© Kamla-Raj 2014 J Soc Sci, 38(2): 185-195 (2014)
Is There a Conceptual Difference between Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks? Sitwala Imenda
University of Zululand, Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, P/Bag x1001, KwaDlangezwa, South Africa Telephone: +27 35 902 6348/9; Mobile: +27 82 888 3606 E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
KEYWORDS Research. Theory. Theoretical Framework. Conceptual Framework
ABSTRACT This is an opinion piece on the subject of whether or not ‘theoretical’ and ‘conceptual’ frameworks are conceptual synonyms, or they refer to different constructs. Although, generally, a lot of literature uses these two terms interchangeably – suggesting that they are conceptually equivalent, the researcher argues that these are two different constructs – both by definition and as actualised during the research process. Thus, in this paper, the researcher starts by developing his argument by examining the role of theory in research, and then draws a distinction between areas of research that typically follow deductive versus inductive approaches, with regard to both the review of literature and data collection. The researcher then subsequently argues that whereas a deductive approach to literature review typically makes use of theories and theoretical frameworks, the inductive approach tends to lead to the development of a conceptual framework – which may take the form of a (conceptual) model. Examples depicting this distinction are advanced.
INTRODUCTION particular, her literature review was located within the theories and empirical research findings re- It is not controversial to state that three peo- lated to social relations amongst young people ple coming from different walks of life, watching living on the streets, socio-economic home back- the same event, are likely to come up with differ- grounds and social relations in the home, as well ent interpretations of that event. Certainly, de- as parental structure (that is, single versus two- pending on “the spectacles” each one of them parent homes). is “wearing” in viewing the event, they would The second student explained that he was each have a different “view” of the event. Each interested in finding out the psychological fac- person’s view-point, or point of reference, is his/ tors and consequences attendant to living on her conceptual or theoretical framework. In the streets, with respect to the children living essence, the conceptual or theoretical framework away from parental guidance. He located his is the soul of every research project. It deter- study within developmental and cognitive psy- mines how a given researcher formulates his/ chological thoughts and theories – as well as her research problem – and how s/he goes about empirical studies on the subject, but located with- investigating the problem, and what meaning s/ in the psychological frame of reference. he attaches to the data accruing from such an On her part, the third student came up with a investigation. rather unique angle to the incidence of street One lived exemplar which stands out in my children. She was an Education student, and experience was a time when the researcher she said to me, “I think many children are out on worked with three students – all of them work- the streets because of school”. At first, the re- ing on the same topic: street children. The first searcher thought that he had not understood student explained that her area of interest was the student correctly, until after she had repeat- sociology, and wondered about the social and ed her statement several times. Her perspective sociological factors at play prior to, and during, hit the researcher heavily and unexpectedly be- the time a child finds himself (only boys were cause up until that time, he had regarded school living on the streets of this town) on the streets. as a solution to the problem of street children – Thus, in the development of her research prob- and had not seen school as a possible contrib- lem, her review of literature and everything else uting factor towards children ending up on the centred around the broad area of sociology. In streets. On her part, the student was convinced 186 SITWALA IMENDA that there was something about schooling that ic, controlled, empirical, and critical investiga- repelled some children, and because of relent- tion of [natural / social] phenomena, guided by less pressure from home (amongst other factors) theory and hypotheses about the presumed re- forcing them to keep attending school, the af- lations” among such phenomena. (Parenthesis fected children rather ended up on the streets. and emphasis added). Accordingly, in research, So, in developing her research problem, she lo- subjective beliefs are “checked against objec- cated her thinking within a number of theoreti- tive reality” (de Vos et al. 2005: 36). Quite signif- cal perspectives, including school governance, icant to this paper is the highlighted portion of school curriculum, curricular relevance and im- this definition, which specifically states that re- plementation, the teacher-learner interface, ac- search is “guided by theory”. The suggestion cessibility of schools (for example, distances the here is that without ‘theory’ research would lack children had to travel, usually walking, to and direction – and this explains why in every re- from school), school environment – including search, one is expected to present one’s ‘theo- possibilities of bullying, as well as school sup- retical’ framework – as the students in the above port and sensitivity to learners’ individual and exemplar did. collective needs. However, whereas theory directs systematic As one may expect, these three studies, car- ‘controlled, empirical’ research, the place of the- ried out on the same accessible population, dif- ory in ‘less-controlled’ and ‘non-empirical’ types fered in more respects than they were similar – of research could be conceptually different (Lie- from problem statements and research questions, hr and Smith 1999). In fact, most generative re- all the way to their findings, conclusions and search is conceptually different from research recommendations. The main reason for this was based on hypothesis-testing or hypothetico- that they each “looked at the circumstances of deductive reasoning. In effect, most generative the same street children from different ‘points of research often seeks to develop theories that view’ or ‘theoretical / conceptual frameworks’.” are ‘grounded in the data collected’ and arising from discovering ‘what is really going on in the Objective field’ (Liehr and Smith 1999). As Cline (2002: 2) observes, “in the case of qualitative studies, a This paper explores the two terms: theoreti- theoretical framework may not be explicitly ar- cal and conceptual frameworks, with a view to ticulated since qualitative inquiry typically is shedding some light on their respective mean- often oriented toward grounded theory devel- ings, within the context of research in both the opment in the first place”. However, although natural and social sciences – particularly with the place of theory in different research para- reference to conceptual meaning, purpose, meth- digms may vary, still ‘theory’ appears to be cen- odology and scope of application. tral to all forms of research. The question is: what then is ‘theory’? Understanding the Key Concepts Theory In attempting to address the objective of this study, a closer look at the following terms is Aspects such as ‘explaining’ and ‘making essential, namely, theory, concept, conceptual predictions’ are among the most common fea- framework and theoretical framework. This will tures of the definition of ‘theory’. For example, help decipher if any conceptual differences ex- Fox and Bayat (2007: 29) define theory as “a set ist among these terms. However, since these of interrelated propositions, concepts and defi- terms are to be defined within the context of nitions that present a systematic point of view research, it is deemed necessary to start with a of specifying relationships between variables definition of research, before these terms are with a view to predicting and explaining phe- defined and discussed. nomena”. Likewise, Liehr and Smith (1999: 8) opine the following about theory: Research A theory is a set of interrelated concepts, which structure a systematic view of phenome- Many definitions of research abound. De na for the purpose of explaining or predicting. Vos et al. (2005: 41) see research as a “systemat- A theory is like a blueprint, a guide for model- THEORETICAL VERSUS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 187 ing a structure. A blueprint depicts the elements which the theory is applicable, (c) a set of rela- of a structure and the relation of each element tionships amongst the variables, and (d) specif- to the other, just as a theory depicts the con- ic predictive claims. Putting all these elements cepts, which compose it and the relation of con- together, a theory is therefore a careful outline cepts with each other. of ‘the precise definitions in a specific domain Further, Liehr and Smith (1999: 2) make a con- to explain why and how the relationships are nection between theory and practice in their logically tied so that the theory gives specific contention that the former guides the latter while, predictions” (Wacker 1998: 363-364). Thus, a on the other hand, “practice enables testing of good theory is taken to be one which gives a theory and generates questions for research; very clear and precise picture of events of the research contributes to theory-building, and domain it seeks to explain. As such, “a theory’s selecting practice guidelines”. Accordingly, precision and limitations are founded in the def- these two authors posit that a careful interweav- initions of terms, the domain of the theory, the ing of theory and research could reinforce what explanation of relationships, and the specific is learned through practice, to create the knowl- predictions” (Wacker 1998: 364). Quite impor- edge fabric of the given discipline. tantly, Wacker (1998: 365) outlines the ‘virtues’ Chinn and Kramer (1999: 258) define a theo- and ‘key features’ of a good theory as being (a) ry as an “expression of knowledge….a creative uniqueness – that is, being distinguishable from and rigorous structuring of ideas that project a others; (b) conservatism – a theory persists un- tentative, purposeful, and systematic view of til a superior theory replaces it; (c) generalisabil- phenomena”. More traditionally, a theory has ity – the greater the area a theory can be applied been defined as “a systematic abstraction of re- to, the more powerful it is; (d) fecundity – a the- ality that serves some purpose … A creative and ory that is more fertile in generating new models rigorous structuring of ideas that project a ten- and hypotheses is better than one that gener- tative purposeful, and systematic view of phe- ates fewer; (e) parsimony – other things being nomenon” (Chinn and Kramer 1995: 72). To equal, the fewer the assumptions the better; (f) Hawking (1988: 9), “a theory is a good theory if internal consistency – a theory that has identi- it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately fied all the relationships on the basis of which describe a large class of observations on the adequate explanations are rendered; (g) empiri- basis of a model which contains only a few arbi- cal riskiness – any empirical test of a theory trary elements, and it must make definite predic- should be risky; refutation must be possible for tions about the results of future observations”. a good theory; and (h) abstraction – the theory He goes on to state that “any physical theory is is independent of time and space, usually always provisional, in the sense that it is only a achieved by adding more relationships. hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter However, often-times, the meaning of the how many times the results of experiments agree term ‘theory’ could also be understood from its with some theory, you can never be sure that frequent contrasting with the construct of ‘prac- the next time the result will not contradict the tice’ (Greek: praxis). Thus, when one exalts the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a status of a particular theory, one’s detractors theory by finding even a single observation would respond by saying something like ‘but which disagrees with the predictions of the the- that’s just theory’, implying that what one finds ory.” in practice is different – suggesting, in turn, that So, from the above definitions, the three practice is what really counts. major defining characteristics of a theory are that However, regarding the tension between the- it (a) is “a set of interrelated propositions, con- ory and practice, there is a view that, over time, cepts and definitions that present a systematic there has been a narrowing of conceptual and point of view”; (b) specifies relationships be- operational meanings between the two. Further, tween / among concepts; and (c) explains and / it is argued that, although theories in the arts or makes predictions about the occurrence of and philosophy still refer to ideas rather than events, based on the specified relationships. directly observable empirical phenomena, in According to Wacker (1998: 363), a theory modern science the terms theory and scientific has four components, namely (a) definition of theory are understood to refer to proposed ex- terms, concepts or variables, (b) a domain to planations or empirical phenomena. This is best 188 SITWALA IMENDA exemplified by the following bold statement useful the theory is. Accordingly, a purported made by the American Academy for the Advance- theory that makes no predictions which can be ment of Science (2010: 1): studied or systematically followed through is of A scientific theory is a well-substantiated no use. explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeat- Concept edly confirmed through observation and exper- iment. Such fact-supported theories are not Hornby (2005: 5) contends that “defining “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real concepts is not an innocent exercise. Meanings/ world. The theory of biological evolution is more interpretations of concepts are largely influenced than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explana- by their context. Concepts reflect theoretical tion of the universe as the atomic theory of mat- concerns and ideological conflicts. Definitions ter or the germ theory of disease. Our under- have their defenders and critics”. Nonetheless, standing of gravity is still a work in progress. be this as it may, Liehr and Smith (1999: 7) have But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, ventured to give a definition of a concept as “an is an accepted fact (The National Academies image or symbolic representation of an abstract 1999: 2). idea”. Chinn and Kramer (1999: 252) see con- Although this statement has been criticised cepts as the components of theory which “con- for a number of reasons, including its blurring of vey the abstract ideas within a theory”; they the lines between theory and fact, the statement also see a concept as a “complex mental formu- itself conveys the Science Academy’s evolved lation of experience.” sense of what they take a theory to be – as they further aver: Research Framework In everyday language, a theory means a hunch or a speculation. Not so in science. In First, it is important to understand what a science, the word ‘theory’ refers to a compre- ‘framework’ is, within the context of research. hensive explanation of an important feature of Liehr and Smith (1999: 13) see a framework for research as a structure that provides “guidance nature that is supported by many facts gath- for the researcher as study questions are fine- ered over time. (Quoted by Weisenmiller 2008: tuned, methods for measuring variables are se- 2) lected and analyses are planned”. Once data Theories have also been defined in respect are collected and analysed, the framework is used of their scope, as well as the relative level of as a mirror to check whether the findings agree abstractness of their concepts and propositions. with the framework or whether there are some Thus, theories may be classified as grand, mid- discrepancies; where discrepancies exist, a ques- dle range or juts as concepts (Smith 2008). Mid- tion is asked as to whether or not the framework dle range theories are seen as bigger than indi- can be used to explain them. vidual concepts, but narrower in scope than Referring back to the exemplar concerning grand theories and are composed of a limited the three student researchers, within their broad number of concepts that relate to a limited as- fields they each chose and/or identified ‘frame- pect of the real world. The concepts and propo- works’ to guide them in explaining and interpret- sitions of middle range theories are empirically ing the circumstances of their investigations re- measurable (Smith and Liehr 1999). Grand theo- garding the street children, with respective lev- ries are seen as broadest in scope, less abstract els of academic integrity and acceptability. This than conceptual models, but comprising con- is what constitutes a conceptual or theoretical cepts which are, nonetheless, still relatively ab- framework –that is, the specific perspective stract and general. However, the relationships which a given researcher uses to explore, inter- of the concepts in grand theories cannot be test- pret or explain events or behaviour of the sub- ed empirically because they are, still, too gener- jects or events s/he is studying. al – sometimes even consisting of sub-theories. Overall, it is held that the defining character- Conceptual Versus Theoretical Frameworks istic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifi- able or testable predictions - the relevance and Having briefly cast our eye on the defini- specificity of which determine how potentially tions of (a) theory and (b) concept, it may now THEORETICAL VERSUS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 189 be opportune to attempt to distinguish between to explain or predict a given event, or give a the two notions of theoretical and conceptual broader understanding of the phenomenon of framework. interest – or simply, of a research problem. The process of arriving at a conceptual framework is Theoretical Framework akin to an inductive process whereby small indi- vidual pieces (in this case, concepts) are joined A theoretical framework refers to the theory together to tell a bigger map of possible rela- that a researcher chooses to guide him/her in tionships. Thus, a conceptual framework is de- his/her research. Thus, a theoretical framework rived from concepts, in-so-far as a theoretical is the application of a theory, or a set of con- framework is derived from a theory. Schemati- cepts drawn from one and the same theory, to cally, this may be represented as in Figure 1. offer an explanation of an event, or shed some Hence, according to Figure 1, whereas a light on a particular phenomenon or research whole theory may serve as one’s theoretical problem. This could refer to, for instance, the framework, a conceptual framework is normally Set theory, evolution, quantum mechanics, par- of limited scope – carefully put together in the ticulate theory of matter, or similar pre-existing form of a conceptual model, and immediately generalisation – such as Newton’s laws of mo- applicable to a particular study. In general, one tion, gas laws, that could be applied to a given finds that whereas in the natural sciences one research problem, deductively. may be guided by, say, the theory of evolution in conducting an investigation that involves clas- Conceptual Framework sification of unknown fossil specimens, one of- ten finds that in the social sciences, there is no On the other hand, a researcher may opine single theory that one can meaningfully use in that his/her research problem cannot meaning- dealing with, say, academic achievement or chal- lenges of poverty. The illustrations given in Fig- fully be researched in reference to only one the- ures 2 and 3 serve as exemplars of this distinc- ory, or concepts resident within one theory. In tion. Figure 2 represents an example of a theo- such cases, the researcher may have to “syn- retical framework. thesize” the existing views in the literature con- In this example, all the concepts that are used cerning a given situation – both theoretical and to investigate a research problem are drawn from from empirical findings. The synthesis may be one theoretical perspective –that is, Newton’s called a model or conceptual framework, which Second Law of Motion. [Just for the record, essentially represents an ‘integrated’ way of Newton’s Second Law of Motion states that ‘the looking at the problem (Liehr and Smith 1999). acceleration of an object as produced by a net Such a model could then be used in place of a force is directly proportional to the magnitude theoretical framework. Thus, a conceptual of the net force, in the same direction as the net framework may be defined as an end result of force, and inversely proportional to the mass of bringing together a number of related concepts the object’, (Meirovitch 1997: 2)].
Conceptual Framework Conceptual Theoretical Framework Framework Figure 3 presents an example of a conceptu- al framework. In Figure 3, the researcher came up with a synthesis of concepts and perspec- tives drawn from many sources. This is what makes this a ‘conceptual’ framework, and what differentiates it from a theoretical framework. To summarise, therefore, both conceptual A Set of Related Theory and theoretical frameworks represent an inte- Concepts grated understanding of issues, within a given field of study, which enables the researcher to Fig. 1. Derivation of conceptual and theoretical address a specific research problem. These the- frameworks oretical perspectives guide the individual re- 190 SITWALA IMENDA searcher in terms of specific research questions, METHODOLOGY AND OBSERVATIONS hypotheses or objectives – leading to a better directed review of literature, the selection / iden- Methodological considerations refer to the tification of appropriate research methods, and research design and the process of addressing the interpretation of results. Thus, we can have a given research problem – including the ap- a number of researchers working on the same proach to literature review, the nature of the data research problem, as illustrated above with re- to be collected, analysed and interpreted. Inev- spect to the three studies about street children, itably, these issues also touch on the broader where each one of the students investigated the discussion of research paradigms, given that the problem from different theoretical / conceptual types of research problems pursued, methods frameworks, and each coming up with legitimate of investigation employed, the types of data findings and knowledge claims at the end of it collected, analysed and interpreted – as well as all. the underlying epistemological assumptions under the two dominant research paradigms (that Purpose is, qualitative and quantitative) are typically not the same. Thus, starting with the type of re- search problem to be addressed, it may be said In general, both ‘conceptual’ and ‘theoreti- that whereas some research problems may be cal’ frameworks refer to the epistemological studied through processes and procedures that paradigm a researcher adopts in looking at a meaningfully produce findings “arrived at by given research problem – as Liehr and Smith statistical procedures or other means of quanti- (1999: 12) point out, “each of these terms refers fication”, studies involving people’s ways of life, to a structure” which guides the researcher. In “lived experiences, behaviors, emotions, and the same regard, Evans (2007: 8) opines that both feelings as well as about organizational func- “theoretical and conceptual frames” help the tioning, social movements, cultural phenomena, reader understand the reasons why a given re- and interactions between nations” (Strauss and searcher decides to study a particular topic, the Corbin, 1998: 10-11) are better studies in ways assumptions s/he makes, how s/he conceptual- that generate qualitative data that are mainly ly grounds his/her approach, the scholars s/he descriptive and interpretative. In this regard, is in dialogue with, who s/he agrees and dis- Strauss and Corbin (1998: 11) opine that al- agrees with. Hence, Evans opines that these though some researchers quantify qualitative two constructs serve the same purpose, sug- data, obtained through techniques normally as- gesting that it is extremely important for every sociated with qualitative research – such as in- researcher to identify or develop, as well as de- terviews and direct observation techniques, scribe an appropriate conceptual or theoretical qualitative data analysis refers “not to the quan- framework. Without one, a study lacks proper tifying of qualitative data but rather to a non- direction and a basis for pursuing a fruitful re- mathematical process of interpretation, carried view of literature, as well as interpreting and ex- out for the purpose of discovering concepts and plaining the findings accruing from the investi- relationships in raw data and then organizing gation. these into a theoretical explanatory scheme”. Smith (2008: 4) defines paradigms as Newton’s Second Law of Motion “schools of shared assumptions, values and views about the phenomena addressed in par- ticular sciences”. The Quantitative and Qualita- Force Gravity Vectors tive research paradigms are the most commonly cited by researchers (Denzin, 1978; Dzurec and Abraham 1993; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, Weight Mass Acceleration 2004; Guba and Lincoln 2005). However, Schwandt (2000: 206) has taken issue with these “paradigm wars,” calling into question the need Motion for this division or differentiation. In his words, “it is highly questionable whether such a dis- Fig. 2. An example of a Theoretical Framework tinction is any longer meaningful for helping us THEORETICAL VERSUS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 191
Fig. 3. An example of a conceptual framework [Source: Coetzee A 2009. Overcoming alternative conceptions concerning interference and diffraction of waves. D. Ed thesis, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria, p. 135. Reproduced with permission.] understand the purpose and means of human Mixed methods research is an intellectual inquiry” (2000: 210). Schwandt (2000: 210) fur- and practical synthesis based on qualitative ther observes as follows: and quantitative research; it is the third meth- All research is interpretive, and we face a odological or research paradigm (along with multiplicity of methods that are suitable for dif- qualitative and quantitative research). It rec- ferent kinds of understandings. So the tradi- ognizes the importance of traditional quanti- tional means of coming to grips with one’s iden- tative and qualitative research but also offers tity as a researcher by aligning oneself with a a powerful third paradigm choice that often will provide the most informative, complete, particular set of methods (or being defined in balanced, and useful research results. one’s department as a student of “qualitative” (Johnson et al. 2007: 129). or “quantitative” methods) is no longer very In the light of the above views of Schwandt’s, useful. If we are to go forward, we need to get as well as Johnson et al. it appears reasonable to rid of that distinction. lay some emphasis on the “mixed methods” This point is supported by Johnson et al. (blended) research paradigm – which Johnson, et (2007: 117) in their observation that “antago- al. (2007: 113) define as “an approach to knowl- nism between paradigms is unproductive”. But edge (theory and practice) that attempts to con- they go further and posit that the integration of sider multiple viewpoints, perspectives, positions, these two research paradigms gives birth to a and standpoints (always including the stand- third research paradigm: points of qualitative and quantitative research)”. 192 SITWALA IMENDA
Although the mixed methods research de- search in the social sciences would probably sign in not new, it represents a new movement not have used the term because what appears to seeking to formalize “the practice of using multi- be applicable in most cases is ‘conceptual frame- ple research methods” (Johnson et al. 2007: 113). work’. In the same vein, it may also be important Johnson et al. further report that in the history to reflect on the use of the deductive-inductive of the development of research methods, this research process within the quantitative and research design was first associated with the qualitative research paradigms term multiple operationalism, as far back as the Starting with the deductive-inductive ap- 1950s. Later the term ‘triangulation’ was coined proaches, de Vos et al. (2005: 47) opine that de- – which is defined by Denzin (in Johnson et al. duction “moves from the general to the specific. 2007: 114) as “the combination of methodolo- It moves from a pattern that might be logically or gies in the study of the same phenomenon. Ac- theoretically expected to observations that test cordingly, mixed methods research is the class whether the expected pattern actually occurs”. of research where the researcher mixes or com- In this vein, Liehr and Smith (1999) associate bines quantitative and qualitative research tech- most theoretical frameworks with quantitative niques, methods, approaches, and concepts or research, which in turn tends to rely on deduc- language into a single study or set of related tive reasoning, whereas most conceptual frame- works are associated with qualitative research – studies”. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004: 15) mainly utilising inductive reasoning. Thus, a earlier stated the following in defining mixed researcher following a deductive approach starts methods research: by specifying the theory guiding the study – in If you visualize a continuum with qualita- the process, citing the main points emphasized tive research anchored at one pole and quanti- in the theory, and illustrating how the main as- tative research anchored at the other, mixed pects of the theory relate to the research prob- methods research covers the large set of points lem. In giving an exposition of the theory, one in the middle area. If one prefers to think cate- needs to bring into the discussion the main pro- gorically, mixed methods research sits in a new ponents and detractors / critics of the theory in third chair, with qualitative research sitting order to offer a balanced argument. However, it on the left side and quantitative research sit- helps when a researcher successfully demon- ting on the right side”. strates that despite criticisms of the theory, it is So, it may then be said that we no longer nonetheless supported by other experts in the have just two dominant research paradigms, but field, particularly with regard to research prob- three – with the third one having a much greater lems of the class of the one the researcher is potential for explaining reality more fully than is pursuing. possible when only one research paradigm is Figure 4 illustrates the interplay among the used. three sets of dimensions of (a) deductive versus Now, relating this to the process of research, inductive reasoning, (b) conceptual versus it is not contentious to state that theoretical or conceptual frameworks form the crux of the liter- Quantitative Qualitative ature review component of any research project. Research Problem Research Problem Thus, in attempting to decipher the methodolog- ical difference between theoretical and concep- tual frameworks it is important to look at the Identify Reevant Synthesize Relevant ways in which a particular study is conducted Theoretical Structure Concepts from with regard to the two dimension sets of deduc- (TF) Various Sources (CF) tive and inductive development and presenta- (Deductive Approach) (Inductive Approach) tion of literature review. Evidently, research in the behavioural sci- ences has, over the years, borrowed heavily from the natural sciences. Thus, one would argue Apply TF to Apply CF to that the term ‘theoretical framework’ as used in Research Problem Research Problem the social sciences has its genesis in the ‘scien- Fig. 4. Typical relationships between the Theo- tific method’, which appears to have greatly in- retical Framework (TF) and Conceptual Frame- fluenced the social sciences, particularly in the work (CF) relative to the qualitative and quanti- earlier years. Had it not been for this, most re- tative research paradigms. THEORETICAL VERSUS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 193
Table 1: A summary of the conceptual differences between conceptual and theoretical trameworks
Variable Conceptual framework Theoretical framework
Genesis (a) Created by the researcher from a variety Evolves, or ‘takes shape’, from reviewed of conceptual or theoretical perspectives;(b) literature and/or the data collected. Adopted / adapted from a pre-existing theory or theoretical perspective. Purpose (a) Helps the researcher see clearly the (a) Helps the researcher see clearly the main main variables and concepts in a given variables and concepts in a given study; study; (b) Provides the researcher with a (b) Provides the researcher with a general general approach (methodology – research pproach (methodology – research design, design, target population and research a target population and research sample, sample, data collection & analysis); data collection & analysis); and (c) Guides the researcher in the collection, (c) Guides the researcher in the collection, interpretation and explanation of the data, interpretation and explanation of the data. where no dominant theoretical perspective exists (d) Guides future research – specifically where the conceptual framework integrates literature review and field data. Conceptual Synthesis of relevant concepts. Application of a theory as a whole Meaning or in part.
Process Underlying (a) Mainly inductive, as in social sciences Mainly deductive, as in the natural sciences Review of where research problems cannot ordinarily where hypothesis testing takes place to Literature be explained by one theoretical perspective; verify the ‘power’ of a theory. (b) Some social science research also gets driven by theories, but theories in the social sciences tend not to have the same ‘power’ as those in the natural sciences. Methodological (a)May be located in both quantitative and (a) Located mainly in the quantitative Approach qualitative research paradigms; increasingly, research paradigm; mixed-methods approaches are recommended; (b) Data mostly collected through both (b) Data collected mainly through empirical and descriptive survey instruments, experimental designs, empirical surveys interviews and direct observations – hence, and tests; a preponderance of qualitative data; (c) Efforts made to standardize context, or (c) Strong on consideration of context. else ignore it. Scope of Limited to specific research problem and Wider application beyond the current Application or context. research problem and context. theoretical frameworks, relative to (c) qualita- Accordingly, in inductive reasoning, the re- tive and quantitative research paradigms. search framework (that is, conceptual framework) Thus, in deductive research, researchers emerges as the researcher identifies and pieces normally use a dominant theory to address a together the relevant concepts from both theo- given research problem, while in inductive re- retical perspectives and empirical findings on search, many aspects of different theoretical the topic with, so to speak, “an open mind”. perspectives are brought together to build up a Accordingly, the inductive approach to litera- generalisation with enough “power” to guide ture review involves the reading of many indi- the study (Liehr and Smith 1999: 13). Thus, in- vidual theoretical perspectives and reports. From duction “moves from the particular to the gener- these readings, one identifies a basket of salient al, from a set of specific observations to the dis- concepts and principles which one can reason- covery of a pattern that represents some degree ably use to address the research problem. As of order among all the given events … In induc- such, a conceptual framework is synthesised tive reasoning people use specific instances or from a number of concepts, research findings occurrences to draw conclusions about entire and theoretical perspectives – some of which classes of objects or events” (de Vos et al. 2005: may be in opposition or competition with one 47). another. The reason for this is that, typically, in 194 SITWALA IMENDA most social science research – in contrast to variables and concepts in a given study, (b) to research in the natural sciences, there is no one provide the researcher with a general approach theory that can adequately direct the researcher (methodology – research design, target popula- to sufficiently answer the research questions tion and research sample, data collection and being pursued. analysis), and (c) to guide the researcher in data The above points are aptly summarised by collection, interpretation and explanation. In Borgatti (1999: 1) in his statement that “theoret- essence, a researcher’s conceptual or theoreti- ical frameworks are obviously critical in deduc- cal framework guides what the person ‘notices’ tive, theory-testing sorts of studies”. Hence, in during the course of data collection or as an trying to distinguish between theoretical and event takes place; it is also responsible for what conceptual frameworks one may say that, where- the person ‘does not notice’ – suggesting that as research based on deductive reasoning makes people may not notice or observe things which use of a pre-existing theory, or theoretical frame- fall outside their conceptual / theoretical frame- work, research based of inductive reasoning works. Thus, in as much as one’s theoretical / con- tends to be ‘theory-building’. ceptual framework serves as spectacles through which to see the world, at the same time, it places SCOPE OF APPLICATION boundaries on one’s vision and horizons. A further point is that although both con- Both ‘conceptual’ and ‘theoretical’ frame- ceptual and theoretical frameworks serve the works refer to the epistemological paradigm a purposes as specified above, there are differ- researcher uses to look at a given research prob- ences between them, conceptually, methodolog- lem. However, the scope of conceptual frame- ically and with regard to the scope of their appli- works is usually applicable only to the specific cation. research problem for which it was created. Ap- plication to other research problems may be lim- REFERENCES ited. Since theoretical frameworks refer to the application of theories, they tend to have a much Borgatti SP 1999. Elements of Research. From< http:/ wider scope of use beyond one research prob- /www.analytictech.com/mb313/elements.htm.> (Re- lem. trieved on August 17, 2010). Table 1 summarises the points made in this Chinn PL, Kramer MK 1999. Theory and Nursing: A Systematic Approach. 5th Edition. St Louis, USA: paper. According to Table 1, the differences be- Mosby. tween theoretical and conceptual frameworks lie Cline D 2002. Logical Structure, Theoretical Frame- in their genesis, conceptual meanings, how they work. EducationLeadership Center for Excellence. each relate to the process of literature review, From
Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA 2007. To- Smith MJ, Liehr P 1999. Attentively embracing story: ward a definition of mixed methods research. Jour- A middle-range theory with practice and research nal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2): 112-133. implications. Research and Theory for Nursing Prac- Liehr P, Smith MJ 1999. Middle range theory: Spin- tice, 13(3): 187-204. ning research and practice to create knowledge for Strauss A, Corbin J 1998. Basics of Qualitative Re- the new millennium. Advances in Nursing Science, search: Techniques and Procedures for Developing nd 21(4): 81-91. Grounded Theory. 2 Edition. Thousand Oaks, Schwandt TA 2000. Three epistemological stances for CA: Sage. qualitative inquiry. In: NK Denzin, YS Lincoln (Eds.): Wacker JG 1998. A definition of theory: Research Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2 nd Edition. guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal of Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 189-213. Operations Management, 16: 361-385. Smith MJ 2008. Disciplinary perspectives linked to Weisenmiller M 2008. Florida Considers Laws Support- middle range theory. In: MJ Smith, PR Liehr (Eds.): nd ing “Intelligent Design”. Teaching, Monitor, Issue Middle Range Theory for Nursing. 2 Edition, New 169, August7. From