Category: Uncategorized

Before describing what makes a ‘Theoretical Framework’ and a ‘Conceptual Framework’ so different when it comes to research, one needs to gain clarity as to what we exactly mean when we talk about a ‘Research Framework’.

A research framework is the particular perspective or point of view, in accordance to which a researcher conducts his research analysis. A researcher makes use of a research framework to guide him in exploring and interpreting his data and in finally arriving at desired results. Once a researcher’s data is in order, a framework of a research is used to reflect back and check whether the derived results agree with the chosen framework or if there are any discrepancies or gaps.

Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Framework;

While the two terms, Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Framework are used interchangeably at times, they vastly differ.

Let me explain with the help of an example:

Statement 1: A stimulus to any living organism causes a response.

Statement 2: The smell of freshly cooked and tasty food makes us hungry.

Statement 1

Statement 1 is analogous to what we call a ‘Theoretical framework’. A theoretical framework is a much broader and less specific term that explains how the research is guided and what it is loosely based on. This kind of a framework highlights what wide assumptions a researcher is carrying out his study on. It mostly provides a starting point for critical analysis that makes readers aware, as to what all previous knowledge the impending research draws from.

Just like a theory is much wider in scope, a theoretical framework is also a broader term.

Another important feature of a theoretical framework is the fact that it is less technical in nature and mostly a structure of ideas that study will be based on. Theories are made up of various concepts and the relationships between them that help in explaining or predicting other events phenomenon and behaviors. For example, the theory of evolution, set theory etc. In a similar manner, a theoretical framework consists of the theories a particular report derives from that will further help in explaining results.

Statement 2

Statement 2 however, is much more specific in nature and talks exclusively about a particular relationship between certain defined things. This statement derives its meaning from the first statement, but it vastly differs in terms of scope. Statement 2 is hence analogous to a ‘Conceptual Framework’. A conceptual framework of a study is the set of various specific concepts and their relationships that guide the analysis. However, a conceptual framework can derive its meaning from various theories at once.

One can say that a conceptual framework describes the relationships between specific variables identified in the study and traces the entire input-process-output for the same. A conceptual framework forms the research paradigm or the entire model for a research.

To summarize:

Recently I had a fellow PhD supervisor asking to help solve a dilemma. He was examining a thesis and majority of the literature was over 10 years old. He was concerned if this would pose a problem? I had to give my opinion and this is what I had to say.

Firstly, I had to agree to my examiner as in the field of science this was always a problem because the task of building knowledge is usually taken to be iterative as research builds on what has gone before. It is inevitable to incorporate old research in PhD that is the science domain. But you cannot say that the same concern doesn’t appear in the social sciences. Even in the social sciences, it is a big problem. Ironically if the situation is reverse and the scholar has incorporated only new research, it can also be worrying because the foundation elements from prior research can get ignored. So, what do we think is the way out?

My view point said that having “vintage “ literature or “off the press” literature are both concerns to be dealt with and perturb the examiners to the point where they need to ask the scholars to start reworking on it. As a scholar, you must first:

1. Locate the work in the field: Most of the fields of study have been existing for quite a while. This can be said barring few exceptions which also are usually the extensions of some existing fields only. The expectations of the examiner are that the scholar understands the developments in the field and the problem that is being researched upon is situated historically and is not just topical or holds relevance on for now. The problem should be supported by the ongoing debates. So the Literature Review should be a good blend of the old as well as new researchers so that the roots, as well as the contemporary relevance are well established for the examiner to see and understand.

2. Place the contribution you are going to make: Scholarly activities thrive on crowded territories and someone or the other is all the time making a relevant contribution. Reviewing the contribution doesn’t just mean coming terms with history. It also men getting a grip with the present and trends the way they have changed over the time.

I suggested my fellow mate that there is no formula or recipe to help in deciding “ how old” or “how fresh” literature can be incorporated. It is subjective to the filed and the topic as well. Too old and too new are both cases of worry. The best way out is to find the right blend of vintage and contemporary literature.