Have a language expert improve your writing

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

  • Knowledge Base
  • Dissertation

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

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

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

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

1. Identify your key concepts

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

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

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

Objective : To increase the quantity of return customers.

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

2. Evaluate and explain relevant theories

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

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

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

3. Show how your research fits into existing research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). What is a Theoretical Framework? | A Step-by-Step Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved 6 February 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/the-theoretical-framework/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Shona McCombes

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

Sacred Heart University Library

Organizing Academic Research Papers: Theoretical Framework

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

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

Importance of Theory

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

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

The theoretical framework strengthens the study in the following ways .

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

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

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

Strategies for Developing the Theoretical Framework

I.  Developing the Framework

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

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

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

II.  Purpose

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Borrowing Theoretical Constructs from Elsewhere

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Undertheorize!

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

Still Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

The key distinctions are:

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

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

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

Research Support

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

Using the Library

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

User Information

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

My Accounts

  • Interlibrary Loan
  • Staff Site Login

Sacred Heart University

FIND US ON  

The PhD Proofreaders

Eureka! When I learnt how to write a theoretical framework

Feb 6, 2019

how to structure a theoretical framework

Have you checked out  the rest of  The PhD Knowledge Base ? It’s home to hundreds more free resources and guides, written especially for PhD students.  

Have you ever had a eureka moment? A moment where something that you’ve misunderstood for ages becomes crystal clear?

I did, about half way through my PhD.

Did I come up with a ground breaking discovery that would revolutionise my field? Did I develop a new theory that would change the way we think about the world?

I finally understood how to write a theoretical framework.

Sound silly? It isn’t. 

During the one-on-one PhD coaching sessions I run, the issue of how to write a theory framework comes up more frequently than any other. The theoretical framework is important, but many people find it difficult. I know I struggled with it. 

Then someone explained the theory framework to me in such a simple way. Here’s the eureka moment: The theoretical framework is like a toolbox.

Simple, right?

Let me explain. In the literature review you highlighted the problem that needs ‘fixing’. The theoretical framework – the ’toolbox’ – details the theories, propositions, hypotheses (if you’re using them) and concepts – the ’tools’ – that you will use to address or make sense of this problem.

So, your job in a theoretical framework chapter is to discuss in detail what the tools look like, how they behave, how they have been used before, how they relate to one another, how they are relevant to your aims and objectives and what the drawbacks are from using them. The methods chapter then discusses how you will use (operationalise) those tools.

Hello, Doctor…

Sounds good, doesn’t it?  Be able to call yourself Doctor sooner with our five-star rated How to Write A PhD email-course. Learn everything your supervisor should have taught you about planning and completing a PhD.

Now half price. Join hundreds of other students and become a better thesis writer, or your money back. 

What is a theoretical framework?

In the literature review you highlighted the problem that needs ‘fixing’. The theoretical framework – the ’toolbox’ – details the theories, propositions, hypotheses (if you’re using them) and concepts – the ’tools’ – that you will use to address or make sense of this problem.

The list of potential explanations for why responses differ is enormous.

You could approach this question with a focus on, say, psychology, power, gender, economics, and so on. The best we can typically hope for – and this is particularly true in much of the social sciences – is an interpretation of the truth.

So – and this is important – we use theory to focus our attention on a small sub-set of all potential explanations, on one particular viewpoint.

Now I know I’m getting into messy epistemological and ontological waters here. I am an interpretivist, so I see theory as a ‘lens’ that you apply to make sense of the world. That’s the shape of my toolbox.

But, even if you’re a positivist you still pick and choose theoretical concepts and hypotheses from a range of available options; you just use them in a different way (rather than a lens, they become testable propositions, or measurement tools).

Without a theoretical framework we are left with a potentially endless choice of potential viewpoints, which would make our data collection and analysis and our discussion hugely chaotic.

PhD Literature Review & Theory Framework Survival Pack

Master your lit review & theory framework.

Learn what goes where (and why), and how it all fit together with this free, interactive guide to the PhD literature review and theory framework.

In other words, if we don’t know how to focus our attention, how we can present a coherent explanation? 

The theoretical framework is a natural extension of the literature review. The purpose of the literature review, amongst other things, is to highlight gaps and shortcomings with the existing work in your field.

The theoretical framework details   the perspective you will take   to address that gap and shortcoming.

For example, in   my doctoral research,   my literature review focused on government responses to climate change and pointed out that there hadn’t been much discussion on local government.

The theoretical framework then made an informed decision to come at it from a particular theoretical perspective (institutional theory, if you’re interested) and then discussed what that theory looks like, highlighting the key concepts and ideas. 

In your own research you will also need to make an informed decision about the particular theory you will employ to guide you through the rest of the research.

The theoretical framework is a natural extension of the literature review. The purpose of the literature review, amongst other things, is to highlight gaps and shortcomings with the existing work in your field. The theoretical framework details the perspective you will take to address that gap and shortcoming.

So, the   job of the theoretical framework isn’t to repeat the literature review . Instead, think of it as a   separate, mini literature review , this time focusing on the theory you will employ. You don’t have to discuss every particular use and discussion of the theoretical position you employ. If you did, you’d quickly run out of space and time.

Remember, your examiners are likely to already be familiar with the theory, meaning that rather than discuss every possible thing that there is to discuss about it, you instead need to discuss how and why the theory has been adapted and adopted to the context of your research.

How to structure a theoretical framework

  • You need to have a solid grasp of your aims and objectives. These define the space in which your research will sit and your goals when conducting it. You will need to briefly recap these when you start writing your theoretical framework, both to remind the reader and so that you can relate your theory to these overarching aims.
  • What theory/theories are you using? Here you need to define and explain each theory you draw upon and, in doing so, discuss the leading proponents and applications. This shows that you understand the theory you are going to adopt.
  • You then need to spend time critically arguing why you are adopting this particular theory. There are a lot of potential theories you could use. Why this one? Importantly, you should relate your choice to the discussions in the literature review and your aims and objectives.
  • Can the theory/theories be broken down into different schools? Which one are you siding with and why?
  • A theory contains a number of concepts. Which will you be drawing upon? Why these ones? Have you defined them properly? The way you approach this section will be influenced by your epistemological and ontological perspective and, thus, whether you use hypotheses or not. If you are using hypotheses, you need to state them as such.
  • How do the concepts relate to your aims and objectives?
  • Have you clearly stated your ontological and epistemological perspective?
  • Are you the first to use this particular theory in this particular way? What benefits or drawbacks does that bring?
  • Can you spot any drawbacks with applying this theory? Does it fail to account for a particular dimension of a phenomenon? Is it difficult to operationalize?
  • How are your concepts related? Are you using them as hypotheses? Or as a model to make sense of the data? Somewhere in between? Be explicit about how they are all related and what you plan on doing with them.

theory in thesis

The goal of writing up a theoretical framework is to tell the reader why you have chosen particular theories, how they relate to the gap in the literature, and how they relate to your aims and objectives.

A short (but necessary) note on ontology and epistemology 

How do i choose theories and create my framework.

Unless you are using an inductive methodological approach (where you generate theory from the data), you will likely approach your fieldwork with a theoretical framework in mind. Which theory or theories you choose is, in part, down to your aims and objectives and whether there is a relevant theory available ‘off-the-shelf’ that is appropriate for your needs.

There are generally three strategies that researchers use to develop their theoretical frameworks: 

  • There may be theories in your field that have arisen on the basis of repeated observation and testing and which are widely accepted.
  • Or, you might find that you need to select concepts from multiple theories and create a novel framework that is unique to your particular context.
  • A growing and important trend in social research is to adopt an interdisciplinary perspective when trying to understand the social world. This can be achieved by looking beyond the dominant, well-established theories and thinking about how other theories, particularly those from other disciplines or sub-disciplines, can be used.

In any case, you must consider the following when selecting a theory:  

  • Identify your ontological and epistemological beliefs.
  • List several theories that align with your epistemological position and which can aid your understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.
  • Engage in literature review around those theories, both to familiarise yourself with them but also to understand their relevance to your study.
  • Ask yourself how each theory connects to your problem, aims & objectives.
  • Select the theory or theories that provide more relevant tools for your thesis. 

I have more than one theory. What do I do?

  Often, you need to combine concepts, hypotheses or ideas from more than one theoretical school. Employing   more than one theory is entirely legitimate.   I did so in my PhD. 

  However, you need to  consider a few key questions : 

Are the theories you are bringing together epistemologically compatible? 

Have you discussed each theory in the same level of detail to adequately explain the theory, your justification for its inclusion, its relation to the literature and its potential drawbacks? 

What benefits does focusing on more than one theory bring? Perhaps one theory has shortcomings that the other addresses? 

What downsides are there to employing more than one theory? 

Has anyone else used this combination of theories before you? 

The theoretical framework is a tricky section to write, largely because the choice available to you is huge.

But   keep that toolbox metaphor in mind. 

  Each theory contains a number of tools. Your job in the theory framework is to take the tools you need for your project from the most relevant theory/theories and package them up into your own toolbox.

When you’re done, you should see that the theory framework offers:

  • Structure, by detailing the key concepts, tools and, where relevant, hypotheses
  • A way to connect to other research
  • A coherent, joined up set of ideas that structure the writing and help to create an argumentative streak that can run throughout your thesis
  • An approach that can be reused in additional contexts once you’re done

Along the way, you need to convince the reader that you’ve picked and applied the most appropriate tools possible, given your aims and objectives.

The theoretical framework frames the research. If you build that frame right, your research will shine. If you don’t then you’ll struggle.

If you need expert guidance to structure, plan or write your theory framework you can get in touch for a one-on-one coaching session . It’s like having a personal trainer, but for your PhD. 

Share this:

65 comments.

Kamara

A great read. Quite some insight into my Phd journey. The conceptual framework?

Dr. Max Lempriere

Glad you found it useful. You having trouble with your conceptual framework?

SHAMIN ALLY

This is enlightening. I was struggling with my Theoretical framework. I will apply the guidelines here and await feedback from my supervisor. Thanks

I’m glad you found the post useful. Thanks for your kind words.

Al

I came across your posts while helping my wife with her work (I finished my PhD two years ago), and I keep thinking…hmmm the pain I went through to learn this… thank you for making it so easy for others…

Thanks for the kind words. I remember how difficult I found my own PhD, so my motivation is to make life easier for as many other PhD students as possible.

umair rahmat

i need some more clear version to develop a theoretical framework. kindly contact me through email. thank you

Yvonne

Great insights. I have read through your thesis. You did a lot of quality work. I see the EM, Environmental Policy Capacity and the institutions theory all discussed. Really detailed and linked. Let me see how mine goes

I’ve sent you an email. I’d be glad to help.

Carolyne

This is very helpful because am really struggling to write my theoretical section. I have a question, I selected a framework but realised it has shortcomings, so I decided to include a model, but also I have another theory. All the three are confusing me how to structure them please I need your help. Thanks

Hi Carolyne,

Thanks for your email. Do you want to have a one-on-one coaching session with me? We’ll be able to get to the bottom of your confusion and clear up your theory problems once and for all. Click here for more details and to book yourself in.

Walter

Do you have a structured outline, similar to the overall diss outline, for the theoretical framework?

I sure do. You can find it here: https://www.thephdproofreaders.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Theoretical-Framework-Template_AW_20190208.pdf

Lindiwe Mpindiwa

What are the advantages of having a chapter on theoretical framework independent of the Literature Review chapter. Please assist.

Thanks for your comment. Whether or not you need a separate literature review and theory framework chapter depends on how distinct they are from one another and on how complex each chapter is. It may be the case that you need two chapters because to discuss both in one would make the chapter very large, complex and hard to follow. Also, it is often the case that the theory framework builds on and addresses gaps you’ve highlighted in your literature review, so for that reason it makes sense to keep them as two separate chapters.

But which one comes first? I thought theoretical framework comes earlier than literature review or is it in a proposal where it is structured that way?

Typically the lit review comes first, then the theory. The lit review makes the case for the research and the theory framework shows the approach you will take to conduct the research.

Thanks for the kind words 🙂

chidi

Dear Max, I am using multiple related concepts to frame my research. I am confused whether to dedicate a complete chapter to explain only these five concepts, or just operationalise them in one of the chapters. Again, is introducing these concepts early in my introductory chapter a good idea as it forms one of my research questions. This means I have answered the question in the introductory chapter

Thanks for your comment. Whether or not such concepts end up in your introduction/context discussion will depend in part on whether they are framing your research (as in, providing the background or context) or whether you’re using them to answer your research questions (in which case they’ll form part of your theory framework and will therefore come at a later stage).

sevda

Dear Max, I was searching how to structure Theoretical framework and came across your writing. Thank you for this, it is really helpful. I’m one of those phd students who struggles with Theoretical framework :/ I would appreciate your help if possible. Could you please outline, how can I reach you?

Thanks for your kind words. I’m glad you’re finding the phD Knowledge Base useful. You can reach me at max[at]thephdproofreaders.com

Speaks soon!

Naheed Akhtar

I’m so confused about my theoretical framework. Could you possibly help please?

Sure. Have you checked out the one-on-one PhD coaching service we offer? It sounds just that’s just what you need.

huei

I couldn’t express how grateful I am. MAY YOU BE SHOWERED WITH BLESSINGS

Thanks! I’m glad you found the advice useful.

Esther

wow!!! thank you very much , I have been struggling to write my theoretical framework . thank you.

You’re welcome!

Dr. Max I am expecting to learn more on how to pick the right literatures, related to my theme. all of them seem very nice and informative. I am having hard time to select them. and also I have difficulties in starting the sentence of my Introduction. I am researching on “the impact of Prosperity gospel in Tanzanian mainline churches”. my topic is very popular and many has been said … I feel like I am saying what has been said .

Thanks for your comment. I wish you the best of luck.

Kourteney

Hi Max, Great read. Doing my MA Thesis after years away from academia has been a challenge to say the least. Your article provided clarity that I have been asking for/seeking elsewhere (supervision/consultant) for months. Wish I had of found it earlier but glad I came across it.

Thank you and all the best in these uncertain times.

Great! Glad you’re finding the resources useful. Good luck with the rest of the thesis.

Seva

Dear Max, thank you very much, many things got clear after reading this. I have a question, I am using political capability approach as my theoretical foundation which is part of RBW theory. So technically it is not a theory but just an approach, so does this indirectly mean that I am USING RBW Theory? Many Thanks

Hi – glad you found it useful. Without knowing more about your project I’m afraid I can’t advise about your choice of theory framework. Have you approached your supervisor with this question?

Macdonald Muyabalo

This is a very helpful article.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Grace Magama

This has been one of the best articles that has clearly outlined the Theoretical framework. Kindly do a Youtibe video for auditory learners with real examples. It will greatly assist me especiall. I am glad I found this article.

Thanks for the kind words and for your feedback. I’ll take it on board for future guides.

Pauline McGonagle

Thanks so much for this which has helped me with a sticky bit as I move forward to discover new theoretical concepts from slightly outside my field that fit better than those I started out with. A part-time PhD has such a long life that it leaves too much room for changes and adaptations! A big thank you to Rebecca Baker on a Shut Up and Write Session who referred me to this!

I’m glad you found the guide useful. Thanks to you and to Rebecca Baker!

Jackson Isiko

I found this post very helpful, thanks for sharing

Thanks for reading!

Roshni Louis Alphanso

Thank you for this crisp advice on Theoretical framework. personally i have been experiencing difficulties selecting appropriate theory related to the study. However your advice was really beneficial. God bless you for your kindness towards us researchers.

Thanks for the kind words Roshni.

Ntele

Thank you so much for sharing this information regarding the theoretical framework. I revisited my chapter and strengthened it based on the pointers you outlined here. This is a must read before drafting the chapter. Very helpful ?

Thanks for the kind words. I’m glad you found it useful.

Kam

This came just in time! I’m taking a research philosophy course and this week’s discussion is “Theory and Theoretical Frameworks”. I found this very helpful.

Great. I hope it helped deepen your understanding.

Channel Zhou

Thank you Dr Lempriere for this insightful article. I have just started my PhD journey and I found this article to be very useful and eye-opening.

Ehikioya Hilary Osolase

Interesting and excellent read.

Thank you so very much for sharing your intellectual insights on this.

PhD finisher

Hi this is really useful thank you. I have a question regarding one of my tools. I realise (quite late) that I am using one tool in a *generalised* way. I could put this another way – the context in which I found this tool constituted a more particular use of this more general tool, and I am seeking to retrieve it for a more general use. This opens the question – on what grounds am I employing a generalised form of this tool? What constraints govern this process of generalisation? Etc. I wish I’d dealt with this earlier… Do you have any thoughts on how I navigate this?

Hi – I’d love to give you advice, but without knowing more about your research and thesis any advice I would give wouldn’t be qualified. Sorry I can’t be of more help.

Doug

I loved your explanation, but what if you ARE doing an inductive project?

Ellana Delfino-Rice

I found your article very useful, thank you! I am currently building a Foucauldian theoretical framework through which to discuss a phenomena (“Karens”).

Do you any academic articles which I can use to justify using the interpretavist approach (using theory as a lens)? I cant find anything through my searches.

Hi – sorry, we don’t I’m afraid.

Roland

Surely, this is a great lesson offered. How I pray I had your email, I would love to learn more from you. Thank you

olivia komukama

Been struggling with my Phd and literature review . This has been very helpful. Is it possible for you to share your email so i can engage more with you and get some insights and help

Stephanie Green

Really really helpful guide, I am so grateful to you for providing this! It is helping me immensely in developing my own framework, a task which previously seemed scary, confusing and impossible!

Carmen van der Merwe

Thanks for this. It is very useful. So should I first write my Lit review and then only the theoretical framework? TIA

Thanks! It’s hard to say without knowing more about your project, I’m afraid!

Alhassan Mutawakilu

Thank you for the wonderful work. I want to know if theoretical frame work can presented in a diagram form

You’re welcome! Yes, your theory framework can be presented visually. It’s a great way of showing the framework in a clean, simplified way. It also serves as a useful reference guide for people to easily refer back to if they want to remind themselves of what your theory framework looks like.

ROBERT

I found your article highly informative. I recently enrolled for my PhD and my supervisor asked me to submit my Research outline. Does the outline have to have that detailed Theoretical framework. Again how best can I choose the theoretical framework suitable for my topic. If I may have a list of Theoretical frameworks I will be happy. I will also be grateful to have a direct contact with you.

Sethu

A great insight into how to write a theoretical framework, simple and jargon free, the article makes the purpose and the method of writing the chapter explicit. Thank you.

That’s so kind of you Sethu. I’m glad you found it useful.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

theory in thesis

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

Eureka! When I learnt how to write a theoretical framework

The PhD Knowledge Base Categories

  • Your PhD and Covid
  • Mastering your theory and literature review chapters
  • How to structure and write every chapter of the PhD
  • How to stay motivated and productive
  • Techniques to improve your writing and fluency
  • Advice on maintaining good mental health
  • Resources designed for non-native English speakers
  • PhD Writing Template
  • Explore our back-catalogue of motivational advice
  • Staff Directory
  • Library Policies
  • Hege Research Award
  • Quaker Archives
  • Art Gallery
  • Student Support
  • Teaching & Learning
  • Reserving spaces
  • Technology Lending
  • Interlibrary Loan
  • Course Reserves
  • Copyright & Fair Use
  • Poster Printing
  • Virtual Reference
  • Research Guides
  • Off-campus access
  • Digital Scholarship
  • Guilford Sources
  • Open Educational Resources
  • Quaker Collections
  • Digital Collections
  • College Archives
  • Underground Railroad
  • Universities Studying Slavery
  • Images & Exhibitions

Service Alert

logo

Hege Library & Learning Technologies

Guide for Thesis Research

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

Some Articles About Theory

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

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

Why is theory important?

theory in thesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources About Theory and Theoretical Frameworks

Cover Art

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

offer

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

theory in thesis

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).

theory in thesis

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.

theory in thesis

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

theory in thesis

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).

theory in thesis

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 .

Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education - Home

  • Current Issue
  • Journal Archive
  • Current Call

Search form

Follow Perspectives on Urban Education on Twitter

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

Send by email

Dr. Jordan Tegtmeyer

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

Introduction

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

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

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

theory in thesis

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

Building a Dissertation Study

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

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

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

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

Developing Guiding Research Questions        

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

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

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

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

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

Additional questions related to institutional characteristics are:

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

theory in thesis

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

Developing Study Goals

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

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

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

Understanding Contexts of the Work

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

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

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

Researcher Reflexivity

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

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

Theoretical Framework Development

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

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

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

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

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

Naming Tacit Theories

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

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

Structured Reflexivity and Dialogic Engagement

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

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

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

Methodological Approach and Research Methods

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

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

Parting Wisdom

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

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

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

theory in thesis

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

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

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

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

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

Articles in this Volume

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

Report accessibility issues and request help

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

  • How It Works

Theoretical Framework: Research Writing Guide

theoretical framework

In a thesis or dissertation, a theoretical framework is a section where the writer evaluates or discusses the most relevant theories to their study.

The purpose of this section is to: 

  • Define the key concepts
  • Combine and evaluate relevant models and theories
  • Explain expectations and assumptions that guide the project

The proper presentation of this information frames the research while justifying the approach taken by the writer. This section does this by showing the established ideas on which you ground your work.

Essentially, this section of a dissertation a foundation that supports the analysis that follows. It also allows the author to convincingly interpret their results and state or explain their relevance in a larger context.

When properly written, this section works like the software or buildings that provide critical support to the other aspects of the study. Writing a strong framework with a strong theoretical basis enhances investigations that lead to the achievement of specific study goals.

A well-written framework reduces a dreadful research topic into two basic concepts. These are:

  • The study problem
  • The rationale behind its investigation

When writing the framework section, focus on creating a piece that connects you with the existing knowledge via the guidance of relevant theories. Also, provide the basis of your hypothesis and your chosen research methods. A professional dissertation writer will help, if you’re in trouble.

What Is a Theoretical Framework?

  • The Length of a Theoretical Framework

Theoretical or Conceptual Framework?

Types of theoretical framework, how to write a theoretical framework.

  • Summary of a Theoretical Framework Sample

Just like the name suggests, this part of a dissertation or thesis is about theories. Researchers develop theories to draw connections, explain phenomena, and make predictions.

The simplest theoretical framework definition describes it as a collection of theories or interrelated concepts. It comprises concepts and their definitions, as well as, a reference to existing theory and scholarly literature that will be used in a particular study. Your content in this section of a thesis or dissertation must show your understanding of concepts and theories relevant to your research topic. It must also relate them to the considered broader field of knowledge.
  • Some students confuse conceptual vs. theoretical framework. In some cases, learners use these terms interchangeably. But though these terms help readers understand the research problem while guiding the collection, as well as, analysis of information, they are different.
  • According to the above definition of theoretical framework, it comprises concepts or theories relevant to a study. It highlights how the author will understand and investigate the research problem.
  • On the other hand, a conceptual framework can include several formal theories partly or entirely, and other empirical findings and concepts from the field’s literature. The main difference between theoretical and conceptual framework is that the latter demonstrates the relationships among ideas and their relationship with the study.
  • A conceptual framework is commonly used in qualitative research. Although some researchers use a theoretical framework in qualitative research, it is common in quantitative research. A conceptual framework is commonly used in qualitative research, especially in behavioral and social science studies.

The Length of a Theoretical Framework

The complexity and length of this section depend on the topic and study field. Some fields and topics have an obvious and well-established theoretical basis. Others need a more detailed justification and explanation.

Maybe you already know that you will apply a specific theory or several theories to your specific context. For instance, you may intend to use the social impact theory when conducting your market research. In that case, the main task is to discuss the main aspects of this theory and then convince the readers that it offers a solid basis that will enable you to answer the research question. It’s also crucial that you evaluate more theories, as long as, they are relevant to your study. Also, tell your readers why you’ve chosen that specific approach.

In some cases, authors draw on different theories and then combine ideas. This approach can lead to strong research. However, it may require more work because you have to implement the theories in your work.

Most theoretical framework examples range between three and five pages. However, no rules govern the length of this section of a dissertation. Nevertheless, try to keep yours within the range of 3-5 pages. This length is adequate for providing all the relevant information your reader wants to know about your chosen theories and assumptions.

Perhaps, you are torn between a theoretical and conceptual framework. Well, the best approach for deciding what to use in your paper is determining the kind of study you want to conduct. If you must use a theoretical framework in qualitative research, determine the theories you intend to use.

That’s because most types of theoretical framework in qualitative research are found in studies based on existing theories. For instance, you can use this framework when your study is based on motivation theory.

On the other hand, a conceptual framework is ideal for something you will develop based on a theory. Thus, you can use some or all concepts of this theory. Thus, you develop a conceptual framework to solve a problem for which you’re doing the study to find a solution.

At this point, you’re no longer asking, ‘what is theoretical framework?’ But, you most likely want to know the types of frameworks that you can consider for your research. Well, this framework provides a lens or a perspective via which you will examine your topic. And this perspective can be from any study field depending on your academic paper.

For instance, a nursing student can use a theoretical framework in nursing research as long as it defines the concepts while explaining the phenomena in question. However, learners can consider other categories and types of theoretical framework in research.

They include: 

  • Dynamic and sustainability framework
  • Implementation results framework
  • Theoretical domains validation framework
  • Consolidated implementation research and theoretical domains framework
  • Active research implementation framework
  • Evaluation framework

The internet has many resources with examples of theoretical framework in qualitative research and quantitative research. Check them out before you use any framework in your research to know what it entails.

This article has already answered the question, ‘what is theoretical framework in research?’ It has also highlighted the types of this framework. But, how do you complete your theoretical framework research work?

Here is a guide for creating this framework for your research: 

  • Identify the main concepts : Start by picking the main terms of your research problem or research questions. Some concepts can have several definitions. Your framework should define what each concept means clearly. For instance, if concepts like “customer satisfaction” and “customer loyalty” are central to your study, define them and discuss theories that explain their relationship.
  • Explain and evaluate relevant theories : Engage in an extensive literature review to find out the definition of the connections between theories and concepts by other researchers. As you compose your framework, focus on critically evaluating different approaches and comparing them. Establish the most appropriate definitions for your research after discussing different theories and models. Mention all important concepts that are connected to the theories that you discuss in your framework. Explain why you choose a well-established theory for your study and what makes it the most suitable for that purpose. If unsure about the best way to do this, check a theoretical framework example online first.
  • Demonstrate how your study fits in : In addition to discussing theories by other people, your framework should demonstrate how your project will implement these ideas. That means you have to test whether your chosen theory holds in your specific context. Also, use this theory to interpret the findings of your study. It’s also crucial to challenge or critique the theory. What’s more, combine various theories in a unique or new way. If possible and relevant, use your framework to come up with your research hypothesis.
  • Structure your framework : When writing a dissertation or a thesis paper, you can integrate your framework in the literature review chapter. However, you can have it as a separate section or chapter of your paper. If you will be dealing with several complex theories in your paper, have a separate chapter or section for the framework. Nevertheless, you don’t have to follow specific, fixed rules when it comes to structuring the research theoretical framework section. But, your framework should have a logical, clear structure. For instance, you can draw on your study problems or questions and then structure every section around a major concept or question.

These tips should guide you in writing a framework with the theories or concepts you intend to use in your thesis or dissertation. However, you can apply them differently depending on the nature of your study. For instance, a business paper framework may not be the same as a nursing theoretical framework because these are different study fields. However, the concept of creating this framework is the same.

Summary of a Theoretical Framework Sample

For some researchers, an ideal approach is to define theoretical framework. However, some researchers assume the reader already knows what this framework is all about. As such, they go straight to the details. Below is a summary of a theoretical framework in research example.

Company Y wants to resolve the problem of having many customers buy its products online without returning for subsequent purchases. As such, the company management is looking for ways to enhance customer loyalty, hoping that better customer satisfaction will lead to the achievement of this goal.

In your research, you have developed a problem statement, research question, and research question as follows: 

  • Research problem : Most online buyers do not come back for subsequent purchases.
  • Objective : To boost customer loyalty hoping to increase revenue through online sales
  • Research questions : How can company Y improve the satisfaction of online customers to enhance customer loyalty?

Your framework should focus on answering these questions: 

  • Is there a relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty?
  • How loyal and satisfied are the online customers of company Y currently?
  • What are some of the factors affecting the loyalty and satisfaction of the online customers of company Y?

Customer satisfaction and customer loyalty are major concepts that play a role in such a research paper. Therefore, they should be investigated and measured using theories or concepts that should be featured in the framework.

The information contained in this framework could be different from that of a theoretical framework nursing educators expect. That’s because this framework is meant for a business-oriented research paper. Nevertheless, the approach for writing both frameworks is the same.

The framework section of a thesis or dissertation paper clarifies implicit theories or concepts in a clearly defined manner. It also shows how they connect to the current research and why they are suitable for it. Your academic supervisor will most likely check this section first. Therefore, understanding its purpose and how to write it properly is very important.

How To Cite A Thesis MLA

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Comment * Error message

Name * Error message

Email * Error message

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

As Putin continues killing civilians, bombing kindergartens, and threatening WWIII, Ukraine fights for the world's peaceful future.

Ukraine Live Updates

theory in thesis

  • my research
  • contributions and comments

writing the thesis – the theoretical framework

9337917895_b8e0b4705f_b.jpg

Please note that I write my blog on weekends. It is not part of my workload or job description. I support the #USSstrike and “teach out” online. 

Not every thesis has a section or chapter devoted to a theoretical framework. But a lot do. (It’s the Ph in PhD after all.) And these ‘theory chapters’ can be very tricky to write – and are often tricky for the examiner to read.

Before starting to write your theory section/chapter it can be good to think about what the examiner wants to see.

The examiners have likely been appointed because they know, and possibly use, the same theoretical framing as you. And this means that you have to assume that they don’t need a basic introduction or a run-through of every possible thing there is to say about the theory. The examiner doesn’t want a general essay, the kind of here’s-the-lot that you wrote for doctoral course-work (or even your masters’ degree).

The purpose of the theory section/chapter in the doctoral thesis is to set the examiner up to make sense of what you’ve done and what you claim to have ‘found’. The examiner therefore expects – and needs – to see something particular to your work. Something that isn’t so general it could apply to any project anywhere, anytime. Something that is bespoke to what they are about to encounter.

The examiner wants to know:

  • How you understand your chosen theory – there are usually multiple ways that theories are interpreted. Which have you opted for and why? What are the advantages of the approach you have taken?
  • Why you’ve chosen this approach – what is it about this particular framing that gives you a way to conceive and design your project, and/or that gives your results real explanatory heft?
  • That you know the ways in which the theory is already used in the field. Who else has used this approach in ways similar to you? What can you build on from their work? Or perhaps, how does your use of this theory differ from the way it is usually put to work?
  • How you have used the theory – how and where have you brought the theory into conversation with your research? Are some aspects of the theory more important than others to your research? Which and why?
  • What are the potential down-sides to using this theory and approach – what doesn’t it do? What have you done about these potential problems?

And if you have brought two or more theoretical approaches together in your research, then you need to provide the answers to these questions for them both/all. But you also need to say why and how it is possible to use more than one approach. Does one theoretical framing fill in a gap left by the other? Are these theories (epistemologically) compatible? What tensions are there between them? Has anyone else done this? What potential issues are there that you need to draw the examiner’s attention to?

Once you’re clear on the audience and purpose for your theory chapter/section then it’s also important to consider the way you’re going to write it.

The examiner wants to know you are on top of the theory. That you know your stuff. That you have expertise. That you can speak with authority about it. So they don’t expect to read quote after quote after quote after quote. Assume that the examiners have read the original, so what they want is something other than a cut and paste of the stuff they’ve already encountered.

The examiner wants your theoretical explication – your approach to the theory and how it’s used – largely in your own words. Of course, the judicious juicy quote can be used for a few key points, those occasions where the theorist makes a point, just so. But it’s best if you can explain the key points about the theory in your own way.

And the examiner really doesn’t want to see you quoting large slabs of “introductions to”, that is, other people’s interpretations of key ideas, unless you are actually discussing how the theory has been interpreted in the field. They want to see that you have read the texts for yourself.

The examiner gets pretty worried if they can’t see you and your research in the theoretical chapter. They want to see you summarising, evaluating, managing a discussion, stating your take on the theory, explaining your use of it. If they can’t find you, then they’ll approach the viva wondering whether you really do grasp the framework you claim as the basis of your work. They’ll have a set of viva questions in mind to try to find this out. You don’t want that!

So in sum –  you need to have a deep and meaningful relationship with your chosen theory long before you put hand to mouse to write the relevant chapter. You need to know how to explain it. And you need to be very clear about how and why and where you’ve used it.

But there is no doubt that writing the theoretical section/chapter will also enhance your understanding and your subsequent use of the theory throughout the rest of the thesis text.

Share this:

' src=

About pat thomson

11 responses to writing the thesis – the theoretical framework.

' src=

Reblogged this on Digital learning PD Dr Ann Lawless and commented: for my doctoral stduents

' src=

This is SO helpful: thank you. For my writing, and my teaching. Very best wishes, ever Colin M

' src=

Reblogged this on Parts That Make Me Whole and commented: Here is a blog post worth referring to, while sorting out theory matters

' src=

. Thanks for the elegant description of what’s needed for a theoretical framework. I needed that.

' src=

Pat thank you once again for your insight. Again I find myself printing this blog off and using your guidance above almost as a check list whilst in the discovery phase of my theory. I am at the Literature Review stage and had a supervisory meeting whereby all we talked about was theory and themes. As always food for thought and development.. My gratitude and thanks Eileen

' src=

This piece is very resourceful; it hits the nail on the head on what is expected of a thesis on theoretical framework!

' src=

This is so useful! I am working on my first year transfer report and this post was so very helpful. Thank you Pat!

' src=

Thank you very much. It is excellent advice!

' src=

Thank you for such a simple, clear and precise explanation regarding writing a theory.

' src=

Thank you for a simple yet detailed explanation of the theoretical framework. The highlighted ideas will surely sharpen my concepts

' src=

Many thanks. You are a star. Thanks for your unqualified support. Take care.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

  • Search for:

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

RSS Feed

patter on facebook

Recent Posts

  • the ABC of organising your time
  • Why journal articles are rejected
  • the IMRaD structure is rarely enough
  • There are no writing “rules”
  • festive season
  • the slow paper
  • publishing in top ranked journals
  • write short to help write with authority
  • a letter to reviewer 2
  • you’ve submitted, now it’s wait time
  • creating a writing mood
  • criticality in the PhD – nine things to avoid

theory in thesis

SEE MY CURATED POSTS ON WAKELET

Top posts & pages.

  • aims and objectives - what's the difference?
  • writing a bio-note
  • writing skeletons
  • the ABC of organising your time
  • I can't find anything written on my topic... really?
  • avoiding the laundry list literature review
  • bad research questions
  • what's a #phd 'contribution'?
  • 20 reading journal prompts
  • blank and blind spots in empirical research
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

' src=

  • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
  • Subscribe Subscribed
  • Copy shortlink
  • Report this content
  • View post in Reader
  • Manage subscriptions
  • Collapse this bar
  • Translators
  • Graphic Designers
  • Editing Services
  • Academic Editing Services
  • Admissions Editing Services
  • Admissions Essay Editing Services
  • AI Content Editing Services
  • APA Style Editing Services
  • Application Essay Editing Services
  • Book Editing Services
  • Business Editing Services
  • Capstone Paper Editing Services
  • Children's Book Editing Services
  • College Application Editing Services
  • College Essay Editing Services
  • Copy Editing Services
  • Developmental Editing Services
  • Dissertation Editing Services
  • eBook Editing Services
  • English Editing Services
  • Horror Story Editing Services
  • Legal Editing Services
  • Line Editing Services
  • Manuscript Editing Services
  • MLA Style Editing Services
  • Novel Editing Services
  • Paper Editing Services
  • Personal Statement Editing Services
  • Research Paper Editing Services
  • Résumé Editing Services
  • Scientific Editing Services
  • Short Story Editing Services
  • Statement of Purpose Editing Services
  • Substantive Editing Services
  • Thesis Editing Services

Proofreading

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

Translation

  • Translation Services

Graphic Design

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

Solve

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

6 Steps to Mastering the Theoretical Framework of a Dissertation

Tonya Thompson

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

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

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

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

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

Your theoretical framework is the blueprint for your entire dissertation.

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

Complete your review of literature first

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

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

Understand the purpose of a theoretical framework

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

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

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

Use your theoretical framework to justify your research

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

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

Keep it within three to five pages

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

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

Reducing your theoretical framework to three to five pages is a process of chiseling down the excess details that should be included in the separate sections of your dissertation

Use models and other graphics

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

Use a checklist after completing your first draft

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

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

A final note

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

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

Related Posts

Top 10 Ph.D. Viva Questions and How to Answer Them

Top 10 Ph.D. Viva Questions and How to Answer Them

How to Write a Great Argumentative Essay

How to Write a Great Argumentative Essay

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

Need an academic editor before submitting your work?

Need an academic editor before submitting your work?

blog @ precision

Choosing a theoretical framework: popular theories for dissertation research.

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

theory in thesis

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

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

Self-Determination Theory

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

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

theory in thesis

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

Social Cognitive Theory

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

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

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

theory in thesis

Ecological Systems Theory

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

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

Tinto’s Theory of Student Persistence

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

theory in thesis

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

Adult Learning Theory

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

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

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

theory in thesis

Transformative Learning Theory

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

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

Transformational Leadership Theory

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

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

Job Demands-Resources Model

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

theory in thesis

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

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

Diffusion of Innovations Theory 

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

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

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

theory in thesis

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

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

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

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

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

theory in thesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. flag

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
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Elsevier Sponsored Documents

Elsevier Full-Text Article

Exploring the feasibility of theory synthesis: A worked example in the field of health related risk-taking

Associated data.

The idea of synthesising theory is receiving attention within public health as part of a drive to design theoretically informed interventions. Theory synthesis is not a new idea, however, having been debated by sociologists for several decades. We consider the various methodological approaches to theory synthesis and test the feasibility of one such approach by synthesising a small number of sociological theories relevant to health related risk-taking. The synthesis consisted of three stages: (i) synthesis preparation , wherein parts of relevant theories were extracted and summarised; (ii) synthesis which involved comparing theories for points of convergence and divergence and bringing together those points that converge; and (iii) synthesis refinement whereby the synthesis was interrogated for further theoretical insights. Our synthesis suggests that serious and sustained risk-taking is associated with social isolation, liminality and a person's position in relation to the dominant social group. We reflect upon the methodological and philosophical issues raised by the practice of theory synthesis, concluding that it has the potential to reinvigorate theory and make it more robust and accessible for practical application.

  • • There is increasing discussion of synthesising theory within public health.
  • • We conducted a synthesis of theories of risk-taking, to test the method.
  • • The synthesis revealed serious risk-taking to be associated with liminality.
  • • Synthesis is feasible and makes theory more accessible for practical application.
  • • The process of synthesising theory raises philosophical issues, which we discuss.

1. Introduction

There is a growing interest in the synthesis of theory. Although academics have always brought together different theories to generate greater theoretical insights (e.g. Cockerham, 2005 , Dixon and Banwell, 2009 , Zimmerman, 2013 ), there is increasing evidence of a more systematic approach to theory synthesis ( Hardeman et al., 2005 , Lorenc et al., 2012 , Bonell et al., 2013 ). The current impetus for this has its roots in an evidence-based approach to intervention design within public health ( Craig et al., 2008 , National Institute of Health and Clinical Effectiveness, 2007 ) and in a concern with the role that theory plays in the effectiveness of interventions ( Glanz and Bishop, 2010 , Prestwich et al., 2014 ). However, researchers seeking theories to inform interventions sometimes find that the sheer volume of theoretical literature can be overwhelming, that many apparently distinct theories overlap with one another and that it is seldom clear which theories are appropriate for a particular purpose ( Hardeman et al., 2005 , Davis et al., 2014 ). For those interested in the application of theory then, theory synthesis offers the possibility of collating, evaluating and combining theories for practical use.

The notion of taking a systematic approach to the synthesis of theory predates the current public health interest, however, and has been a subject of discussion within sociology since at least the 1980s, where it is commonly referred to as ‘metatheorising’. Ritzer (1990) notes that a systematic approach allows a deeper comprehension of theories as well as the possibility of evaluating, critically analysing and improving them. He suggests that metatheorizing would benefit sociology by generating new theories, better understood theories, and overarching perspectives. Confusingly, however, Ritzer outlines a very wide-ranging approach to metatheoretical activity, including within its purview three different tasks: First, metatheorizing to attain a deeper understanding of theory, which he refers to as M u . This is the identification of major cognitive paradigms within sociology and the study of theories, theorists, communities of theorists and the larger intellectual and social contexts of theories. Second, metatheorizing as a prelude to theory development (M p ), which entails the study of existing theory to produce new sociological theory. Third, M o , which is the practice of studying theory in order to produce a metatheory that overarches some part (or all) of sociological theory.

Ritzer's first type of metatheory (M u ) has a very broad reach and might more appropriately be called ‘metasociology’ ( Fuhrman and Snizek 1990 ). Turner (1991) , a sociologist and general theorist, comments that Ritzer's M u and M o approaches tend to serve mainly ‘as a basis for endless ‘discourse’’ (267). He notes that his own approach to synthesising theory comes closest to Ritzer's M p , and argues that the focus should be on the theories themselves rather than on theorists or paradigms ( Turner, 1990 , Turner, 1991 ). For Turner, theory synthesis involves pulling together existing theories and extracting and synthesising key aspects to produce robust theory that has relevance to the world outside sociology. He notes however, that his emphasis on the theories themselves rather than their intellectual context, often provokes accusations of naivety and lack of sophistication. Turner's insistence on focussing on the theories derives from a frustration with sociology and his sense that sociologists are more concerned with abstract, epistemological critiques than with developing coherent and useful explanations of social forces. As a result, he suggests, and because of a failure to synthesise knowledge and theory, sociology is ignored by policy makers ( Turner, 1998 ). He argues that theory synthesis is the key to developing robust theories of practical relevance.

The idea of metatheory has also been adopted in the field of nursing, where it is interpreted in various different ways. Paterson et al. (2001) understands metatheory as a process of identifying major paradigms and relating theories to the larger sociocultural, historical and political context, thus taking Ritzer's more wide-ranging approach (M u ). On the other hand, Whittemore and Roy (2002) , finding the 'adaptation to chronic illness model' unable to encompass all aspects of the experience of diabetes mellitus, identify several concepts in the diabetes literature with potential to enhance the model and then combine these concepts with the 'adaptation to chronic illness model' to produce a new model. They describe their methodology – the expansion of a model to include additional concepts – as theory synthesis. Yet another interpretation is provided by Walker and Avant (2005) , who consider theory synthesis to be the pulling together of theoretically unconnected pieces of information to construct a theory.

Clearly the terms theory synthesis and metatheory have great potential to confuse. To promote clarity it seems to us that ‘metatheory’ might be more appropriately used to refer to the study of theoretical paradigms within a discipline, that ‘theory construction’ could refer to the pulling together of information about a phenomenon of interest to create a theory, and that ‘theory synthesis’ could refer to the more tightly focused activity of comparing and weaving together specific, related theories of interest. Although Turner has in the past referred to his methodology (which will be described in more detail below) as metatheorising and also as ‘cumulative theorising’, he now also describes it as theory synthesis ( Turner, 2013 ).

The practice of theory synthesis has been challenged on philosophical grounds. In 2003 a debate was published on the feasibility of synthesis in the field of international relations. Smith (2003) rejected what he regarded as the implicit positivist assumption of a call for synthesis, i.e. that ‘the truth’ can be found by combining disparate theories. Moravcsik (2003) , however, rejected pluralism (favoured by other contributors to the debate) on the grounds that it suggested all theories are equally valid (132). Hellmann (2003) observed that synthesis simply means to form a whole by putting parts together. We agree with his conclusion: ‘Synthesis need not entail (anti-pluralistic) consensus nor imply some teleological notion of scientific progress. (…) Irrespective of whether we work on scientific or ordinary problems, we do so holistically by combining experience and intelligence in creative ways to come up with solutions to the puzzles at hand.’ (149) Turner (1985) had earlier reached a similar conclusion, advising sociologists not to let charges of positivism dissuade them from theory synthesis. Similarly sociologist Roger Sibeon (2004) observes that postmodernists tend to be opposed to theoretical synthesis, misunderstanding it as an attempt to stifle diversity and close theoretical debate. He counters that it is possible to accept theoretical pluralism at the same time as encouraging a cumulative approach to the development of sociological theory. Furthermore, he suggests that the synthesis of useful elements of theories is desirable not only within, but also across disciplines, and even across schools of thought that seem opposed.

We report here on the process of synthesising a small number of sociological theories of risk-taking. We have considered all the approaches outlined above but have chosen to follow Turner's methodology because it focuses squarely on the theories themselves. To our knowledge his methodology remains untested outside of his own use. Our aim then, is to explore the feasibility of achieving a meaningful theory synthesis using Turner's methodology and to reflect on the practical, methodological and philosophical issues it raises.

2. Locating the theories

The theories we used in the synthesis were identified as a result of a separate study which explored the ease of locating sociological theory for practical application ( Pound et al., in press ). Our field of interest was adolescent risk-taking and we searched for sociological theories with potential to throw light on this phenomenon. For that study we began by hand-searching all the abstracts of all volumes of the journals Sociology of Health and Illness (Volume 1, 1979–May 2012) and Social Science and Medicine (Volume 1, 1982–mid-June 2012). We reasoned that we would be more likely to find sociological theories in these journals than in generic journals of risk. We did not simply conduct an electronic search using the term ‘risk taking’ because we were aware that the phenomenon of risk-taking might be conceptualised in a variety of different ways and we did not want to rule out divergent ways of framing it. By searching within only two journals we undoubtedly missed some relevant publications and our focus on risk-taking may have diverted us from wider health-related activity. However, our aim was not to conduct an exhaustive search for all relevant theories but to determine the feasibility of synthesising theories.

Since we were specifically interested in sociological theories of risk- taking , we excluded sociological theories of risk and uncertainty as a feature of postmodernity (e.g. Giddens, 1990 , Giddens, 1999 ), risk as a product of technological and scientific advancement ( Beck, 1992 ) and sociocultural theories of the concept of risk ( Douglas, 1992 , Lupton, 1999a , Lupton, 1999b ). As our focus was on theories we also excluded the large body of research into lay experiences and perceptions of risk-taking, although empirical papers containing relevant theory were included. Reviews of risk-taking (e.g. France, 2000 ) were excluded after being scanned for relevant theories. We did not use a formal definition of theory, but followed Sutton and Staw (1995) in simply proposing that theory should be about the answer to the question why and about the connections among phenomena.

Sixty papers were identified for full examination, of which nineteen were considered relevant ( Fig. 1 ). Promising references from the sixty papers were pursued, a process which produced a further eleven publications. In addition, two publications were found serendipitously, bringing the total to thirty two relevant publications, relating to sixteen different theories ( Table 1 ). Five of these sixteen theories (or parts of them) related risk-taking to some aspect of social isolation and we chose these as the material for our synthesis. The theories span over a hundred years (Durkheim's ‘Suicide’ was first published in 1897 in France) and a variety of epistemological backgrounds. We felt that they had enough in common but were also sufficiently diverse – each analysing the phenomenon in markedly different ways – to provide a good test for a theory synthesis. (The five theories are identified in bold italics in Table 1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is gr1.jpg

Results of search strategy to locate theories of risk-taking.

Table 1

Theories identified (those synthesised identified in bold italics).

Three of these theories were developed by sociologists ( Durkheim, 1952 , Becker, 1963 , Factor et al., 2011 ), one came from social anthropology ( Douglas and Calvez, 1990 ) while another drew upon several disciplines, including sociology, anthropology, psychology and folklore ( Lightfoot, 1997 ). The theories are relevant to all age groups although one ( Lightfoot, 1997 ) was developed on the basis of work with adolescents. The sorts of risk-taking activities considered by the five theorists are varied and include self-harm (suicide), sexual risk-taking, substance use, poor eating habits and low levels of physical activity.

3. Synthesis methodology

Turner illustrates his methodology with two examples, a synthesis of Marxist, Weberian and modern exchange theories of conflict ( Turner, 1990 ) and a synthesis of three theories of geopolitics ( Turner, 1991 ). For each of the syntheses he chooses theories that seem in essence similar, despite coming from different intellectual traditions. First he clarifies the concepts, models and propositions of the theories and extracts what is plausible and useful for his purposes. He attempts to state the theories simply and formally to make them easily comparable. He renders the theories more abstract (i.e. makes them pertain to all times and places rather than a specific historical or empirical context) to enable easier comparison. Turner then proceeds to synthesise a theory, or parts of a theory, with other theories. He recommends presenting the theories in tabular form to illustrate points of convergence and divergence. He breaks down the theory into propositions; those appearing on the same row address a similar dynamic, while gaps show where theories diverge or examine different processes. Finally Turner constructs an analytical model and presents it figuratively to illustrate the causal processes.

We were guided by Turner's methodology which we condensed into the following steps: 1) Synthesis preparation: the clarification of existing theories, the extraction of what is useful, plausible and relevant to the purpose of the synthesis. 2) Synthesis: making theories comparable by breaking them down into simple propositions and rendering them abstract; comparison of the theories for points of convergence and divergence; bringing together those aspects that converge. 3) Synthesis refinement: closer analysis of the product of stage 2, including an examination of causal processes, with a view to generating further theoretical insights and a more robust theory.

3.1. Synthesis preparation

Synthesis preparation involves extracting those parts of the theories that we are concerned with and attempting to clarify and summarise those parts. The presentation of each of the theories that follows has entailed this process of extracting, clarifying and summarising.

3.1.1. Societal integration

If suicide can be regarded as an extreme form of risk-taking then Durkheim (1952) perhaps provides the first sociological theory of risk-taking. Durkheim proposed that there were three types of suicide: egoistic, altruistic and anomic, the first of which concerns us here. (Fatalistic suicide, which is sometimes considered a fourth type, is mentioned only once in a footnote.) ‘When society is strongly integrated’, wrote Durkheim, ‘it holds individuals under its control, considers them at its service and thus forbids them to dispose wilfully of themselves.’ (1952: 209) Durkheim suggested that Catholics had a lower suicide rate than Protestants because their religious community was more strongly integrated and cohesive. He concluded: ‘ … suicide varies inversely with the degree of integration of the social groups of which the individual forms a part.’ (1952: 209) In the case of egoistic suicide ‘ … the bond attaching man to life relaxes because that attaching him to society is itself slack.’ (1952: 214–215) For Durkheim then, egoistic suicide was a result of low levels of societal integration and cohesion.

3.1.2. The deviant career

Becker (1963) , partly on the basis of research with marijuana users, developed a theory to explain how deviance may become a way of life for some people. He suggested that for a person to progress from casual experimentation to a more sustained pattern of deviance, one of the most crucial steps is the experience of being caught and publicly labelled as deviant, since this brings about a drastic change in identity. That person is now assumed to be generally lawless and deviant in other respects and is cut off from participation in more conventional groups, perhaps becoming unemployed and drifting into marginal occupations. Becker suggests that unless the person quickly returns to the conventional community, they will continue down a path of ever increasing deviance and will be less and less subject to the impact of convention. The last step in the deviant's career is to become a member of an organised deviant group. Members of deviant groups feel a sense of common fate, Becker contends, since they are all in the same boat and face similar problems. Thus a deviant subculture grows, with a set of world views and self-justifying rationales for neutralising conventional norms. The person learns how to carry on the deviant behaviour with ease because all the problems of avoiding trouble have already been worked out and there is a stock of lore which the new member learns. Thus, suggests Becker, a person who enters an organised deviant group is highly likely to continue on that path.

3.1.3. The architecture of social groups

Lightfoot (1997) , who developed her theory on the basis of research with teenagers, identifies two primary clusters of risk. One is a cluster of mildly mischievous, exploratory or transitional risk-taking (e.g. experimenting with alcohol), which she regards as ‘normative’. The other is a cluster of health-compromising, destructive or pathogenic behaviours (e.g. crack cocaine addiction), which she notes are legally and culturally sanctioned as ‘deviant’. Lightfoot found that it was rare for individuals to engage in both risk clusters. She describes the latter, more serious type of risk taking as ‘marginal risk behaviour’. Her theory is that the marginality of risk coheres with the marginality of groups, i.e. those engaged in the more serious, marginal risk behaviours also belong to more marginal and isolated groups. In her view marginal risk patterns do not so much cause social isolation as manifest it. Lightfoot proposes that cohesion and permeability are key features to be considered. In her study, the one group characterised by a major involvement in marginal risk behaviours was also the only group with both a high degree of internal cohesion and a low degree of permeability to the wider social network. This group was more private about its risk taking and was also disengaged from the larger teenage community. By contrast, the group most active with respect to normative risk-taking was also internally cohesive but its boundaries were much more permeable and there was frequent contact with wider social networks.

3.1.4. ‘Cultural theory’ of risk-taking

Douglas and Calvez (1990) argue that the self is risk-taking or risk-averse according to a predictable pattern of dealings between the person and others in the community. Their theory is that the ongoing dialogue about how to achieve the ideal community engages four different kinds of culture, each of which has a different attitude towards the self, risk-taking and the knowledge professions: 1. The ‘central community’ holds strong views on the correct norms of behaviour, is hierarchical and has developed consensus for dealing with the boundary against the outside. The authority of the established professions is accepted. The centre community is very risk-averse; when faced with a threat it will aim to consolidate the community and exclude all outsiders and repress all deviants. 2. The ‘dissenting enclaves’ protest against the central community which has rejected their principles. These enclaves espouse equality, reject the knowledge base and authority of the central community and suspect professionals. They may deride the culture of safety. 3. The ‘entrepreneurial individualists’ are highly idiosyncratic regarding health and diet but are generally risk-takers. 4. The ‘isolates’ find their activities and autonomy restricted by the other cultural types. They tend to be eccentric, which reinforces their isolation. Being isolated there is no one to challenge their ideas; they are loners who expect conspiracy and reject interference. Isolates are idiosyncratic or fatalistic in their attitude to risk. Many are explicit risk-takers in that they may be drug users and/or prostitutes. Each of the four cultures has a relationship with the centre community except for the isolates (of particular interest to this synthesis), whom the centre community expels to its margins.

3.1.5. Social resistance

The thrust of Factor et al.'s (2011) theory is that non-dominant minority groups (NDMGs) tend to have greater involvement in high-risk behaviours (e.g. smoking, alcohol and drug use, poor diet, low exercise) and that these behaviours represent a form of resistance, whether conscious or unconscious, to the dominant group. The authors argue that discrimination may result in NDMGs feeling a degree of alienation from, and low attachment to, the larger society. By engaging in high-risk behaviours NDMGs are able to express their defiance of the dominant group and signal the limits of its power. Since large-scale opportunities for public resistance are few, everyday acts of resistance are more common and may act as a safety valve, enabling NDMGs to express their dissatisfaction with their status while avoiding direct negative consequences. Furthermore, argue Factor et al., NDMGs may develop a collective identity in opposition to the dominant group and may feel pressure to resist the attitudes and behaviours of the dominant group. So if healthy behaviours are associated with the dominant group, NDMGs may engage in them at the risk of hostility from their peers. The authors suggest that the power relations within society encourage members of NDMGs to actively engage in every day resistance activities which may include unhealthy behaviours.

3.2. Synthesis

The process of conducting a synthesis involves ‘immersion’ in the theories, allowing an opportunity to explore their meanings and possibilities in greater depth. In its careful, step by step approach it is similar to some of the activities undertaken in qualitative synthesis, particularly the process of reciprocal translation ( Noblit and Hare, 1988 ), in which concepts are systematically compared and translated into one another. However, it is not exactly like this, since theories are broader in scope, less detailed and more abstract than qualitative findings.

3.2.1. Comparison of theories for points of convergence and divergence

The theories were compared with each other and points of convergence and divergence were noted ( Table 2 ). To enable this comparison, the theories were broken down into simple propositions and rendered abstract. For example, a proposition belonging to Becker's theory is: ‘Sustained deviant behaviour is more likely if a person is excluded from society’ (Row 2).

Table 2

Comparison of theories for points of convergence and divergence.

Italicised propositions indicate that a level of convergence exists, but that it is not strong. Bracketed statements indicate why that element of a theory cannot be synthesised. Blank cells indicate that the theory does not consider the aspect under consideration, so cannot be synthesised.

Regarding the causes of isolation (Row 1), for Durkheim it is because the bond attaching people to society is too slack. Becker and Factor et al. argue that it is caused by the actions and reactions of conventional society. By publicly labelling deviants, Becker argues, society effectively excludes them from conventional networks, thereby increasing social isolation. Factor et al. argue that NDMGs are alienated from wider society, possibly through discrimination. Douglas and Calvez note that some ‘isolates’ may have been expelled to the margins by the ‘centre community’ but the suggestion is that some detach themselves voluntarily. Lightfoot does not specify why ‘marginals’ are socially isolated, but the suggestion is that it is voluntary.

Durkheim, Becker, Lightfoot and Douglas and Calvez all associate serious or persistent forms of risk-taking with social isolation (Row 2). Durkheim argues that suicide is the result of society's failure to integrate individuals. For Becker, a pattern of sustained risk-taking is more likely if a person is socially excluded, while for Lightfoot marginal (serious) risk-taking patterns manifest social isolation. Douglas and Calvez’ ‘isolates’ have a fatalistic attitude to risk and are described as explicit risk-takers in that they may include drug users or prostitutes. Factor et al.'s theory is not concerned with serious or persistent risk-taking.

Becker and Lightfoot (Row 3) suggest that membership of a subculture or marginal group is associated with more persistent or serious forms of risk-taking, possibly due to lack of exposure to conventional norms. Becker notes that deviant group members feel drawn together by their common sense of fate into a subculture, while Lightfoot notes that marginal risk-taking (her term for serious risk-taking) is associated with membership of socially marginal groups. Douglas and Calvez’ ‘isolates’ do not belong to groups but in common with Becker's and Lightfoot's ‘deviants’ and ‘marginals’ they have little connection with wider society. Factor et al. do not consider serious or persistent risk-taking. Durkheim's theory cannot be synthesised here.

In terms of the nature of these groups (Row 4), Becker observes that deviant subcultures are internally strongly cohesive and have few links with conventional society. Similarly, Lightfoot suggest that marginal groups have high internal group cohesion and low permeability to wider social networks. Factor et al.'s NDMGs do not appear to have group identity as such, but appear to have a strong collective identity and are encouraged to resist the values of the dominant group. There may be low permeability to wider networks due to discrimination. Douglas and Calvez’ ‘isolates’ do not belong to groups. Durkheim's theory cannot be synthesised here.

Finally, Douglas and Calvez and Factor et al. suggest that isolates or NDMGs (respectively) may be in a relationship of opposition to the central community/dominant group (Row 5). Douglas and Calvez note that isolates may reject the norms and values of the centre community. Factor et al.'s theory is that risk-taking is an expression of resistance to the dominant group, illustrating dissatisfaction with inequality as well as a denoting the limits of the dominant group's power. Factor et al. also observe that NDMGs may be under pressure from their peers to resist the values of the dominant group and to refrain from adopting their health practices. They argue that the underlying motivation of NDMGs is to challenge the existing social order. The other theories do not consider this aspect so cannot be synthesised here.

In summary then, the theories suggest that detachment from the dominant social group is associated with risk-taking; that serious or sustained risk-taking in particular is associated with social isolation; that serious or sustained risk-taking is associated with membership of a deviant subculture or marginal group; that such groups tend to be strongly internally cohesive yet have little permeability to wider social networks and; that risk-taking (not necessarily serious/persistent risk-taking in this case) may be associated with opposition to the dominant social group.

3.3. Synthesis refinement

The ‘synthesis refinement’ stage is similar to the final stages of qualitative synthesis in which the aim is to generate a novel interpretation or conceptual advancement ( Pound et al., 2005 , Campbell et al., 2011 ). Within meta-ethnography this is sometimes called a ‘lines of argument’ synthesis ( Noblit and Hare, 1988 ) or a ‘third-order interpretation’ ( Britten et al., 2002 ). In the same way, theory synthesis has the potential to generate an end product greater than the sum of its parts.

We reviewed the synthesis to consider whether any further theoretical insights might be gained. We began by illustrating the causal processes suggested by the theories so far, as Turner (1990) advises, and try to bring together this next level of interpretation ( Fig. 2 ). It is only if less serious risk-takers are labelled as deviant and/or join a marginal group that they become increasingly cut off from mainstream society and engage in serious or sustained risk-taking. This serious or sustained risk-taking is likely to reinforce the label of deviance and lead to an increasing spiral of isolation and serious risk-taking. Reintegration into mainstream society would appear to become increasingly more difficult and unlikely for those engaged in serious or sustained risk-taking. Similarly, the greater the degree of separation from mainstream society, the greater would seem the potential for serious and persistent risk-taking. Those engaged in less serious risk-taking, however, may be able to re-enter mainstream society fairly easily, perhaps as they move from childhood to adulthood, or gain status through employment. Those who gain in power have fewer reasons for resisting the dominant group, or indeed may become members of the dominant group themselves. It seems possible that reintegration into mainstream society would decrease the likelihood of engaging in serious or persistent risk-taking.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is gr2.jpg

Risk-taking and its relationship to mainstream society.

The theories referred to mainstream society in various ways. Douglas and Becker refer to the ‘centre community’, Factor et al. the ‘dominant group’ and Becker ‘conventional society’. According to Douglas and Calvez the centre community is powerful, has strong views on the correct norms of behaviour, is risk averse and when faced with a threat will try to exclude outsiders. This accords with Becker's view of conventional society. In contrast, the socially isolated groups discussed here seem markedly lacking in power, at least within conventional terms. Factor et al. and Becker are the only authors to explicitly deal with the issue of power, with their theories of resistance and deviance, respectively, but Douglas and Calvez also note that isolates are relatively powerless in relation to the centre community. Furthermore, the sort of risk-taking patterns isolates engage in (e.g. prostitution) suggest a lack of power. This raises the possibility then, that risk-taking may also be associated with powerlessness. It may be a reaction to power, i.e. signalling the limits of the dominant group's power (Factor et al.'s risk-taking as resistance), or it may be an expression of powerlessness (Douglas and Calvez’ isolates, Becker's deviants). Either way the synthesis suggests that that risk-taking is associated with powerlessness. In connection with this, many of the powerless, such as Becker's deviants and perhaps Douglas and Calvez’ isolates, seem condemned to increasing exclusion over time, with fewer and fewer possibilities to rejoin society and their power diminishing as time goes on. For this group the movement seems ever outwards, towards an existence in a liminal space on the edge of mainstream society. Consequently we propose that serious risk-taking is associated with liminality, in that serious risk-takers not only occupy a liminal space, but inhabit a liminal social status too.

In summary then, refinement of the synthesis suggests the following propositions: Serious and sustained risk-taking occurs outside the boundaries of mainstream society and is associated with powerlessness and liminality. The more detached a person becomes from mainstream society, the more likely they are to engage in serious and sustained risk-taking and the harder it will be for them to re-join mainstream society. Reintegration into mainstream society will decrease the likelihood of engaging in serious or persistent risk-taking.

4. Discussion

Risk-taking has previously been associated with liminality, but more commonly in the sense of pushing personal boundaries than in relation to social status. Lyng (1990) for example, conceptualised sky-diving as an exploration of edges and boundaries, coining the term ‘edgework’. Similarly Lupton and Tulloch (2002) found that participants in their qualitative study expressed risk as existing outside a defined boundary, stepping outside a comfort zone or entering no-man's land. Felix Baumgartner, who jumped to earth from the edge of space in 2012, personifies an extreme type of risk-taking in its association with liminality ( http://www.redbullstratos.com/the-mission/world-record-jump/ ). Foucault (1994) argued that the ‘limit-experience’ may for some be a means of resisting prevailing definitions of ‘normality’ and ‘health’ and may thus represent a positive commitment to freedom and self-creation. All these examples, however, are of risk-taking as a means of exploring personal limits and usually in the context of high-risk leisure activities. Nevertheless the similarities are intriguing.

There is empirical support for the findings of our theory synthesis. A recent study from the field of criminology has identified a link between risk-taking and a marginal social status ( Bengtsson, 2013 ) while in the field of adolescent health there is a large body of literature suggesting that rates of risk-taking are lower among children and teenagers who feel socially connected. Resnick et al. (1997) , for example, found that family-connectedness and perceived school connectedness were protective against every measure of health-related risk taking except history of pregnancy. Adolescents who feel connected to their family are more likely to delay sexual initiation, report lower levels of substance use and less likely to engage in violence ( Viner et al., 2012 ). A child's sense of belonging and connectedness to their school, a sense of neighbourhood belonging and parental involvement are all related to lower engagement in health-related risk taking ( Brooks et al., 2012 ). Similarly a ‘whole school’ intervention that aimed to increase children's sense of attachment and connectedness reduced health-related risk taking by 25% ( Patton et al., 2006 ).

Given the methodological nature of this paper it is not our intention to dwell here on the policy implications of our synthesis except to note that interventions may need to be fairly high upstream if they are to be effective. Wacquant (2008) , for example, argues that the rise of ‘advanced marginality’ requires radical solutions such as a ‘citizen's wage’ since, increasingly, employment cannot be guaranteed to reduce poverty or marginality. Specific measures may be necessary to help reintegrate those on a downward spiral towards increasing exclusion and powerlessness. Welcoming back the deviants and the outsiders is not usually a popular measure; as Douglas and Calvez point out, the preferred approach is to exclude them beyond the bounds of the central community. Yet policies that encourage the excluded and powerless to return to society's fold are surely necessary if a cumulative cycle of exclusion and serious risk-taking is to be avoided.

4.1. The practice of theory synthesis

Each of the theories we considered here was valuable in its own right but we would argue that greater value has been created in their synthesis. The process enabled us to draw out the implications of each theory more fully and to produce a more robust and generalisable theory. At the beginning we simply had an association between risk-taking and social isolation but the synthesis moved us towards a refinement of this position, i.e. that it is particularly serious and sustained risk-taking that is associated with social isolation, and furthermore, that serious risk-taking is associated with a person's position in relation to the dominant social group – in other words, with liminality and powerlessness.

This preliminary work has confirmed that the methodology is feasible but further work might test its practicability on a larger scale and consider the possibility of quality appraisal of theories. Furthermore, the issue of reproducibility, namely its feasibility and desirability, needs to be addressed. For example it would seem feasible for two people to independently conduct a synthesis of the same theories, compare the results and make an assessment of reproducibility. However, theory synthesis is an interpretive approach and while the process needs to be systematic, rigorous and grounded in the theories, a high degree of reproducibility would not necessarily be expected.

In terms of using theory synthesis for practical application another issue that needs addressing is whether to use applied theories or whether to search the general literature within a discipline for candidate theories and then apply these to the issue in question ( Turner, 2013 ). A further important question is whether theories can be synthesised across disciplines, as Sibeon (2004) suggests. This could be a very fruitful approach, although incommensurability might prove to be an obstacle. Future work might also explore how to determine which theories to include in a synthesis. At the stage of comparing the theories in our synthesis it became obvious that Durkheim's theory operated at a much broader level than the other theories and for this reason we were unable to synthesise it beyond a basic level. We should perhaps have realised this in advance but we suspect that such issues only become apparent once a synthesis is actually attempted.

In developing a methodology for theory synthesis Turner's aim was to develop robust theories for practical application. He acknowledged that his approach might be controversial because the process of synthesis does not allow full justice to be done to the theories. As he put it, 'My strategy is sacrilegious, because I advocate removing ideas from their intellectual context, throwing those away that do not seem relevant or warranted for either conceptual or empirical reasons, and using only those ideas that seem to capture the dynamic of some generic process. The goal is to use theories to build better ones, not to become sociological monks copying and reciting passages from the sacred texts.' (1990: 44) As noted above, his frustration derived from what he regarded as a lost opportunity for merging theory and practice ( Turner, 1991 ). We share his frustration because some fields within public health, a discipline for which sociological theory has great relevance, tend to be dominated by psychological theories, while sociological aspects are sometimes relegated to ‘environmental influences’ (e.g. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2011) ). Sociology has been responsible for numerous theories commonly employed within medical practice (e.g. stigma, deviance, the sick role, illness behaviour etc.) but when it comes to public health, in the rare instances in which public health interventions are informed by theory, that theory seems more likely to come from psychology ( National Institute of Health and Clinical Effectiveness, 2007 , Bonell et al., 2013 ).

It could be argued that just as there is an ethical and scientific imperative to review and synthesise empirical findings, so it is surely correct to review and synthesise bodies of theory, particularly in fields where a large body of theoretical work has accumulated ( Zhao, 1991 ). Sibeon (2004) contends that unless a more cumulative approach to theory development is undertaken, variants of unhelpful concepts continue to be reemployed and previous ‘explanatory failures’ are repeated or compounded. Theoretical synthesis can lead to theoretical innovation, he suggests, providing Giddens' (1984) theory of structuration as an example. We argue that theory synthesis has the potential both to reinvigorate theory within a particular discipline and to render it more robust and accessible for practical application, which would be of great value in fields where theory is required to inform policy or interventions. Sociologists need to continue to develop new theories but also to revisit, review and synthesise those that already exist.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Jonathan Turner for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

∗ Used in synthesis.

Appendix A Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.11.029 .

Funding acknowledgement

The work was undertaken with the support of The Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Joint funding (MR/KO232331/1) from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the Welsh Government and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following is the supplementary data related to this article:

References ∗

logo DissertationAuthors.com

  • Everything students need to know about writing a theoretical framework

How to use a theory to frame your research study or dissertation

How to use a theory to frame your research study or dissertation

Research frameworks are important for any academic project or study that university faculties approve, especially for doctoral or Master’s level papers. Students need to organize their ideas and findings in a specific format. The work starts with a formal theoretical framework because it describes your dissertation and its basic purpose or other research studies.

It should provide a good model to conduct your research, analyze its results, interpret your data, and report on relevant information. You should understand how to use a theory to frame research questions. This general guide will help you prepare a theoretical framework after considering your project and choosing the structure that suit specific needs perfectly.

What is it all about?

Find the right definition . People formulate all theories to predict, explain, identify, and understand phenomena or extend and challenge their key knowledge within the limits of related critical assumptions. It’s a structure to support a theory of your research study. It describes and introduces your theory to explain the importance of your research problem.

Any theoretical framework consists of different concepts, their definitions, and references to existing theories that you use for a particular study. Its nature is to demonstrate your understanding of concepts and theories in terms of your chosen topic and based on broader areas of knowledge. It’s not always something you can readily find in literature. Review pertinent studies or your course reading and search for suitable factors because a final choice depends on the ease of application, appropriateness, and explanatory power of your theory.

How does it strengthen your study?

A theoretical framework can strengthen your research study in many ways, including:

  • Allowing readers to evaluate your assumptions critically;
  • Forcing you to address basic questions and intellectually transit from describing to generalizing;
  • Connecting researchers to existing knowledge because they have a basis for hypotheses and different investigation methods to choose from;
  • Identifying the limits of generalizations.

A theoretical framework specifies the key variables that have an impact on your phenomenon and highlights the necessity to examine how they differ.

Is it different from a conceptual framework?

There’s a difference between conceptual and theoretical frameworks, though many students keep confusing them, but these terms are neither synonymous nor interchangeable. They lead to confusion because they can be vague. How to distinguish these terms correctly? A theoretical framework comes from any existing theory, while the conceptual one if your understanding how you will explore a research problem, its specific direction, and relationships between different variables in your study. Use this approach for any research type, including qualitative.

How to prepare it?

Start with checking the title because you should identify a research problem or topic to prepare your theoretical framework and achieve excellent results in your education. Without a topic, you can’t design it. Evaluate your project based on a central question to find the right focus, approach, and relationship to start your research. Brainstorm all key points of your research project. Write a mind map of different aspects of your topic to narrow it down to certain factors that contribute to its development and help you answer search questions.

Write a literature review of relevant projects because you aren’t the only person who likes a particular subject and you can adapt a theoretical framework to your paper. Examining other works can help you choose the right path to take. Point out key assumptions for your project to see any possible limitations of your chosen theoretical framework and identify the main points to focus on.

How to choose the best one?

To choose the most suitable and appropriate theoretical framework for your dissertation or any other paper, follow these helpful guidelines:

  • Start with identifying your beliefs;
  • Think about a few theories that intersect with your values and broaden your way of thinking about study concepts;
  • Improve your knowledge of these theories and determine why each one matters;
  • Review literature to support them;
  • Find out how other people applied the same theories;
  • Consider strong arguments to may oppose your beliefs;
  • Identify how theories connect to your research problems, purposes, design, and significance;
  • Choose the theoretical framework that can offer a descriptive and solid blueprint to readers.

Good theories offer a floor plan (concepts and purposes) and an elevation blueprint (structure for your paper) to help you focus your analysis plan and study design to build your research.

What to do next?

There are some useful methods that can help you write the best theoretical framework and apply it to different parts of your research paper, including the discussion section:

  • Evaluating your project;
  • Reviewing related projects;
  • Comparing available theories;
  • Outlining your assumptions.

Evaluate your research project

Consider a research problem from central questions to all early hypotheses and source materials that your paper will focus on. A strong theoretical framework must align with these aspects.

Review relevant projects

Compare your paper with similar works. If you understand that it’s their extension, feel free to adopt their theoretical framework to save your time and achieve good results. If you see that your paper is contradicting or challenging many of them, you need to use an alternative one.

Compare available theories

Contrast different approaches available for your project. Each one has its unique detriments and benefits, so your final choice depends on how you’re planning to use them to frame your piece of writing.

Outline your theoretical assumptions

Describe and identify key assumptions and how they can control your way to analyze a research subject. This simple technique reveals your knowledge of possible limitations. That’s why you shouldn’t neglect it.

Basic steps to creating the best one

Write an introduction to your research to create readers’ interest in your chosen topic. A theoretical framework must mention any previous research and point out unstudied areas and existing problems while identifying the purpose of your work by discussing the existing knowledge of this topic.

Explain the foundation for existing problems in broad terms. Describe how your proposed study leads to investigating them successfully or mention any gaps in previous research studies to address them in your paper.

Describe the case for your study and build its theoretical framework by giving references to prior research projects because a literature review matters to any thesis or dissertation. It should introduce a valuable literature review by mentioning major themes.

Connect all dots between your chosen problem, research, and targeted audience. After closing your theoretical framework, readers need to understand the context and content of your problem, its impact on the field, who participates in your project, and who will benefit from it.

The importance of your theoretical framework

Creating an appropriate theoretical framework for your study or project is an important process. How to complete it successfully? It requires a thoughtful and deep understanding of your research question, purpose, problem and significance, so you need to rightly align and connect all of these elements to let it be the best foundation for your work and guide your choice of data analysis and research design.

Imagine a theoretical framework as the electrical system running through your house. Your purpose, problem, research question, significance, data analysis, and methods must flow through each room to connect all elements together and deliver power. Every room in this house requires electricity and every aspect of your piece of writing must connect to a theoretical framework.

Why do significance, purpose, and problem matter?

It’s necessary to briefly discuss the importance of these elements for the purpose of consistency and review when creating your theoretical framework.

Research problem

It’s one of the most important parts of your research. That’s because your problem statement establishes a relationship of different factors that produce a dilemma that causes a further examination. It determines a root problem or other variables and offers an inherent. It identifies the area that requires your further research and helps you address existing issues, and you need to know how your theoretical framework connects to it.

It defines the main purpose of your study. There are certain questions that you should answer to describe how your chosen theoretical framework relates to this purpose:

  • What are the outcomes or aims of your research problem?
  • What do you hope to do with your study?

Significance

Describe the importance of your exploration. You need to determine why your chosen topic matters and who considers it to be important, explain the potential value of your project and how it will add to existing knowledge, describe why readers should care about it, etc. This section can help you detect the targeted audience. Don’t forget to explain why you choose a specific theoretical framework. Aligning it with significance, purpose, and problem is a major part of writing a strong research paper because you’re establishing different levels and parts of the knowledge that you want to build.

How to use a concept map to align it?

You need to use a special concept map to align your literature review and a theoretical framework easily and fast. This effective method will help you write a literature review in the best and most organized manner and ensure that you align it with your theoretical framework. What are the things you need to include and root in theories?

  • A brief statement of your chosen subject or topic;
  • Your introduction to a literature review organization;
  • Identification to let readers know a particular theory, its history, and key theorists;
  • Your specification of important theoretical principles that you will apply to your topic (organize them all around relevant conceptual subheadings);
  • Identification of existing controversies and conflicts in literature;
  • Identification of existing gaps or problems;
  • Explanation of how your research study connects to existing works.

A checklist for using a theoretical framework successfully

All students can use this brief checklist before, during, and after writing their research projects to guarantee high grades. Take these points into account to succeed.

  • Determine the discipline that your chosen theory will apply to;
  • Consider whether it will be a good fit in your methodological plan;
  • Decide if your study methodology relates to the concepts, principles, and ideas of your theoretical framework;
  • Think how big your chosen theory is and determine whether it’s well-developed (it has many theoretical constructs that you should investigate) or its scope is too small to fit your research question;
  • Ensure that your theory has different concepts and principles that can meet the objectives of your project;
  • Identify whether the significance, purpose, and problem of your study along with a theoretical framework;
  • Decide if you can use your theory in conjunction with developed research questions;
  • Think whether you need to modify these questions to reflect and incorporate your theory;
  • Evaluate if your theoretical framework informs a literature review;
  • Consider if your data analysis plan uses codes based on it and whether it allows you to develop grounded codes to connect them to a new one;
  • It also needs to undergird all of your implications, conclusions, and recommendations according to a data analysis.

When to get help?

This detailed guide can help you create the best theoretical framework for your dissertation or any other important academic paper. If you still experience certain difficulties, don’t hesitate to get assistance. Use our online services to solve any problem. That’s because our team of trained and qualified writers can help you with any assignment, no matter of its deadlines. You can always count on high-quality assistance at competitive rates. Our services are at your disposal 24 hours per day, so you can always contact our specialists and get help.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

  • Knowledge Base
  • Dissertation

How to Write a Thesis or Dissertation Introduction

Published on September 7, 2022 by Tegan George and Shona McCombes. Revised on November 21, 2023.

The introduction is the first section of your thesis or dissertation , appearing right after the table of contents . Your introduction draws your reader in, setting the stage for your research with a clear focus, purpose, and direction on a relevant topic .

Your introduction should include:

  • Your topic, in context: what does your reader need to know to understand your thesis dissertation?
  • Your focus and scope: what specific aspect of the topic will you address?
  • The relevance of your research: how does your work fit into existing studies on your topic?
  • Your questions and objectives: what does your research aim to find out, and how?
  • An overview of your structure: what does each section contribute to the overall aim?

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

How to start your introduction, topic and context, focus and scope, relevance and importance, questions and objectives, overview of the structure, thesis introduction example, introduction checklist, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about introductions.

Although your introduction kicks off your dissertation, it doesn’t have to be the first thing you write — in fact, it’s often one of the very last parts to be completed (just before your abstract ).

It’s a good idea to write a rough draft of your introduction as you begin your research, to help guide you. If you wrote a research proposal , consider using this as a template, as it contains many of the same elements. However, be sure to revise your introduction throughout the writing process, making sure it matches the content of your ensuing sections.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Begin by introducing your dissertation topic and giving any necessary background information. It’s important to contextualize your research and generate interest. Aim to show why your topic is timely or important. You may want to mention a relevant news item, academic debate, or practical problem.

After a brief introduction to your general area of interest, narrow your focus and define the scope of your research.

You can narrow this down in many ways, such as by:

  • Geographical area
  • Time period
  • Demographics or communities
  • Themes or aspects of the topic

It’s essential to share your motivation for doing this research, as well as how it relates to existing work on your topic. Further, you should also mention what new insights you expect it will contribute.

Start by giving a brief overview of the current state of research. You should definitely cite the most relevant literature, but remember that you will conduct a more in-depth survey of relevant sources in the literature review section, so there’s no need to go too in-depth in the introduction.

Depending on your field, the importance of your research might focus on its practical application (e.g., in policy or management) or on advancing scholarly understanding of the topic (e.g., by developing theories or adding new empirical data). In many cases, it will do both.

Ultimately, your introduction should explain how your thesis or dissertation:

  • Helps solve a practical or theoretical problem
  • Addresses a gap in the literature
  • Builds on existing research
  • Proposes a new understanding of your topic

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.

theory in thesis

Try for free

Perhaps the most important part of your introduction is your questions and objectives, as it sets up the expectations for the rest of your thesis or dissertation. How you formulate your research questions and research objectives will depend on your discipline, topic, and focus, but you should always clearly state the central aim of your research.

If your research aims to test hypotheses , you can formulate them here. Your introduction is also a good place for a conceptual framework that suggests relationships between variables .

  • Conduct surveys to collect data on students’ levels of knowledge, understanding, and positive/negative perceptions of government policy.
  • Determine whether attitudes to climate policy are associated with variables such as age, gender, region, and social class.
  • Conduct interviews to gain qualitative insights into students’ perspectives and actions in relation to climate policy.

To help guide your reader, end your introduction with an outline  of the structure of the thesis or dissertation to follow. Share a brief summary of each chapter, clearly showing how each contributes to your central aims. However, be careful to keep this overview concise: 1-2 sentences should be enough.

I. Introduction

Human language consists of a set of vowels and consonants which are combined to form words. During the speech production process, thoughts are converted into spoken utterances to convey a message. The appropriate words and their meanings are selected in the mental lexicon (Dell & Burger, 1997). This pre-verbal message is then grammatically coded, during which a syntactic representation of the utterance is built.

Speech, language, and voice disorders affect the vocal cords, nerves, muscles, and brain structures, which result in a distorted language reception or speech production (Sataloff & Hawkshaw, 2014). The symptoms vary from adding superfluous words and taking pauses to hoarseness of the voice, depending on the type of disorder (Dodd, 2005). However, distortions of the speech may also occur as a result of a disease that seems unrelated to speech, such as multiple sclerosis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

This study aims to determine which acoustic parameters are suitable for the automatic detection of exacerbations in patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by investigating which aspects of speech differ between COPD patients and healthy speakers and which aspects differ between COPD patients in exacerbation and stable COPD patients.

Checklist: Introduction

I have introduced my research topic in an engaging way.

I have provided necessary context to help the reader understand my topic.

I have clearly specified the focus of my research.

I have shown the relevance and importance of the dissertation topic .

I have clearly stated the problem or question that my research addresses.

I have outlined the specific objectives of the research .

I have provided an overview of the dissertation’s structure .

You've written a strong introduction for your thesis or dissertation. Use the other checklists to continue improving your dissertation.

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

Research bias

  • Survivorship bias
  • Self-serving bias
  • Availability heuristic
  • Halo effect
  • Hindsight bias
  • Deep learning
  • Generative AI
  • Machine learning
  • Reinforcement learning
  • Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

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

The introduction of a research paper includes several key elements:

  • A hook to catch the reader’s interest
  • Relevant background on the topic
  • Details of your research problem

and your problem statement

  • A thesis statement or research question
  • Sometimes an overview of the paper

Don’t feel that you have to write the introduction first. The introduction is often one of the last parts of the research paper you’ll write, along with the conclusion.

This is because it can be easier to introduce your paper once you’ve already written the body ; you may not have the clearest idea of your arguments until you’ve written them, and things can change during the writing process .

Research objectives describe what you intend your research project to accomplish.

They summarize the approach and purpose of the project and help to focus your research.

Your objectives should appear in the introduction of your research paper , at the end of your problem statement .

Scope of research is determined at the beginning of your research process , prior to the data collection stage. Sometimes called “scope of study,” your scope delineates what will and will not be covered in your project. It helps you focus your work and your time, ensuring that you’ll be able to achieve your goals and outcomes.

Defining a scope can be very useful in any research project, from a research proposal to a thesis or dissertation . A scope is needed for all types of research: quantitative , qualitative , and mixed methods .

To define your scope of research, consider the following:

  • Budget constraints or any specifics of grant funding
  • Your proposed timeline and duration
  • Specifics about your population of study, your proposed sample size , and the research methodology you’ll pursue
  • Any inclusion and exclusion criteria
  • Any anticipated control , extraneous , or confounding variables that could bias your research if not accounted for properly.

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.

George, T. & McCombes, S. (2023, November 21). How to Write a Thesis or Dissertation Introduction. Scribbr. Retrieved February 11, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/introduction-structure/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Tegan George

Other students also liked, how to choose a dissertation topic | 8 steps to follow, how to write an abstract | steps & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

theory in thesis

Be the first to know

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

JournalStar.com

  • Copy article link

Review: 'Origin' looks at theory that caste is key to oppression though work of writer

L. kent wolgamott.

  • Feb 9, 2024

Jon Bernthal (left) and Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor in "Origin."

“Origin” takes its title from Isabel Wilkerson’s 2020 best-selling “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents,” a book in which she presents a theory about power, hierarchy and dehumanization that argues that oppression isn’t tied to race or creed but to a caste system that places one group above all others.

She creates that thesis by connecting the Black experience of slavery, Jim Crow subjugation and racial violence with the oppression of Jewish people in Nazi Germany and, reaching back centuries, the Dalits of India, long known as “untouchables.”

Taking the serious, somewhat contentious academic book to the screen would seem to be the ground for a documentary.

But writer-director Ava DuVernay has transformed the idea-filled book into a fictionalized drama that follows a character modeled on and named Isabel Wilkerson as she puts together the book. The film, however, opens with a recreation of the 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin, a black teenager killed in Florida.

People are also reading…

  • 2 Omaha restaurants make Yelp's Top 100 Places to Eat in the U.S.
  • Nebraska town, dog owner reach settlement to allow support dog to stay in town
  • Aragon Tavern opens in downtown Lincoln
  • CJ Simon decommits from Nebraska football's 2025 class
  • Jordy Bahl exits Nebraska softball debut with injury as Huskers lose to Washington
  • 'Dream come true' — Lincoln man named Casey's first chief pizza and beer officer
  • Two Lincoln elementary school students approached by strangers, police say
  • A 'Super' big order: Lincoln company to make 10,000 shirts if Chiefs win Super Bowl
  • ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit responds to allegations he helped sway Dylan Raiola to Nebraska
  • Why Nebraska football walk-ons picked a chance with Huskers over scholarship offers
  • 17-year-old killed in officer-involved shooting in Columbus; State Patrol investigating
  • UNL student shares grand prize for translating scroll buried at Pompeii
  • Lincoln Police identify 20-year-old motorcyclist killed in O Street crash
  • Hearing on Nebraska's 'stand-your-ground' bill ends with tense exchange over race, crime
  • South Lincoln house fire displaces 5 residents

The Martin shooting prompts Amari Selvan (Blair Underwood) to ask Wilkerson (Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor) at a cocktail party to return to journalism and write about the murder and its meaning.

She demurs, saying she now writes books and is on hiatus to help care for her aging mother (Emily Yancey) and spend time with her husband Brett Hamilton (Jon Bernthal). A pair of tragedies and listening to the (real) 911 tape of Martin’s killing send Wilkerson on her investigative journey through libraries and interviews in the U.S., Germany and India.

And the film replicates her research through flashbacks of a quartet of Harvard sociologists, a white couple and a black couple, surreptitiously studying a Southern segregated community in the 1930s; of a Nazi party member falling for a Jewish woman in 1933 Germany; and of “untouchable” B.R. Ambedkar (Gaurav J. Pathania), an Indian political leader and academic who wrote the country’s constitution.

There’s far more to “Origin," as we see Wilkerson interact with her family and editors, talking to her cousin Marion (Niecy Nash-Betts), who urges her to “tell it to me plain” — e.g. explaining the theory to its end — arguing with a German couple who dispute the connections with Nazi Germany and meeting with a plumber (Nick Offerman).

Some of those conversations are deeply moving, especially one in which Miss Hale (a great Audra McDonald) recounts her interaction with a racist school principal in Texas in the 1970s.

In all of those interactions, Ellis-Taylor is soulful and engaged, using the research journey to deal with her great losses and, ultimately, come to a somewhat hopeful resolution.

“Origin” is melodramatic in places, has some lived-in humor and, in the end, conveys the major “pillars” of Wilkerson’s book well enough that it becomes one of the rarest of pictures that makes you think about its ideas, whether or not you agree with her theory long after the screening has ended.

At 2 hours and 20 minutes, “Origin” is plenty long; and with all the flashbacks and characters, globe-trotting and family picnics, it doesn’t always fit tightly together.

But it is nonetheless a triumph of filmmaking from DuVernay, who continues her deeply considered and smartly executed examinations of race, culture and, now caste, that began with 2014’s “Selma,” the 2016 prison system documentary “13th” and the 2019 miniseries “When They See Us.”

“Origin,” which was made outside of the "studio system" was, arguably, the most overlooked film by the Academy Awards. DuVernay, her screenplay, Ellis-Taylor and the picture itself deserved nominations. But it got none.

That’s unfortunate if only because nominations would have brought well-deserved attention to “Origin,” the year’s most thought-provoking and intellectually important film.

Download the new Journal Star News Mobile App

Highest-grossing genres at the 2023 box office

#10. musical.

- 2023 domestic gross: $18,213,938

- Tickets sold: 1,729,716

- Market share: 0.22%

- Movies: 6

- Average gross per movie: $3.0 million

Would you believe that one of the highest-grossing musicals of 2023 was a rerelease? That's right, Tim Burton's stop-motion animated classic "The Nightmare Before Christmas" returned to theaters on Oct. 20, and its box office returns—$10 million—dominated the other musicals released in 2023 as of early December (before the new "Wonka" musical came out). It's not a huge shock considering how popular "The Nightmare Before Christmas" is. It earned about $50 million domestically when it was originally released in 1993 and has become a Halloween classic.

Meanwhile, the live-action/animated family film "Lyle, Lyle, Crocodile" (released in 2022) and the raunchy A24 comedy "D----: The Musical" make up the middle of the musical box office chart with a $1.2 million gap between them, favoring "D----." That's also not a surprise, seeing as the provocative musical counts chart-topper Megan Thee Stallion and "Saturday Night Live" favorite Bowen Yang among its stars.

Still, with only six films in the genre as of early December, the overall gross of over $18 million is impressive. (It is worth noting that after just one weekend at the box office, "Wonka" brought that to almost $62 million as of Dec. 19.)

#7. Concert/Performance

- 2023 domestic gross: $202,717,725

- Tickets sold: 19,251,441

- Market share: 2.45%

- Movies: 9

- Average gross per movie: $22.5 million

It's no surprise that two artists dominated the concert/performance film genre in 2023: Taylor Swift and Beyoncé. The combined grosses from their respective films, "Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour" and "Renaissance: A Film by Beyoncé," racked up more than $200 million at the domestic box office as of early December. Nevertheless, it was Swift alone who accounted for more than 80% of the total domestic gross for concert films for the year, beating out Beyoncé by nearly $150 million and leaving the rest of 2023's concert films to eat her dust. (Of course, it's worth mentioning that "Renaissance" came out on Dec. 1 and Swift's "Eras Tour" has been in theaters since Oct. 13.)

Trailing Beyoncé by a wide margin was younger pop star Billie Eilish's "Billie Eilish Live at the O2 — Extended Cut," a triptych of UFC films, and a filmed performance from the electronic duo ODESZA. Meanwhile, fans of the famed rock band The Talking Heads were elated that the group's acclaimed concert film "Stop Making Sense" returned to theaters for one week only, and in that short time frame, it managed to surpass box office expectations. (Later in December, "Waitress: The Musical" and "Christmas with the Chosen: Holy Night" also joined the ranks.)

#6. Thriller/Suspense

- 2023 domestic gross: $422,781,186

- Tickets sold: 40,150,135

- Market share: 5.12%

- Movies: 49

- Average gross per movie: $8.6 million

Film fans who prefer to stay on the edge of their seats certainly had a banquet of thriller and suspense movies to choose from in 2023. At the top of the leaderboard was the controversial but extremely popular "Sound of Freedom," chronicling the former U.S. government agent Tim Ballard (Jim Caviezel) on his mission to rescue children from sex traffickers. With more than $180 million in total domestic gross during its theatrical run, it outranks the second-place Poirot murder mystery "A Haunting in Venice" by roughly $140 million.

As with other genres, foreign thrillers tend to make a smaller dent at the domestic box office, while more mainstream indies fill up the middle of the thriller/suspense chart, like Paul Schrader's unnerving "Master Gardener" and the erotic thriller "Sanctuary." However, what's especially impressive is the Bollywood flick "Pathaan" cracking the top 10, just below films like "65" and "Missing." Its popularity is a clear indication of North American interest in Indian cinema, particularly since the success of 2022's "RRR."

- 2023 domestic gross: $829,210,044

- Tickets sold: 78,747,325

- Market share: 10.03%

- Movies: 139

- Average gross per movie: $6.0 million

There's hardly any competition for the title of top-grossing drama of 2023. That award goes to "Oppenheimer," Christopher Nolan's über-hyped biographical drama about the titular father of the atomic bomb. Nolan tends to be an easy sell at the box office, one of the last true auteurs who can consistently pull a solid audience; and the runaway success of the "Barbenheimer" meme certainly helped the film reach nearly $1 billion in ticket sales globally and break numerous additional records.

Domestically, "Oppenheimer" pulled in $325 million and accounted for 38% of the total genre gross with the rest of the 2023 dramas merely nipping at its heels. Admittedly, runner-up "Creed III" didn't do too badly with $156 million, trailing "Oppenheimer" by a little under $200 million. But the margin between "Oppenheimer" and the rest of the drama films' gross is far wider: Ridley Scott's epic "Napoleon" (released in late November) took home $54 million and the Air Jordan origin story "Air" brought in $52 million.

- 2023 domestic gross: $1,258,998,514

- Tickets sold: 119,562,974

- Market share: 15.23%

- Movies: 62

- Average gross per movie: $20.3 million

The biggest movie of 2023, "Barbie," unsurprisingly crushed the comedy genre, earning $636 million domestically while working in tandem with "Oppenheimer" as perhaps the most successful, most unlikely double feature in Hollywood history. It was a profitable year for comedies overall, with a much stronger showing than 2022, but "Barbie" blew all others out of the water with over a half-a-million dollar lead between it and the second-highest-grossing comedy of 2023: "Haunted Mansion." The Disney-ride-inspired movie vastly underperformed compared to its massive $150 million budget, bringing in just shy of $68 million in North America and $115 worldwide.

A surprising third place went to "Cocaine Bear," the comedy horror film directed by Elizabeth Banks that's loosely inspired by a real black bear that ingested several kilograms of lost cocaine in 1985. Pablo Escobear is followed very closely by "A Man Called Otto," an American remake of the Swedish film "A Man Called Ove" starring Tom Hanks.

But box office numbers are never a true indicator of quality, and plenty of comedies that were worth seeing didn't quite break the box office. "Bottoms," "BlackBerry," and "You Hurt My Feelings" were all received warmly by both critics and audiences, with "BlackBerry" becoming a contender in the 2024 awards race, particularly for Glenn Howerton's performance.

#2. Adventure

- 2023 domestic gross: $1,662,175,979

- Tickets sold: 157,851,458

- Market share: 20.11%

- Movies: 29

- Average gross per movie: $57.3 million

While "The Marvels" may have notoriously flopped at the box office in 2023, another Marvel-adjacent film dominated in the adventure genre: Sony Pictures Animation's "Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse," the sequel to 2018's "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse." The movie took home $381 million in 2023, making it the #3 domestic box office winner for the year overall.

There was a trio of Disney films that trailed "Across the Spider-Verse" in terms of adventure movies in 2023: the live-action remake of "The Little Mermaid" (nearly $300 million), Harrison Ford's last hurrah in "Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny" (nearly $175 million), and Pixar's latest "Elemental" (nearly $155 million)—although the latter two performed poorly against their budgets in the long run.

Overall, animated films made up a lot of the top-performing 2023 adventure releases, including Studio Ghibli's "The Boy and the Heron," "PAW Patrol: The Mighty Movie," "Suzume," and another Disney film, "Wish"—all of which sat in the top 15.

- 2023 domestic gross: $2,867,018,482

- Tickets sold: 272,271,430

- Market share: 34.70%

- Movies: 53

- Average gross per movie: $54.1 million

Action films were the most successful genre overall at the 2023 box office, largely thanks to "The Super Mario Bros. Movie," which was the highest-grossing film of the year domestically before "Barbie" fittingly had something to say about it. The animated film based on the video game phenomenon took in $575 million in North America alone (compared to nearly $1.4 billion worldwide).

All of the action films in the top 10 grossed more than $100 million domestically and the top four each brought in at least $200 million. On top of that, at an average of $54 million per movie, films under the action umbrella earned more than any other genre in 2023. That's no surprise when you've got major tentpole films in the genre, like "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3," "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania," "John Wick: Chapter 4," and "Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One."

In fact, all of the top 16 action movies of 2023 domestically were sequels or part of a larger franchise. Even James Cameron's follow-up to his culture-altering epic, "Avatar: The Way of Water" trickled its grosses from 2022 into its 2023 theatrical run to become the third-highest-grossing action film of the year (it earned the #4 spot in 2022).

Data reporting by Luke Hicks. Story editing by Jaimie Etkin. Copy editing by Tim Bruns.

This story originally appeared on Casino Bonus CA and was produced and distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.

Reach the writer at 402-473-7244 or kwolgamott @journalstar.com . On Twitter @KentWolgamott  

Director: Ava DuVernay.

Cast: Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor, Niecy Nash-Betts, John Bernthal, Vera Farmiga, Audra McDonald.

Rated: PG-13, for thematic material involving racism, violence, some disturbing images, language and smoking.

Running Time: 2 hours, 20 minutes.

Now Showing: Ross.

The Reel Story:  This engaging, intellectual film explains writer Isabel Wilkinson's theory that caste, not race, is responsible for oppression worldwide through a fictionalized account of her life as she was writing the best-selling book on which the movie is based. 

  • Enterainment
  • Ross Media Arts Center
  • Film Industry
  • Entertainment
  • Tv Broadcasting
  • Criminal Law

Kent Wolgamott

Entertainment reporter/columnist

  • Author twitter
  • Author email

Get email notifications on {{subject}} daily!

{{description}}

Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.

Followed notifications

Please log in to use this feature, related to this story, most popular, q&a: omaha news anchor melissa fry stolinski on life, her four sons and more.

KETV anchor and reporter Melissa Fry Stolinski talks life, her four sons, being in the public eye and more.

Movies screening in Lincoln theaters, Feb. 9-15

A look at movies playing in Lincoln.

Review: 'The Teachers' Lounge' a riveting, resonant German thriller

This best international feature-nominated German film is a riveting thriller triggered by thefts in a school, exploring issues of privacy, cen…

This is us, too: Justin Hartley tries TV life as an action hero

Coming from “This is Us,” Hartley had to realize a procedural series like "Tracker" wasn’t all action. Yet he and Executive Producer Ken Olin …

theory in thesis

  • Notifications

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

News Alerts

Breaking news, husker news.

IMAGES

  1. phd thesis theoretical framework

    theory in thesis

  2. Thesis Quantitative Research Paper Theoretical Framework Example

    theory in thesis

  3. structure of the thesis

    theory in thesis

  4. Thesis Format

    theory in thesis

  5. The theoretical framework of the thesis

    theory in thesis

  6. How to Write a Thesis Statement for a Research Paper: Steps and

    theory in thesis

VIDEO

  1. The Thesis

  2. Theory Skateshop

  3. Tips for Thesis Writers: The literature review

COMMENTS

  1. Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or 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.

  2. What is a Theoretical Framework?

    A theoretical framework is a foundational review of existing theories that serves as a roadmap for developing the arguments you will use in your own work. Theories are developed by researchers to explain phenomena, draw connections, and make predictions.

  3. Organizing Academic Research Papers: Theoretical Framework

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

  4. PDF UNDERSTANDING, SELECTING, AND INTEGRATING A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...

    The theoretical framework is the foundation from which all knowledge is constructed (metaphorically and literally) for a research study. It serves as the structure and support for the rationale for the study, the problem statement, the purpose, the significance, and the research questions.

  5. How to write a theoretical framework

    The theoretical framework - the 'toolbox' - details the theories, propositions, hypotheses (if you're using them) and concepts - the 'tools' - that you will use to address or make sense of this problem.

  6. LibGuides: Guide for Thesis Research: Theoretical Frameworks

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

  7. PDF Distinguishing between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual

    terms when in fact all they want to convey is how they have used some theories in their thesis or how they propose to use theory they consider relevant to their research. Some add to the confusion by saying things like my theory is phenomenology or my theory is grounded theory, and even my theoretical paradigm is - …. I say we need to spend

  8. Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks for Thesis Studies: What ...

    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.

  9. Building a Dissertation Conceptual and Theoretical Framework: A Recent

    This understanding of formal theory as the framework to construct a study is central to constructing a robust theoretical framework. What helped me arrive at these theories in the great morass of theories was Title IX's application to college sports, feminist scholar's work related to college sports, and the use and misuse of the equity and ...

  10. What is theoretical framework in thesis/dissertation writing ...

    Answer: The theoretical framework is a structure that supports the theory that explains why the research problem you are studying exists. It encompasses concepts, definitions, existing theories, and other literature that you have referred to in your study.

  11. Theoretical Framework: Definition & How to Write It

    In a thesis or dissertation, a theoretical framework is a section where the writer evaluates or discusses the most relevant theories to their study. The purpose of this section is to: Define the key concepts Combine and evaluate relevant models and theories Explain expectations and assumptions that guide the project

  12. writing the thesis

    The purpose of the theory section/chapter in the doctoral thesis is to set the examiner up to make sense of what you've done and what you claim to have 'found'. The examiner therefore expects - and needs - to see something particular to your work. Something that isn't so general it could apply to any project anywhere, anytime.

  13. What is a Theoretical Framework? How to Write It (with Examples)

    A theory is a set of interrelated concepts and definitions that present a systematic view of phenomena by describing the relationship among the variables for explaining these phenomena. A theory is developed after a long research process and explains the existence of a research problem in a study.

  14. 6 Steps to Mastering the Theoretical Framework of a Dissertation

    The importance of theory-driven thinking and acting is emphasized in relation to the selection of a topic, the development of research questions, the conceptualization of the literature review, the design approach, and the analysis plan for the dissertation study. ... to complete your review of literature before you can adequately write a ...

  15. What Is a Thesis?

    It relies on your ability to conduct research from start to finish: choosing a relevant topic, crafting a proposal, designing your research, collecting data, developing a robust analysis, drawing strong conclusions, and writing concisely. Thesis template You can also download our full thesis template in the format of your choice below.

  16. Choosing a Theoretical Framework: Popular Theories for Dissertation

    Deci and Ryan's (2000) self-determination theory is a very common choice for the theoretical framework among our dissertation assistance clients. Central to self-determination theory is the proposition that our motivation stems from satisfaction of three basic psychological needs: competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

  17. (PDF) The Role of Theory in Research

    Theory is a fundamental brick supporting the development of meaningful and relevant questions and answers, but it intervenes in different ways across the research design cycle. ... Thesis (Ph. D ...

  18. Theory vs Thesis: Differences And Uses For Each One

    The theory is an idea or a set of ideas that explain something, while the thesis is a statement that presents an argument or claim. When writing an academic paper, it is important to have a clear thesis statement that lays out the main argument and guides the reader through the paper.

  19. How to Write a Thesis Statement

    Step 1: Start with a question Step 2: Write your initial answer Step 3: Develop your answer Step 4: Refine your thesis statement Types of thesis statements Other interesting articles Frequently asked questions about thesis statements What is a thesis statement? A thesis statement summarizes the central points of your essay.

  20. Exploring the feasibility of theory synthesis: A worked example in the

    1. Introduction. There is a growing interest in the synthesis of theory. Although academics have always brought together different theories to generate greater theoretical insights (e.g. Cockerham, 2005, Dixon and Banwell, 2009, Zimmerman, 2013), there is increasing evidence of a more systematic approach to theory synthesis (Hardeman et al., 2005, Lorenc et al., 2012, Bonell et al., 2013).

  21. How to use a theory to frame your research study or dissertation

    How to use a theory to frame your research study or dissertation Research frameworks are important for any academic project or study that university faculties approve, especially for doctoral or Master's level papers. Students need to organize their ideas and findings in a specific format.

  22. How to Write a Thesis or Dissertation Introduction

    Overview of the structure. To help guide your reader, end your introduction with an outline of the structure of the thesis or dissertation to follow. Share a brief summary of each chapter, clearly showing how each contributes to your central aims. However, be careful to keep this overview concise: 1-2 sentences should be enough.

  23. Review: 'Origin' looks at theory that caste is key to oppression though

    Running Time: 2 hours, 20 minutes. Now Showing: Ross. The Reel Story: This engaging, intellectual film explains writer Isabel Wilkinson's theory that caste, not race, is responsible for oppression ...