Theories, theoretical and conceptual frameworks, models and constructs: Limiting research outcomes through misconceptions and misunderstandings

Don Passey

doi:10.21428/8c225f6e.56810a1a

Abstract

Contributing to knowledge or theory is generally a standard requirement for research and doctoral studies. Whether that contribution should be from a research, policy or practice perspective is often not specifically stated as a requirement, yet one or all are certainly possible. A doctoral study (or indeed any research study) is usually quite firmly cast or framed within a form of theoretical or conceptual framework. Yet, even the definition, selection and formulation of a framework that is appropriate and that can inform a study throughout its various phases and stages is sometimes considered a ‘doctoral or research challenge’ in itself. This paper will argue that the way models, frameworks or theories - all of which in this current paper are collectively termed underpinnings - are conceived and used could well determine whether, how and to what extent a thesis or research study might contribute to a wider knowledge base. The paper offers a theoretical strategic analysis of the issue. It will explore what a conceptual or theoretical framework for a doctoral or wider research study is, what role or roles it can take, and whether, how and to what extent a study might contribute to knowledge or theory. The paper will conclude with ways to question approaches to roles of conceptual or theoretical underpinnings that do not limit the potential of a thesis or study to contribute to theory. Keywords: theories; theoretical frameworks; conceptual frameworks; models; research studies; underpinning constructsPart of the Special Issue Debating the status of ‘theory’ in technology enhanced learning research

Highlights

This initial section asks what a conceptual or theoretical framework for a research study might be
A much more detailed description is given by Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom (UK), stating that, “Doctorates are awarded for creating, interpreting and communicating knowledge that extends the forefront of a discipline or of professional practice, through original research and critical thinking” (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2019, n.p.)
The key conclusion that arises from the discussion and argument presented in this paper is that choice of underpinning and choice of role that models, frameworks or theories play can both provide for and potentially limit the opportunity for a study to question and, to develop theory as a contribution arising from that study

Summary

Introduction

This initial section asks what a conceptual or theoretical framework for a research study might be. Examples holds for a given case or stated population, identifies major features of influence, arising from context-specific research tends to be more flexible and descriptive, as it usually identifies factors or criteria that relate to each of the features of influence in a particular field arises from outcomes beyond a single study, based on one or more theories considers a broader and deeper concern or context, suggesting the detail of what might be more general, beyond one or a number of contexts. Into account, and this drives the data collection and analysis, to what extent is it enabling only the same theory to be re-identified, (albeit perhaps in a different context), rather than questioning or adding to it?

Role or roles of underpinning theories or conceptions

Choosing one or more underpinnings for a study

How a study might contribute to knowledge or theory

Conclusions