and is expressed by the Butler–Volmer equation. The currents of the electrochemical half-reactions (1) and (2) on components I and II are given by the Butler–Volmer equation with no mass-transfer effect:

where f  =  F/RT and F , R , and T are the Faraday constant, gas constant, and temperature, respectively. \({\alpha }_{1}\) and \({\alpha }_{2}\) are the transfer coefficients for reaction 1 and reaction 2, respectively. \({{i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}}^{0}\) , \({{i}_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}}^{0}\) , \({{i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{II}}}}}}}}^{0}\) , and \({{i}_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{II}}}}}}}}^{0}\) are the exchange currents for reactions 1 and 2 on components I and II, respectively. \(\phi -{\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) and \(\phi -{\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) are the overpotentials \({\eta }_{1}\) and \({\eta }_{2}\) for reactions 1 and 2, respectively. The exchange current \({i}^{0}\) corresponds to the catalytic activity and determines the shape of the polarization curve 44 . Here, the mixed potential \({\phi }^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}\) is defined as the potential at which the net current is zero, as shown in Fig.  2b 17 .

By substituting Eqs. ( 4 )–( 7 ) into Eq. ( 8 ), one can calculate the mixed potential \({\phi }^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}\) numerically using practical values of exchange currents, equilibrium potentials, and transfer coefficients. On the other hand, one can obtain the relationship among mixed potentials, overpotentials, and exchange currents based on analytical solutions with the assumption of identical transfer coefficients ( \({\alpha }_{1}={\alpha }_{2}=\alpha\) ). Then, one can derive Eq. ( 9 ) for \({\phi }^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}\) (detailed derivation shown in Supplementary Note  1 ).

The absolute value of the anodic and cathodic currents must be the same, which is the current at the mixed potential ( \({i}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}\) ) for the net reaction.

Substituting Eq. ( 9 ) into Eqs. ( 4 ), ( 5 ), and ( 10 ) gives \({i}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}\) .

It is shown that \({i}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}\) is a function of the driving force \({\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) and the exchange current for each reaction. When we define \({\phi }^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) and \({\phi }^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) as \({\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}\) and \({\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}\) , respectively, \({\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) can be regarded as the sum of overpotentials \(|{\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|+|{\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) to promote catalytic reactions as applied from the outside. Here, the partitioning of \({\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) to the overpotentials \(|{\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) and \(|{\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) can be expressed using Eq. ( 9 ).

It should be noted that in Eqs. ( 12 ) and ( 13 ) the total overpotential \({\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) is partitioned to \(|{\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) and \(|{\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) according to the exchange current or catalytic activity. The crucial factor influencing the overpotential \(|{\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) and \(|{\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) is the ratio of \(\left({{i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}}^{0}+{{i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{II}}}}}}}}^{0}\right):\left({{i}_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}}^{0}+{{i}_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{II}}}}}}}}^{0}\right)\) .

Assuming that a single oxidation reaction and a single reduction reaction take place on each catalyst component (while \({{i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}}^{0}\) and \(\,{{i}_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{II}}}}}}}}^{0}\) remain, but \({{i}_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}}^{0}\) and \(\,{{i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{II}}}}}}}}^{0}\) are zero), it is clearly shown in Eqs. ( S2–2 ) and ( S2–3) that the ratio of \({{i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}}^{0}:{{i}_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{II}}}}}}}}^{0}\) determines the overpotential \(|{\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) and \(|{\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) (detailed discussion shown in Supplementary Note  2 and Supplementary Fig.  1 ). For example, if \({{i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}}^{0}\ll \,{{i}_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{II}}}}}}}}^{0}\) , \(|{\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\gg |{\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) will be obtained, \(|{\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) and \(|{\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) will approach \({\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) and zero, respectively. This example is significant for heterogeneous catalysis because the catalytically difficult reaction 1 with small \({{i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}}^{0}\) can be promoted by applying larger overpotential of \(|{\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) that corresponds to the total driving force \({\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) of the net reaction.

Overpotential partitioning depending on exchange current

To comprehend the physical meaning of overpotential partitioning, which is the relationship between the overpotential and exchange current, two approximation methods were adopted. One is the linear approximation of the Taylor expansion for small overpotentials, and the other is Tafel approximation for large overpotentials (see Supplementary Note  1 for the case of Tafel approximation; the error estimation is discussed in Supplementary Note  4 , Supplementary Fig.  2 , and Supplementary Table  1 ). Here, in the linear approximation, for the catalyst component I, the currents in Eqs. ( 4 ) and ( 5 ) are approximated as follows:

For the currents on catalyst component II, “I” in Eqs. ( 14 ) and ( 15 ) can be replaced by “II”. Combining the four equations for currents with Eq. ( 8 ) yields \({\phi }^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}\) .

Equation ( 16 ) clearly shows that the mixed potential is determined by internal division with a ratio of \(({{i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}}^{0}+{{i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{II}}}}}}}}^{0}):({{i}_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}}^{0}+{{i}_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{II}}}}}}}}^{0})\) . Simultaneously, the current at the mixed potential is obtained as follows:

\({i}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}\) corresponds to the apparent catalytic activity in the mixed-potential-driven catalysis, which is determined by exchange current and the driving force of \({\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) .

In addition, the overpotentials \(|{\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) and \(|{\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) are rewritten using \({\phi }^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}\) of Eq. ( 16 ).

Then, the ratio of the overpotential is expressed by:

Here, it is clear that the driving force of the entire reaction, \({\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) , is partitioned to overpotential \(|{\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) and \(|{\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) according to the ratio of the sum of the exchange current \({{i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}}^{0}+{{i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{II}}}}}}}}^{0}\) and \({{i}_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}}^{0}+{{i}_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{II}}}}}}}}^{0}\) for reactions 1 and 2, i.e., the catalytic activity. Figure  3 is a conceptual electric series circuit representing a mixed-potential-driven catalytic reaction where \({\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) corresponds to the electromotive source due to reaction 1 and 2, and \(|{\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) and \(|{\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) corresponds to the overpotentials of reaction 1 and 2 without external electric work.

The internal total voltage \({\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) is due to the Gibbs free energy drop \(-\Delta {G}_{{{{{{\rm{r}}}}}}}\) across the entire mixed-potential-driven catalytic reaction. The charge-transfer resistance ( \({r}_{1}\) and \({r}_{2}\) ), proportional to the reciprocal of the exchange current, plays a role similar to electrical resistors in a circuit. The voltage drops, \({i}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}{r}_{1}\) and \({i}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}{r}_{2}\) , signifies the overpotentials \(|{\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) and \(|{\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) , following the voltage divider rule. The energy utilized for driving reactions 1 and 2 eventually transforms into Joule heat ( \(\eta i\) ).

Here, \({r}_{1}\) and \({r}_{2}\) are the so-called charge-transfer resistances depending on the catalytic activity, which are proportional to \(1/({{i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}}^{0}+{{i}_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{II}}}}}}}}^{0})\) and \(1/({{i}_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{I}}}}}}}}^{0}+{{i}_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{II}}}}}}}}^{0})\) for the half-reactions 1 and 2, respectively 28 , 44 . The partitioning of the driving force \({\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) into \(|{\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) and \(|{\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) in the mixed-potential-driven catalysis follows the voltage divider rule in the series circuit as \({i}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}{r}_{1}\) and \({i}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}{r}_{2}\) . This implies that a larger overpotential is partitioned to accelerate processes with a higher charge-transfer resistance.

One can regard this as short circuit where no external work and the Gibbs free energy term is converted to the overpotentials of \(|{\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) and \(|{\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) away from equilibrium. Here, the driving force \({\phi }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}-{\phi }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{eq}}}}}}}\) corresponds to the Gibbs free energy change Δ G r of the net reaction with certain concentration of molecules involved at which the reaction proceeds 32 , 45 , 46 .

We assumed that half-reactions 1 and 2 are one-electron transfer reactions so that the number of “moles of electrons” exchanged in the half-reactions, n , is equal to 1 and drops away in Eq. ( 21 ). This mechanism efficiently drives reactions by utilizing the overpotential to accelerate the forward reaction and decelerate the backward reaction 46 . This differs from thermocatalytic reactions, which use a driving force to accelerate both the forward and backward reactions. This is a non-equilibrium steady state, which is discussed in detail below. However, it is noted here that the energy used to drive reactions 1 and 2 will be dissipated as Joule heat expressed as:

Equation ( 22 ) indicates that the heat generated by each reaction was determined by the exchange current. By contrast, thermochemical reactions directly convert the Gibbs free energy to heat. This distinction is one of the secrets to how mixed-potential-driven catalysis can efficiently accelerate reactions.

Direction of the current flow or electron transfer

In mixed-potential-driven catalysis, the direction of current flow or electron transfer is governed by the exchange current or catalytic activity. Understanding how electrons are transferred between the components is crucial for catalyst design. However, before starting the reaction, the anode and cathode components are unknown. After initiation of the reaction, the magnitude of the exchange current or catalytic activity determines the direction of the current flow or electron transfer and distinguishes between the anode and cathode. Essentially, the roles of components I and II are uncertain and interchangeable.

This uncertainty leads to three possible cases regarding the direction of the current flow or the designation of components I and II as the anode and cathode of the catalyst, respectively, as shown in Fig.  4 . Case (a): Overall, the anodic and cathodic current predominates in component I and II, respectively. Case (b): The cathodic and anodic current predominate in component I and II, respectively. Case (c): Anodic and cathodic currents proceed in pairs in components I and II, respectively, resulting in no current flow between them. By substituting the approximation equations (both the Tafel and linear approximation methods yielded identical results) for the currents of reactions 1 and 2 on components I and II, the direction of the current flow in the three cases can be expressed by the exchange currents as follows (detailed derivation shown in Supplementary Note  3 ):

a Component I is anode and component II is cathode, i.e., the current flows from II to I; ( b ) Component I is cathode and component II is anode, i.e., the current flows from I to II; ( c ) The current flows within both components I and II but there is no current flows between I and II.

Equations ( 23 )–( 25 ) indicate that the current flow direction is kinetically governed by the exchange current ratio or catalytic activity. The exchange current values are sensitive to substance concentrations and pH, as reported in the literature 47 . Controlling the current direction by adjusting the exchange current can help researchers harness the benefits of the internal electric field of the catalyst and enhance selectivity for the desired products.

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics for mixed-potential-driven catalysis at steady-state

Herein, non-equilibrium thermodynamics at steady-state are discussed for the mixed-potential-driven catalysis based on the entropy production concept proposed by Prigogine. The starting point of Prigogine’s theory is to express the changes in entropy as the sum of two parts:

where \({{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}{S}_{{{{{{\rm{sys}}}}}}}\) is the total variation in the entropy of a system, \({{{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}}_{{{{{{\rm{e}}}}}}}{S}_{{{{{{\rm{sys}}}}}}}\) is the entropy change of the system owing to the exchange of matter and energy with the exterior, and \({{{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}}_{{{{{{\rm{i}}}}}}}{S}_{{{{{{\rm{sys}}}}}}}\) is the entropy produced by the irreversible processes inside the system 38 . The entropy production term \({{{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}}_{{{{{{\rm{i}}}}}}}{S}_{{{{{{\rm{sys}}}}}}}\) , can serve as a basis for the systematic description of irreversible processes occurring in a system, and \({{{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}}_{{{{{{\rm{i}}}}}}}{S}_{{{{{{\rm{sys}}}}}}}\) is always non-negative. Moreover, in the steady-state, the time derivative of the system entropy, \({{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}{S}_{{{{{{\rm{sys}}}}}}}/{{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}t\) , is zero, that is, the entropy spontaneously generated inside the system is balanced by a flow of the entropy exchange with the outside 38 , 48 :

For chemical processes in a closed system at constant pressure and temperature, the rate of entropy production can be expressed in the form of the Gibbs free energy 38 :

where \({{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}{G}_{{{{{{\rm{sys}}}}}}}\) is the change of total Gibbs free energy of the reaction system, \(\xi\) is the extent of reaction, \({{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}\xi\) / \({{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}t\) is the rate of the reaction, and \(-\Delta {G}_{{{{{{\rm{r}}}}}}}\) is the driving force for the net reaction corresponding to affinity A in Prigogine’s textbook (defined as \(-{{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}{G}_{{{{{{\rm{sys}}}}}}}/{{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}\xi\) and shown in Supplementary Fig.  3 ). In electrical conduction system, the rate of entropy production corresponds to the Joule heat (per unit time):

where \(V\) is the potential difference across the entire conductor, \(I\) is the convention electric current, and \({{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}{Q}^{{\prime} }\) is the Joule heat generated from the electric current 38 , 49 , 50 .

The equations above are generally present in textbook. Applying these equations to the mixed-potential-driven catalysis allows us to describe the energy conversion pathway within the framework of non-equilibrium thermodynamics at steady-state, as follows (detailed derivation shown in Supplementary Note  5 ):

where \({{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}Q\) denotes the Joule heat generated due to the reaction. Equation ( 30 ) can be illustrated using a closed, isothermal, and isobaric mixed-potential-driven catalytic reaction system at steady-state, as depicted in Fig.  5 . We may consider that the surroundings of the reaction system are enclosed by rigid adiabatic walls, meaning that the surroundings achieve equilibrium throughout; that is, the temperature, pressure, and chemical potentials remain constant 48 . Clearly, the mixed-potential-driven catalysis theory can be categorized as a non-equilibrium theory. Note here that the mixed-potential-driven catalysis provides a mechanism of internal driving force transformation where the Gibbs free energy drop of the net reaction ( \(-\Delta {G}_{{{{{{\rm{r}}}}}}}\) ) is converted to overpotentials for the two half-reactions ( \(|{\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) and \(|{\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) ) inside the reaction system. Thus, it can be concluded that the mixed-potential-driven catalysis converts the Gibbs free energy driving force to internal electric energy and finally to Joule heat.

Surroundings are enclosed by rigid adiabatic walls, completely isolated from the external world, a common experimental approximation. At steady-state, the “internal” entropy created in the reaction system ( \({{{{{\rm{T}}}}}}{{{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}}_{{{{{{\rm{i}}}}}}}{S}_{{{{{{\rm{sys}}}}}}}/{{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}t\) ) which exactly balances the “exchange” entropy to the surroundings ( \(-T{{{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}}_{{{{{{\rm{e}}}}}}}{S}_{{{{{{\rm{sys}}}}}}}/{{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}t\) ), and would be dissipated as heat ( \({{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}Q/{{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}t\) ) in the surroundings. At any particular time, in the mixed-potential-driven catalysis, Gibbs free energy drop of the net reaction ( \(-\Delta {G}_{{{{{{\rm{r}}}}}}}\) ) undergoes transformation into the overpotentials ( \(|{\eta }_{1}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) and \(|{\eta }_{2}^{{{{{{\rm{mix}}}}}}}|\) ), which serve to accelerate each of half-reactions, and are ultimately dissipated as Joule heat to the surroundings through the exchange entropy.

Mixed-potential-driven catalysis occurs when the anodic and cathodic reactions are short-circuited in an appropriate electrolyte, and the difference in Gibbs free energy between the anodic and cathodic reactions converts into overpotentials to promote both reactions. In this study, we generalize the theory of mixed-potential-driven catalysis, including the parameters of catalytic activity. We formulate the relationship between the Gibbs free energy and the overpotential using the exchange current as the catalytic activity. The present theoretical analysis has clearly demonstrated how the mixed potential is determined, overpotential is partitioned, and anode and cathode are selected by the exchange current. Although the present theoretical framework is fundamental and is constructed using a simple model, many additional effects must be taken into account for further development and application in the future.

In principle, the theoretical framework of mixed-potential-driven catalysis can be applied to both solid-gas and solid-liquid interfaces, where an electrolyte is necessary to convey ions. One open issue is how the overpotential is applied to electrode reactions at solid-gas and solid-liquid interfaces. At present, we consider that the overpotential in mixed-potential-driven catalysis corresponds to an electric double layer (EDL) at the catalyst surface, where electrochemical reactions are accelerated or deaccelerated. The nanoscale EDL at the interface may play a large role, where the shape of local electric field of EDL is determined by concentrations and distributions of cations, anions, and electrons depending on the overpotential. That local electric field should critically influence the reaction kinetics. Therefore, it is important to study the local structure of the EDL at the gas-solid and liquid-solid interfaces. Furthermore, as the size of the electrode decreases, a strong electric field may be generated. Thus, it is necessary to clarify the relationship among the overpotential, electrode structure, and EDL structure. Recent studies have reported that EDLs at spatially distant cathodes and anodes change in an intrinsically coupled manner 51 . Future research will employ both experimental and theoretical studies of the EDL in mixed-potential-driven catalysis.

The mass transport effect is not included in the present theoretical model because the main aim of this study was to show that catalytic activity mainly determines the mixed potential. However, it is necessary to consider the non-linear mass transport effect to determine the current value in addition to Bulter-Volmer equations. The position of mixed potential and reaction rate are shifted depending on the mass transport effect (Supplementary Fig.  5 ), as discussed in Supplementary Note  7 . Even more complex, electron transfer numbers, transfer coefficients, and the co-occurrence of thermal reactions must be considered in the kinetic model of mixed-potential-driven catalysis. In actual catalytic reaction systems, these additional effects must be considered in an extremely complex manner. Therefore, it is necessary to combine research on relatively simple systems to approach real catalytic reactions that involve extremely complex elements.

Another important aspect of mixed-potential-driven catalysis is non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Mixed-potential-driven catalysis will be particularly important in the energetics of enzymatic reactions of biological systems (discussed in Supplementary Note  6 and Supplementary Fig.  4 ). As described above, the Gibbs free energy drop or uncompensated heat ( \({{{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}}_{{{{{{\rm{i}}}}}}}{S}_{{{{{{\rm{sys}}}}}}}\) ) is first converted into overpotential and then into heat. This energy conversion is a characteristic feature of non-equilibrium thermodynamics and is expected to greatly contribute to the future development of non-equilibrium thermodynamics itself. The energy conversion is particularly important in enzymatic reactions of biological systems is important because the mechanism of thermogenesis in biological systems is expected to be closely linked to the present non-equilibrium theory 52 .

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Hutchings, G. J. Heterogeneous gold catalysis. ACS Cent. Sci. 4 , 1095–1101 (2018).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bell, A. T. Impact of nanoscience on heterogeneous catalysis. Science 299 , 1688–1691 (2003).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lin, L. et al. Heterogeneous catalysis in water. JACS Au 1 , 1834–1848 (2021).

Wieckowski, A. & Neurock, M. Contrast and synergy between electrocatalysis and heterogeneous catalysis. Adv. Phys. Chem. 2011 , 907129 (2011).

Article   Google Scholar  

Boettcher, S. W. & Surendranath, Y. Heterogeneous electrocatalysis goes chemical. Nat. Catal. 4 , 4–5 (2021).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Fortunato, G. V. et al. Analysing the relationship between the fields of thermo- and electrocatalysis taking hydrogen peroxide as a case study. Nat. Commun. 13 , 1–7 (2022).

Koshy, D. M. et al. Bridging thermal catalysis and electrocatalysis: catalyzing CO2 conversion with carbon-based materials. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 60 , 17472–17480 (2021).

Zope, B. N., Hibbitts, D. D., Neurock, M. & Davis, R. J. Reactivity of the gold/water interface during selective oxidation catalysis. Science 330 , 74–78 (2010).

Adams, J. S., Kromer, M. L., Rodríguez-López, J. & Flaherty, D. W. Unifying concepts in electro- and thermocatalysis toward hydrogen peroxide production. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 143 , 7940–7957 (2021).

Ryu, J. et al. Thermochemical aerobic oxidation catalysis in water can be analysed as two coupled electrochemical half-reactions. Nat. Catal. 4 , 742–752 (2021).

Howland, W. C., Gerken, J. B., Stahl, S. S. & Surendranath, Y. Thermal hydroquinone oxidation on CO/n-doped carbon proceeds by a band-mediated electrochemical mechanism. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144 , 11253–11262 (2022).

Huang, X. et al. Au–Pd separation enhances bimetallic catalysis of alcohol oxidation. Nature 603 , 271–275 (2022).

Zhao, L. et al. Insights into the effect of metal ratio on cooperative redox enhancement effects over Au- and Pd-mediated alcohol oxidation. ACS Catal. 13 , 2892–2903 (2023).

Takeyasu, K., Katane, Y., Miyamoto, N., Yan, M. & Nakamura, J. Experimental verification of mixed-potential-driven catalysis. e-J. Surf. Sci. Nanotechnol. 21 , 164–168 (2022).

An, H., Sun, G., Hülsey, M. J., Sautet, P. & Yan, N. Demonstrating the electron-proton-transfer mechanism of aqueous phase 4-nitrophenol hydrogenation using unbiased electrochemical cells. ACS Catal. 12 , 15021–15027 (2022).

Daniel, I. T. et al. Kinetic analysis to describe Co-operative redox enhancement effects exhibited by bimetallic Au-Pd systems in aerobic oxidation. Catal. Sci. Technol. 13 , 47–55 (2022).

Wagner, C. & Traud, W. On the interpretation of corrosion processes through the superposition of electrochemical partial processes and on the potential of mixed electrodes. Corrosion 62 , 844–855 (1938).

Google Scholar  

Spiro, M. & Ravno, A. B. Heterogeneous catalysis in solution. part II. The effect of platinum on oxidation-reduction reactions. J. Chem. Soc. 78–96 https://doi.org/10.1039/FT9918700977 (1965).

Smirnov, E., Peljo, P., Scanlon, M. D. & Girault, H. H. Interfacial redox catalysis on gold nanofilms at soft interfaces. ACS Nano 9 , 6565–6575 (2015).

Gray, D. & Cahill, A. Theoretical analysis of mixed potentials. J. Electrochem. Soc. 116 , 443 (1969).

Spiro, M. Heterogeneous catalysis in solution. Part 17.—Kinetics of oxidation–reduction reaction catalysed by electron transfer through the solid: an electrochemical treatment. J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 1: Phys. Chem. Condens. Phases 75 , 1507 (1979).

Miller, D. S. & McLendon, G. Quantitative electrochemical kinetics studies of ‘microelectrodes’: catalytic water reduction by methyl viologen/colloidal platinum. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 103 , 6791–6796 (1981).

Bindra, P. & Roldan, J. Mechanisms of electroless metal plating. III. Mixed potential theory and the interdependence of partial reactions. J. Appl Electrochem 17 , 1254–1266 (1987).

Power, G. P., Staunton, W. P. & Ritchie, I. M. Mixed potential measurements in the elucidation of corrosion mechanisms-II. Some measurements. Electrochim. Acta 27 , 165–169 (1982).

Spiro, M. Catalysis by noble metals of redox reactions in solution. Catal. Today 17 , 517–525 (1993).

Mills, A. Heterogeneous redox catalysts for oxygen and chlorine evolution. Chem. Soc. Rev. 18 , 285–316 (1989).

Bockris, J. O. M. & Khan, S. U. M. Surface Electrochemistry: A Molecular Level Approach . (Springer, 1993).

Kodera, T., Kita, H. & Honda, M. Kinetic analysis of the mixed potential. Electrochim. Acta 17 , 1361–1376 (1972).

Michael, B. Y. & Spiro, M. Heterogeneous catalysis in solution. Part 22.—Oxidation–reduction reactions catalysed by electron transfer through the solid: theory for partial and complete mass-transport control. J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 1: Phys. Chem. Condens. Phases 79 , 481–490 (1983).

Spiro, M. & Griffin, P. W. Proof of an electron-transfer mechanism by which metals can catalyse oxidation-reduction reactions. J. Chem. Soc. D: Chem. Commun. 262b–263 https://doi.org/10.1039/C2969000262B (1969).

Zhou, H., Park, J. H., Fan, F. R. F. & Bard, A. J. Observation of single metal nanoparticle collisions by open circuit (Mixed) potential changes at an ultramicroelectrode. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134 , 13212–13215 (2012).

Bockris, J. O. & Reddy, A. K. N. Modern Electrochemistry 2B: Electrodics in Chemistry, Engineering, Biology and Environmental Science. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001).

Peljo, P. et al. Redox electrocatalysis of floating nanoparticles: determining electrocatalytic properties without the influence of solid supports. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 8 , 3564–3575 (2017).

Miller, D. S., Bard, A. J., McLendon, G. & Ferguson, J. Catalytic water reduction at colloidal metal “microelectrodes”. 2. Theory and experiment. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 103 , 5336–5341 (1981).

de Donder, T. & van Rysselberghe, P. Thermodynamic Theory of Affinity: A Book of Principles . (Milford, Stanford University Press; Oxford university press, 1936).

Nernst, W. The New Heat Theorem: Its Foundations in Theory and Experiment . (Dover Publications, 1969).

Prigogine, I. Introduction to Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes . (John Wiley & Sons, 1968).

Kondepudi, D. & Prigogine, I. Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures . (John Wiley & Sons, 1998).

Smith, L. A., Glasscott, M. W., Vannoy, K. J. & Dick, J. E. Enzyme kinetics via open circuit potentiometry. Anal. Chem. 92 , 2266–2273 (2020).

Cammann, K. & Rechnitz, G. A. Exchange kinetics at ion-selective membrane electrodes. Anal. Chem. 48 , 856–862 (1976).

Kao, W. C. et al. The obligate respiratory supercomplex from Actinobacteria. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Bioenerg. 1857 , 1705–1714 (2016).

Freguia, S., Virdis, B., Harnisch, F. & Keller, J. Bioelectrochemical systems: microbial versus enzymatic catalysis. Electrochim. Acta 82 , 165–174 (2012).

Bertholet, A. M., Kirichok, Y. & Mitochondrial, H. Leak and thermogenesis. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 84 , 381–407 (2022).

Bard, A. J. & Faulkner, L. R. Electrochemical Methods: Fundamentals and Applications (John Wiley & Sons, 2001).

Lazzari, L. Encyclopaedia of Hydrocarbons 485–505 (Eni: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 2005).

O’Hayre, R., Cha, S.-W., Colella, W. & Prinz, F. B. Fuel Cell Fundamentals . (John Wiley & Sons, 2016).

Percival, S. J. & Bard, A. J. Ultra-sensitive potentiometric measurements of dilute redox molecule solutions and determination of sensitivity factors at platinum ultramicroelectrodes. Anal. Chem. 89 , 9843–9849 (2017).

Caplan, S. R. & Essig, A. Bioenergetics and Linear Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics: The Steady State . (Harvard University Press, 1983).

Newman, J. & Balsara, N. P. Electrochemical Systems . (John Wiley & Sons, 2004).

Bockris, J. O., Conway, B. E., Yeager, E. & White, R. E. Comprehensive Treatise of Electrochetnistry Volume 3: Electrochemical Energy Conversion and Storage . (Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1981).

Huang, J., Chen, Y. & Eikerling, M. Correlated surface-charging behaviors of two electrodes in an electrochemical cell. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120 , 1–7 (2023).

Namari, N., Yan, M., Nakamura, J. & Takeyasu, K. Overpotential-derived thermogenesis in mitochondrial respiratory chain. ChemRxiv https://doi.org/10.26434/chemrxiv-2023-366tt-v2 (2024).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) Grant Number 23H05459, JST the establishment of university fellowships towards the creation of science technology innovation Grant Number JPMJFS2106, Project for University-Industry Cooperation Strengthening in Tsukuba, and TRiSTAR Program, a Top Runner Development Program Engaging Universities, National Labs, and Companies. M.Y., N.A.P.N., J.N., and K.T. thank Prof. Hiroaki Suzuki for fruitful discussions on the mixed potential.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Graduate School of Science and Technology, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8573, Japan

Mo Yan & Nuning Anugrah Putri Namari

Department of Materials Science, Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8573, Japan

Junji Nakamura & Kotaro Takeyasu

Tsukuba Research Centre for Energy and Materials Science, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8573, Japan

International Institute for Carbon-Neutral Energy Research (I²CNER), Kyushu University, 744 Motooka, Nishi-ku, Fukuoka-shi, Fukuoka, 819-0395, Japan

Junji Nakamura

R&D Center for Zero CO2 Emission with Functional Materials, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8573, Japan

Kotaro Takeyasu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J.N. conceived the concept. J.N. and K.T. supervised the project. M.Y. and K.T. derived the equations. M.Y., K.T., and J.N. designed the figures. M.Y., N.A.P.N., J.N., and K.T. wrote the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Junji Nakamura or Kotaro Takeyasu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Communications Chemistry thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Peer review file, supplementary information, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Yan, M., Namari, N.A.P., Nakamura, J. et al. Theoretical framework for mixed-potential-driven catalysis. Commun Chem 7 , 69 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-024-01145-y

Download citation

Received : 25 December 2023

Accepted : 11 March 2024

Published : 01 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-024-01145-y

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computers and Society

Title: developing generative ai chatbots conceptual framework for higher education.

Abstract: This research explores the quickly changing field of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) chatbots in higher education, an industry that is undergoing major technological changes. AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT, HuggingChat, and Google Bard, are becoming more and more common in a variety of sectors, including education. Their acceptance is still in its early phases, with a variety of prospects and obstacles. However, their potential in higher education is particularly noteworthy, providing lecturers and students with affordable, individualized support. Creating a comprehensive framework to aid the usage of generative AI chatbots in higher education institutions (HEIs) is the aim of this project. The Chukwuere Generative AI Chatbots Acceptance Model (CGAICAM) is the result of this study's synthesis of elements from well-known frameworks, including the TAM, UTAUT2, TPB, and others along with variables like optimism, innovativeness, discomfort, insecurity, and others. Using a research method that encompasses a comprehensive analysis of extant literature from databases such as IEEE, ACM, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar, the study aims to comprehend the implications of AI Chatbots on higher education and pinpoint critical elements for their efficacious implementation. Peer-reviewed English-language publications published between 2020 and 2023 with a focus on the use of AI chatbots in higher education were the main focus of the search criteria. The results demonstrate how much AI chatbots can do to improve student engagement, streamline the educational process, and support administrative and research duties. But there are also clear difficulties, such as unfavorable student sentiments, doubts about the veracity of material produced by AI, and unease and nervousness with new technologies.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .