theory for dissertation

• How it works

Theoretical Framework for Dissertation – What and How

Published by Anastasia Lois at August 13th, 2021 , Revised On August 22, 2023

The theoretical framework is one of the most infamous aspects of a  dissertation , but it provides a strong scientific research base. You are likely to produce a first-class dissertation if the theoretical framework is appropriate and well-thought-out.

But what is a theoretical framework? And how do you develop a theoretical framework for your dissertation?

Content for Theoretical Framework

Your theoretical framework of a dissertation should incorporate existing theories that are relevant to your study. It will also include defining the terms mentioned in the hypothesis ,  research questions , and problem statement . All these concepts should be clearly identified as the first step.

Theoretical Framework Goals

• You will need to identify the ideas and theories used for your chosen subject topic once you have determined the  problem statement and research questions .
• You can frame your study by presenting the theoretical framework, reflecting that you have enough knowledge about your topic, relevant models, and theories.
• The theories you choose to investigate will provide direction to your research, and you can continue to make informed choices at  different stages of the dissertation writing process .
• The theoretical framework bases are the scientific theories that justify your research; therefore, you must use them appropriately for referencing your investigation.

1. Select Key Concepts Sample problem statement and research questions: According to the company X report, many customers do not return after an online purchase. The company director wants to improve customer satisfaction and loyalty to achieve the long-term goal of the company. To investigate this issue, the researcher can base their research around the following problem statement, objective, and research questions: Problem: Many customers do not return after an online purchase. Objective: To improve customer satisfaction and thereby achieve long-term goals. Research question: How can online customers’ loyalty increase by increasing customer satisfaction? Sub-Questions: 1. How can you relate customer satisfaction with customer loyalty? 2. How are the online customers of company X loyal and satisfied at present? 3. What are the factors affecting online customers’ loyalty and satisfaction? The satisfaction and loyalty concepts are critical to this research; therefore, will be determined as part of this study. These are the key terms that will have to be defined in the theoretical framework for the dissertation.

2. Define and Evaluate Relevant Concepts, Theories, and Models

You will be required to review existing relevant literature to determine how other researchers have defined the key terms in the past. The definitions proposed by different scholars can then be compared critically and analytically. The last step is to choose the best concepts and their definitions matching your case.

It is also necessary to identify the relationships between the terms. Whether you are applying or not applying the existing concepts and models in your study, you will need to present your arguments and justify your choices.

3. Adding Value to the Existing Knowledge

In addition to analyzing concepts and theories proposed by other theorists, you might also want to demonstrate how your own research will contribute to the existing knowledge. Here are some questions for you to consider in this regard;

• Are you going to contribute new evidence through  primary research or testing an existing theory?
• Will you understand and interpret data with the help of a theory?
• Do you wish to challenge, critique, or evaluate an existing theory?
• Is there a new exclusive method through which you will combine different theories proposed by other scholars?

Types of Research Questions you can Answer

The descriptive research questions only use the theoretical framework because their answer requires literature research. For instance, ‘how can you relate customer satisfaction with customer loyalty?’ A single theory can answer this question sufficiently.

The sub-question, ‘How the online customers of company X are loyal and satisfied at present?’ cannot be answered theoretically because it requires qualitative and quantitative research data.

Theoretical Framework Structure

There is no fixed pattern to structure the  theoretical framework for the dissertation . However, you can create a logical structure by drawing on your hypothesis/research question and defining important terms.

For instance, write a paragraph containing key terms, hypotheses, or research questions and explain the relevant models and theories.

Also See:  Organizing Academic Research Papers: Theoretical Framework

Length of Theoretical Framework of Dissertation

The length of the theoretical framework is usually three to five pages. You can also include the graphical framework to give your readers a clear insight into your theoretical framework. For instance, below is the graphical figure of an example theoretical framework for classroom management.

Sample Theoretical Framework of a Dissertation

Here is a  theoretical framework example to provide you with a sense of the essential parts of the dissertation.

How can ResearchProspect Help?

ResearchProspect is a UK-registered firm that provides academic support to students around the world.

We specialize in completing design projects,  literature reviews ,  essays ,  reports ,  coursework ,  exam notes ,  statistical analysis , primary and empirical research,  dissertations , case studies,  academic posters , and much more.

Getting help from our expert academics is quick and simple. All you have to do is complete our online order form and get your paper delivered to your email address well before your due deadline.

Looking for dissertation help?

Researchprospect to the rescue then.

We have expert writers on our team who are skilled at helping students with dissertations across a variety of disciplines. Guaranteeing 100% satisfaction!

Frequently Asked Questions

How do i choose a theoretical framework for my dissertation.

To choose a theoretical framework for your dissertation:

• Define research objectives.
• Identify relevant disciplines.
• Review existing theories.
• Select one aligning with your topic.
• Consider its applicability.
• Justify your choice based on relevance and depth.

You May Also Like

A literature review is a survey of theses, articles, books and other academic sources. Here are guidelines on how to write dissertation literature review.

Not sure how to start your dissertation and get it right the first time? Here are some tips and guidelines for you to kick start your dissertation project.

This article is a step-by-step guide to how to write statement of a problem in research. The research problem will be half-solved by defining it correctly.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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). 

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

• Translators
• Graphic Designers

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

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.

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.

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

The Concluding Paragraph: How to End Your Essay

How to Prove a Thesis Statement: Analyzing an Argument

• 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is a conceptual framework?

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

Steps to develop a conceptual framework

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

Types of variables

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

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

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

Example of a conceptual framework

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

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

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

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

What is a theoretical framework?

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

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

Purpose of a theoretical framework

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

Steps to develop a theoretical framework

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

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

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

Structuring a theoretical framework

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

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

Example of a theoretical framework

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

Company X is not achieving their monthly sales targets

To increase monthly sales.

Research question:

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

Sub-questions:

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

Theoretical framework:

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

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

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

Editor’s pick

Get free updates.

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

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

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

What is the difference between mediating versus moderating variables? +

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

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

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

• 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

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?

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

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Theoretical Framework
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical bounded assumptions or predictions of behavior. The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study. The theoretical framework encompasses not just the theory, but the narrative explanation about how the researcher engages in using the theory and its underlying assumptions to investigate the research problem. It is the structure of your paper that summarizes concepts, ideas, and theories derived from prior research studies and which was synthesized in order to form a conceptual basis for your analysis and interpretation of meaning found within your research.

Abend, Gabriel. "The Meaning of Theory." Sociological Theory 26 (June 2008): 173–199; Kivunja, Charles. "Distinguishing between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual Framework: A Systematic Review of Lessons from the Field." International Journal of Higher Education 7 (December 2018): 44-53; Swanson, Richard A. Theory Building in Applied Disciplines . San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers 2013; Varpio, Lara, Elise Paradis, Sebastian Uijtdehaage, and Meredith Young. "The Distinctions between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual Framework." Academic Medicine 95 (July 2020): 989-994.

Importance of Theory and a Theoretical Framework

Theories can be unfamiliar to the beginning researcher because they are rarely applied in high school social studies curriculum and, as a result, can come across as unfamiliar and imprecise when first introduced as part of a writing assignment. However, in their most simplified form, a theory is simply a set of assumptions or predictions about something you think will happen based on existing evidence and that can be tested to see if those outcomes turn out to be true. Of course, it is slightly more deliberate than that, therefore, summarized from Kivunja (2018, p. 46), here are the essential characteristics of a theory.

• It is logical and coherent
• It has clear definitions of terms or variables, and has boundary conditions [i.e., it is not an open-ended statement]
• It has a domain where it applies
• It has clearly described relationships among variables
• It describes, explains, and makes specific predictions
• It comprises of concepts, themes, principles, and constructs
• It must have been based on empirical data [i.e., it is not a guess]
• It must have made claims that are subject to testing, been tested and verified
• It must be clear and concise
• Its assertions or predictions must be different and better than those in existing theories
• Its predictions must be general enough to be applicable to and understood within multiple contexts
• Its assertions or predictions are relevant, and if applied as predicted, will result in the predicted outcome
• The assertions and predictions are not immutable, but subject to revision and improvement as researchers use the theory to make sense of phenomena
• Its concepts and principles explain what is going on and why
• Its concepts and principles are substantive enough to enable us to predict a future

Given these characteristics, a theory can best be understood as the foundation from which you investigate assumptions or predictions derived from previous studies about the research problem, but in a way that leads to new knowledge and understanding as well as, in some cases, discovering how to improve the relevance of the theory itself or to argue that the theory is outdated and a new theory needs to be formulated based on new evidence.

A theoretical framework consists of concepts and, together with their definitions and reference to relevant scholarly literature, existing theory that is 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 relate to the broader areas of knowledge being considered.

The theoretical framework is most often not something readily found within the literature . You must review course readings and pertinent research studies 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 intellectually transition from simply describing a phenomenon you have observed to generalizing about various aspects of that phenomenon.
• Having a theory helps you identify the limits to those generalizations. A theoretical framework specifies which key variables influence a phenomenon of interest and highlights the need to examine how those key variables might differ and under what circumstances.
• The theoretical framework adds context around the theory itself based on how scholars had previously tested the theory in relation their overall research design [i.e., purpose of the study, methods of collecting data or information, methods of analysis, the time frame in which information is collected, study setting, and the methodological strategy used to conduct the research].

By virtue of its applicative nature, good theory in the social sciences is of value precisely because it fulfills one primary purpose: to explain the meaning, nature, and challenges associated with 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; Corvellec, Hervé, ed. What is Theory?: Answers from the Social and Cultural Sciences . Stockholm: Copenhagen Business School Press, 2013; Asher, Herbert B. Theory-Building and Data Analysis in the Social Sciences . Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1984; Drafting an Argument. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Kivunja, Charles. "Distinguishing between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual Framework: A Systematic Review of Lessons from the Field." International Journal of Higher Education 7 (2018): 44-53; Omodan, Bunmi Isaiah. "A Model for Selecting Theoretical Framework through Epistemology of Research Paradigms." African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies 4 (2022): 275-285; Ravitch, Sharon M. and Matthew Riggan. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research . Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2017; Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006; Jarvis, Peter. The Practitioner-Researcher. Developing Theory from Practice . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1999.

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 about 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 how scholars have addressed your research problem. Identify the assumptions from which the author(s) addressed the problem.
• List  the constructs and variables that might be relevant to your study. Group these variables into independent and dependent categories.
• Review key social science theories that are introduced to you in your course readings and choose the theory 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. It also facilitates the understanding of concepts and variables according to given definitions and builds new 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 that 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,
• Ways of discerning certain facts among the accumulated knowledge that 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 the 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; Jacard, James and Jacob Jacoby. Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists . New York: Guilford, 2010; Ravitch, Sharon M. and Matthew Riggan. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research . Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2017; 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, your work is expected to test the validity of that 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 among 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 disputed split between southern and northern Sudan that led 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 . Based upon the above example, it is perhaps easiest to understand the nature and function of a theoretical framework if it is viewed as an 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.e., justify the application of your choice of a particular theory and explain why alternative constructs were rejected. I could choose instead 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 .

Just as a research problem in your paper requires contextualization and background information, a theory requires a framework for understanding its application to the topic being investigated. When writing and revising 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 . As noted in the example above, 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 theory you've chosen is the appropriate one.
• The present tense is used when writing about theory. Although the past tense can be used to describe the history of a theory or the role of key theorists, the construction of your theoretical framework is happening now.
• 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 limitations of the theoretical framework you've chosen [i.e., what parts of the research problem require further investigation because the theory inadequately explains 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); Ravitch, Sharon M. and Matthew Riggan. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research . Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2017; Reyes, Victoria. Demystifying the Journal Article. Inside Higher Education; Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006; Weick, Karl E. “The Work of Theorizing.” In Theorizing in Social Science: The Context of Discovery . Richard Swedberg, editor. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2014), pp. 177-194.

Writing Tip

Borrowing Theoretical Constructs from Other Disciplines

An increasingly important trend in the social and behavioral sciences is to think about and attempt to understand research problems from an interdisciplinary perspective. One way to do this is to not rely exclusively on the theories developed within your particular discipline, 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 incumbents 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 more engaged in the research topic.

CohenMiller, A. S. and P. Elizabeth Pate. "A Model for Developing Interdisciplinary Research Theoretical Frameworks." The Qualitative Researcher 24 (2019): 1211-1226; Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Undertheorize!

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

The terms theory and hypothesis are often used interchangeably in newspapers and popular magazines and in non-academic settings. However, the difference between theory and hypothesis 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 assumptions that are widely accepted [e.g., rational choice theory; grounded theory; critical race 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 a set of 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.

Still Yet Another Writing Tip

Be Prepared to Challenge the Validity of an Existing Theory

Theories are meant to be tested and their underlying assumptions challenged; they are not rigid or intransigent, but are meant to set forth general principles for explaining phenomena or predicting outcomes. Given this, testing theoretical assumptions is an important way that knowledge in any discipline develops and grows. If you're asked to apply an existing theory to a research problem, the analysis will likely include the expectation by your professor that you should offer modifications to the theory based on your research findings.

Indications that theoretical assumptions may need to be modified can include the following:

• Your findings suggest that the theory does not explain or account for current conditions or circumstances or the passage of time,
• The study reveals a finding that is incompatible with what the theory attempts to explain or predict, or
• Your analysis reveals that the theory overly generalizes behaviors or actions without taking into consideration specific factors revealed from your analysis [e.g., factors related to culture, nationality, history, gender, ethnicity, age, geographic location, legal norms or customs , religion, social class, socioeconomic status, etc.].

Philipsen, Kristian. "Theory Building: Using Abductive Search Strategies." In Collaborative Research Design: Working with Business for Meaningful Findings . Per Vagn Freytag and Louise Young, editors. (Singapore: Springer Nature, 2018), pp. 45-71; Shepherd, Dean A. and Roy Suddaby. "Theory Building: A Review and Integration." Journal of Management 43 (2017): 59-86.

• << Previous: The Research Problem/Question
• Next: 5. The Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: May 18, 2024 11:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Current Issue
• Journal Archive
• Current Call

Search form

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

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:

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?

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.

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

• Cookies & Privacy
• GETTING STARTED
• Introduction
• FUNDAMENTALS

Getting to the main article

Choosing your route

Setting research questions/ hypotheses

Assessment point

Building the theoretical case

Setting your research strategy

Data collection

Data analysis

Set the theoretical model for your dissertation

By this point in STAGE FIVE , you should understand the broader literature within which your main journal article and chosen route fit (i.e., STEP ONE ), have critically evaluated the main journal article and its components parts (i.e., STEP TWO ), and have justified the route you have chosen, and the approach within that route (i.e., STEP THREE ). It is now time to use this knowledge to set the theoretical model for your dissertation (i.e., STEP FOUR ). However, if you are not answering a relationship-based hypothesis/research question in your dissertation, you can jump to STEP FIVE , since the theoretical models that we show you in this step are not suitable for descriptive research questions or comparative hypotheses/research questions [see STAGE THREE: Setting research questions and/or hypotheses if you can't remember if the difference between these types of research questions/hypotheses].

Supervisors and/or dissertation guidelines often suggest (or state) that you need to include a conceptual framework or theoretical model in your dissertation. These are similar in the sense that both conceptual frameworks and theoretical models help readers to quickly understand the main theory (or theories) that are you are interested in, the principal concepts/constructs you examining/measuring, how you think that these different theories and concepts/constructs might interact, amongst other goals that we discuss later in this article. The terms conceptual framework and theoretical model are often used interchangeably, but we prefer to view conceptual frameworks as a tool more often used in qualitative research , with theoretical models being something that we try to build in quantitative research .

Theoretical models are useful in order to: (a) set the boundaries/scope of the research project in terms of the theories and constructs that will be studied and measured; (b) illustrate the research hypotheses to be tested, and the predictions that are being made (if any) about the relationship between the constructs under study; and (c) provide a roadmap at the end of your Literature Review chapter (usually Chapter Two: Literature Review ), which brings together your research hypotheses, theories, and constructs that have been critically discussed in a way that can be clearly tested. Ultimately, theoretical models are useful frameworks for you and the people reading your dissertation, helping to describe what you are studying in a clear, succinct, and visual way. They provide an overall picture of what you research is trying to achieve.

Unfortunately, theoretical models are often poorly constructed because they fail to illustrate the links between theory, the constructs you should have identified, and the hypotheses (and their predictions, if any) that you will have constructed. However, by the end of STEP FOUR , you should be able to adopt or modify the theoretical model put forward in the main journal article, or create a new theoretical model from scratch.

If you are following Route A: Duplication or Route B: Generalisation , you should be able to adopt , or at most modify the theoretical model put forward in the main journal article. However, if (a) a theoretical model is not included in the main journal article, (b) the theoretical model proposed is unclear, or (c) you are following Route C: Extension , you may need to create your own theoretical model. If you plan to simply adopt the theoretical model put forward in the main journal article, you can skip STEP FOUR and move onto STAGE SIX: Setting your research strategy . However, to learn more about modifying such a theoretical model, and moreover, creating a theoretical model, follow the four steps below:

• STEP ONE: Identify the constructs you intend to study (and the theories that underpin them)
• STEP TWO: Understand what your hypotheses tell you about how these constructs are related
• STEP THREE: Decide how you want to organise your constructs
• STEP FOUR: Putting your diagram (i.e., your theoretical model) together

• Library databases
• Library website

Theories and Frameworks: Discover Theories

Where to start.

There are many ways to find theories that are relevant to your coursework and research.

To look for a theory for a discussion post or assignment, these strategies are a good place to start.

• Try searching encyclopedias and books for the concept or subject area you're interested .  Review the entries and look for a section on theories.
• Another strategy is to search scholarly articles on your topic to see what theories are being used in the literature.

Dissertation and Doctoral Studies

Finding a theory for a capstone is a more involved process because the theory must align with your specific research problem. You may find it necessary to use most or all of the search strategies and tools in this guide. 

• A good place to start is by searching your topic in completed dissertations since theory and its alignment with the research problem is often discussed in more depth than in a published research article.
• Encyclopedias, books, and scholarly articles are also useful sources.

Encyclopedias & books

Encyclopedias and handbooks.

Scholarly encyclopedias and handbooks are great places to find information on theories. The Library has two encyclopedia databases: Sage Knowledge and Gale eBooks. 

Try the following search strategies when searching encyclopedias and handbooks. Review the book's table of contents or index for sections on theory.

• Search for the subject area you're interested in such as  education
• Search for the specific concept you're interested in such as  mentoring
• Experiment with different search terms such as  mentoring  or  employee mentoring  or  mentoring theory

The Library also has scholarly books that are available in full text and are another great resource. Search your topic as you would for scholarly articles (one idea/concept per search box). Use the "Advanced search" link and enter your topic in the first search box; in the second search box, experiment with adding  theory OR theories.  

• SAGE Knowledge This database contains encyclopedias and handbooks in over 20 different subject areas.
• Gale eBooks The collection has encyclopedias and specialized reference resources.
• Walden Library Books Find books available in the Walden Library.

Scholarly articles

Searching your topic in the scholarly literature will give you an idea of what theories have been used in the research related to your topic. Take notes on the theories being used so you can investigate them later in more depth. 

Use the Library databases to research theories related to your topic. EXAMPLE: Search articles on mentoring new teachers.  

• Use the drop-down menu to choose the subject related to your topic. EXAMPLE: Education  
• Click on the databases drop-down menu to choose a database related to your search. EXAMPLE: in the Education Databases drop-down menu, choose  Education Source . You may need to log in with your Walden email and password.

• Review the results and browse the subject terms under each article in the results list as well as the article's abstract to identify articles of interest. Browse those articles for potential theories by scanning the introduction, literature review, and sections titled theoretical or conceptual framework.

Dissertations

Similar to searching scholarly articles, searching completed dissertations and doctoral studies related to your topic can help you locate theories that may align with your own research. You can also review their references to see what theories are being used in those articles. Search your topic as you would for scholarly articles (one idea/concept per search box).

• Dissertations & Theses @ Walden University The database contains full text of dissertations and theses written by Walden students.
• ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global The Dissertations and Theses database gives you full text access to over 3 million dissertations and theses from schools and universities around the world, including Walden dissertations. You can choose to search either all the dissertations and theses, or just those created at Walden.

Search dissertations or doctoral studies by degree:

• Quick Answer: How do I find Walden Ph.D. dissertations?
• Quick Answer: What degree codes are used to find completed Walden capstones or dissertations?

Google Scholar

Google Scholar is another option for exploring theories since it searches broadly across publisher's websites, repositories, and other libraries. Remember, you cannot limit to peer review or full text. By using the Walden Library's pre-configured Google Scholar search, you can quickly see which articles are available in the Walden Library.

For example, a theory search in Google Scholar for mentoring first year teachers might look like this: 

• Click  the  Search  button.
• Review the results list for relevant articles. Search terms will be bolded. Articles available online or in the Walden Library will have a link next to the article. Learn about accessing full text articles through the Find @ Walden button.

Learn more about searching Google Scholar

• Google Scholar Library Guide
• Previous Page: Introduction
• Next Page: Learn About a Theory
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

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

Centers and Offices

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

Student Resources

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

Example Theoretical Framework of a Dissertation or Thesis

Published on 8 July 2022 by Sarah Vinz . Revised on 10 October 2022.

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

A strong theoretical framework gives your research direction, allowing you to convincingly interpret, explain, and generalise from your findings.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

Sample problem statement and research questions, sample theoretical framework, your theoretical framework, frequently asked questions about sample theoretical frameworks.

Your theoretical framework is based on:

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

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

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

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

Some sub-questions could include:

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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.

Correct my document today

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

Customer satisfaction

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

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

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

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

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

Thomassen’s Customer Satisfaction Model

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

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

Figure 1 Customer satisfaction creation 

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

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.

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 .

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.

Vinz, S. (2022, October 10). Example Theoretical Framework of a Dissertation or Thesis. Scribbr. Retrieved 14 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/example-theoretical-framework/

Is this article helpful?

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

Other students also liked

What is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, dissertation & thesis outline | example & free templates, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

Dissertation Structure & Layout 101: How to structure your dissertation, thesis or research project.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) Reviewed By: David Phair (PhD) | July 2019

So, you’ve got a decent understanding of what a dissertation is , you’ve chosen your topic and hopefully you’ve received approval for your research proposal . Awesome! Now its time to start the actual dissertation or thesis writing journey.

To craft a high-quality document, the very first thing you need to understand is dissertation structure . In this post, we’ll walk you through the generic dissertation structure and layout, step by step. We’ll start with the big picture, and then zoom into each chapter to briefly discuss the core contents. If you’re just starting out on your research journey, you should start with this post, which covers the big-picture process of how to write a dissertation or thesis .

*The Caveat *

In this post, we’ll be discussing a traditional dissertation/thesis structure and layout, which is generally used for social science research across universities, whether in the US, UK, Europe or Australia. However, some universities may have small variations on this structure (extra chapters, merged chapters, slightly different ordering, etc).

So, always check with your university if they have a prescribed structure or layout that they expect you to work with. If not, it’s safe to assume the structure we’ll discuss here is suitable. And even if they do have a prescribed structure, you’ll still get value from this post as we’ll explain the core contents of each section.  

Overview: S tructuring a dissertation or thesis

• Acknowledgements page
• Abstract (or executive summary)
• Table of contents , list of figures and tables
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Literature review
• Chapter 3: Methodology
• Chapter 4: Results
• Chapter 5: Discussion
• Chapter 6: Conclusion
• Reference list

As I mentioned, some universities will have slight variations on this structure. For example, they want an additional “personal reflection chapter”, or they might prefer the results and discussion chapter to be merged into one. Regardless, the overarching flow will always be the same, as this flow reflects the research process , which we discussed here – i.e.:

• The introduction chapter presents the core research question and aims .
• The literature review chapter assesses what the current research says about this question.
• The methodology, results and discussion chapters go about undertaking new research about this question.
• The conclusion chapter (attempts to) answer the core research question .

In other words, the dissertation structure and layout reflect the research process of asking a well-defined question(s), investigating, and then answering the question – see below.

To restate that – the structure and layout of a dissertation reflect the flow of the overall research process . This is essential to understand, as each chapter will make a lot more sense if you “get” this concept. If you’re not familiar with the research process, read this post before going further.

Right. Now that we’ve covered the big picture, let’s dive a little deeper into the details of each section and chapter. Oh and by the way, you can also grab our free dissertation/thesis template here to help speed things up.

The title page of your dissertation is the very first impression the marker will get of your work, so it pays to invest some time thinking about your title. But what makes for a good title? A strong title needs to be 3 things:

• Succinct (not overly lengthy or verbose)
• Specific (not vague or ambiguous)
• Representative of the research you’re undertaking (clearly linked to your research questions)

Typically, a good title includes mention of the following:

• The broader area of the research (i.e. the overarching topic)
• The specific focus of your research (i.e. your specific context)
• Indication of research design (e.g. quantitative , qualitative , or  mixed methods ).

For example:

A quantitative investigation [research design] into the antecedents of organisational trust [broader area] in the UK retail forex trading market [specific context/area of focus].

Again, some universities may have specific requirements regarding the format and structure of the title, so it’s worth double-checking expectations with your institution (if there’s no mention in the brief or study material).

Acknowledgements

This page provides you with an opportunity to say thank you to those who helped you along your research journey. Generally, it’s optional (and won’t count towards your marks), but it is academic best practice to include this.

So, who do you say thanks to? Well, there’s no prescribed requirements, but it’s common to mention the following people:

• Your dissertation supervisor or committee.
• Any professors, lecturers or academics that helped you understand the topic or methodologies.
• Any tutors, mentors or advisors.
• Your family and friends, especially spouse (for adult learners studying part-time).

There’s no need for lengthy rambling. Just state who you’re thankful to and for what (e.g. thank you to my supervisor, John Doe, for his endless patience and attentiveness) – be sincere. In terms of length, you should keep this to a page or less.

Abstract or executive summary

The dissertation abstract (or executive summary for some degrees) serves to provide the first-time reader (and marker or moderator) with a big-picture view of your research project. It should give them an understanding of the key insights and findings from the research, without them needing to read the rest of the report – in other words, it should be able to stand alone .

For it to stand alone, your abstract should cover the following key points (at a minimum):

• Your research questions and aims – what key question(s) did your research aim to answer?
• Your methodology – how did you go about investigating the topic and finding answers to your research question(s)?
• Your findings – following your own research, what did do you discover?
• Your conclusions – based on your findings, what conclusions did you draw? What answers did you find to your research question(s)?

So, in much the same way the dissertation structure mimics the research process, your abstract or executive summary should reflect the research process, from the initial stage of asking the original question to the final stage of answering that question.

In practical terms, it’s a good idea to write this section up last , once all your core chapters are complete. Otherwise, you’ll end up writing and rewriting this section multiple times (just wasting time). For a step by step guide on how to write a strong executive summary, check out this post .

Need a helping hand?

Table of contents

This section is straightforward. You’ll typically present your table of contents (TOC) first, followed by the two lists – figures and tables. I recommend that you use Microsoft Word’s automatic table of contents generator to generate your TOC. If you’re not familiar with this functionality, the video below explains it simply:

If you find that your table of contents is overly lengthy, consider removing one level of depth. Oftentimes, this can be done without detracting from the usefulness of the TOC.

Right, now that the “admin” sections are out of the way, its time to move on to your core chapters. These chapters are the heart of your dissertation and are where you’ll earn the marks. The first chapter is the introduction chapter – as you would expect, this is the time to introduce your research…

It’s important to understand that even though you’ve provided an overview of your research in your abstract, your introduction needs to be written as if the reader has not read that (remember, the abstract is essentially a standalone document). So, your introduction chapter needs to start from the very beginning, and should address the following questions:

• What will you be investigating (in plain-language, big picture-level)?
• Why is that worth investigating? How is it important to academia or business? How is it sufficiently original?
• What are your research aims and research question(s)? Note that the research questions can sometimes be presented at the end of the literature review (next chapter).
• What is the scope of your study? In other words, what will and won’t you cover ?
• How will you approach your research? In other words, what methodology will you adopt?
• How will you structure your dissertation? What are the core chapters and what will you do in each of them?

These are just the bare basic requirements for your intro chapter. Some universities will want additional bells and whistles in the intro chapter, so be sure to carefully read your brief or consult your research supervisor.

If done right, your introduction chapter will set a clear direction for the rest of your dissertation. Specifically, it will make it clear to the reader (and marker) exactly what you’ll be investigating, why that’s important, and how you’ll be going about the investigation. Conversely, if your introduction chapter leaves a first-time reader wondering what exactly you’ll be researching, you’ve still got some work to do.

Now that you’ve set a clear direction with your introduction chapter, the next step is the literature review . In this section, you will analyse the existing research (typically academic journal articles and high-quality industry publications), with a view to understanding the following questions:

• What does the literature currently say about the topic you’re investigating?
• Is the literature lacking or well established? Is it divided or in disagreement?
• How does your research fit into the bigger picture?
• How does your research contribute something original?
• How does the methodology of previous studies help you develop your own?

Depending on the nature of your study, you may also present a conceptual framework towards the end of your literature review, which you will then test in your actual research.

Again, some universities will want you to focus on some of these areas more than others, some will have additional or fewer requirements, and so on. Therefore, as always, its important to review your brief and/or discuss with your supervisor, so that you know exactly what’s expected of your literature review chapter.

Now that you’ve investigated the current state of knowledge in your literature review chapter and are familiar with the existing key theories, models and frameworks, its time to design your own research. Enter the methodology chapter – the most “science-ey” of the chapters…

In this chapter, you need to address two critical questions:

• Exactly HOW will you carry out your research (i.e. what is your intended research design)?
• Exactly WHY have you chosen to do things this way (i.e. how do you justify your design)?

Remember, the dissertation part of your degree is first and foremost about developing and demonstrating research skills . Therefore, the markers want to see that you know which methods to use, can clearly articulate why you’ve chosen then, and know how to deploy them effectively.

Importantly, this chapter requires detail – don’t hold back on the specifics. State exactly what you’ll be doing, with who, when, for how long, etc. Moreover, for every design choice you make, make sure you justify it.

In practice, you will likely end up coming back to this chapter once you’ve undertaken all your data collection and analysis, and revise it based on changes you made during the analysis phase. This is perfectly fine. Its natural for you to add an additional analysis technique, scrap an old one, etc based on where your data lead you. Of course, I’m talking about small changes here – not a fundamental switch from qualitative to quantitative, which will likely send your supervisor in a spin!

You’ve now collected your data and undertaken your analysis, whether qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. In this chapter, you’ll present the raw results of your analysis . For example, in the case of a quant study, you’ll present the demographic data, descriptive statistics, inferential statistics , etc.

Typically, Chapter 4 is simply a presentation and description of the data, not a discussion of the meaning of the data. In other words, it’s descriptive, rather than analytical – the meaning is discussed in Chapter 5. However, some universities will want you to combine chapters 4 and 5, so that you both present and interpret the meaning of the data at the same time. Check with your institution what their preference is.

Now that you’ve presented the data analysis results, its time to interpret and analyse them. In other words, its time to discuss what they mean, especially in relation to your research question(s).

What you discuss here will depend largely on your chosen methodology. For example, if you’ve gone the quantitative route, you might discuss the relationships between variables . If you’ve gone the qualitative route, you might discuss key themes and the meanings thereof. It all depends on what your research design choices were.

Most importantly, you need to discuss your results in relation to your research questions and aims, as well as the existing literature. What do the results tell you about your research questions? Are they aligned with the existing research or at odds? If so, why might this be? Dig deep into your findings and explain what the findings suggest, in plain English.

The final chapter – you’ve made it! Now that you’ve discussed your interpretation of the results, its time to bring it back to the beginning with the conclusion chapter . In other words, its time to (attempt to) answer your original research question s (from way back in chapter 1). Clearly state what your conclusions are in terms of your research questions. This might feel a bit repetitive, as you would have touched on this in the previous chapter, but its important to bring the discussion full circle and explicitly state your answer(s) to the research question(s).

Next, you’ll typically discuss the implications of your findings . In other words, you’ve answered your research questions – but what does this mean for the real world (or even for academia)? What should now be done differently, given the new insight you’ve generated?

Lastly, you should discuss the limitations of your research, as well as what this means for future research in the area. No study is perfect, especially not a Masters-level. Discuss the shortcomings of your research. Perhaps your methodology was limited, perhaps your sample size was small or not representative, etc, etc. Don’t be afraid to critique your work – the markers want to see that you can identify the limitations of your work. This is a strength, not a weakness. Be brutal!

This marks the end of your core chapters – woohoo! From here on out, it’s pretty smooth sailing.

The reference list is straightforward. It should contain a list of all resources cited in your dissertation, in the required format, e.g. APA , Harvard, etc.

It’s essential that you use reference management software for your dissertation. Do NOT try handle your referencing manually – its far too error prone. On a reference list of multiple pages, you’re going to make mistake. To this end, I suggest considering either Mendeley or Zotero. Both are free and provide a very straightforward interface to ensure that your referencing is 100% on point. I’ve included a simple how-to video for the Mendeley software (my personal favourite) below:

Some universities may ask you to include a bibliography, as opposed to a reference list. These two things are not the same . A bibliography is similar to a reference list, except that it also includes resources which informed your thinking but were not directly cited in your dissertation. So, double-check your brief and make sure you use the right one.

The very last piece of the puzzle is the appendix or set of appendices. This is where you’ll include any supporting data and evidence. Importantly, supporting is the keyword here.

Your appendices should provide additional “nice to know”, depth-adding information, which is not critical to the core analysis. Appendices should not be used as a way to cut down word count (see this post which covers how to reduce word count ). In other words, don’t place content that is critical to the core analysis here, just to save word count. You will not earn marks on any content in the appendices, so don’t try to play the system!

Time to recap…

And there you have it – the traditional dissertation structure and layout, from A-Z. To recap, the core structure for a dissertation or thesis is (typically) as follows:

• Acknowledgments page

Most importantly, the core chapters should reflect the research process (asking, investigating and answering your research question). Moreover, the research question(s) should form the golden thread throughout your dissertation structure. Everything should revolve around the research questions, and as you’ve seen, they should form both the start point (i.e. introduction chapter) and the endpoint (i.e. conclusion chapter).

I hope this post has provided you with clarity about the traditional dissertation/thesis structure and layout. If you have any questions or comments, please leave a comment below, or feel free to get in touch with us. Also, be sure to check out the rest of the  Grad Coach Blog .

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

36 Comments

many thanks i found it very useful

Glad to hear that, Arun. Good luck writing your dissertation.

Such clear practical logical advice. I very much needed to read this to keep me focused in stead of fretting.. Perfect now ready to start my research!

what about scientific fields like computer or engineering thesis what is the difference in the structure? thank you very much

Thanks so much this helped me a lot!

Very helpful and accessible. What I like most is how practical the advice is along with helpful tools/ links.

Thanks Ade!

Thank you so much sir.. It was really helpful..

You’re welcome!

Hi! How many words maximum should contain the abstract?

Thank you so much 😊 Find this at the right moment

You’re most welcome. Good luck with your dissertation.

best ever benefit i got on right time thank you

Many times Clarity and vision of destination of dissertation is what makes the difference between good ,average and great researchers the same way a great automobile driver is fast with clarity of address and Clear weather conditions .

I guess Great researcher = great ideas + knowledge + great and fast data collection and modeling + great writing + high clarity on all these

You have given immense clarity from start to end.

Morning. Where will I write the definitions of what I’m referring to in my report?

Thank you so much Derek, I was almost lost! Thanks a tonnnn! Have a great day!

Thanks ! so concise and valuable

This was very helpful. Clear and concise. I know exactly what to do now.

Thank you for allowing me to go through briefly. I hope to find time to continue.

Really useful to me. Thanks a thousand times

Very interesting! It will definitely set me and many more for success. highly recommended.

Thank you soo much sir, for the opportunity to express my skills

Usefull, thanks a lot. Really clear

Very nice and easy to understand. Thank you .

That was incredibly useful. Thanks Grad Coach Crew!

My stress level just dropped at least 15 points after watching this. Just starting my thesis for my grad program and I feel a lot more capable now! Thanks for such a clear and helpful video, Emma and the GradCoach team!

Do we need to mention the number of words the dissertation contains in the main document?

It depends on your university’s requirements, so it would be best to check with them 🙂

Such a helpful post to help me get started with structuring my masters dissertation, thank you!

Great video; I appreciate that helpful information

It is so necessary or avital course

This blog is very informative for my research. Thank you

Doctoral students are required to fill out the National Research Council’s Survey of Earned Doctorates

wow this is an amazing gain in my life

This is so good

How can i arrange my specific objectives in my dissertation?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis) - Grad Coach - […] is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Dissertation Essentials

• Dissertation Essentials: Home
• Doctoral Record
• Working Ahead Guidelines

Differentiating between Doctorate Degrees

Contribution of new knowledge.

• Student Experience Feedback Buttons
• Technology Resources
• Published Dissertations
• School of Health Professions
• Scholarly Writing This link opens in a new window
• Qualitative & Quantitative Research Support with the ASC This link opens in a new window
• Library Basic Training for Doctoral Students This link opens in a new window
• Dissertation Toolkit Series with the Library This link opens in a new window
• Template Formatting Help This link opens in a new window
• APA 7th Edition Help This link opens in a new window

This section outlines various characteristics of doctoral programs and the associated research processes and resources that help to distinguish research degrees (Ph.D.) from applied degrees: DHA*, DBA, EdD*, DNP*, DMFT*.

The key research design differences between an applied and research degree are scope and significance. Both degree tracks require that the stated research design demonstrate scientific rigor. However, the applied degree will be limited in scope to the specific study context and the results should be significant to leaders and practitioners in the field. Research (Ph.D.) studies must have theoretical implications and make a contribution to the literature.

*Students in the EdD, DMFT, DHA, DNP program will complete a doctoral project/dissertation-in-practice via the Applied Doctoral Experience (ADE) vs completing a dissertation as part of the Doctoral Student Experience (DSE). 

The current guidelines are that a dissertation must:

• Summarize, analyze, and integrate scholarly literature and research relevant to a topic area, focusing on developments in the area in the previous five years, and,
• Present original research in an area related to a student’s program and specialization.

While Ph.D. dissertations demonstrate how the research contributes to theoretical development in an area, applied doctorate dissertations typically contribute to practice.

The current DSE standards include the non-negotiable requirement of every doctoral manuscript (Ph.D. or applied doctorate) to include a comprehensive, up-to-date, and critically evaluative review of the professional and scientific, peer-reviewed literature pertaining to its topic. A Ph.D. requires original ideas about a specialized topic, as well as a high degree of methodological/scientific rigor (Nelson, & Coorough, 1994). As is traditional in higher education, a Ph.D. is only going to be awarded for a piece of work that will actually make a difference to the theoretical context of the field --- the Ph.D. dissertation is a new contribution to the body of knowledge.

An applied dissertation requires the practical application of scholarship (Nelson, & Coorough,1994; Wergin, 2011). Examples of an applied investigation may include a replication study, a case study, program evaluation, or a special project (such as, for example, the creation of a curriculum, training program, clinical protocol or policy, or educational artifact), followed by an evaluation. A doctoral project for a professional degree does not have to be an original contribution to the body of knowledge that impacts the theories in the field but typically responds to a practical problem or proposed innovation (Archibald, 2010).

The fundamental differentiation between Ph.D. research programs and professional degree research programs is that the focus of the Ph.D. is to contribute new knowledge to the field. The focus of professional degree research programs is to apply theoretical knowledge to the advancement of practice in the field (solve complex problems) (Archibald, 2010; Corley & Giola 2011; Huba, Shubb & Shelley, 2006).

Archibald, D. (2010). “Breaking the mold” in the dissertation: Implementing a problem-based, decision-oriented thesis project. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 58(2), 99-107. 

Corley, K. G. & Giola, D. (2011). Building Theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12-32. 

Huba, M. Shubb, J. & Shelley, J. (2006). Recasting doctoral education in an outcomes-based framework. In P. Maki & N. Borkowski (Eds.), The assessment of doctoral education: Emerging criteria and new models for improving outcomes (239-272). Sterling VA: Stylus. 

Nelson, J.K., & Coorough, C. (1994). Content analysis of the Ph.D. versus Ed.D. dissertation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(2), 158-168.

Wergin, J.F. (2011). Rebooting the Ed.D.. Harvard Educational Review, 81(1), 119-140.

Differentiating scholarly contribution of new knowledge between Ph.D. and applied doctorates (e.g., DBA, EdD, DMFT) includes two criteria to determine contribution: originality and utility.

Originality

Originality is measured by assessing whether the knowledge derived in the research has the quality of being either, "incremental" (appropriate for professional degrees such as a DBA, Ed.D. or Psy.D.) or "revelatory" (most sought-after for the Ph.D.). This means that the research adds value in such a way that it either advances our understanding of prevailing theory (incremental), or it allows us to see something that we have never seen before (revelatory).

Utility means the research must generate knowledge that is of either "scientific value" or “practical value.” Scientific value (predominate measure for Ph.D.) advances our conceptual rigor or enhances its potential for operationalization and testing, broadly. That means the scope of a project must be great enough such that it contributes to, extends, or facilitates extension, of theory. Practical value advances our ability to apply theory directly, in managerial and organizational pursuits, in education and healthcare settings, or in therapeutic or counseling settings.

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Working Ahead Guidelines
• Next: Technology Resources >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 12:27 PM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/c.php?g=1005138

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

Graduate Thesis Or Dissertation

Theory and application of strong field ionization in atomic systems public deposited, downloadable content.

Throughout this thesis we explore ionization processes ranging from the single photon x-ray and ultraviolet limit to the opposite adiabatic infrared limit where large numbers of photons are required for ionization. We will summarize criteria responsible for the breakdown of perturbation theory and outline key aspects of the non-perturbative theory. Our numerical calculations bridge the short wavelength limit of single photon perturbative ionization to the long wavelength limit of nonperturbative multiphoton ionization to demonstrate an optimal wavelength regime for generation of electron pulses for probing chiral systems in rare gas atoms. 

Breakdown of the widely used asymptotic saddle point approximation in strong-field physics is analyzed for ionization of electrons bound to p −states. We resolve this issue by evaluating Keldysh’s ionization amplitude exactly. Finally, we present an analytic model for the perturbative two-photon ionization of atoms by arbitrary fields. As an application we reconstruct isolated attosecond pulses and pulse trains from a provided autocorrelation trace generated in a pump probe ionization measurement. The results are generalized to the non-perturbative limit.

• Walker, Spencer Roman
• Becker, Andreas
• Schibli, Thomas R.
• Litos, Michael D
• Jonas, David
• Lucas, Andy
• University of Colorado Boulder
• Strong field Ionization
• Atomic physics
• Multiphoton Ionization
• Non-perturbative processes
• Dissertation
• In Copyright
• English [eng]

Relationships

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

The Indicator from Planet Money

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Amazon Music
• Amazon Alexa

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

The "Winner Take All" problem

Wailin Wong

Cooper Katz McKim

Kate Concannon

A 2017 march against sexual assault and harassment in Hollywood. Damian Dovarganes/AP hide caption

A 2017 march against sexual assault and harassment in Hollywood.

When June Carbone, Naomi Cahn and Nancy Levit set out to write a book about women in the workforce, they initially thought it would be a story all about women's march towards workplace equality. But when they looked at the data, they found something more disturbing: of the ways in which women's push toward workplace equality has actually been stalled for years. In today's episode, law professor June Carbone argues that the root of the problem lies in something they call the "winner take all" approach to business. That's the thesis of their new book, " Fair Shake: Women & the Fight to Build a Just Economy ". Related episodes: What would it take to fix retirement? ( Apple / Spotify ) For sponsor-free episodes of The Indicator from Planet Money, subscribe to Planet Money+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org . Music by Drop Electric . Find us: TikTok , Instagram , Facebook , Newsletter .

• workplace discrimination
• gender pay gap

Help | Advanced Search

High Energy Physics - Theory

Title: quantum field theory in curved spacetime approach to the backreaction of dynamical casimir effect.

Abstract: In this thesis, we investigate the dynamical Casimir effect, the creation of particles from vacuum by dynamical boundary conditions or dynamical background, and its backreaction to the motion of the boundary. The backreaction of particle creation to the boundary motion is studied using quantum field theory in curved spacetime technique, in 1+1 dimension and 3+1 dimension. The relevant quantities in these quantum field processes are carefully analyzed, including regularization of the UV and IR divergent of vacuum energy, and estimation of classical backreaction effects like radiation pressure. We recovered the qualitative result of backreaction in 1+1 dimensions. In the 3+1 dimension, we find that the backreaction tends to slow down the system to suppress the further particle creation, similar to the case of cosmological particle creation.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• INSPIRE HEP
• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

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

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

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

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

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

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

French Impressionist Cinema: Film Culture, Film Theory, and Film Style (Dissertation, 1974)

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

Download options, in collections.

Uploaded by erhoyt on May 17, 2024

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)