Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjss20

Download by: [Purdue University Libraries] Date: 11 January 2018, At: 06:24

Journal of Social Sciences

ISSN: 0971-8923 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjss20

Is There a Conceptual Difference betweenTheoretical and Conceptual Frameworks?

Sitwala Imenda

To cite this article: Sitwala Imenda (2014) Is There a Conceptual Difference betweenTheoretical and Conceptual Frameworks?, Journal of Social Sciences, 38:2, 185-195, DOI:10.1080/09718923.2014.11893249

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2014.11893249

Published online: 09 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

© Kamla-Raj 2014 J Soc Sci, 38(2): 185-195 (2014)

Is There a Conceptual Difference between Theoreticaland Conceptual Frameworks?

Sitwala Imenda

University of Zululand, Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics, Science andTechnology Education, P/Bag x1001, KwaDlangezwa, South Africa

Telephone: +27 35 902 6348/9; Mobile: +27 82 888 3606E-mail: ImendaS@.unizulu.ac.za; imendask@yahoo.com

KEYWORDS Research. Theory. Theoretical Framework. Conceptual Framework

ABSTRACT This is an opinion piece on the subject of whether or not ‘theoretical’ and ‘conceptual’ frameworksare conceptual synonyms, or they refer to different constructs. Although, generally, a lot of literature uses thesetwo terms interchangeably – suggesting that they are conceptually equivalent, the researcher argues that these aretwo different constructs – both by definition and as actualised during the research process. Thus, in this paper, theresearcher starts by developing his argument by examining the role of theory in research, and then draws adistinction between areas of research that typically follow deductive versus inductive approaches, with regard toboth the review of literature and data collection. The researcher then subsequently argues that whereas a deductiveapproach to literature review typically makes use of theories and theoretical frameworks, the induct ive approachtends to lead to the development of a conceptual framework – which may take the form of a (conceptua l) model.Examples depicting this distinction are advanced.

INTRODUCTION

It is not controversial to state that three peo-ple coming from different walks of life, watchingthe same event, are likely to come up with differ-ent interpretations of that event. Certainly, de-pending on “the spectacles” each one of themis “wearing” in viewing the event, they wouldeach have a different “view” of the event. Eachperson’s view-point, or point of reference, is his/her conceptual or theoretical framework. Inessence, the conceptual or theoretical frameworkis the soul of every research project. It deter-mines how a given researcher formulates his/her research problem – and how s/he goes aboutinvestigating the problem, and what meaning s/he attaches to the data accruing from such aninvestigation.

One lived exemplar which stands out in myexperience was a time when the researcherworked with three students – all of them work-ing on the same topic: street children. The firststudent explained that her area of interest wassociology, and wondered about the social andsociological factors at play prior to, and during,the time a child finds himself (only boys wereliving on the streets of this town) on the streets.Thus, in the development of her research prob-lem, her review of literature and everything elsecentred around the broad area of sociology. In

particular, her literature review was located withinthe theories and empirical research findings re-lated to social relations amongst young peopleliving on the streets, socio-economic home back-grounds and social relations in the home, as wellas parental structure (that is, single versus two-parent homes).

The second student explained that he wasinterested in finding out the psychological fac-tors and consequences attendant to living onthe streets, with respect to the children livingaway from parental guidance. He located hisstudy within developmental and cognitive psy-chological thoughts and theories – as well asempirical studies on the subject, but located with-in the psychological frame of reference.

On her part, the third student came up with arather unique angle to the incidence of streetchildren. She was an Education student, andshe said to me, “I think many children are out onthe streets because of school”. At first, the re-searcher thought that he had not understoodthe student correctly, until after she had repeat-ed her statement several times. Her perspectivehit the researcher heavily and unexpectedly be-cause up until that time, he had regarded schoolas a solution to the problem of street children –and had not seen school as a possible contrib-uting factor towards children ending up on thestreets. On her part, the student was convinced

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:24

11

Janu

ary

2018

186 SITWALA IMENDA

that there was something about schooling thatrepelled some children, and because of relent-less pressure from home (amongst other factors)forcing them to keep attending school, the af-fected children rather ended up on the streets.So, in developing her research problem, she lo-cated her thinking within a number of theoreti-cal perspectives, including school governance,school curriculum, curricular relevance and im-plementation, the teacher-learner interface, ac-cessibility of schools (for example, distances thechildren had to travel, usually walking, to andfrom school), school environment – includingpossibilities of bullying, as well as school sup-port and sensitivity to learners’ individual andcollective needs.

As one may expect, these three studies, car-ried out on the same accessible population, dif-fered in more respects than they were similar –from problem statements and research questions,all the way to their findings, conclusions andrecommendations. The main reason for this wasthat they each “looked at the circumstances ofthe same street children from different ‘points ofview’ or ‘theoretical / conceptual frameworks’.”

Objective

This paper explores the two terms: theoreti-cal and conceptual frameworks, with a view toshedding some light on their respective mean-ings, within the context of research in both thenatural and social sciences – particularly withreference to conceptual meaning, purpose, meth-odology and scope of application.

Understanding the Key Concepts

In attempting to address the objective of thisstudy, a closer look at the following terms isessential, namely, theory, concept, conceptualframework and theoretical framework. This willhelp decipher if any conceptual differences ex-ist among these terms. However, since theseterms are to be defined within the context ofresearch, it is deemed necessary to start with adefinition of research, before these terms aredefined and discussed.

Research

Many definitions of research abound. DeVos et al. (2005: 41) see research as a “systemat-

ic, controlled, empirical, and critical investiga-tion of [natural / social] phenomena, guided bytheory and hypotheses about the presumed re-lations” among such phenomena. (Parenthesisand emphasis added). Accordingly, in research,subjective beliefs are “checked against objec-tive reality” (de Vos et al. 2005: 36). Quite signif-icant to this paper is the highlighted portion ofthis definition, which specifically states that re-search is “guided by theory”. The suggestionhere is that without ‘theory’ research would lackdirection – and this explains why in every re-search, one is expected to present one’s ‘theo-retical’ framework – as the students in the aboveexemplar did.

However, whereas theory directs systematic‘controlled, empirical’ research, the place of the-ory in ‘less-controlled’ and ‘non-empirical’ typesof research could be conceptually different (Lie-hr and Smith 1999). In fact, most generative re-search is conceptually different from researchbased on hypothesis-testing or hypothetico-deductive reasoning. In effect, most generativeresearch often seeks to develop theories thatare ‘grounded in the data collected’ and arisingfrom discovering ‘what is really going on in thefield’ (Liehr and Smith 1999). As Cline (2002: 2)observes, “in the case of qualitative studies, atheoretical framework may not be explicitly ar-ticulated since qualitative inquiry typically isoften oriented toward grounded theory devel-opment in the first place”. However, althoughthe place of theory in different research para-digms may vary, still ‘theory’ appears to be cen-tral to all forms of research. The question is:what then is ‘theory’?

Theory

Aspects such as ‘explaining’ and ‘makingpredictions’ are among the most common fea-tures of the definition of ‘theory’. For example,Fox and Bayat (2007: 29) define theory as “a setof interrelated propositions, concepts and defi-nitions that present a systematic point of viewof specifying relationships between variableswith a view to predicting and explaining phe-nomena”. Likewise, Liehr and Smith (1999: 8)opine the following about theory:

A theory is a set of interrelated concepts,which structure a systematic view of phenome-na for the purpose of explaining or predicting.A theory is like a blueprint, a guide for model-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:24

11

Janu

ary

2018

THEORETICAL VERSUS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 187

ing a structure. A blueprint depicts the elementsof a structure and the relation of each elementto the other, just as a theory depicts the con-cepts, which compose it and the relation of con-cepts with each other.

Further, Liehr and Smith (1999: 2) make a con-nection between theory and practice in theircontention that the former guides the latter while,on the other hand, “practice enables testing oftheory and generates questions for research;research contributes to theory-building, andselecting practice guidelines”. Accordingly,these two authors posit that a careful interweav-ing of theory and research could reinforce whatis learned through practice, to create the knowl-edge fabric of the given discipline.

Chinn and Kramer (1999: 258) define a theo-ry as an “expression of knowledge….a creativeand rigorous structuring of ideas that project atentative, purposeful, and systematic view ofphenomena”. More traditionally, a theory hasbeen defined as “a systematic abstraction of re-ality that serves some purpose … A creative andrigorous structuring of ideas that project a ten-tative purposeful, and systematic view of phe-nomenon” (Chinn and Kramer 1995: 72). ToHawking (1988: 9), “a theory is a good theory ifit satisfies two requirements: It must accuratelydescribe a large class of observations on thebasis of a model which contains only a few arbi-trary elements, and it must make definite predic-tions about the results of future observations”.He goes on to state that “any physical theory isalways provisional, in the sense that it is only ahypothesis; you can never prove it. No matterhow many times the results of experiments agreewith some theory, you can never be sure thatthe next time the result will not contradict thetheory. On the other hand, you can disprove atheory by finding even a single observationwhich disagrees with the predictions of the the-ory.”

So, from the above definitions, the threemajor defining characteristics of a theory are thatit (a) is “a set of interrelated propositions, con-cepts and definitions that present a systematicpoint of view”; (b) specifies relationships be-tween / among concepts; and (c) explains and /or makes predictions about the occurrence ofevents, based on the specified relationships.

According to Wacker (1998: 363), a theoryhas four components, namely (a) definition ofterms, concepts or variables, (b) a domain to

which the theory is applicable, (c) a set of rela-tionships amongst the variables, and (d) specif-ic predictive claims. Putting all these elementstogether, a theory is therefore a careful outlineof ‘the precise definitions in a specific domainto explain why and how the relationships arelogically tied so that the theory gives specificpredictions” (Wacker 1998: 363-364). Thus, agood theory is taken to be one which gives avery clear and precise picture of events of thedomain it seeks to explain. As such, “a theory’sprecision and limitations are founded in the def-initions of terms, the domain of the theory, theexplanation of relationships, and the specificpredictions” (Wacker 1998: 364). Quite impor-tantly, Wacker (1998: 365) outlines the ‘virtues’and ‘key features’ of a good theory as being (a)uniqueness – that is, being distinguishable fromothers; (b) conservatism – a theory persists un-til a superior theory replaces it; (c) generalisabil-ity – the greater the area a theory can be appliedto, the more powerful it is; (d) fecundity – a the-ory that is more fertile in generating new modelsand hypotheses is better than one that gener-ates fewer; (e) parsimony – other things beingequal, the fewer the assumptions the better; (f)internal consistency – a theory that has identi-fied all the relationships on the basis of whichadequate explanations are rendered; (g) empiri-cal riskiness – any empirical test of a theoryshould be risky; refutation must be possible fora good theory; and (h) abstraction – the theoryis independent of time and space, usuallyachieved by adding more relationships.

However, often-times, the meaning of theterm ‘theory’ could also be understood from itsfrequent contrasting with the construct of ‘prac-tice’ (Greek: praxis). Thus, when one exalts thestatus of a particular theory, one’s detractorswould respond by saying something like ‘butthat’s just theory’, implying that what one findsin practice is different – suggesting, in turn, thatpractice is what really counts.

However, regarding the tension between the-ory and practice, there is a view that, over time,there has been a narrowing of conceptual andoperational meanings between the two. Further,it is argued that, although theories in the artsand philosophy still refer to ideas rather thandirectly observable empirical phenomena, inmodern science the terms theory and scientifictheory are understood to refer to proposed ex-planations or empirical phenomena. This is best

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:24

11

Janu

ary

2018

188 SITWALA IMENDA

exemplified by the following bold statementmade by the American Academy for the Advance-ment of Science (2010: 1):

A scientific theory is a well-substantiatedexplanation of some aspect of the natural world,based on a body of facts that have been repeat-edly confirmed through observation and exper-iment. Such fact-supported theories are not“guesses” but reliable accounts of the realworld. The theory of biological evolution is morethan “just a theory.” It is as factual an explana-tion of the universe as the atomic theory of mat-ter or the germ theory of disease. Our under-standing of gravity is still a work in progress.But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution,is an accepted fact (The National Academies1999: 2).

Although this statement has been criticisedfor a number of reasons, including its blurring ofthe lines between theory and fact, the statementitself conveys the Science Academy’s evolvedsense of what they take a theory to be – as theyfurther aver:

In everyday language, a theory means ahunch or a speculation. Not so in science. Inscience, the word ‘theory’ refers to a compre-hensive explanation of an important feature ofnature that is supported by many facts gath-ered over time. (Quoted by Weisenmiller 2008:2)

Theories have also been defined in respectof their scope, as well as the relative level ofabstractness of their concepts and propositions.Thus, theories may be classified as grand, mid-dle range or juts as concepts (Smith 2008). Mid-dle range theories are seen as bigger than indi-vidual concepts, but narrower in scope thangrand theories and are composed of a limitednumber of concepts that relate to a limited as-pect of the real world. The concepts and propo-sitions of middle range theories are empiricallymeasurable (Smith and Liehr 1999). Grand theo-ries are seen as broadest in scope, less abstractthan conceptual models, but comprising con-cepts which are, nonetheless, still relatively ab-stract and general. However, the relationshipsof the concepts in grand theories cannot be test-ed empirically because they are, still, too gener-al – sometimes even consisting of sub-theories.

Overall, it is held that the defining character-istic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifi-able or testable predictions - the relevance andspecificity of which determine how potentially

useful the theory is. Accordingly, a purportedtheory that makes no predictions which can bestudied or systematically followed through is ofno use.

Concept

Hornby (2005: 5) contends that “definingconcepts is not an innocent exercise. Meanings/interpretations of concepts are largely influencedby their context. Concepts reflect theoreticalconcerns and ideological conflicts. Definitionshave their defenders and critics”. Nonetheless,be this as it may, Liehr and Smith (1999: 7) haveventured to give a definition of a concept as “animage or symbolic representation of an abstractidea”. Chinn and Kramer (1999: 252) see con-cepts as the components of theory which “con-vey the abstract ideas within a theory”; theyalso see a concept as a “complex mental formu-lation of experience.”

Research Framework

First, it is important to understand what a‘framework’ is, within the context of research.Liehr and Smith (1999: 13) see a framework forresearch as a structure that provides “guidancefor the researcher as study questions are fine-tuned, methods for measuring variables are se-lected and analyses are planned”. Once dataare collected and analysed, the framework is usedas a mirror to check whether the findings agreewith the framework or whether there are somediscrepancies; where discrepancies exist, a ques-tion is asked as to whether or not the frameworkcan be used to explain them.

Referring back to the exemplar concerningthe three student researchers, within their broadfields they each chose and/or identified ‘frame-works’ to guide them in explaining and interpret-ing the circumstances of their investigations re-garding the street children, with respective lev-els of academic integrity and acceptability. Thisis what constitutes a conceptual or theoreticalframework –that is, the specific perspectivewhich a given researcher uses to explore, inter-pret or explain events or behaviour of the sub-jects or events s/he is studying.

Conceptual Versus Theoretical Frameworks

Having briefly cast our eye on the defini-tions of (a) theory and (b) concept, it may now

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:24

11

Janu

ary

2018

THEORETICAL VERSUS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 189

be opportune to attempt to distinguish betweenthe two notions of theoretical and conceptualframework.

Theoretical Framework

A theoretical framework refers to the theorythat a researcher chooses to guide him/her inhis/her research. Thus, a theoretical frameworkis the application of a theory, or a set of con-cepts drawn from one and the same theory, tooffer an explanation of an event, or shed somelight on a particular phenomenon or researchproblem. This could refer to, for instance, theSet theory, evolution, quantum mechanics, par-ticulate theory of matter, or similar pre-existinggeneralisation – such as Newton’s laws of mo-tion, gas laws, that could be applied to a givenresearch problem, deductively.

Conceptual Framework

On the other hand, a researcher may opinethat his/her research problem cannot meaning-fully be researched in reference to only one the-ory, or concepts resident within one theory. Insuch cases, the researcher may have to “syn-thesize” the existing views in the literature con-cerning a given situation – both theoretical andfrom empirical findings. The synthesis may becalled a model or conceptual framework, whichessentially represents an ‘integrated’ way oflooking at the problem (Liehr and Smith 1999).Such a model could then be used in place of atheoretical framework. Thus, a conceptualframework may be defined as an end result ofbringing together a number of related concepts

to explain or predict a given event, or give abroader understanding of the phenomenon ofinterest – or simply, of a research problem. Theprocess of arriving at a conceptual framework isakin to an inductive process whereby small indi-vidual pieces (in this case, concepts) are joinedtogether to tell a bigger map of possible rela-tionships. Thus, a conceptual framework is de-rived from concepts, in-so-far as a theoreticalframework is derived from a theory. Schemati-cally, this may be represented as in Figure 1.

Hence, according to Figure 1, whereas awhole theory may serve as one’s theoreticalframework, a conceptual framework is normallyof limited scope – carefully put together in theform of a conceptual model, and immediatelyapplicable to a particular study. In general, onefinds that whereas in the natural sciences onemay be guided by, say, the theory of evolutionin conducting an investigation that involves clas-sification of unknown fossil specimens, one of-ten finds that in the social sciences, there is nosingle theory that one can meaningfully use indealing with, say, academic achievement or chal-lenges of poverty. The illustrations given in Fig-ures 2 and 3 serve as exemplars of this distinc-tion. Figure 2 represents an example of a theo-retical framework.

In this example, all the concepts that are usedto investigate a research problem are drawn fromone theoretical perspective –that is, Newton’sSecond Law of Motion. [Just for the record,Newton’s Second Law of Motion states that ‘theacceleration of an object as produced by a netforce is directly proportional to the magnitudeof the net force, in the same direction as the netforce, and inversely proportional to the mass ofthe object’, (Meirovitch 1997: 2)].

Conceptual Framework

Figure 3 presents an example of a conceptu-al framework. In Figure 3, the researcher cameup with a synthesis of concepts and perspec-tives drawn from many sources. This is whatmakes this a ‘conceptual’ framework, and whatdifferentiates it from a theoretical framework.

To summarise, therefore, both conceptualand theoretical frameworks represent an inte-grated understanding of issues, within a givenfield of study, which enables the researcher toaddress a specific research problem. These the-oretical perspectives guide the individual re-

Fig. 1. Derivation of conceptual and theoreticalframeworks

ConceptualFramework

TheoreticalFramework

A Set of RelatedConcepts Theory

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:24

11

Janu

ary

2018

190 SITWALA IMENDA

Fig. 2. An example of a Theoretical Framework

Newton’s Second Law of Motion

Force Gravity Vectors

AccelerationMassWeight

Motion

searcher in terms of specific research questions,hypotheses or objectives – leading to a betterdirected review of literature, the selection / iden-tification of appropriate research methods, andthe interpretation of results. Thus, we can havea number of researchers working on the sameresearch problem, as illustrated above with re-spect to the three studies about street children,where each one of the students investigated theproblem from different theoretical / conceptualframeworks, and each coming up with legitimatefindings and knowledge claims at the end of itall.

Purpose

In general, both ‘conceptual’ and ‘theoreti-cal’ frameworks refer to the epistemologicalparadigm a researcher adopts in looking at agiven research problem – as Liehr and Smith(1999: 12) point out, “each of these terms refersto a structure” which guides the researcher. Inthe same regard, Evans (2007: 8) opines that both“theoretical and conceptual frames” help thereader understand the reasons why a given re-searcher decides to study a particular topic, theassumptions s/he makes, how s/he conceptual-ly grounds his/her approach, the scholars s/heis in dialogue with, who s/he agrees and dis-agrees with. Hence, Evans opines that thesetwo constructs serve the same purpose, sug-gesting that it is extremely important for everyresearcher to identify or develop, as well as de-scribe an appropriate conceptual or theoreticalframework. Without one, a study lacks properdirection and a basis for pursuing a fruitful re-view of literature, as well as interpreting and ex-plaining the findings accruing from the investi-gation.

METHODOLOGY AND OBSERVATIONS

Methodological considerations refer to theresearch design and the process of addressinga given research problem – including the ap-proach to literature review, the nature of the datato be collected, analysed and interpreted. Inev-itably, these issues also touch on the broaderdiscussion of research paradigms, given that thetypes of research problems pursued, methodsof investigation employed, the types of datacollected, analysed and interpreted – as well asthe underlying epistemological assumptionsunder the two dominant research paradigms (thatis, qualitative and quantitative) are typically notthe same. Thus, starting with the type of re-search problem to be addressed, it may be saidthat whereas some research problems may bestudied through processes and procedures thatmeaningfully produce findings “arrived at bystatistical procedures or other means of quanti-fication”, studies involving people’s ways of life,“lived experiences, behaviors, emotions, andfeelings as well as about organizational func-tioning, social movements, cultural phenomena,and interactions between nations” (Strauss andCorbin, 1998: 10-11) are better studies in waysthat generate qualitative data that are mainlydescriptive and interpretative. In this regard,Strauss and Corbin (1998: 11) opine that al-though some researchers quantify qualitativedata, obtained through techniques normally as-sociated with qualitative research – such as in-terviews and direct observation techniques,qualitative data analysis refers “not to the quan-tifying of qualitative data but rather to a non-mathematical process of interpretation, carriedout for the purpose of discovering concepts andrelationships in raw data and then organizingthese into a theoretical explanatory scheme”.

Smith (2008: 4) defines paradigms as“schools of shared assumptions, values andviews about the phenomena addressed in par-ticular sciences”. The Quantitative and Qualita-tive research paradigms are the most commonlycited by researchers (Denzin, 1978; Dzurec andAbraham 1993; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie,2004; Guba and Lincoln 2005). However,Schwandt (2000: 206) has taken issue with these“paradigm wars,” calling into question the needfor this division or differentiation. In his words,“it is highly questionable whether such a dis-tinction is any longer meaningful for helping us

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:24

11

Janu

ary

2018

THEORETICAL VERSUS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 191

understand the purpose and means of humaninquiry” (2000: 210). Schwandt (2000: 210) fur-ther observes as follows:

All research is interpretive, and we face amultiplicity of methods that are suitable for dif-ferent kinds of understandings. So the tradi-tional means of coming to grips with one’s iden-tity as a researcher by aligning oneself with aparticular set of methods (or being defined inone’s department as a student of “qualitative”or “quantitative” methods) is no longer veryuseful. If we are to go forward, we need to getrid of that distinction.

This point is supported by Johnson et al.(2007: 117) in their observation that “antago-nism between paradigms is unproductive”. Butthey go further and posit that the integration ofthese two research paradigms gives birth to athird research paradigm:

Mixed methods research is an intellectualand practical synthesis based on qualitativeand quantitative research; it is the third meth-odological or research paradigm (along withqualitative and quantitative research). It rec-ognizes the importance of traditional quanti-tative and qualitative research but also offersa powerful third paradigm choice that oftenwill provide the most informative, complete,balanced, and useful research results.(Johnson et al. 2007: 129).

In the light of the above views of Schwandt’s,as well as Johnson et al. it appears reasonable tolay some emphasis on the “mixed methods”(blended) research paradigm – which Johnson, etal. (2007: 113) define as “an approach to knowl-edge (theory and practice) that attempts to con-sider multiple viewpoints, perspectives, positions,and standpoints (always including the stand-points of qualitative and quantitative research)”.

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.]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:24

11

Janu

ary

2018

192 SITWALA IMENDA

QuantitativeResearch Problem

QualitativeResearch Problem

Synthesize RelevantConcepts from

Various Sources (CF)(Inductive Approach)

Identify ReevantTheoretical Structure

(TF)(Deductive Approach)

Apply TF toResearch Problem

Apply CF toResearch Problem

Fig. 4. Typical relationships between the Theo-retical Framework (TF) and Conceptual Frame-work (CF) relative to the qualitative and quanti-tative research paradigms.

Although the mixed methods research de-sign in not new, it represents a new movementseeking to formalize “the practice of using multi-ple research methods” (Johnson et al. 2007: 113).Johnson et al. further report that in the historyof the development of research methods, thisresearch design was first associated with theterm multiple operationalism, as far back as the1950s. Later the term ‘triangulation’ was coined– which is defined by Denzin (in Johnson et al.2007: 114) as “the combination of methodolo-gies in the study of the same phenomenon. Ac-cordingly, mixed methods research is the classof research where the researcher mixes or com-bines quantitative and qualitative research tech-niques, methods, approaches, and concepts orlanguage into a single study or set of relatedstudies”. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004: 15)earlier stated the following in defining mixedmethods research:

If you visualize a continuum with qualita-tive research anchored at one pole and quanti-tative research anchored at the other, mixedmethods research covers the large set of pointsin the middle area. If one prefers to think cate-gorically, mixed methods research sits in a newthird chair, with qualitative research sittingon the left side and quantitative research sit-ting on the right side”.

So, it may then be said that we no longerhave just two dominant research paradigms, butthree – with the third one having a much greaterpotential for explaining reality more fully than ispossible when only one research paradigm isused.

Now, relating this to the process of research,it is not contentious to state that theoretical orconceptual frameworks form the crux of the liter-ature review component of any research project.Thus, in attempting to decipher the methodolog-ical difference between theoretical and concep-tual frameworks it is important to look at theways in which a particular study is conductedwith regard to the two dimension sets of deduc-tive and inductive development and presenta-tion of literature review.

Evidently, research in the behavioural sci-ences has, over the years, borrowed heavily fromthe natural sciences. Thus, one would arguethat the term ‘theoretical framework’ as used inthe social sciences has its genesis in the ‘scien-tific method’, which appears to have greatly in-fluenced the social sciences, particularly in theearlier years. Had it not been for this, most re-

search in the social sciences would probablynot have used the term because what appears tobe applicable in most cases is ‘conceptual frame-work’. In the same vein, it may also be importantto reflect on the use of the deductive-inductiveresearch process within the quantitative andqualitative research paradigms

Starting with the deductive-inductive ap-proaches, de Vos et al. (2005: 47) opine that de-duction “moves from the general to the specific.It moves from a pattern that might be logically ortheoretically expected to observations that testwhether the expected pattern actually occurs”.In this vein, Liehr and Smith (1999) associatemost theoretical frameworks with quantitativeresearch, which in turn tends to rely on deduc-tive reasoning, whereas most conceptual frame-works are associated with qualitative research –mainly utilising inductive reasoning. Thus, aresearcher following a deductive approach startsby specifying the theory guiding the study – inthe process, citing the main points emphasizedin the theory, and illustrating how the main as-pects of the theory relate to the research prob-lem. In giving an exposition of the theory, oneneeds to bring into the discussion the main pro-ponents and detractors / critics of the theory inorder to offer a balanced argument. However, ithelps when a researcher successfully demon-strates that despite criticisms of the theory, it isnonetheless supported by other experts in thefield, particularly with regard to research prob-lems of the class of the one the researcher ispursuing.

Figure 4 illustrates the interplay among thethree sets of dimensions of (a) deductive versusinductive reasoning, (b) conceptual versus

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:24

11

Janu

ary

2018

THEORETICAL VERSUS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 193

theoretical frameworks, relative to (c) qualita-tive and quantitative research paradigms.

Thus, in deductive research, researchersnormally use a dominant theory to address agiven research problem, while in inductive re-search, many aspects of different theoreticalperspectives are brought together to build up ageneralisation with enough “power” to guidethe study (Liehr and Smith 1999: 13). Thus, in-duction “moves from the particular to the gener-al, from a set of specific observations to the dis-covery of a pattern that represents some degreeof order among all the given events … In induc-tive reasoning people use specific instances oroccurrences to draw conclusions about entireclasses of objects or events” (de Vos et al. 2005:47).

Accordingly, in inductive reasoning, the re-search framework (that is, conceptual framework)emerges as the researcher identifies and piecestogether the relevant concepts from both theo-retical perspectives and empirical findings onthe topic with, so to speak, “an open mind”.Accordingly, the inductive approach to litera-ture review involves the reading of many indi-vidual theoretical perspectives and reports. Fromthese readings, one identifies a basket of salientconcepts and principles which one can reason-ably use to address the research problem. Assuch, a conceptual framework is synthesisedfrom a number of concepts, research findingsand theoretical perspectives – some of whichmay be in opposition or competition with oneanother. The reason for this is that, typically, in

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 reviewedof conceptual or theoretical perspectives;(b) literature and/or the data collected.

Adopted / adapted from a pre-existing theoryor theoretical perspective.

Purpose (a) Helps the researcher see clearly the (a) Helps the researcher see clearly the mainmain 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 theoreticalperspective exists(d) Guides future research – specificallywhere the conceptual framework integratesliterature review and field data.

Conceptual Synthesis of relevant concepts. Application of a theory as a wholeMeaning or in part.

Process Underlying (a) Mainly inductive, as in social sciences Mainly deductive, as in the natural sciencesReview of where research problems cannot ordinarily where hypothesis testing takes place toLiterature be explained by one theoretical perspective; verify the ‘power’ of a theory.

(b) Some social science research also getsdriven by theories, but theories in the socialsciences 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 quantitativeApproach qualitative research paradigms; increasingly, research paradigm;

mixed-methods approaches are recommended;(b) Data mostly collected through both (b) Data collected mainly throughempirical and descriptive survey instruments, experimental designs, empirical surveysinterviews 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 currentApplication or context. research problem and context.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:24

11

Janu

ary

2018

194 SITWALA IMENDA

most social science research – in contrast toresearch in the natural sciences, there is no onetheory that can adequately direct the researcherto sufficiently answer the research questionsbeing pursued.

The above points are aptly summarised byBorgatti (1999: 1) in his statement that “theoret-ical frameworks are obviously critical in deduc-tive, theory-testing sorts of studies”. Hence, intrying to distinguish between theoretical andconceptual frameworks one may say that, where-as research based on deductive reasoning makesuse of a pre-existing theory, or theoretical frame-work, research based of inductive reasoningtends to be ‘theory-building’.

SCOPE OF APPLICATION

Both ‘conceptual’ and ‘theoretical’ frame-works refer to the epistemological paradigm aresearcher uses to look at a given research prob-lem. However, the scope of conceptual frame-works is usually applicable only to the specificresearch problem for which it was created. Ap-plication to other research problems may be lim-ited. Since theoretical frameworks refer to theapplication of theories, they tend to have a muchwider scope of use beyond one research prob-lem.

Table 1 summarises the points made in thispaper. According to Table 1, the differences be-tween theoretical and conceptual frameworks liein their genesis, conceptual meanings, how theyeach relate to the process of literature review,the methodological approaches they evoke andtheir scope of application. Once a conceptualframework has been established, the purpose islargely similar to that of a theoretical framework.However, where a conceptual framework ‘shapesup’ from a synthesis of existing literature andfreshly collected data, such a conceptual frame-work tends to serve as a springboard for furtherresearch. Cumulatively and over a period of time,the findings of these researches may lead to anarticulation of a theory – from which a theoreti-cal framework may, thus, evolve.

CONCLUSION

This paper has argued that, within the con-text of research, both conceptual and theoreti-cal frameworks serve the same purposes, name-ly: (a) to help the researcher see clearly the main

variables and concepts in a given study, (b) toprovide the researcher with a general approach(methodology – research design, target popula-tion and research sample, data collection andanalysis), and (c) to guide the researcher in datacollection, interpretation and explanation. Inessence, a researcher’s conceptual or theoreti-cal framework guides what the person ‘notices’during the course of data collection or as anevent takes place; it is also responsible for whatthe person ‘does not notice’ – suggesting thatpeople may not notice or observe things whichfall outside their conceptual / theoretical frame-works. Thus, in as much as one’s theoretical / con-ceptual framework serves as spectacles throughwhich to see the world, at the same time, it placesboundaries on one’s vision and horizons.

A further point is that although both con-ceptual and theoretical frameworks serve thepurposes as specified above, there are differ-ences between them, conceptually, methodolog-ically and with regard to the scope of their appli-cation.

REFERENCES

Borgatti SP 1999. Elements of Research. From< http://www.analytictech.com/mb313/elements.htm.> (Re-trieved on August 17, 2010).

Chinn PL, Kramer MK 1999. Theory and Nursing: ASystematic Approach. 5th Edition. St Louis, USA:Mosby.

Cline D 2002. Logical Structure, Theoretical Frame-work. EducationLeadership Center for Excellence.From <Http://Education.Astate.Edu.> (Retrievedon 18 October 2011).

Coetzee A 2009. Overcoming Alternative ConceptionsConcerning Interference and Diffraction of Waves.DEd Thesis. Pretoria: Tshwane University of Tech-nology.

Denzin NK 1978. The Research Act: A TheoreticalIntroduction to Sociological Methods. New York:Praeger.

Dzurec LC, Abraham JL 1993. The nature of inquiry:Linking quantitative and qualitative research. Ad-vances in Nursing Science, 16: 73-79.

Fox W, Bayat MS 2007. A Guide to Managing Re-search. Cape Town: JUTA and Co Ltd. Shredding.

Guba EG, Lincoln YS 2005. Paradigmatic controver-sies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In:NK Denzin, YS Lincoln (Eds.): The Sage Hand-book of Qualitative Research. 3 rd Edition. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 191-215.

Hawking S 1988. A Brief History of Time: The Updatedand Expanded Tenth Anniversary Edition. New York:Bantam Press.

Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ 2004. Mixed methodsresearch: A research paradigm whose time has come.Educational Researcher, 33(7): 14-26.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:24

11

Janu

ary

2018

THEORETICAL VERSUS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 195

Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA 2007. To-ward a definition of mixed methods research. Jour-nal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2): 112-133.

Liehr P, Smith MJ 1999. Middle range theory: Spin-ning research and practice to create knowledge forthe new millennium. Advances in Nursing Science,21(4): 81-91.

Schwandt TA 2000. Three epistemological stances forqualitative inquiry. In: NK Denzin, YS Lincoln (Eds.):Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2 nd Edition.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 189-213.

Smith MJ 2008. Disciplinary perspectives linked tomiddle range theory. In: MJ Smith, PR Liehr (Eds.):Middle Range Theory for Nursing. 2nd Edition, NewYork: Springer Publishing Company, pp. 3-14.

Smith MJ, Liehr P 1999. Attentively embracing story:A middle-range theory with practice and researchimplications. Research and Theory for Nursing Prac-tice, 13(3): 187-204.

Strauss A, Corbin J 1998. Basics of Qualitative Re-search: Techniques and Procedures for DevelopingGrounded Theory. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Wacker JG 1998. A definition of theory: Researchguidelines for different theory-building researchmethods in operations management. Journal ofOperations Management, 16: 361-385.

Weisenmiller M 2008. Florida Considers Laws Support-ing “Intelligent Design”. Teaching, Monitor, Issue169, August7. From <http://www. albionmonitor. com/0805a/copyright/floridaintelligentdesign. html.>

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:24

11

Janu

ary

2018