research framework means

What is a framework? Understanding their purpose, value, development and use

• Articles with Attitude
• Open access
• Published: 14 April 2023
• Volume 13 , pages 510–519, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Stefan Partelow   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7751-4005 1 , 2  

16k Accesses

5 Citations

18 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Many frameworks exist across the sciences and science-policy interface, but it is not always clear how they are developed or can be applied. It is also often vague how new or existing frameworks are positioned in a theory of science to advance a specific theory or paradigm. This article examines these questions and positions the role of frameworks as integral but often vague scientific tools, highlighting benefits and critiques. While frameworks can be useful for synthesizing and communicating core concepts in a field, they often lack transparency in how they were developed and how they can be applied. Positioning frameworks within a theory of science can aid in knowing the purpose and value of framework use. This article provides a meta-framework for visualizing and engaging the four mediating processes for framework development and application: (1) empirical generalization, (2) theoretical fitting, (3) application, and (4) hypothesizing. Guiding points for scholars and policymakers using or developing frameworks in their research are provided in closing.

Similar content being viewed by others

Introduction

Reflections on Methodological Issues

Looking Back

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The development of ‘frameworks’ is at present probably the most common strategy in the field of natural resources management to achieve integration and interdisciplinarity. Mollinga , 2008

…it is not clear what the role of a scientific framework should be, and relatedly, what makes for a successful scientific framework. Ban and Cox, 2017

Frameworks are important research tools across nearly all fields of science. They are critically important for structuring empirical inquiry and theoretical development in the environmental social sciences, governance research and practice, the sustainability sciences and fields of social-ecological systems research in tangent with the associated disciplines of those fields (Binder et al. 2013 ; Pulver et al. 2018 ; Colding and Barthel 2019 ). Many well-established frameworks are regularly applied to collect new data or to structure entire research programs such as the Ecosystem Services (ES) framework (Potschin-Young et al. 2018 ), the Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014a ), Earth Systems Governance (ESG) (Biermann et al. 2010 ), the Driver-Impact-Pressure-State-Response (DIPSR) framework, and the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) framework. Frameworks are also put forth by major scientific organizing bodies to steer scientific and policy agendas at regional and global levels such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Díaz et al. 2015 ) and the Global Sustainable Development Report’s transformational levers and fields (UN 2019 ).

Despite the countless frameworks, it is not always clear how a framework can be developed or applied (Ban and Cox 2017 ; Partelow 2018 ; Nagel and Partelow 2022 ). Development may occur through empirically backed synthesis or by scholars based on their own knowledge, values, or interests. These diverse development pathways do, however, result in common trends. The structure of most frameworks is the identification of a set of concepts and their general relationships — often in the form box-and-arrow diagrams — that are loosely defined or unspecified. This hallmark has both benefits and challenges. On one hand, this is arguably the purpose of frameworks, to structure the basic ideas of theory or conceptual thinking, and if they were more detailed they would be models. On the other hand, there is often a “black box” nature to frameworks. It is often unclear why some sets of concepts and relationships are chosen for integration into frameworks, and others not. As argued below, these choices are often the result of the positionality of the framework’s creators. Publications of frameworks, furthermore, often lack descriptions of their value and potential uses compared to other frameworks or analytical tools that exist in the field.

Now shifting focus to how frameworks are applied. Some frameworks provide measureable indicators as the key variables in the framework, but many only suggest general concepts. This creates the need to link concepts and their relationships to data through other more tangible indicators. Methods to measure such indicators will also be needed in new empirical studies. These methodological and study design steps necessary to associate data to framework concepts is often referred to as “operationalizing” a framework. However, without guidance on how to do this, scholars are often left with developing their own strategies, which can lead to heterogeneous and idiosyncratic methods and data. These challenges can be referred to as methodological gaps (Partelow 2018 ), where the details of how to move from concept to indicator to measurement to data transformation, are not always detailed in a way that welcomes replicability or learning. This is not necessarily a problem if the purpose of a framework is to only guide the analysis of individual cases or synthesis activities in isolation, for example to inform local management, but it hinders meta-analyses, cross-case learning and data interpretability for others.

In this article, a brief overview of framework definitions and current synthesis literature are reviewed in the “ What is a framework? ” section. This is coupled with the argument that frameworks often lack clarity in their development and application because their positioning within a theory of science is unclear. In the “ Mechanisms of framework development and use: a meta-framework ” section, a meta-framework is proposed to assist in clarifying the four major levers with which frameworks are developed and applied: (1) empirical generalization, (2) theoretical fitting, (3) hypothesizing, and (4) application. The meta-framework aims to position individual frameworks into a theory of science, which can enable scholars to take a conceptual “step back” in order to view how their engagement with a framework contributes to their broader scientific goal and field. Two case studies of different frameworks are provided to explore how the meta-framework can aid in comparing them. This is followed by a discussion of what makes a good framework, along with explicit guiding points for the use of frameworks in research and policy practice.

What is a framework?

The definition and purpose of a framework is likely to vary across disciplines and thematic fields (Cox et al. 2016 ). There is no universal definition of a framework, but it is useful to provide a brief overview of different definitions for orientation. The Cambridge Dictionary states that frameworks are “a supporting structure around which something can be built; a system of rules, ideas, or beliefs that is used to plan or decide something.” Schlager ( 2007 , 293) states that “frameworks provide a foundation for inquiry,” and Cumming ( 2014 , 5) adds that this “does not necessarily depend on deductive logic to connect different ideas.” Importantly, Binder et al., ( 2013 , 2) note that “a framework provides a set of assumptions, concepts, values and practices,” emphasizing the normative or inherently subjective logic to framework development. A core theme being plurality and connectivity. Similarly, McGinnis and Ostrom ( 2014a , 1) define frameworks as “the basic vocabulary of concepts and terms that may be used to construct the kinds of causal explanations expected of a theory. Frameworks organize diagnostic, descriptive, and prescriptive inquiry.” In a review comparing ten commonly used frameworks in social-ecological systems (SES) research, Binder et al., ( 2013 , 1) state that frameworks are useful for developing “a common language, to structure research on SES, and to provide guidance toward a more sustainable development of SES.” In a similar review, Pulver et al., ( 2018 , 1) suggest that frameworks “assist scholars and practitioners to analyze the complex, nonlinear interdependencies that characterize interactions between biophysical and social arenas and to navigate the new epistemological, ontological, analytical, and practical horizons of integrating knowledge for sustainability solutions.” It is important to recognize that the above claims often suggest the dualistic or bridging positions held by frameworks, in both theory building and for guiding empirical observations. However, there is relatively little discussion in the above literature on how frameworks act as bridging tools within a theory of science or how frameworks add value as positioning tools in a field.

Every framework has a position, meaning it is located within a specific context of a scientific field. As positioning tools, frameworks seem to “populate the scientist’s world with a set of conceptual objects and (non-causal) relationships among them,” shaping (and sometimes limiting) the way we think about problems and potential solutions (Cox et al. 2016 , 47). Thus, using a specific framework helps in part to position the work of a researcher in a field and its related concepts, theories and paradigms.

Four factors can be considered to evaluate the positioning of a framework: (a) who developed it, (b) the values being put forth by those researchers, (c) the research questions engaged with, and (d) the field in which it is embedded. For example, the Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) (Ostrom 2009 ) was developed by (a) Elinor Ostrom who developed the framework studying common-pool resource and public goods governance from the 1960s until the 2000s. Ostrom’s overall goal was (b) to examine the hindering and enabling conditions for governance to guide the use and provision common goods towards sustainability outcomes. Her primary research questions (c) related to collective action theory, unpacking how and why people cooperate with each other or not. The field her work is embedded in (d) is an interdisciplinary mix between public policy, behavioral and institutional economics. Scholars who use Ostrom’s SESF today, carry this history with them and therefore position themselves, whether implicitly or explicitly, as part of this research landscape as systems thinkers and interdisciplinarians, even if they have other scholarly positions.

Frameworks are positioned within a theory of science. Understanding this positioning can guide scholars in comprehending how their engagement with frameworks contributes to the overall advancement of their field. To do this, taking a conceptual “step back” is necessary, to distinguish between different levels of theory in science. From the conceptually broadest to the most empirically specific, we can identify the following levels of theory: paradigms, frameworks, specific theories, models/archetypes and cases (Table 1 ). Knowledge production processes flow up and down these levels of theory. For example, as argued by Kuhn ( 1962 ), the purpose of a scientific field is to advance its paradigm. Thus, the study of empirical observations (e.g., case studies) — and the development of models or theories resulting from those data — are aimed at advancing the overarching paradigm. Such paradigms could be conservation, democracy, sustainable development or social-ecological systems.

There is a need to connect cases, models and specific theory up to the overall paradigms of a field to make aggregate knowledge gains. Here, the role of frameworks becomes more clear, as bridging tools that enable connections between levels of knowledge. From the top down, frameworks can specify paradigms with more tangible conceptual features and relationships, which can then guide empirical inquiry. For example, the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework (Smeets and Weterings 1999 ; Ness, Anderberg, and Olsson 2010 ) specifies how to evaluate policy options and their effects by focusing on the five embedded concepts in a relational order. Scholars can then generate more specific indicators and methods to measure the five specified features of the framework, and their relationships, to generate empirical insights that now have a direct link to the paradigm of sustainable policy development via the framework.

Furthermore, frameworks can also emerge from the bottom up, by distilling empirical data across cases and thus creating a knowledge bridge of more specified conceptual features and relationships that connect to a paradigm. In both top-down and bottom-up mechanism, frameworks can play a vital role in synthesizing and communicating ideas among scholars in a field — from empirical data to a paradigm. A challenge may be, however, that multiple frameworks have emerged attempting to specify the core conceptual features and relationships in a paradigm. A mature scientific field is likely to have many frameworks to guide research and debate. There is, however, a lack of research and tools available to compare frameworks and their added value.

Beyond their use as positioning tools, frameworks make day-to-day science easier. They can guide researchers in designing new empirical research by indicating which core concepts and relationships are of interest to be measured and compared. Scientific fields also need common fires to huddle around, meaning that we need reference points to initiate scholarly debates, coordinate disparate empirical efforts and to communicate findings and novel advancements through a common language (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014a ; Ban and Cox 2017 ). As such, frameworks are useful for synthesis research, focusing the attention of reviews and meta-analyses around core sets of concepts and relationships.

There is, however, a tension between frameworks that aim to capture complexity and those that aim to simplify core principles. Complexity oriented frameworks often advance systems thinking at the risk of including too many variables. They often have long lists of variables which makes empirical orientation and synthesis difficult. On the other hand, simplification frameworks face the challenge of leaving important things out, with the benefit of clarifying what may be important and giving clear direction.

From a more critical perspective, the “criteria for comparing frameworks are not well developed,” (Schlager, 2007 , 312), and the positionality of frameworks has not been rigorously explored outside of smaller studies. Nonetheless, numerous classifications or typologies of frameworks within specific fields have been suggested (Table 2 ), although not with reference to positionality (Spangenberg 2011 ; Binder et al. 2013 ; Cumming 2014 ; Schlager 2007 ; Ness et al. 2007 ; Potschin-Young et al. 2018 ; Cox et al. 2021 ; Louder et al. 2021 ; Chofreh and Goni 2017 ; Alaoui et al. 2022 ; Tapio and Willamo 2008 ). These studies point to the question of: what makes a good framework? Are there certain quality criteria that make some frameworks more useful than others? There has undoubtedly been a rise in the number of frameworks, but as expressed by Ban and Cox ( 2017 , 2), “it is not clear what the role of a scientific framework should be, and relatedly, what makes for a successful scientific framework. Although there are many frameworks […] there is little discussion on what their scientific role ought to be, other than providing a common scientific language.” The meta-framework presented below serves as a tool for answering these questions and provides guidance for developing and implementing frameworks in a range of settings.

Mechanisms of framework development and use: a meta-framework

This section presents a meta-framework detailing the mechanisms of framework development and use (Fig. 1 ). The meta-framework illustrates the role of frameworks as bridging tools for knowledge synthesis and communication. Therefore, the purpose of the meta-framework is to demonstrate how the mechanisms of framework development and use act as levers of knowledge flow across levels within a theory of science, doing so by enabling the communication and synthesis of knowledge. Introducing the meta-framework has two parts, outlined below.

A meta-framework outlining the central role frameworks play in scientific advancement through their development and use. In the center, frameworks provide two core bridging values: knowledge synthesis and knowledge communication. Three modes of logical reasoning contribute to framework development: induction, deduction and abduction. Frameworks are used and developed through four mediating processes: (1) empirical generalization, (2) theoretical fitting, (3) application, and (4) hypothesizing

First, the meta-framework visualizes the levels along the scale of scientific theory including paradigms, frameworks, specific theory and empirical observations, introduced above. Along this scale, three mechanisms of logical reasoning are typical: induction, deduction, and abduction. Induction is a mode of logical reasoning based on sets of empirical observations, which, when patterns within those observations emerge, can inform more generalized theory formation. Induction, in its pure form, is reasoning without prior assumptions about what we think is happening. In contrast, deduction is a mode of logical reasoning based on testing a claim or hypothesis, often based on a body of theory, against an observation to infer whether or not a claim is true. In contrast to induction, which always leads to probable or fuzzy conclusions, deductive logic provides true or false conclusions. A third mode of logical reasoning is abduction. Abduction starts with a single or limited set of observations, and assumes the most likely cause as a conclusion. Abduction can only provide probable conclusions. Knowledge claims from all three modes of logical reasoning are part of the nexus of potential framework creation or modification.

Second, the meta-framework has four iterative mediating processes that directly enable the development and/or application of frameworks (Fig. 1 ). Two of the four mediating processes relate to framework development: (1) empirical generalization and (2) theoretical fitting. The other two relate to framework application: (3) hypothesizing, and (4) application (Fig. 1 , Table 3 ). The details of the specific mediating pathways are outlined in Table 3 , including the processes involved in each. There are numerous potential benefits and challenges associated with each (Table 3 ).

The value of a meta-framework

The presented meta-framework (Fig. 1 ) allows us to assess the values different frameworks can provide. If a framework provides a novel synthesis of key ideas or new developments in a field, and communicates those insights well in its composition, it likely adds notable value. If a framework coordinates scientific inquiry across the 1 or more of the four mediating processes, it likely acts as an important gatekeeper and boundary object for what may otherwise be disparate or tangential research. If it contributes substantial advances in 3 or 4 of the mediating processes, the value of the framework is likely higher.

The meta-framework can further help identify the positioning of framework such as the type of logical reasoning processes used to create it, as well as help clarify the role of a framework along the scale of knowledge production (i.e., from data to paradigm). It might be clear, for example, what paradigm or specific theory a framework contributes to. The meta-framework can add value by guiding the assessment of how frameworks fit into the bigger picture of knowledge contribution in their field. Furthermore, many scholars and practitioners are interested in developing new frameworks. The meta-framework outlines the mechanisms that can be considered in creating the framework as well as help developers of new frameworks communicate how their frameworks add value. For example, to link empirical data collection to theoretical work in their field.

The meta-framework can help compare frameworks, to assess strengths and weaknesses in terms of their positioning and knowledge production mechanisms. It can also help elucidate the need for, or value of, new frameworks. This challenge is noted by Cumming ( 2014 , 18) in the field of social-ecological systems, reflecting that “the tendency of researchers to develop “new” frameworks without fully explaining how they relate to other existing frameworks and what new elements they bring to the problem is another obvious reason for the lack of a single dominant, unifying framework.” To showcase such as comparison, two brief examples are provided. The first example features the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework developed by the European Environmental Agency (EEA) (Box 1 ) (Smeets and Weterings 1999 ; Ness, Anderberg, and Olsson 2010 ). The DPSIR framework exemplifies a framework developed from the top-down (theoretical fitting) approach, to better organize the policy goal and paradigm of environmental sustainability to the indicators collected by EU member states. The second example highlights the Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) developed by Elinor Ostrom (Box 2 ) (Ostrom 2009 ; McGinnis and Ostrom 2014a ). The SESF exemplifies a framework developed from the bottom up (empirical generalization) to aggregate data into common variables to enable data standardization and comparison towards theory building to improve environmental governance. In the case examples (Box 1 ; Box 2 ), we can see the value of both frameworks from different perspectives. The examples briefly illustrate how the positionality of each framework dictates how others use them to produce knowledge towards a paradigm. In the case of the DPSIR framework, from the top-down towards a policy goal, and with the SESF, from the bottom-up towards a theoretical goal.

Drivers – Pressures – State – Impact - Response (DPSIR) framework

Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF)

Discussion and directions forward

Frameworks are commons objects to huddle around in academic and practitioner communities, providing identity and guiding our effort. They focus scholarly attention on important issues, stimulate cognitive energy and provide fodder for discussion. However, reflection on the role and purpose of the frameworks we use needs to be a more common practice in science. The proposed meta-framework aims to showcase the role of frameworks as boundary objects that connect ideas and concepts to data in constructive and actionable ways, enabling knowledge to be built up and aggregated within scientific fields through using common languages and concepts (Mollinga 2008 ; Klein 1996 ).

Boundary objects such as frameworks can be especially important for inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration, where there may be few prior shared points of conceptual understanding or terminology beyond a problem context. Mollinga ( 2008 , 33) reflects that “frameworks are typical examples of boundary objects, building connections between the worlds of science and that of policy, and between different knowledge domains,” and that “the development of frameworks is at present probably the most common strategy in the field of natural resources management to achieve integration and interdisciplinarity,” (Mollinga, 2008 , 31). They are, however, critically important for both disciplinary specific fundamental research, as well as for bridging science-society gaps through translating often esoteric academic concepts and findings into digestible and often visual objects. For example, the DPSIR framework (Box 1 ) attempts to better organize the analysis of environmental indicators for policy evaluation processes in the EU. Furthermore, Partelow et al., ( 2019 ) and Gurney et al., ( 2019 ) both use Ostrom’s SESF (Box 2 ) as a boundary object at the science-society interface to visually communicate systems thinking and social-ecological interactions to fishers and coastal stakeholders involved in local management decision-making.

An important feature of frameworks is that the very contestation over their nature is perhaps their main value. A framework can only be an effective boundary object if it catalyzes deliberation and scholarly debate — thus contestation over what it is and its value is seeded into the toolbox and identity of a scholarly field. Although most frameworks are likely to have shortcomings, flaws or controversial features, the fact that they motivate engagement around common problems and stimulate scholarly engagement is a value of its own. In doing so, frameworks often become symbols of individual and community identity in contested spaces. This is evidenced in how frameworks are often used to stamp our research as valid, relevant and important to the field, even if done passively. Citing a framework both communicates the general purpose of what a scholar is attempting to achieve to others, and orients science towards a common synthetic object for future knowledge synthesis and debate. These positioning actions are essential for science and practitioner communities to understand a research or policy project, its aims and assumptions. Historically, disciplines have provided this value – signaling the problems, methods and theories one is likely to engage with. Frameworks can act as tools for bridging disciplines, helping to catalyze interdisciplinary engagement (Mollinga 2008 ; Klein 1996 ). As many scientific communities shift focus towards solving real-world problems (e.g., climate change, gender equality), tools that can help scientists’ cooperate and communicate, such as a framework, will continue to play a vital role in achieving knowledge co-production goals.

Guiding points for framework engagement

An aim of this article is not only to reflect on the purpose, value and positioning of frameworks, but to provide some take-away advice for engaging with frameworks in current or future work. Over the course of this article, the question of “What makes a good framework?” has been explored. The meta-framework outlines mechanisms of useful frameworks and can help understand the positioning of frameworks. Nonetheless, more detailed guiding points can be specified for both the use and development of frameworks going forward. A series of guiding points are outlined in Table 4 , generated from the literature cited throughout this article, feedback from colleagues and personal experiences applying and developing numerous frameworks. The guiding points focus on the two types of mediating processes, framework development and use (Table 4 ).

In conclusion, we need to know our academic tools in order make the best use of them in our own research, practice and knowledge communities. Frameworks have gained substantial popularity for the communication and synthesis of academic ideas, and as tools we all have the ability to create and perhaps the responsibility to steward. However, frameworks have struggled to find roots in a theory of science which grounds their contributions in relation to other scientific tools such as models, specific theories and empirical data. There is also a lack of discussion about what makes a good framework and how to apply frameworks in a way to makes those applications of integrative value to an overall community of scholars positioned around it. The meta-framework provided in this article offers insights into how to understand the purpose and positionality of frameworks, as well as the mechanisms for understanding the creation and application of frameworks. The meta-framework further allows for the comparison of frameworks to assess their value.

Alaoui A, Barão L, Ferreira CSS, Hessel R (2022) An Overview of sustainability assessment frameworks in agriculture. Land 11(4):1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040537

Article   Google Scholar  

Ban NC, Cox M (2017) Advancing social-ecological research through teaching: summary, observations, and challenges. Ecol Soc 22(1):1–3

Biermann F, Betsill MM, Gupta J, Kanie N, Lebel L, Liverman D, Schroeder H, Siebenhüner B, Zondervan R (2010) Earth system governance: a research framework. Int Environ Agreem Polit 10(4):277–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-010-9137-3

Binder CR, Hinkel J, Bots PWG, Pahl-Wostl C (2013) Comparison of Frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 18(4):26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05551-180426

Chofreh AG, Goni FA (2017) Review of frameworks for sustainability implementation. Sustain Dev 25(3):180–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1658

Colding J, Barthel S (2019) Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecol Soc 24(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-10598-240102

Cox M, Gurney GG, Anderies JM, Coleman E, Darling E, Epstein G, Frey UJ (2021) Lessons learned from synthetic research projects based on the ostrom workshop frameworks. Ecol Soc 26(1)

Cox M, Villamayor-tomas S, Epstein G, Evans L, Ban NC, Fleischman F, Nenadovic M, Garcia-lopez G (2016) Synthesizing theories of natural resource management and governance. Glob Environ Chang 39(January):45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.011

Cumming GS (2014) Theoretical Frameworks for the analysis of social-ecological systems. In: Sakai S, Umetsu C (eds) Social-Ecological Systems in Transition . Springer, Japan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54910-9

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A et al (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework - connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

Gurney GG, Darling ES, Jupiter SD, Mangubhai S, McClanahan TR, Lestari P, Pardede S et al (2019) Implementing a social-ecological systems framework for conservation monitoring: lessons from a multi-country coral reef program. Biol Conserv 240(August). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108298

Kuhn T (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions (University of Chicago Press)

Klein JT (1996) Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities . University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville and London

Google Scholar  

Louder E, Wyborn C, Cvitanovic C, Bednarek AT (2021) A Synthesis of the frameworks available to guide evaluations at the interface of environmental science on policy and practice. Environ Sci Policy 116(July 2020):1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.12.006

McGinnis MD, Ostrom E (2014a) Social-Ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc 19(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230

Mollinga PP (2008) In: Evers H-D, Gerke S, Mollinga P, Schetter C (eds) The rational organisation of dissent: boundary concepts, boundary objects and boundary settings in the interdisciplinary Study of Natural Resources Management. University of Bonn, Bonn

Nagel B, Partelow S (2022) A methodological guide for applying the ses framework: a review of quantitative approaches. Ecol Soc

Ness B, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2010) Structuring problems in sustainability science: the multi-Level DPSIR framework. Geoforum 41(3):479–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.12.005

Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60(3):498–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023

Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Partelow S (2018) A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications and challenges. Ecol Soc

Partelow S, Fujitani M, Soundararajan V, Schlüter A (2019) Transforming the social-ecological systems framework into a knowledge exchange and deliberation tool for comanagement. Ecol Soc 24(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10724-240115

Potschin-Young M, Haines-Young R, Görg C, Heink U, Jax K, Schleyer C (2018) Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: reading the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosyst Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.015

Pulver S, Ulibarri N, Sobocinski KL, Alexander SM, Johnson ML, Mccord PF (2018) Frontiers in socio-environmental research: components, connections, scale, and context. Ecol Soc 23(3)

Schlager E (2007) A Comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of policy processes. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the Policy Process , 1st edn. Routledge, pp 293–319

Smeets E, Weterings R (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and overview. In: Bosch P, Büchele M, Gee D (eds) European Environment Agency (EEA) , vol 50. European Environment Agency, Copenhagan

Spangenberg JH (2011) Sustainability Science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv 38(3):275–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000270

Tapio P, Willamo R (2008) Developing Interdisciplinary environmental frameworks. Ambio 37(2):125–133. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2008)37[125:DIEF]2.0.CO;2

UN (2019) Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General, Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The Future is Now – Science for Achieving Sustainable Development. United Nations, New York

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Michael Cox and Achim Schlüter for their helpful feedback on previous versions of the manuscript and the ideas within it. I am grateful to the Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT) in Bremen, and the Center for Life Ethics at the University of Bonn for support.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Bremen, Germany

Stefan Partelow

Center for Life Ethics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Partelow .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declares that he has no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Partelow, S. What is a framework? Understanding their purpose, value, development and use. J Environ Stud Sci 13 , 510–519 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-023-00833-w

Download citation

Accepted : 29 March 2023

Published : 14 April 2023

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-023-00833-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Theory of science
• Methodology
• Social science
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• What Is a Conceptual Framework? | Tips & Examples

What Is a Conceptual Framework? | Tips & Examples

Published on 4 May 2022 by Bas Swaen and Tegan George. Revised on 18 March 2024.

A conceptual framework illustrates the expected relationship between your variables. It defines the relevant objectives for your research process and maps out how they come together to draw coherent conclusions.

Keep reading for a step-by-step guide to help you construct your own conceptual framework.

Table of contents

Developing a conceptual framework in research, step 1: choose your research question, step 2: select your independent and dependent variables, step 3: visualise your cause-and-effect relationship, step 4: identify other influencing variables, frequently asked questions about conceptual models.

A conceptual framework is a representation of the relationship you expect to see between your variables, or the characteristics or properties that you want to study.

Conceptual frameworks can be written or visual and are generally developed based on a literature review of existing studies about your topic.

Your research question guides your work by determining exactly what you want to find out, giving your research process a clear focus.

However, before you start collecting your data, consider constructing a conceptual framework. This will help you map out which variables you will measure and how you expect them to relate to one another.

In order to move forward with your research question and test a cause-and-effect relationship, you must first identify at least two key variables: your independent and dependent variables .

• The expected cause, ‘hours of study’, is the independent variable (the predictor, or explanatory variable)
• The expected effect, ‘exam score’, is the dependent variable (the response, or outcome variable).

Note that causal relationships often involve several independent variables that affect the dependent variable. For the purpose of this example, we’ll work with just one independent variable (‘hours of study’).

Now that you’ve figured out your research question and variables, the first step in designing your conceptual framework is visualising your expected cause-and-effect relationship.

It’s crucial to identify other variables that can influence the relationship between your independent and dependent variables early in your research process.

Some common variables to include are moderating, mediating, and control variables.

Moderating variables

Moderating variable (or moderators) alter the effect that an independent variable has on a dependent variable. In other words, moderators change the ‘effect’ component of the cause-and-effect relationship.

Let’s add the moderator ‘IQ’. Here, a student’s IQ level can change the effect that the variable ‘hours of study’ has on the exam score. The higher the IQ, the fewer hours of study are needed to do well on the exam.

Let’s take a look at how this might work. The graph below shows how the number of hours spent studying affects exam score. As expected, the more hours you study, the better your results. Here, a student who studies for 20 hours will get a perfect score.

But the graph looks different when we add our ‘IQ’ moderator of 120. A student with this IQ will achieve a perfect score after just 15 hours of study.

Below, the value of the ‘IQ’ moderator has been increased to 150. A student with this IQ will only need to invest five hours of study in order to get a perfect score.

Here, we see that a moderating variable does indeed change the cause-and-effect relationship between two variables.

Mediating variables

Now we’ll expand the framework by adding a mediating variable . Mediating variables link the independent and dependent variables, allowing the relationship between them to be better explained.

Here’s how the conceptual framework might look if a mediator variable were involved:

In this case, the mediator helps explain why studying more hours leads to a higher exam score. The more hours a student studies, the more practice problems they will complete; the more practice problems completed, the higher the student’s exam score will be.

Moderator vs mediator

It’s important not to confuse moderating and mediating variables. To remember the difference, you can think of them in relation to the independent variable:

• A moderating variable is not affected by the independent variable, even though it affects the dependent variable. For example, no matter how many hours you study (the independent variable), your IQ will not get higher.
• A mediating variable is affected by the independent variable. In turn, it also affects the dependent variable. Therefore, it links the two variables and helps explain the relationship between them.

Control variables

Lastly,  control variables must also be taken into account. These are variables that are held constant so that they don’t interfere with the results. Even though you aren’t interested in measuring them for your study, it’s crucial to be aware of as many of them as you can be.

A mediator variable explains the process through which two variables are related, while a moderator variable affects the strength and direction of that relationship.

No. The value of a dependent variable depends on an independent variable, so a variable cannot be both independent and dependent at the same time. It must be either the cause or the effect, not both.

Yes, but including more than one of either type requires multiple research questions .

For example, if you are interested in the effect of a diet on health, you can use multiple measures of health: blood sugar, blood pressure, weight, pulse, and many more. Each of these is its own dependent variable with its own research question.

You could also choose to look at the effect of exercise levels as well as diet, or even the additional effect of the two combined. Each of these is a separate independent variable .

To ensure the internal validity of an experiment , you should only change one independent variable at a time.

A control variable is any variable that’s held constant in a research study. It’s not a variable of interest in the study, but it’s controlled because it could influence the outcomes.

A confounding variable , also called a confounder or confounding factor, is a third variable in a study examining a potential cause-and-effect relationship.

A confounding variable is related to both the supposed cause and the supposed effect of the study. It can be difficult to separate the true effect of the independent variable from the effect of the confounding variable.

In your research design , it’s important to identify potential confounding variables and plan how you will reduce their impact.

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.

Swaen, B. & George, T. (2024, March 18). What Is a Conceptual Framework? | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 18 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/conceptual-frameworks/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

Mediator vs moderator variables | differences & examples, independent vs dependent variables | definition & examples, what are control variables | definition & examples.

How to Use a Conceptual Framework for Better Research

A conceptual framework in research is not just a tool but a vital roadmap that guides the entire research process. It integrates various theories, assumptions, and beliefs to provide a structured approach to research. By defining a conceptual framework, researchers can focus their inquiries and clarify their hypotheses, leading to more effective and meaningful research outcomes.

What is a Conceptual Framework?

A conceptual framework is essentially an analytical tool that combines concepts and sets them within an appropriate theoretical structure. It serves as a lens through which researchers view the complexities of the real world. The importance of a conceptual framework lies in its ability to serve as a guide, helping researchers to not only visualize but also systematically approach their study.

Key Components and to be Analyzed During Research

• Theories: These are the underlying principles that guide the hypotheses and assumptions of the research.
• Assumptions: These are the accepted truths that are not tested within the scope of the research but are essential for framing the study.
• Beliefs: These often reflect the subjective viewpoints that may influence the interpretation of data.
• Ready to use
• Fully customizable template
• Get Started in seconds

Together, these components help to define the conceptual framework that directs the research towards its ultimate goal. This structured approach not only improves clarity but also enhances the validity and reliability of the research outcomes. By using a conceptual framework, researchers can avoid common pitfalls and focus on essential variables and relationships.

For practical examples and to see how different frameworks can be applied in various research scenarios, you can Explore Conceptual Framework Examples .

Different Types of Conceptual Frameworks Used in Research

Understanding the various types of conceptual frameworks is crucial for researchers aiming to align their studies with the most effective structure. Conceptual frameworks in research vary primarily between theoretical and operational frameworks, each serving distinct purposes and suiting different research methodologies.

Theoretical vs Operational Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks are built upon existing theories and literature, providing a broad and abstract understanding of the research topic. They help in forming the basis of the study by linking the research to already established scholarly works. On the other hand, operational frameworks are more practical, focusing on how the study’s theories will be tested through specific procedures and variables.

• Theoretical frameworks are ideal for exploratory studies and can help in understanding complex phenomena.
• Operational frameworks suit studies requiring precise measurement and data analysis.

Choosing the Right Framework

Selecting the appropriate conceptual framework is pivotal for the success of a research project. It involves matching the research questions with the framework that best addresses the methodological needs of the study. For instance, a theoretical framework might be chosen for studies that aim to generate new theories, while an operational framework would be better suited for testing specific hypotheses.

Benefits of choosing the right framework include enhanced clarity, better alignment with research goals, and improved validity of research outcomes. Tools like Table Chart Maker can be instrumental in visually comparing the strengths and weaknesses of different frameworks, aiding in this crucial decision-making process.

Real-World Examples of Conceptual Frameworks in Research

Understanding the practical application of conceptual frameworks in research can significantly enhance the clarity and effectiveness of your studies. Here, we explore several real-world case studies that demonstrate the pivotal role of conceptual frameworks in achieving robust research conclusions.

• Healthcare Research: In a study examining the impact of lifestyle choices on chronic diseases, researchers used a conceptual framework to link dietary habits, exercise, and genetic predispositions. This framework helped in identifying key variables and their interrelations, leading to more targeted interventions.
• Educational Development: Educational theorists often employ conceptual frameworks to explore the dynamics between teaching methods and student learning outcomes. One notable study mapped out the influences of digital tools on learning engagement, providing insights that shaped educational policies.
• Environmental Policy: Conceptual frameworks have been crucial in environmental research, particularly in studies on climate change adaptation. By framing the relationships between human activity, ecological changes, and policy responses, researchers have been able to propose more effective sustainability strategies.

Adapting conceptual frameworks based on evolving research data is also critical. As new information becomes available, it’s essential to revisit and adjust the framework to maintain its relevance and accuracy, ensuring that the research remains aligned with real-world conditions.

For those looking to visualize and better comprehend their research frameworks, Graphic Organizers for Conceptual Frameworks can be an invaluable tool. These organizers help in structuring and presenting research findings clearly, enhancing both the process and the presentation of your research.

Step-by-Step Guide to Creating Your Own Conceptual Framework

Creating a conceptual framework is a critical step in structuring your research to ensure clarity and focus. This guide will walk you through the process of building a robust framework, from identifying key concepts to refining your approach as your research evolves.

Building Blocks of a Conceptual Framework

• Identify and Define Main Concepts and Variables: Start by clearly identifying the main concepts, variables, and their relationships that will form the basis of your research. This could include defining key terms and establishing the scope of your study.
• Develop a Hypothesis or Primary Research Question: Formulate a central hypothesis or question that guides the direction of your research. This will serve as the foundation upon which your conceptual framework is built.
• Link Theories and Concepts Logically: Connect your identified concepts and variables with existing theories to create a coherent structure. This logical linking helps in forming a strong theoretical base for your research.

Visualizing and Refining Your Framework

Using visual tools can significantly enhance the clarity and effectiveness of your conceptual framework. Decision Tree Templates for Conceptual Frameworks can be particularly useful in mapping out the relationships between variables and hypotheses.

Map Your Framework: Utilize tools like Creately’s visual canvas to diagram your framework. This visual representation helps in identifying gaps or overlaps in your framework and provides a clear overview of your research structure.

Analyze and Refine: As your research progresses, continuously evaluate and refine your framework. Adjustments may be necessary as new data comes to light or as initial assumptions are challenged.

By following these steps, you can ensure that your conceptual framework is not only well-defined but also adaptable to the changing dynamics of your research.

Practical Tips for Utilizing Conceptual Frameworks in Research

Effectively utilizing a conceptual framework in research not only streamlines the process but also enhances the clarity and coherence of your findings. Here are some practical tips to maximize the use of conceptual frameworks in your research endeavors.

• Setting Clear Research Goals: Begin by defining precise objectives that are aligned with your research questions. This clarity will guide your entire research process, ensuring that every step you take is purposeful and directly contributes to your overall study aims. \
• Maintaining Focus and Coherence: Throughout the research, consistently refer back to your conceptual framework to maintain focus. This will help in keeping your research aligned with the initial goals and prevent deviations that could dilute the effectiveness of your findings.
• Data Analysis and Interpretation: Use your conceptual framework as a lens through which to view and interpret data. This approach ensures that the data analysis is not only systematic but also meaningful in the context of your research objectives. For more insights, explore Research Data Analysis Methods .
• Presenting Research Findings: When it comes time to present your findings, structure your presentation around the conceptual framework . This will help your audience understand the logical flow of your research and how each part contributes to the whole.
• Avoiding Common Pitfalls: Be vigilant about common errors such as overcomplicating the framework or misaligning the research methods with the framework’s structure. Keeping it simple and aligned ensures that the framework effectively supports your research.

By adhering to these tips and utilizing tools like 7 Essential Visual Tools for Social Work Assessment , researchers can ensure that their conceptual frameworks are not only robust but also practically applicable in their studies.

How Creately Enhances the Creation and Use of Conceptual Frameworks

Creating a robust conceptual framework is pivotal for effective research, and Creately’s suite of visual tools offers unparalleled support in this endeavor. By leveraging Creately’s features, researchers can visualize, organize, and analyze their research frameworks more efficiently.

• Visual Mapping of Research Plans: Creately’s infinite visual canvas allows researchers to map out their entire research plan visually. This helps in understanding the complex relationships between different research variables and theories, enhancing the clarity and effectiveness of the research process.
• Brainstorming with Mind Maps: Using Mind Mapping Software , researchers can generate and organize ideas dynamically. Creately’s intelligent formatting helps in brainstorming sessions, making it easier to explore multiple topics or delve deeply into specific concepts.
• Centralized Data Management: Creately enables the importation of data from multiple sources, which can be integrated into the visual research framework. This centralization aids in maintaining a cohesive and comprehensive overview of all research elements, ensuring that no critical information is overlooked.
• Communication and Collaboration: The platform supports real-time collaboration, allowing teams to work together seamlessly, regardless of their physical location. This feature is crucial for research teams spread across different geographies, facilitating effective communication and iterative feedback throughout the research process.

Moreover, the ability t Explore Conceptual Framework Examples directly within Creately inspires researchers by providing practical templates and examples that can be customized to suit specific research needs. This not only saves time but also enhances the quality of the conceptual framework developed.

In conclusion, Creately’s tools for creating and managing conceptual frameworks are indispensable for researchers aiming to achieve clear, structured, and impactful research outcomes.

Join over thousands of organizations that use Creately to brainstorm, plan, analyze, and execute their projects successfully.

More Related Articles

Chiraag George is a communication specialist here at Creately. He is a marketing junkie that is fascinated by how brands occupy consumer mind space. A lover of all things tech, he writes a lot about the intersection of technology, branding and culture at large.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is a Conceptual Framework and How to Make It (with Examples)

A strong conceptual framework underpins good research. A conceptual framework in research is used to understand a research problem and guide the development and analysis of the research. It serves as a roadmap to conceptualize and structure the work by providing an outline that connects different ideas, concepts, and theories within the field of study. A conceptual framework pictorially or verbally depicts presumed relationships among the study variables.

The purpose of a conceptual framework is to serve as a scheme for organizing and categorizing knowledge and thereby help researchers in developing theories and hypotheses and conducting empirical studies.

In this post, we explain what is a conceptual framework, and provide expert advice on how to make a conceptual framework, along with conceptual framework examples.

Table of Contents

What is a Conceptual Framework in Research

Definition of a conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework includes key concepts, variables, relationships, and assumptions that guide the academic inquiry. It establishes the theoretical underpinnings and provides a lens through which researchers can analyze and interpret data. A conceptual framework draws upon existing theories, models, or established bodies of knowledge to provide a structure for understanding the research problem. It defines the scope of research, identifying relevant variables, establishing research questions, and guiding the selection of appropriate methodologies and data analysis techniques.

Conceptual frameworks can be written or visual. Other types of conceptual framework representations might be taxonomic (verbal description categorizing phenomena into classes without showing relationships between classes) or mathematical descriptions (expression of phenomena in the form of mathematical equations).

Figure 1: Definition of a conceptual framework explained diagrammatically

Conceptual Framework Origin

The term conceptual framework appears to have originated in philosophy and systems theory, being used for the first time in the 1930s by the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead. He bridged the theological, social, and physical sciences by providing a common conceptual framework. The use of the conceptual framework began early in accountancy and can be traced back to publications by William A. Paton and John B. Canning in the first quarter of the 20 th century. Thus, in the original framework, financial issues were addressed, such as useful features, basic elements, and variables needed to prepare financial statements. Nevertheless, a conceptual framework approach should be considered when starting your research journey in any field, from finance to social sciences to applied sciences.

Purpose and Importance of a Conceptual Framework in Research

The importance of a conceptual framework in research cannot be understated, irrespective of the field of study. It is important for the following reasons:

• It clarifies the context of the study.
• It justifies the study to the reader.
• It helps you check your own understanding of the problem and the need for the study.
• It illustrates the expected relationship between the variables and defines the objectives for the research.
• It helps further refine the study objectives and choose the methods appropriate to meet them.

What to Include in a Conceptual Framework

Essential elements that a conceptual framework should include are as follows:

• Overarching research question(s)
• Study parameters
• Study variables
• Potential relationships between those variables.

The sources for these elements of a conceptual framework are literature, theory, and experience or prior knowledge.

How to Make a Conceptual Framework

Now that you know the essential elements, your next question will be how to make a conceptual framework.

For this, start by identifying the most suitable set of questions that your research aims to answer. Next, categorize the various variables. Finally, perform a rigorous analysis of the collected data and compile the final results to establish connections between the variables.

In short, the steps are as follows:

• Choose appropriate research questions.
• Define the different types of variables involved.
• Determine the cause-and-effect relationships.

Be sure to make use of arrows and lines to depict the presence or absence of correlational linkages among the variables.

Developing a Conceptual Framework

Researchers should be adept at developing a conceptual framework. Here are the steps for developing a conceptual framework:

1. Identify a research question

Your research question guides your entire study, making it imperative to invest time and effort in formulating a question that aligns with your research goals and contributes to the existing body of knowledge. This step involves the following:

• Choose a broad topic of interest
• Conduct background research
• Narrow down the focus
• Define your goals
• Make it specific and answerable
• Consider significance and novelty
• Seek feedback.

 2. Choose independent and dependent variables

The dependent variable is the main outcome you want to measure, explain, or predict in your study. It should be a variable that can be observed, measured, or assessed quantitatively or qualitatively. Independent variables are the factors or variables that may influence, explain, or predict changes in the dependent variable.

Choose independent and dependent variables for your study according to the research objectives, the nature of the phenomenon being studied, and the specific research design. The identification of variables is rooted in existing literature, theories, or your own observations.

3. Consider cause-and-effect relationships

To better understand and communicate the relationships between variables in your study, cause-and-effect relationships need to be visualized. This can be done by using path diagrams, cause-and-effect matrices, time series plots, scatter plots, bar charts, or heatmaps.

4. Identify other influencing variables

Besides the independent and dependent variables, researchers must understand and consider the following types of variables:

• Moderating variable: A variable that influences the strength or direction of the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable.
• Mediating variable: A variable that explains the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable and clarifies how the independent variable affects the dependent variable.
• Control variable: A variable that is kept constant or controlled to avoid the influence of other factors that may affect the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
• Confounding variable: A type of unmeasured variable that is related to both the independent and dependent variables.

Example of a Conceptual Framework

Let us examine the following conceptual framework example. Let’s say your research topic is “ The Impact of Social Media Usage on Academic Performance among College Students .” Here, you want to investigate how social media usage affects academic performance in college students. Social media usage (encompassing frequency of social media use, time spent on social media platforms, and types of social media platforms used) is the independent variable, and academic performance (covering grades, exam scores, and class attendance) is the dependent variable.

This conceptual framework example also includes a mediating variable, study habits, which may explain how social media usage affects academic performance. Study habits (time spent studying, study environment, and use of study aids or resources) can act as a mechanism through which social media usage influences academic outcomes. Additionally, a moderating variable, self-discipline (level of self-control and self-regulation, ability to manage distractions, and prioritization skills), is included to examine how individual differences in self-control and discipline may influence the relationship between social media usage and academic performance.

Confounding variables are also identified (socioeconomic status, prior academic achievement), which are potential factors that may influence both social media usage and academic performance. These variables need to be considered and controlled in the study to ensure that any observed effects are specifically attributed to social media usage. A visual representation of this conceptual framework example is seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Visual representation of a conceptual framework for the topic “The Impact of Social Media Usage on Academic Performance among College Students”

Key Takeaways

Here is a snapshot of the basics of a conceptual framework in research:

• A conceptual framework is an idea or model representing the subject or phenomena you intend to study.
• It is primarily a researcher’s perception of the research problem. It can be used to develop hypotheses or testable research questions.
• It provides a preliminary understanding of the factors at play, their interrelationships, and the underlying reasons.
• It guides your research by aiding in the formulation of meaningful research questions, selection of appropriate methods, and identification of potential challenges to the validity of your findings.
• It provides a structure for organizing and understanding data.
• It allows you to chalk out the relationships between concepts and variables to understand them.
• Variables besides dependent and independent variables (moderating, mediating, control, and confounding variables) must be considered when developing a conceptual framework.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a moderating variable and a mediating variable.

Moderating and mediating variables are easily confused. A moderating variable affects the direction and strength of this relationship, whereas a mediating explains how two variables relate.

What is the difference between independent variables, dependent variables, and confounding variables?

Independent variables are the variables manipulated to affect the outcome of an experiment (e.g., the dose of a fat-loss drug administered to rats). Dependent variables are variables being measured or observed in an experiment (e.g., changes in rat body weight as a result of the drug). A confounding variable distorts or masks the effects of the variables being studied because it is associated both with dependent variable and with the independent variable. For instance, in this example, pre-existing metabolic dysfunction in some rats could interact differently with the drug being studied and also affect rat body weight.

Should I have more than one dependent or independent variable in a study?

The need for more than one dependent or independent variable in a study depends on the research question, study design, and relationships being investigated. Note the following when making this decision for your research:

• If your research question involves exploring the relationships between multiple variables or factors, it may be appropriate to have more than one dependent or independent variable.
• If you have specific hypotheses about the relationships between several variables, it may be necessary to include multiple dependent or independent variables.
• Adequate resources, sample size, and data collection methods should be considered when determining the number of dependent and independent variables to include.

What is a confounding variable?

A confounding variable is not the main focus of the study but can unintentionally influence the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Confounding variables can introduce bias and give rise to misleading conclusions. These variables must be controlled to ensure that any observed relationship is genuinely due to the independent variable.

What is a control variable?

A control variable is something not of interest to the study’s objectives but is kept constant because it could influence the outcomes. Control variables can help prevent research biases and allow for a more accurate assessment of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Examples are (i) testing all participants at the same time (e.g., in the morning) to minimize the potential effects of circadian rhythms, (ii) ensuring that instruments are calibrated consistently before each measurement to minimize the influence of measurement errors, and (iii) randomization of participants across study groups.

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

How Publishers Can Enhance Reader Engagement with R Discovery’s Article Recommendation System

Turabian Format: A Beginner’s 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: Jun 18, 2024 10:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Theoretical vs Conceptual Framework

What they are & how they’re different (with examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | March 2023

If you’re new to academic research, sooner or later you’re bound to run into the terms theoretical framework and conceptual framework . These are closely related but distinctly different things (despite some people using them interchangeably) and it’s important to understand what each means. In this post, we’ll unpack both theoretical and conceptual frameworks in plain language along with practical examples , so that you can approach your research with confidence.

Overview: Theoretical vs Conceptual

What is a theoretical framework, example of a theoretical framework, what is a conceptual framework, example of a conceptual framework.

• Theoretical vs conceptual: which one should I use?

A theoretical framework (also sometimes referred to as a foundation of theory) is essentially a set of concepts, definitions, and propositions that together form a structured, comprehensive view of a specific phenomenon.

In other words, a theoretical framework is a collection of existing theories, models and frameworks that provides a foundation of core knowledge – a “lay of the land”, so to speak, from which you can build a research study. For this reason, it’s usually presented fairly early within the literature review section of a dissertation, thesis or research paper .

Let’s look at an example to make the theoretical framework a little more tangible.

If your research aims involve understanding what factors contributed toward people trusting investment brokers, you’d need to first lay down some theory so that it’s crystal clear what exactly you mean by this. For example, you would need to define what you mean by “trust”, as there are many potential definitions of this concept. The same would be true for any other constructs or variables of interest.

You’d also need to identify what existing theories have to say in relation to your research aim. In this case, you could discuss some of the key literature in relation to organisational trust. A quick search on Google Scholar using some well-considered keywords generally provides a good starting point.

Typically, you’ll present your theoretical framework in written form , although sometimes it will make sense to utilise some visuals to show how different theories relate to each other. Your theoretical framework may revolve around just one major theory , or it could comprise a collection of different interrelated theories and models. In some cases, there will be a lot to cover and in some cases, not. Regardless of size, the theoretical framework is a critical ingredient in any study.

Simply put, the theoretical framework is the core foundation of theory that you’ll build your research upon. As we’ve mentioned many times on the blog, good research is developed by standing on the shoulders of giants . It’s extremely unlikely that your research topic will be completely novel and that there’ll be absolutely no existing theory that relates to it. If that’s the case, the most likely explanation is that you just haven’t reviewed enough literature yet! So, make sure that you take the time to review and digest the seminal sources.

Need a helping hand?

A conceptual framework is typically a visual representation (although it can also be written out) of the expected relationships and connections between various concepts, constructs or variables. In other words, a conceptual framework visualises how the researcher views and organises the various concepts and variables within their study. This is typically based on aspects drawn from the theoretical framework, so there is a relationship between the two.

Quite commonly, conceptual frameworks are used to visualise the potential causal relationships and pathways that the researcher expects to find, based on their understanding of both the theoretical literature and the existing empirical research . Therefore, the conceptual framework is often used to develop research questions and hypotheses .

Let’s look at an example of a conceptual framework to make it a little more tangible. You’ll notice that in this specific conceptual framework, the hypotheses are integrated into the visual, helping to connect the rest of the document to the framework.

As you can see, conceptual frameworks often make use of different shapes , lines and arrows to visualise the connections and relationships between different components and/or variables. Ultimately, the conceptual framework provides an opportunity for you to make explicit your understanding of how everything is connected . So, be sure to make use of all the visual aids you can – clean design, well-considered colours and concise text are your friends.

Theoretical framework vs conceptual framework

As you can see, the theoretical framework and the conceptual framework are closely related concepts, but they differ in terms of focus and purpose. The theoretical framework is used to lay down a foundation of theory on which your study will be built, whereas the conceptual framework visualises what you anticipate the relationships between concepts, constructs and variables may be, based on your understanding of the existing literature and the specific context and focus of your research. In other words, they’re different tools for different jobs , but they’re neighbours in the toolbox.

Naturally, the theoretical framework and the conceptual framework are not mutually exclusive . In fact, it’s quite likely that you’ll include both in your dissertation or thesis, especially if your research aims involve investigating relationships between variables. Of course, every research project is different and universities differ in terms of their expectations for dissertations and theses, so it’s always a good idea to have a look at past projects to get a feel for what the norms and expectations are at your specific institution.

Want to learn more about research terminology, methods and techniques? Be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach blog . Alternatively, if you’re looking for hands-on help, have a look at our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research process, step by step.

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 ...

21 Comments

Thank you for giving a valuable lesson

good thanks!

VERY INSIGHTFUL

thanks for given very interested understand about both theoritical and conceptual framework

I am researching teacher beliefs about inclusive education but not using a theoretical framework just conceptual frame using teacher beliefs, inclusive education and inclusive practices as my concepts

good, fantastic

great! thanks for the clarification. I am planning to use both for my implementation evaluation of EmONC service at primary health care facility level. its theoretical foundation rooted from the principles of implementation science.

This is a good one…now have a better understanding of Theoretical and Conceptual frameworks. Highly grateful

Very educating and fantastic,good to be part of you guys,I appreciate your enlightened concern.

Thanks for shedding light on these two t opics. Much clearer in my head now.

Simple and clear!

The differences between the two topics was well explained, thank you very much!

Thank you great insight

Superb. Thank you so much.

Hello Gradcoach! I’m excited with your fantastic educational videos which mainly focused on all over research process. I’m a student, I kindly ask and need your support. So, if it’s possible please send me the PDF format of all topic provided here, I put my email below, thank you!

I am really grateful I found this website. This is very helpful for an MPA student like myself.

I’m clear with these two terminologies now. Useful information. I appreciate it. Thank you

I’m well inform about these two concepts in research. Thanks

I found this really helpful. It is well explained. Thank you.

very clear and useful. information important at start of research!!

Wow, great information, clear and concise review of the differences between theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Thank you! keep up the good work.

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Theoretical Framework

Definition:

Theoretical framework refers to a set of concepts, theories, ideas , and assumptions that serve as a foundation for understanding a particular phenomenon or problem. It provides a conceptual framework that helps researchers to design and conduct their research, as well as to analyze and interpret their findings.

In research, a theoretical framework explains the relationship between various variables, identifies gaps in existing knowledge, and guides the development of research questions, hypotheses, and methodologies. It also helps to contextualize the research within a broader theoretical perspective, and can be used to guide the interpretation of results and the formulation of recommendations.

Types of Theoretical Framework

Types of Types of Theoretical Framework are as follows:

Conceptual Framework

This type of framework defines the key concepts and relationships between them. It helps to provide a theoretical foundation for a study or research project .

Deductive Framework

This type of framework starts with a general theory or hypothesis and then uses data to test and refine it. It is often used in quantitative research .

Inductive Framework

This type of framework starts with data and then develops a theory or hypothesis based on the patterns and themes that emerge from the data. It is often used in qualitative research .

Empirical Framework

This type of framework focuses on the collection and analysis of empirical data, such as surveys or experiments. It is often used in scientific research .

Normative Framework

This type of framework defines a set of norms or values that guide behavior or decision-making. It is often used in ethics and social sciences.

Explanatory Framework

This type of framework seeks to explain the underlying mechanisms or causes of a particular phenomenon or behavior. It is often used in psychology and social sciences.

Components of Theoretical Framework

The components of a theoretical framework include:

• Concepts : The basic building blocks of a theoretical framework. Concepts are abstract ideas or generalizations that represent objects, events, or phenomena.
• Variables : These are measurable and observable aspects of a concept. In a research context, variables can be manipulated or measured to test hypotheses.
• Assumptions : These are beliefs or statements that are taken for granted and are not tested in a study. They provide a starting point for developing hypotheses.
• Propositions : These are statements that explain the relationships between concepts and variables in a theoretical framework.
• Hypotheses : These are testable predictions that are derived from the theoretical framework. Hypotheses are used to guide data collection and analysis.
• Constructs : These are abstract concepts that cannot be directly measured but are inferred from observable variables. Constructs provide a way to understand complex phenomena.
• Models : These are simplified representations of reality that are used to explain, predict, or control a phenomenon.

How to Write Theoretical Framework

A theoretical framework is an essential part of any research study or paper, as it helps to provide a theoretical basis for the research and guide the analysis and interpretation of the data. Here are some steps to help you write a theoretical framework:

• Identify the key concepts and variables : Start by identifying the main concepts and variables that your research is exploring. These could include things like motivation, behavior, attitudes, or any other relevant concepts.
• Review relevant literature: Conduct a thorough review of the existing literature in your field to identify key theories and ideas that relate to your research. This will help you to understand the existing knowledge and theories that are relevant to your research and provide a basis for your theoretical framework.
• Develop a conceptual framework : Based on your literature review, develop a conceptual framework that outlines the key concepts and their relationships. This framework should provide a clear and concise overview of the theoretical perspective that underpins your research.
• Identify hypotheses and research questions: Based on your conceptual framework, identify the hypotheses and research questions that you want to test or explore in your research.
• Test your theoretical framework: Once you have developed your theoretical framework, test it by applying it to your research data. This will help you to identify any gaps or weaknesses in your framework and refine it as necessary.
• Write up your theoretical framework: Finally, write up your theoretical framework in a clear and concise manner, using appropriate terminology and referencing the relevant literature to support your arguments.

Theoretical Framework Examples

Here are some examples of theoretical frameworks:

• Social Learning Theory : This framework, developed by Albert Bandura, suggests that people learn from their environment, including the behaviors of others, and that behavior is influenced by both external and internal factors.
• Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs : Abraham Maslow proposed that human needs are arranged in a hierarchy, with basic physiological needs at the bottom, followed by safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization at the top. This framework has been used in various fields, including psychology and education.
• Ecological Systems Theory : This framework, developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner, suggests that a person’s development is influenced by the interaction between the individual and the various environments in which they live, such as family, school, and community.
• Feminist Theory: This framework examines how gender and power intersect to influence social, cultural, and political issues. It emphasizes the importance of understanding and challenging systems of oppression.
• Cognitive Behavioral Theory: This framework suggests that our thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes influence our behavior, and that changing our thought patterns can lead to changes in behavior and emotional responses.
• Attachment Theory: This framework examines the ways in which early relationships with caregivers shape our later relationships and attachment styles.
• Critical Race Theory : This framework examines how race intersects with other forms of social stratification and oppression to perpetuate inequality and discrimination.

When to Have A Theoretical Framework

Following are some situations When to Have A Theoretical Framework:

• A theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research in any discipline, as it provides a foundation for understanding the research problem and guiding the research process.
• A theoretical framework is essential when conducting research on complex phenomena, as it helps to organize and structure the research questions, hypotheses, and findings.
• A theoretical framework should be developed when the research problem requires a deeper understanding of the underlying concepts and principles that govern the phenomenon being studied.
• A theoretical framework is particularly important when conducting research in social sciences, as it helps to explain the relationships between variables and provides a framework for testing hypotheses.
• A theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research in applied fields, such as engineering or medicine, as it helps to provide a theoretical basis for the development of new technologies or treatments.
• A theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research that seeks to address a specific gap in knowledge, as it helps to define the problem and identify potential solutions.
• A theoretical framework is also important when conducting research that involves the analysis of existing theories or concepts, as it helps to provide a framework for comparing and contrasting different theories and concepts.
• A theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research that seeks to make predictions or develop generalizations about a particular phenomenon, as it helps to provide a basis for evaluating the accuracy of these predictions or generalizations.
• Finally, a theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research that seeks to make a contribution to the field, as it helps to situate the research within the broader context of the discipline and identify its significance.

Purpose of Theoretical Framework

The purposes of a theoretical framework include:

• Providing a conceptual framework for the study: A theoretical framework helps researchers to define and clarify the concepts and variables of interest in their research. It enables researchers to develop a clear and concise definition of the problem, which in turn helps to guide the research process.
• Guiding the research design: A theoretical framework can guide the selection of research methods, data collection techniques, and data analysis procedures. By outlining the key concepts and assumptions underlying the research questions, the theoretical framework can help researchers to identify the most appropriate research design for their study.
• Supporting the interpretation of research findings: A theoretical framework provides a framework for interpreting the research findings by helping researchers to make connections between their findings and existing theory. It enables researchers to identify the implications of their findings for theory development and to assess the generalizability of their findings.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research: A well-developed theoretical framework can enhance the credibility of the research by providing a strong theoretical foundation for the study. It demonstrates that the research is based on a solid understanding of the relevant theory and that the research questions are grounded in a clear conceptual framework.
• Facilitating communication and collaboration: A theoretical framework provides a common language and conceptual framework for researchers, enabling them to communicate and collaborate more effectively. It helps to ensure that everyone involved in the research is working towards the same goals and is using the same concepts and definitions.

Characteristics of Theoretical Framework

Some of the characteristics of a theoretical framework include:

• Conceptual clarity: The concepts used in the theoretical framework should be clearly defined and understood by all stakeholders.
• Logical coherence : The framework should be internally consistent, with each concept and assumption logically connected to the others.
• Empirical relevance: The framework should be based on empirical evidence and research findings.
• Parsimony : The framework should be as simple as possible, without sacrificing its ability to explain the phenomenon in question.
• Flexibility : The framework should be adaptable to new findings and insights.
• Testability : The framework should be testable through research, with clear hypotheses that can be falsified or supported by data.
• Applicability : The framework should be useful for practical applications, such as designing interventions or policies.

Advantages of Theoretical Framework

Here are some of the advantages of having a theoretical framework:

• Provides a clear direction : A theoretical framework helps researchers to identify the key concepts and variables they need to study and the relationships between them. This provides a clear direction for the research and helps researchers to focus their efforts and resources.
• Increases the validity of the research: A theoretical framework helps to ensure that the research is based on sound theoretical principles and concepts. This increases the validity of the research by ensuring that it is grounded in established knowledge and is not based on arbitrary assumptions.
• Enables comparisons between studies : A theoretical framework provides a common language and set of concepts that researchers can use to compare and contrast their findings. This helps to build a cumulative body of knowledge and allows researchers to identify patterns and trends across different studies.
• Helps to generate hypotheses: A theoretical framework provides a basis for generating hypotheses about the relationships between different concepts and variables. This can help to guide the research process and identify areas that require further investigation.
• Facilitates communication: A theoretical framework provides a common language and set of concepts that researchers can use to communicate their findings to other researchers and to the wider community. This makes it easier for others to understand the research and its implications.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Informed Consent in Research – Types, Templates...

Problem Statement – Writing Guide, Examples and...

Significance of the Study – Examples and Writing...

Survey Instruments – List and Their Uses

Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Title – Writing Guide and Example

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Eur J Psychol
• v.18(1); 2022 Feb

The Importance of Awareness, Acceptance, and Alignment With the Self: A Framework for Understanding Self-Connection

Kristine klussman.

1 Connection Lab, San Francisco, CA, USA

Nicola Curtin

Julia langer, austin lee nichols.

We provide a theoretical framework for what it means to be self-connected and propose that self-connection is an important potential contributor to a person’s well-being. We define self-connection as consisting of three components: 1) an awareness of oneself, 2) an acceptance of oneself based on this awareness, and 3) an alignment of one’s behavior with this awareness. First, we position the concept within the broader self literature and provide the empirical context for our proposed definition of self-connection. We next compare and contrast self-connection to related constructs, including mindfulness and authenticity. Following, we discuss some of the potential relationships between self-connection and various aspects of mental health and well-being. Finally, we provide initial recommendations for future research, including potential ways to promote self-connection. In all, we present this theory to provide researchers with a framework for understanding self-connection so that they can utilize this concept to better support the efforts of researchers and practitioners alike to increase individuals’ well-being in various contexts.

In recent years, there has been growing interest in understanding the factors that contribute to people experiencing meaningful and happy lives (e.g., Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005 ; Seligman, 2002 , 2008 ; Veenhoven, 2003 ). Results suggest that a fulfilling life includes a sense of meaning ( Steger, 2009 ), strong interpersonal relationships ( Myers, 2000 ), and the pursuit and attainment of personal goals ( Emmons, 2003 ). In addition, there is a long-standing belief that happiness is the result of identifying one’s strengths and virtues and living a life that cultivates and reflects them ( Aristotle, 2002 ).

In our research lab, we consider how people build lives characterized by deep connection to self and others and the importance of these efforts for health and well-being. People often understand, and empirical research supports, the importance of establishing close relationships and building social networks ( Cohen, 2004 ; Helliwell & Putnam, 2004 ; Holt-Lunstad & Smith, 2012 ; Lakey & Cronin, 2008 ; Lakey, Vander Molen, Fles, & Andrews, 2016 ). In contrast, although “knowing oneself” has long been of philosophical and psychological interest, sparse research has investigated what self-connection is and what it means to people’s health and well-being. In this paper, we will 1) provide an overview of the definition of self-connection and its three components, 2) discuss the potential well-being increases that result from self-connection, and 3) present some initial thoughts on the fruitful directions that future investigations of self-connection might pursue.

Understanding the Self in Self-Connection

The first, and possibly most important, aspect of self-connection is that it refers to the self. As such, it is useful to clarify our intended use and context of the term “self.” Social psychological theories generally highlight that people form and maintain self-concepts (i.e., ideas about who they are as distinct entities). Self-concepts help individuals to organize information extracted from momentary experiences. Select information is attended to as self-relevant, often information related to autobiographical memories and motivations, and is mentally processed in ways that can yield a sense of more enduring (though still malleable) personal characteristics and social roles ( Markus, 1977 ; Oyserman, 2001 ). For example, if one currently feels compelled to comfort a distressed acquaintance and recalls multiple instances of feeling concerned for friends, the person’s self-concept might include “caring” or “a supportive friend.” Of note, one may hold multiple overlapping self-concepts (e.g., public and private selves; see Baumeister, 2012 ) and multi-faceted self-concepts (e.g., situationally contingent or flexible aspects of the self; see Paulhus & Martin, 1988 ). Within these self-concepts, people often have a sense of what they regard as their true self, in terms of what is most essential about them or most personally endorsed ( Rogers, 1959 ; Schlegel & Hicks, 2011 ). This perceived true self is important for our definition of self-connection.

Both the perceived true self and potentially broader self-concepts are formed and maintained by selectively attending to, interpreting, and remembering aspects of momentary experiences (see Oyserman, 2001 ). In turn, maintaining one’s self-concept can sometimes detract from individual and social well-being, such as when individuals become preoccupied in primarily negative self-related thoughts ( Lyubomirsky & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1993 ; Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000 ) or react defensively toward others ( Crocker & Park, 2004 ; Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997 ). To avoid such undesirable efforts of self-concept maintenance, some research has explored meta-cognitively distancing (e.g., “disidentifying”) from self-related thinking during momentary experiences ( Bernstein et al., 2015 ; Fresco et al., 2007 ; also see Brewer, Garrison, & Whitfield-Gabrieli, 2013 ). Although these approaches may be useful in some instances, they risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak, since engaging with the self can be beneficial when it helps people find meaning and purpose in life ( Schlegel & Hicks, 2011 ; Schlegel, Hicks, King, & Arndt, 2011 ). This then raises the question of if that upside can be maximized while minimizing potential pitfalls. Within that context, this paper presents the concept of self-connection as a way of relating to the self that supports individual and social well-being.

Defining Self-Connection

In addition to its focus on the self, self-connection inherently involves a sense of connection. In our conceptualization, that sense of connection uniquely relates to the perceived self. More specifically, it refers to the presence of and relationship between three capacities—awareness of, acceptance of, and behavioral alignment with oneself. Consequently, we define self-connection as a subjective experience consisting of three components: 1) an awareness of oneself, 2) an acceptance of oneself based on this awareness, and 3) an alignment of one’s behaviors with this awareness. We posit that the three components are interrelated in a non-hierarchical structure and contribute synergistically to experiencing self-connection. As such, an individual who is lacking in any of the three components would experience less overall self-connection.

Awareness of Oneself

The first component of self-connection, self-awareness, is defined as knowing one’s internal states, preference, resources, and intuitions ( Goleman, 2006 ). As part of their self-concepts, many people believe that they have an essential, internal, and private self, capable of being truly or fully known only to them ( Rogers, 1959 ; Schlegel & Hicks, 2011 ). This perceived self may be more endorsed or important than other aspects of one’s self-concept. People may see this self as immutable, but some psychological perspectives, such as Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1980 , 1985 ), posit that the self need not be unchangeable but rather be determined and meaningful to the individual ( Schlegel & Hicks, 2011 ). As such, we are not arguing that there is one, “real” internal self ( Darley & Fazio, 1980 ; Murray, Holmes, & Griffen, 1996 ). Instead, we contend it is people’s perceived understanding of aspects of their self-concepts resembling a self (e.g., important values) that is relevant to experiencing self-connection.

Also informing our conceptualization of the awareness component of self-connection is the construct of mindfulness. One central feature of mindfulness is an awareness of and attention to one’s current experiences, from moment to moment ( Bishop et al., 2004 ; Brown & Ryan, 2003 ; Kabat-Zinn, 1990 ). Part of mindfulness is observing or noting sensations, thoughts, and emotions as they occur, bringing them into awareness and potentially greater clarity ( Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007 ; Mikulas, 2011 ). Similarly, the awareness component of self-connection notices self-relevant aspects of experiences, potentially providing more attention to, and clarity on, those that pertain to oneself.

Acceptance of Oneself

The second part of the definition of self-connection is self-acceptance and can be defined as a complete acceptance of one’s internal states, preference, resources, and intuitions. Acceptance involves receptivity and openness to oneself, rather than avoidance and denial. We assert that acceptance of the perceived self is a key component of self-connection and can also best be understood within the psychological literature on mindfulness. A second, integral quality of mindfulness, in addition to present-moment awareness, is an accepting stance toward experiences (see Kabat-Zinn, 1990 ; Lindsay & Creswell, 2017 ). Acceptance in mindfulness involves receptively meeting one’s experiences as they are, without trying to alter them. Self-connection consists of a similar acceptance, yet this acceptance is oriented more toward the self. When self-relevant experiences and characteristics come into awareness, they are allowed as “this feels like part of me” and not automatically judged as good or bad. In this way, the acceptance component of self-connection is not about liking or esteeming oneself (or how likable the self is to others), as some other conceptualizations of self-acceptance include (e.g., Ryff & Keyes, 1995 ). Instead, the focus is on a willingness to acknowledge one’s feelings, values, and other aspects of the self and truly accepting oneself.

Alignment With Oneself

The third part of our definition involves drawing on one’s awareness and acceptance of the perceived self when making behavioral decisions. This self-alignment can be defined as behaving in ways that are consistent with one’s internal states, preference, resources, and intuitions. Specifically, self-connection involves acting in alignment (component three) with one’s awareness of the self (component one) by using one’s acceptance of this awareness (component two) to facilitate behaviors that align with the perceived self. This component of self-connection is similar to conceptualizations of self-determined decisions in Self-Determination Theory ( Deci & Ryan, 1980 , 1985 ) as well as authentic behavior ( Kernis & Goldman, 2006 ; Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008 ). That is, behavioral alignment involves deciding to act in ways that authentically reflect the perceived self. Awareness and acceptance of the perceived self theoretically should facilitate aligned behavioral decisions, and behavioral experiences may also help individuals to become more aware of what they perceive as their self and/or accept that self. Developing concordance between behavior, self-awareness, and self-acceptance is critical to a lived experience of self-connection.

Limitations of Similar Concepts

Self-connection versus authenticity.

In part, the proposed definition of self-connection shares some relation with concepts of authenticity ( Kernis & Goldman, 2006 ; Wood et al., 2008 ) but can also be distinguished from them. In their development of a measure of dispositional authenticity, Wood and colleagues (2008) argued that authenticity primarily includes authentic living—the degree to which a person’s behavior matches their self. This most strongly maps onto the self-alignment component of self-connection, but is only one of three necessary components of self-connection. Other conceptualizations or operationalizations of authenticity also may include some form of awareness or acceptance (see Kernis & Goldman, 2006 ). These differ from how we conceptualize awareness and acceptance in self-connection. First, self-connection is inherently relational within one’s own experience: It is about experiencing a sense of linkage with oneself. That is, awareness and acceptance are essentially a way of relating to one’s self-relevant mental processing and tuning into oneself. In contrast, conceptualizations of awareness and acceptance in authenticity tend to imply that one exists in an experience of the self and are more focused on avoiding self-deception and contending with external influences and judgments, respectively ( Kernis & Goldman, 2006 ). Authenticity may also be affected by judgments of “good” and “bad” whereas these are not relevant to self-connection. Likewise, we assert that the nonjudgmental conceptualization of acceptance proposed as part of self-connection may have added value in enhancing one's ability to act in alignment with oneself.

Self-Connection Versus Mindfulness

The proposed definition of self-connection bears resemblance to mindfulness but also contains aspects that distinguish the two concepts. Awareness and a lack of judgement are two defining, synergistic components of mindfulness (see Lindsay & Creswell, 2017 ). However, most scientific definitions of mindfulness do not include alignment of behavior with the perceived self (the third component of self-connection). When intentional behavior is considered, it is usually as a correlate or consequence of mindfulness (e.g., Chatzisarantis & Hagger, 2007 ). Moreover, mindfulness itself does not specifically concern or reference the self, as self-connection does. In fact, substantial mindfulness-related theory and research addressing the self treats it as something to distance oneself from or to transcend (see Bernstein et al., 2015 ). A growing literature does address mindful self-compassion, but this concept only concerns handling difficult experiences and includes identifying less with them ( Neff, 2003 ). Altogether, we propose that mindfulness concerns itself with broader awareness and acceptance of experience and thus may be helpful for, but is not synonymous with, experiencing self-connection. The concept of self-connection goes beyond mindfulness and self-compassion in that it draws on components of mindfulness—awareness and acceptance—along with behavioral alignment to facilitate experiences of connection to the perceived self.

Is Self-Connection a State or Trait?

At a basic level , self-connection could be thought of as both a state and an individual difference characteristic (similar to a trait). That is, it is possible to temporarily experience a state of greater self-connection. Additionally, repeatedly experiencing states of increased self-connection may promote its ease and frequency throughout life. Likewise, individuals may differ in the extent to which they generally tend toward experiencing self-connection. Whether this would be considered a trait-level difference might vary with different models of personality. We discuss one such framework next.

Within the context of McAdams and Pals’ (2006) holistic model of personality, self-connection can be understood as a characteristic adaptation—more individualized and, possibly, more malleable across situations and time than a basic trait. In this model, self-connection may be a third- and/or fourth-level characteristic adaptation. Third-level characteristic adaptations are not simply basic traits and instead include “aspects of human individuality that speak to motivational, social-cognitive, and developmental concerns” (p. 208). Awareness of the perceived true self can be developed, and one may choose to accept it and act accordingly or not — these are individual motivational, social-cognitive, and developmental concerns akin to third-level characteristic adaptations. For example, as one might develop a commitment to environmental conservation (itself a characteristic adaptation), one might simultaneously develop awareness and acceptance of that value and act in a manner consistent with it.

The fourth level of McAdams and Pals’ (2006) model refers to the more malleable aspects of characteristic adaptations that are subject to change based on context or experience. Characteristic adaptations are more likely to change over time than traits as they are anchored in everyday situational and personality processes and dynamics. Awareness of, acceptance of, and alignment with a value may develop nuances as the value is experienced in more contexts—a fourth-level characteristic adaptation. As such, self-connection may contribute in significant ways to an individual's development across life domains. To the extent that people experience self-connection across life domains and throughout daily life, it would be more trait-like for an individual, even though any individual could also experience a temporary, heightened state of self-connection. As such, we view self-connection as something that can be treated and examined at both the state and trait level.

The Implications of Self-Connection for Well-Being

We propose that self-connection is a way of relating to the self that supports positive functioning and well-being. Specifically, experiencing connection to oneself should promote meaning and purpose in life and greater attainment of related goals. In terms of well-being assessment, this may also be reflected in greater life satisfaction (as in assessments of subjective well-being; Diener, 1984 ) and greater eudaimonic well-being at a personal level (as operationalized as either flourishing as in Keyes, 2002 , or psychological well-being as in Ryff, 1989 ). Self-connection may also conceivably enhance various aspects of social connection and social well-being. For example, one may be able to communicate preferences and values to others more clearly and support others in doing so. More self-connected individuals may also engage in more meaningful social activities due to acting in alignment with their values. For such reasons, connection with self and others may go hand-in-hand.

Theoretical and empirical literatures on related constructs provide indirect support for these propositions. The mindfulness literature suggests that awareness and acceptance are associated with greater well-being ( Lindsay & Creswell, 2017 ; McNall, Tombari, & Brown, 2019 ). More relevant to self-awareness specifically, Schlegel and colleagues assert that discovering and expressing the self is crucial to psychological health ( Schlegel, Hicks, Arndt, & King, 2009 ). Their research suggests that the feeling of knowing yourself predicts self-actualization, vitality, self-esteem, active coping, psychological need satisfaction, positive affect, and subjective well-being ( Schlegel, Vess, & Arndt, 2012 ). Schlegel and colleagues also assert that understanding the self allows one to interpret actions that are congruent with the self as valuable ( Schlegel & Hicks, 2011 ) and provide a sense of coherence ( Hicks, 2013 ).

Furthermore, beyond research on mindfulness (which is inherently accepting), some research also suggests that self-acceptance may play a role in well-being. Most relevant to self-connection is research that conceptualizes self-acceptance as unconditional and less evaluative, as compared to positive self-evaluations (e.g., Ryff & Keyes, 1995 ). Such research has found unique, positive associations between self-acceptance and overall mood as well as eudaimonic well-being ( Chamberlain & Haaga, 2001 ; MacInnes, 2006 ; Ranzijn & Luszcz, 1999 ).

Several research programs also provide evidence to support the argument that congruence between one’s implicit and/or internal goals and explicit behaviors is an important cornerstone of well-being ( Schultheiss & Brunstein, 1999 ; Schultheiss, Jones, Davis, & Kley, 2008 ; Sheldon, 2004 , 2014 ). For example, people who choose goals based on their own internal interests are more likely to achieve those goals ( Sheldon & Elliot, 1999 ; Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001 ) and show increased levels of happiness ( Sheldon & Elliot, 1998 ; Sheldon & Kasser, 1998 ). Bailis, Fleming, and Segall (2005) surveyed people when they first joined a gym and found that people who had self-concordant goals were more likely to be members of the gym 2 years later, were less likely to compare themselves to others, and were less negatively influenced by social comparisons. In their experimental study, Chatzisarantis, Hagger, and Wang (2010) found that their manipulation of self-concordant goal motivation and implementation intention resulted in the highest level of short-term adherence to taking daily multivitamins. Thus, research suggests pursuing goals that reflect one’s self results in greater long-term commitment to those goals, and possibly even greater satisfaction in the pursuit of them. Altogether, such existing literature suggests that constructs related or similar to the three components of self-connection support well-being. Therefore, it is reasonable to propose that the combination of the three components of self-connection may synergize to support well-being.

There also is some indirect evidence to support the idea that such benefits of self-connection may not carry risks of preoccupation in negative self-related thinking or defensive reactions, both of which may undermine individual and social well-being. For example, research on negative rumination has found that private self-reflection can be distinguished from maladaptive rumination ( Trapnell & Campbell, 1999 ), indicating that self-awareness is not inherently a rumination risk. Self-Affirmation Theory ( Aronson, Cohen, & Nail, 1999 ; Sherman & Cohen, 2006 ; Steele, 1988 ) has produced considerable evidence that reminders of broader valued aspects of the self (e.g., writing briefly about a core value after a threat to some other aspect of the self; reminders of other important goals when frustrated about a particular goal), can reduce both negative rumination ( Koole, Smeets, van Knippenberg, & Dijksterhuis, 1999 ) and defensive reactions ( Sherman & Cohen, 2006 ).

These findings are generally consistent with the idea that experiencing a sense of connection to aspects of oneself (e.g., values, important goals) may not carry risks of rumination or defensiveness. Further, the mechanisms underlying such effects are not clear empirically. Self-Affirmation Theory suggests that, after an aspect of the self has been threatened, reminders of other values restore a positive view of the self, reducing a need for rumination or defensiveness. We posit that it is also possible that reminders of values could operate through connecting to oneself with acceptance (rather than needing esteem or liking). This potential role of acceptance is supported by the empirical literature on mindfulness.

Mindfulness inherently involves acceptance and is associated with less maladaptive rumination and defensiveness. Many studies have found that trait mindfulness and mindfulness training are associated with less negative rumination and stress ( Gu, Strauss, Bond, & Cavanagh, 2015 ; Paul, Stanton, Greeson, Smoski, & Wang, 2012 ; Van der Velden et al., 2015 ). More mindful individuals also may show fewer defensive reactions to self-related threats. For example, in a series of studies on the role of mindfulness in responses to mortality threats (i.e., making thoughts of death salient, thus threatening people’s sense of self), more mindful individuals were less defensive in their responses. In all, evidence suggests that an accepting awareness may attenuate risks of rumination and defensiveness and thus indirectly supports our contention that self-connection may as well.

Future Research on Self-Connection

There are several promising directions that research on self-connection might take. We describe only a few of them below.

Operationalizing Self-Connection

The first requirement for researching self-connection is the development of a validated tool to measure it. Ideally, a measure would be able to assess overall self-connection as well as the individual components of self-connection: self-awareness, self-acceptance, and self-alignment. As conceptualized, self-connection should be measured through a composite of items that measures all three components. Additionally, we need to ensure that the measure is reliable and valid, such as testing whether it relates to relevant variables as predicted and its incremental value beyond existing measures. Development of one such measure is underway in our lab.

The ability to experimentally increase self-connection also is needed to help reach causal conclusions about the effects of self-connection. Experimental manipulations could attempt to temporarily boost a state of self-connection or increase an individual’s overall tendency toward self-connection in daily life. The former might be accomplished with brief, one-time exercises and could potentially reveal immediate, albeit temporary, effects of heightened self-connection on state-dependent measures, including in certain contexts or domains. The latter, increasing individual differences in self-connection, may require more extended intervention, potentially with multiple exercises and/or covering multiple life domains. We describe some potential intervention ideas below.

Building the Nomological Network of Self-Connection

After we understand how to measure self-connection, research into the nomological network of self-connection needs to examine the ways in which self-connection may or may not relate to various aspects of both well-being and health. Such research could examine cross-sectional and prospective relationships between measured self-connection and meaning in life, aspects of individual and social well-being, and goal persistence and attainment. Intervention studies, especially randomized controlled trials, will provide evidence of directionality and potential causality.

Individual Differences Predicting Self-Connection

Correlational and prospective studies also should assess individual differences that may predict the self-awareness, self-acceptance, and/or the self-alignment components of self-connection and the overall representation of self-connection. Trait mindfulness is one variable noted previously. Self-concept clarity also has been associated with mindfulness and may characterize individuals higher in self-connection ( Hanley & Garland, 2017 ). Additionally, consistent with SDT and Sheldon’s (2004) argument that self-determination is vital for achieving an integrated self, Thrash and Elliot (2002) found that people high in self-determination also showed higher levels of congruence between implicitly and explicitly measured motives. Self-determination and implicit-explicit motivational concordance may also relate to self-connection. Other individual differences to examine might include basic personality traits, gender, cultural variables, age, ethnicity, and income.

Self-Connection and Meaning in Life

For many people, the search for profound self-understanding and a life built around it is an eternal, imperfect pursuit. As positive psychology has begun to offer many answers to the question of how to best promote and enhance well-being, research has turned to the concept of meaning in life ( Martela, Ryan, & Steger, 2018 ; Schlegel et al., 2011 ; Steger, 2009 ). We have posited that self-connection increases of a sense of meaning in life. Knowing about and accepting who one perceives one truly is should theoretically lead to an increase in a sense of coherence across one’s life and allow for actions that are in support of one’s values and goals or purpose. When people act in a way that is in alignment with their values and goals, their sense of significance may also increase. Thus, experimentally increasing self-connection should also increase one's sense of meaning in life, whether at a state or trait-like level.

Self-Connection and Broader Well-Being

As detailed above, self-connection may predict individual and social well-being at a dispositional level. Greater coherence, meaning, and social connection from self-connection may also contribute to more positive affect in daily life (see Fredrickson, 2013 ). These relations could be examined using longitudinal and brief intervention studies (e.g., Goodman, Kashdan, Mallard, & Schumann, 2014 ). Although such positive functioning is the primary hypothesized outcome of self-connection, greater self-connection may also be associated with fewer depression symptoms (given the roles of anhedonia and hopelessness in depression). Therefore, initial prospective studies should examine a range of potential mental health outcomes. As part of such research on self-connection and well-being, it also would be useful to examine whether high self-connection carries less risk of negative rumination and defensiveness than low self-connection or self-disconnection.

Self-Connection and Goal Striving

When people’s perceived selves include goals, self-connection may support self-regulation toward those goals. We propose that awareness and acceptance of such goals may foster greater goal clarity and accessibility, while behavioral alignment may promote follow through on intentions and persistence (cf. Mann, De Ridder, & Fujita, 2013 ). These hypothesized component processes and the role of overall self-connection in goal striving should be examined in future correlational and, ideally, experimental research. One domain in which the relation between self-connection and goal-related processes could be especially important to examine is health behavior. Not only is engaging in health-promoting behavior important for physical health, it could also be another way that self-connection supports overall well-being.

Promoting Self-Connection

Once we can measure self-connection and begin to understand how it relates to other constructs and aspects of life, self-connection has the potential to be an extremely useful tool for promoting positive life outcomes. To realize these benefits and study its effects using experimental designs, it will be important to examine how to promote self-connection. It is possible that several existing practices, either in isolation or in combination, may be useful for promoting self-connection by increasing self-awareness, self-acceptance, and/or self-alignment.

For example, we have proposed that mindfulness may facilitate the self-awareness and self-acceptance components of self-connection. Future research should examine whether and when mindfulness practices (formal mindfulness meditation or informal mindfulness in various domains of daily life) can lead to greater self-connection. It also would be interesting to consider the role that self-connection may play in the relationship between mindfulness and aspects of well-being.

Another promising way to promote self-connection may be journaling. Daily journals have been widely used across disciplines ( Hülsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt, & Lang, 2013 ; Hülsheger et al., 2014 ; Pennebaker, Mehl, & Niederhoffer, 2003 ; Pennebaker & Seagal, 2003 ) and can provide people the opportunity to become more aware of their internal thoughts and values. This, in turn, should provide a space to accept them and lead to an understanding of themselves to modify actions as needed. Repeated journaling could focus on different life domains to develop and apply self-connection across daily life. Thus, the act of journaling about self-connection may increase self-connection and the positive outcomes potentially associated with it.

Physical activity also may be a means for promoting self-connection. For one, it may help people tune into their sensations and feelings. When done repeatedly, it also may enhance self-connection through building confidence, independence, and/or positive body image to accept internal values and goals ( Kaufman, Glass, & Arnkoff, 2009 ; Lawlor & Hopker, 2001 ; Taylor, Sallis, & Needle, 1985 ). Additionally, physical activity in a non-competitive environment might be especially useful because it may allow people to practice being more accepting of themselves and acting accordingly. Finally, when combined with meditation, the effects of activity could be especially pronounced ( Edwards & Loprinzi, 2019 ).

Interventions aimed at increasing self-connection at more of a trait level, throughout daily life, might benefit from incorporating all the above activities with specific guidance aimed at connecting with oneself. Additional options for practices to increase self-connection are also possible and might even be useful in the workplace ( Lomas, Medina, Ivtzan, Rupprecht, & Eiroa-Orosa, 2018 ). As part of research on promoting self-connection, it also may be important to identify potential barriers (either internal or external) to self-connection and how certain practices or beliefs may help to overcome them. Finally, this all must be done in a way that considers the cultural influences in play ( Christopher & Hickinbottom, 2008 ).

Being self-connected requires one to be aware of the self, accept that self, and act in alignment with it. We argue that self-connection is important to obtaining greater well-being and believe that there currently is significant indirect evidence to support this claim. We detail our conceptualization of self-connection so that future research can test our propositions more directly. We are optimistic about future research to uncover practices, such as mindfulness and journaling, that promote self-connection. By understanding self-connection and finding ways to be more connected to oneself, we hope to help everyone pursue a life “well-lived.”

Acknowledgments

The authors have no additional (i.e., non-financial) support to report.

Biographies

Kristine Klussman is the founder of Connection Lab and its parent Purpose Project, a nonprofit aimed at helping people live more satisfying, meaningful lives. She received her PhD in Clinical Psychology from Palo Alto University. In addition to overseeing Connection Lab research, she is a clinician, graduate university instructor, author, clinical supervisor and speaker.

Nicola Curtin was one of the founding members of Connection Lab, the research arm of the Purpose Project. She received her PhD in Personality and Social Contexts from the Department of Psychology at the University of Michigan.

Julia Langer is a Senior Research Associate at Connection Lab. She received her MHS in Public Mental Health from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and has focused her career on using mental health interventions to improve well-being.

Austin Lee Nichols is the former Director of Research at Connection Lab. He received his PhD in Social Psychology from the University of Florida. Prior to and after working at Connection Lab, he held various faculty positions around the world in both psychology and business.

The authors have no funding to report.

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

• Aristotle. (2002). Nicomachean ethics (C. J. Rowe & S. Broadie, Eds.). New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aronson, J., Cohen, G., & Nail, P. R. (1999). Self-affirmation theory: An update and appraisal. In E. Harmon-Jones & J. Mills (Eds.), Science conference series. Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp. 127–147). 10.1037/10318-006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bailis D. S., Fleming J. A., Segall A. (2005). Self-determination and functional persuasion to encourage physical activity . Psychology & Health , 20 ( 6 ), 691–708. 10.1080/14768320500051359 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumeister, R. F. (Ed.). (2012). Public self and private self . New York, NY, USA: Springer Science & Business Media. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernstein A., Hadash Y., Lichtash Y., Tanay G., Shepherd K., Fresco D. M. (2015). Decentering and related constructs: A critical review and metacognitive processes model . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 10 ( 5 ), 599–617. 10.1177/1745691615594577 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bishop S. R., Lau M., Shapiro S., Carlson L., Anderson N. D., Carmody J., Devins G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition . Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice , 11 ( 3 ), 230–241. 10.1093/clipsy.bph077 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brewer J., Garrison K., Whitfield-Gabrieli S. (2013). What about the “self” is processed in the posterior cingulate cortex? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience , 7 , 647. 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00647 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown K. W., Ryan R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84 ( 4 ), 822–848. 10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown K. W., Ryan R. M., Creswell J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects . Psychological Inquiry , 18 , 211–237. 10.1080/10478400701598298 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chatzisarantis N. L., Hagger M. S., Wang J. C. K. (2010). Evaluating the effects of implementation intention and self-concordance on behavior . British Journal of Psychology , 101 ( 4 ), 705–718. 10.1348/000712609X481796 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen S. (2004). Social relationships and health . American Psychologist , 59 ( 8 ), 676–684.. 10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.676 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chamberlain J. M., Haaga D. A. (2001). Unconditional self-acceptance and psychological health . Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy , 19 ( 3 ), 163–176. 10.1023/A:1011189416600 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Christopher J. C., Hickinbottom S. (2008). Positive psychology, ethnocentrism, and the disguised ideology of individualism . Theory & Psychology , 18 ( 5 ), 563–589. 10.1177/0959354308093396 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chatzisarantis N. L., Hagger M. S. (2007). Mindfulness and the intention-behavior relationship within the theory of planned behavior . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 33 ( 5 ), 663–676. 10.1177/0146167206297401 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crocker J., Park L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem . Psychological Bulletin , 130 ( 3 ), 392–414.. 10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.392 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Darley J. M., Fazio R. H. (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence . American Psychologist , 35 ( 10 ), 867–881. 10.1037/0003-066X.35.10.867 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci E. L., Ryan R. M. (1980). Self-determination theory: When mind mediates behavior . The Journal of Mind and Behavior , 1 ( 1 ), 33–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior . Rochester, NY, USA: Springer Science & Business Media. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diener E. (1984). Subjective well-being . Psychological Bulletin , 95 ( 3 ), 542–575.. 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Edwards M., Loprinzi P. D. (2019). Affective responses to acute bouts of aerobic exercise, mindfulness meditation, and combinations of exercise and meditation: A randomized controlled intervention . Psychological Reports , 122 ( 2 ), 465–484. 10.1177/0033294118755099 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Emmons, R. A. (2003). Personal goals, life meaning, and virtue: Wellsprings of a positive life. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 105–128). 10.1037/10594-005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 1–53). San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00001-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fresco M., Moore M. T., van Dulmen M. H., Segal Z. V., Ma S. H., Teasdale J. D., Williams J. M. G. (2007). Initial psychometric properties of the experiences questionnaire: Validation of a self-report measure of decentering . Behavior Therapy , 38 ( 3 ), 234–246. 10.1016/j.beth.2006.08.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goleman, D. (2006). Emotional intelligence . Bantam, Indonesia: Iztok-Zapad Publishing House. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman F. R., Kashdan T. B., Mallard T. T., Schumann M. (2014). A brief mindfulness and yoga intervention with an entire NCAA Division I athletic team: An initial investigation . Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice , 1 ( 4 ), 339–356. 10.1037/cns0000022 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Pyszczynski, T. (1997). Terror management theory of self-esteem and cultural worldviews: Empirical assessments and conceptual refinements. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 61–139). San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60016-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gu J., Strauss C., Bond R., Cavanagh K. (2015). How do mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and mindfulness-based stress reduction improve mental health and wellbeing? A systematic review and meta-analysis of mediation studies . Clinical Psychology Review , 37 , 1–12. 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.01.006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanley A. W., Garland E. L. (2017). Clarity of mind: Structural equation modeling of associations between dispositional mindfulness, self-concept clarity and psychological well-being . Personality and Individual Differences , 106 , 334–339. 10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.028 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Helliwell J. F., Putnam R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 359 ( 1449 ), 1435–1446. 10.1098/rstb.2004.1522 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hicks, J. A. (2013). Examining the true self as a wellspring of meaning. In J. A. Hicks & C. Routledge (Eds.), The experience of meaning in life (pp. 177–188). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978-94-007-6527-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holt‐Lunstad J., Smith T. B. (2012). Social relationships and mortality . Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 6 ( 1 ), 41–53. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hülsheger U. R., Alberts H. J., Feinholdt A., Lang J. W. (2013). Benefits of mindfulness at work: The role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction . Journal of Applied Psychology , 98 ( 2 ), 310–325.. 10.1037/a0031313 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hülsheger U. R., Lang J. W., Depenbrock F., Fehrmann C., Zijlstra F. R., Alberts H. J. (2014). The power of presence: The role of mindfulness at work for daily levels and change trajectories of psychological detachment and sleep quality . Journal of Applied Psychology , 99 ( 6 ), 1113–1128.. 10.1037/a0037702 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. New York, NY, USA: Delacorte. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaufman K. A., Glass C. R., Arnkoff D. B. (2009). Evaluation of Mindful Sport Performance Enhancement (MSPE): A new approach to promote flow in athletes . Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology , 3 ( 4 ), 334–356. 10.1123/jcsp.3.4.334 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kernis M. H., Goldman B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research . Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 38 ( 06 ), 283–357. 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keyes C. L. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 43 , 207–222. 10.2307/3090197 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koole S. L., Smeets K., Van Knippenberg A., Dijksterhuis A. (1999). The cessation of rumination through self-affirmation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 77 ( 1 ), 111–125.. 10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.111 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lakey, B., & Cronin, A. (2008). Low social support and major depression: Research, theory and methodological issues. In K. S. Dobson & D. Dozois (Eds.), Risk factors for depression (pp. 385–408). San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lakey B., Vander Molen R. J., Fles E., Andrews J. (2016). Ordinary social interaction and the main effect between perceived support and affect . Journal of Personality , 84 ( 5 ), 671–684. 10.1111/jopy.12190 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lawlor D. A., Hopker S. W. (2001). The effectiveness of exercise as an intervention in the management of depression: Systematic review and meta-regression analysis of randomised controlled trials . BMJ , 322 ( 7289 ), 763. 10.1136/bmj.322.7289.763 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindsay E. K., Creswell J. D. (2017). Mechanisms of mindfulness training: Monitor and acceptance theory (MAT) . Clinical Psychology Review , 51 , 48–59. 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.10.011 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lomas T., Medina J. C., Ivtzan I., Rupprecht S., Eiroa-Orosa F. J. (2018). Mindfulness-based interventions in the workplace: An inclusive systematic review and meta-analysis of their impact upon wellbeing . The Journal of Positive Psychology , 14 ( 5 ), 625–640. 10.1080/17439760.2018.1519588 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyubomirsky S., Nolen-Hoeksema S. (1993). Self-perpetuating properties of dysphoric rumination . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 65 ( 2 ), 339–349.. 10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.339 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyubomirsky S., Sheldon K. M., Schkade D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change . Review of General Psychology , 9 ( 2 ), 111–131. 10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Markus H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 35 ( 2 ), 63–78.. 10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martela F., Ryan R. M., Steger M. F. (2018). Meaningfulness as satisfaction of autonomy, competence, relatedness, and beneficence: Comparing the four satisfactions and positive affect as predictors of meaning in life . Journal of Happiness Studies , 19 ( 5 ), 1261–1282. 10.1007/s10902-017-9869-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacInnes D. L. (2006). Self‐esteem and self‐acceptance: An examination into their relationship and their effect on psychological health . Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing , 13 ( 5 ), 483–489. 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2006.00959.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mann T., De Ridder D., Fujita K. (2013). Self-regulation of health behavior: Social psychological approaches to goal setting and goal striving . Health Psychology , 32 ( 5 ), 487–498.. 10.1037/a0028533 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McAdams D. P., Pals J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality . American Psychologist , 61 ( 3 ), 204–217. 10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.204 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McNall L. A., Tombari J. M., Brown M. M. (2019). Exploring how mindfulness links to work outcomes: Positive affectivity and work-life enrichment . Applied Research in Quality of Life , 16 , 1–16. 10.1007/s11482-019-09762-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikulas W. L. (2011). Mindfulness: Significant common confusions . Mindfulness , 2 ( 1 ), 1–7. 10.1007/s12671-010-0036-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murray S. L., Holmes J. G., Griffin D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 ( 1 ), 79–98.. 10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.79 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Myers D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people . American Psychologist , 55 ( 1 ), 56–67. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.56 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neff K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion . Self and Identity , 2 ( 3 ), 223–250. 10.1080/15298860309027 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nolen-Hoeksema S. (2000). The role of rumination in depressive disorders and mixed anxiety/depressive symptoms . Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 109 ( 3 ), 504–511. 10.1037/0021-843X.109.3.504 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oyserman, D. (2001). Self-concept and identity. In A. Tesser & N. Schwarz (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of social psychology (pp. 499–517). Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470998519.ch23 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul N. A., Stanton S. J., Greeson J. M., Smoski M. J., Wang L. (2012). Psychological and neural mechanisms of trait mindfulness in reducing depression vulnerability . Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience , 8 ( 1 ), 56–64. 10.1093/scan/nss070 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulhus D. L., Martin C. L. (1988). Functional flexibility: A new conception of interpersonal flexibility . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 55 ( 1 ), 88–101. 10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.88 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennebaker J. W., Mehl M. R, Niederhoffer K. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves . Annual Review of Psychology , 54 ( 1 ), 547–577. 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145041 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennebaker J. W., Seagal J. D. (2003). Forming a story: The health benefits of narrative . Journal of Clinical Psychology , 55 ( 10 ), 1243–1254. 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145041 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ranzijn R., Luszcz M. (1999). Acceptance: A key to wellbeing in older adults? Australian Psychologist , 34 ( 2 ), 94–98. 10.1080/00050069908257435 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science (pp. 184–256). Toronto, Canada: McGraw Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryff C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57 ( 6 ), 1069–1081.. 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryff C. D., Keyes C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 69 ( 4 ), 719–727.. 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlegel R., Hicks J. (2011). The true self and psychological health: Emerging evidence and future directions . Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 12 ( 5 ), 989–1003. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00401.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlegel R. J., Hicks J. A., Arndt J., King L. A. (2009). Thine own self: True self-concept accessibility and meaning in life . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 96 ( 2 ), 473–490. 10.1037/a0014060 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlegel R. J., Hicks J. A., King L. A., Arndt J. (2011). Feeling like you know who you are: Perceived true self-knowledge and meaning in life . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 37 ( 6 ), 745–756. 10.1177/0146167211400424 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlegel R. J., Vess M., Arndt J. (2012). To discover or to create: Metaphors and the true self . Journal of Personality , 80 ( 4 ), 969–993. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00753.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schultheiss O. C., Jones N. M., Davis A. Q., Kley C. (2008). The role of implicit motivation in hot and cold goal pursuit: Effects on goal progress, goal rumination, and emotional well-being . Journal of Research in Personality , 42 ( 4 ), 971–987. 10.1016/j.jrp.2007.12.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schultheiss O. C., Brunstein J. C. (1999). Goal imagery: Bridging the gap between implicit motives and explicit goals . Journal of Personality , 67 ( 1 ), 1–38. 10.1111/1467-6494.00046 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment . New York, NY, USA: Free Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seligman M. E. P. (2008). Positive health . Applied Psychology , 57 ( s1 ), 3–18. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00351.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheldon, K. M. (2004). Optimal human being: An integrated multilevel perspective. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheldon K. M. (2014). Becoming oneself . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 18 ( 4 ), 349–365. 10.1177/1088868314538549 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheldon K. M., Elliot A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 24 ( 5 ), 546–557. 10.1177/0146167298245010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheldon K. M., Elliot A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The Self-Concordance Model . Journal of Personality & Social Psychology , 76 ( 3 ), 482–497. 10.1037//0022-3514.76.3.482 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheldon K. M., Houser-Marko L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal-attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 80 ( 1 ), 152–165. 10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.152 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheldon K. M., Kasser T. (1998). Pursuing personal goals: Skills enable progress, but not all progress is beneficial . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 24 ( 12 ), 1319–1331. 10.1177/01461672982412006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman D. K., Cohen G. L. (2006). The psychology of self‐defense: Self‐affirmation theory . Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 38 , 183–242. 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38004-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steele C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self . Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 21 , 261–302. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60229-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steger, M. F. (2009). Meaning in life. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 679–687). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor C. B., Sallis J. F., Needle R. (1985). The relation of physical activity and exercise to mental health . Public Health Reports , 100 ( 2 ), 195–202.. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thrash T. M., Elliot A. J. (2002). Implicit and self-attributed achievement motives: Concordance and predictive validity . Journal of Personality , 70 ( 5 ), 729–756. 10.1111/1467-6494.05022 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trapnell P. D., Campbell J. D. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the five-factor model of personality: Distinguishing rumination from reflection . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 76 ( 2 ), 284–304.. 10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.284 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van der Velden A. M., Kuyken W., Wattar U., Crane C., Pallesen K. J., Dahlgaard J., Piet J. (2015). A systematic review of mechanisms of change in mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in the treatment of recurrent major depressive disorder . Clinical Psychology Review , 37 , 26–39. 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.02.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Veenhoven R. (2003). Arts-of-living . Journal of Happiness Studies , 4 ( 4 ), 373–384. 10.1023/B:JOHS.0000005773.08898.ae [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood A. M., Linley P. A., Maltby J., Baliousis M., Joseph S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity Scale . Journal of Counseling Psychology , 55 ( 3 ), 385–399. 10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation

Published on October 14, 2015 by Sarah Vinz . Revised on July 18, 2023 by Tegan George.

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. It allows you to convincingly interpret, explain, and generalize from your findings and show the relevance of your thesis or dissertation topic in your field.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Sample problem statement and research questions, sample theoretical framework, your theoretical framework, other interesting articles.

Your theoretical framework is based on:

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

A new boutique downtown is struggling with the fact that many of their online customers do not return to make subsequent purchases. This is a big issue for the otherwise fast-growing store.Management wants to increase customer loyalty. They believe that improved customer satisfaction will play a major role in achieving their goal of increased return customers.

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 .

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Below is a simplified example showing how you can describe and compare theories in your thesis or dissertation . 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 & 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 analyze 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.

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

• Anchoring bias
• Halo effect
• The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon
• The placebo effect
• Nonresponse bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

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 Citation Generator.

Vinz, S. (2023, July 18). Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation. Scribbr. Retrieved June 18, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/theoretical-framework-example/

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 | guide to organizing, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• Open access
• Published: 17 June 2024

Community-Based Health Planning and Services (CHPS) concept and access to healthcare delivery in Sefwi Wiawso Municipal, Ghana

• Abraham D. Koyaara 1 ,
• Benjamin Noble Adjei 2 ,
• Eric Adjei Boadu 3 &
• Edward T. Dassah 3  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  742 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

In spite of the successes of the community-based health planning and services (CHPS) policy since its inception in the mid-1990s in Ghana, data pertaining to the implementation and use of CHPS facilities in Sefwi Wiawso Municipal is scant. We assessed access to healthcare delivery and factors influencing the use of CHPS in Sefwi Wiawso Municipal.

An analytical community-based cross-sectional study was conducted in the Sefwi Wiawo Municipal from September to October 2020. Respondents for the study were recruited through multi-stage sampling. Information was collected on their socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge and use of CHPS facilities through interviews using a structured pre-tested questionnaire. Factors influencing the use of CHPS facilities were assessed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression to generate crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). P  ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

A total of 483 respondents were recruited for the study. The mean age of the respondents was 43.0 ± 16.3 years, and over 70% were females or married/cohabiting with their partners. Most respondents (88.2%) knew about the CHPS concept and more than half (53.4%) accessed healthcare in the CHPS facilities. Most respondents rated the quality of health services (> 65%) and staff attitude (77.2%) very positively. Significant factors influencing the use of the CHPS facilities were; knowledge of the CHPS concept (AOR 6.57, 95% CI 1.57–27.43; p  = 0.01), longer waiting time for a vehicle to the facility, and shorter waiting time at the facility before being provided with care. People who waited for 30–60 min (AOR 2.76, 95% CI 1.08–7.07; p  = 0.01) or over an hour (AOR 10.91, 95% CI 3.71–32.06; p  = 0.01) before getting a vehicle to the facility, while patients who waited for less than 30 min (AOR 5.74, 95% CI 1.28–25.67; p  = 0.03) or 30–60 min (AOR 2.60, 95% CI 0.57–11.78; p  = 0.03) at the CHPS facility before receiving care were more likely to access care at the CHPS facilities.

Knowledge, and use of healthcare services at the CHPS facilities were high in this population. Interventions aimed at reducing waiting time at the CHPS facilities could greatly increase use of healthcare services at these facilities.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Globally, healthcare systems still fall short of providing accessible, quality, comprehensive, and integrated care [ 1 ]. Major stakeholders, policy planners, development partners, and healthcare decision-makers require a better understanding of the Primary Health Care (PHC) concept. In 2005, the Ministry of Health and the Ghana Health Service adopted Community-based Health Planning and Services (CHPS) as a nationwide strategy for delivering primary health care services to address a myriad of health challenges confronting the majority of the people residing in rural areas[ 2 , 4 ] Using the CHPS initiative together with other interventions, the Ghana Health Service has made several strides in achieving universal health coverage over the years [ 5 ].

The CHPS policy as a community-initiated health intervention is unique given its acclamation as a remarkable innovation to reducing inequalities in accessing health care delivery[ 6 , 7 ]. It has advanced primary health care in Ghana by improving access to healthcare services, enhancing equity, and increasing coverage of essential healthcare services. It has specifically targeted underserved communities, addressing disparities in access and providing a wide range of services including maternal and child health, family planning, preventive health care such as immunizations, and treatment for common ailments[ 3 , 4 , 8 , 9 ]. CHPS has demonstrated tangible impacts on health outcomes, including reductions in maternal and child mortality rates and improvements in healthcare-seeking behaviors [ 10 , 12 ] Moreover, it has proven to be cost-effective, efficient, scalable, and sustainable, making it a viable model for PHC in Ghana [ 3 , 8 ].

Despite the successes of the CHPS policy, some barriers mitigating access to health care among the rural populace have been identified [ 12 , 16 ]. Consequently, the CHPS concept is not meeting its expected outcomes due to several factors[ 12 , 15 ]. These include lack of practical understanding of CHPS implementation by district-level managers; CHPS evolving into static clinic services focused on constructing health posts rather than its community-driven approach; managers often delaying CHPS implementation, waiting for central government resources instead of mobilizing local community resources; no central government budgetary allocation to cover startup costs as anticipated; heavy investment in CHPS staff recruitment and training without accompanied adequate investment in equipment; and poor leadership and supervision hindering effective implementation[ 14 , 17 ].

Previous studies on CHPS concept in Ghana have focused on access to maternal health, family planning, and child health services[ 6 , 9 , 10 , 18 ], with few studies looking at CHPS utilization among the general populace [ 19 ]. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the CHPS implementation processes have been inconsistent in Sefwi Wiawso Municipal, coupled with logistical and organizational challenges. There is limited information on the contribution of CHPS to health care access in Sefwi Wiawso Municipal. This study examined access to healthcare delivery as well as factors influencing the use of CHPS in the municipal.

Study design

This is an analytical cross-sectional study that was conducted in 21 selected communities within the Sefwi Wiawso Municipality from September to October 2020.

Study setting

Sefwi Wiawso is the capital town of the Western-North Region of Ghana, which has a population of 151,220 with similar proportions of males (50.1%) and females (49.9%) [ 20 ]. The municipality has 135 communities. Majority of the communities are engaged in active agricultural activities in rural communities. Hence traveling to the few health facilities to access health care services is often associated with diverse challenges stemming from distance barriers, poor road network, irregular transport system as well as socio-cultural beliefs( 20 ). These pose a great threat to rural communities in the Sefwi Wiawso Municipal especially in accessing health care at the CHPS facilities. The municipal is divided into seven sub-municipals to enhance comprehensive public health coverage. The sub-municipals are: Wiawso, Datano, Paboasi, Anyinabrim, Abrabra, Asafo and Asawinso. The municipal has 35 health facilities comprising four hospitals, two clinics, three health centres, one maternity home and 25 CHPS facilities. The CHPS facilities are Abrabra, Nkonya, Sui, Akurafo, Boako, Bechiwa, Aboagyekrom, Domeabra, Bowobra-Appentemedi, Datano, Ahukwa, Nyamegyiso, Nsuonsua, Aboduam, Bosomoiso, Aboanidua, Ahwiaa, Ahwiam, Ntrentrenso, Amafie, Futa, Akoti-Etwebo, Penakrom-Nyamebekyere, Old Adiembra, and Watico CHPS [ 21 ].

Sample size determination

Sample size for the study was estimated using Epi Info, version 7.1.1.14 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA) at 80% power, with 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error. It was assumed that the factors influencing utilization of the CHPS services in Sefwi Wiawso were similar to those observed in Kintampo by Wiru et al.[ 19 ], in terms of residents’ age, education and income status, and by allowing for 10% contingency, an estimated sample size of 483 was determined to have adequate power to detect the factors influencing use of CHPS facilities in Sefwi Wiawso Municipal.

Selection of respondents

Individuals who were at least 18 years old, had been resident in the municipal for at least six months and had visited a health facility within the six months preceding the study were eligible for inclusion into the study. Individuals who were unwilling or unable to provide consent were excluded.

The respondents for the study were selected through multi-stage sampling. The sub-municipals and communities were selected by simple random sampling through balloting using the lists of sub-municipals and communities respectively as the sampling frames. Seven sub-municipals with at least three communities each were chosen for the study. The number of individuals selected from each sub-municipal was in proportion to the size of the sub-municipal. The estimated number of household members in each sub-municipal was obtained from the Municipal Health Directorate.

In each community, a central location such as the chief’s palace, a church or mosque was chosen. A pen was spun and the first house in the direction the pen pointed to was selected. Walking in the chosen direction, every other house was selected. If a selected house was locked, the research assistants made multiple attempts to contact occupants of the house. If the occupants could not be reached or were not available, they moved to the next available house. Within each selected household, one eligible household member was chosen by balloting and invited to participate in the study. Where there was only one eligible person, the individual was invited to participate. Selected households that had no eligible respondents were replaced by the next consecutive household. In the event that the expected number of respondents for that community was not achieved, the researcher returned to the reference point and the procedure was repeated until the desired number was attained.

After explaining the purposes and benefits of the study, each consenting individual was invited to participate in the study. The respondents were assured of confidentiality of the information that was collected during the study. Consenting individuals were interviewed in English, Twi or Sefwi (vernacular) using a pre-tested structured questionnaire comprising closed and open-ended questions. The respondents were interviewed face-to-face with an android tablet loaded with the questionnaire and enabled with Open Data Kit (ODK). Data was collected on their socio-demographic characteristics, awareness and access to service delivery, and factors influencing their access to health service delivery. During the interview process amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, safety measures were rigorously implemented to safeguard all individuals involved in the research activities. All respondents and research assistants washed their hands with soap and water, or used hand sanitizers, and were provided with face masks if needed. They were educated on proper face mask usage and maintained a physical distance of at least 1 m throughout the interview. Additionally, they also complied with other COVID-19 restrictions imposed by national or local authorities.

The questionnaire was translated into Twi and Sefwi, and back translated into English. Pre-testing was done among 20 respondents who were conveniently selected in two communities in Juaboso District, ensuring representation of the target population’s demographic characteristics and language proficiency. Participants provided feedback on the clarity, language, and overall comprehensibility of the questionnaire, guiding revisions to improve reliability and validity. Overall, all participants indicated the language was easy to understand, and most found the questions easy to understand and answer. Revisions included clarifying ambiguous questions, and ensuring logical flow. The revised schedule underwent further review by the research team and experts to ensure its effectiveness for the main study. We employed cognitive interviewing and expert review to enhance the reliability and validity of the questionnaire.

Study variables

The main outcome variable for the study was use of CHPS facility. This was measured as respondents’ usage of CHPS facility for healthcare services during the year prior to the study. Those who visited CHPS were coded as 1 (yes) and those who used other health facilities such as the district hospital, private hospitals/clinics, faith-based, or any other form of health facility were coded as 0 (no).

The independent variables were age, gender, marital status, educational level, occupation, monthly income, household size, cost of transportation, time spent before getting access to vehicle to CHPS facility (measured in minutes), waiting time at the CHPS facility, satisfaction with cost of services at CHPS facilities, satisfaction with availability of drugs and suppliers and basic equipment, knowledge of the CHPS concept, and staff attitude. These variables were chosen on the basis of biologic plausibility and evidence from literature [ 3 , 7 , 14 , 22 ].

Data analysis

Data were cleaned and analyzed using Stata version 15 (Stata Corp, College Station, Texas, USA). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize clients’ perception of the quality of health care provided at the CHPS facilities. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square [χ 2 ]. Factors associated with use of CHPS facilities were examined using univariable and multivariable logistic regression to estimate crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. Univariable analysis were performed to examine the association of each explanatory variable with the use of CHPS facilities and variables whose association reached statistical significance at p ≤0.05 were included in a multivariable model. Significant explanatory variables were added one at a time and those which remained independently associated with use of CHPS facilities at p ≤0.05 were retained until all variables in the model were significant at p ≤0.05. Excluded explanatory variables were retested in the final model one at a time to confirm lack of association. Variance inflation factor was computed to test for multicollinearity. All missing values were excluded from the analysis.

A total of 483 study respondents were recruited into the study. The socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the study respondents are shown in Table  1 . The mean age of the study respondents was 43.0 ± 16.3 years, range 18–92 years. Over half (52.8%) of the respondents were 40 years or older. Over 70% were females and a similar percentage were married/cohabiting. Majority (77.8%) were Akans. About 30% had no formal education and almost half (49.1%) had completed basic education (i.e. primary or junior high school). Almost three-quarters (74.5%) were in employment with nearly 20% earning over 500 Ghana cedis per month (equivalent to $87.72 at the time). The median household size was 6 (interquartile range = 4–8). Almost all (95.4%) of the respondents were permanent residents of the communities that they were interviewed.

Community members’ knowledge of services provided at the CHPS facilities

From Table  2 , most respondents (88.2%) had knowledge on the CHPS concept, with the commonest (56.6%) source of information being the community information centres. Less than a fifth (16.1%) of respondents obtained their information on CHPS through the community health workers. Majority (91.1%) knew the location of the CHPS facilities in their community and (81.4%) of the respondents were aware that the CHPS facilities provide curative services.

Access to, use and services provided in CHPS facilities

From Table  3 , about half (49.9%) of the respondents had a CHPS facility located in the communities that they resided in. More than half (53.4%) had visited the CHPS facility in their community to access healthcare during the past year with nearly two-thirds (65.5%) visiting the CHPS facility 2–5 times in the one year preceding the study. Common reasons for accessing care at the CHPS facility included treatment for minor ailments (65.9%) and proximity to their residence (47.7%).

Multiple means of transportation were used by respondents when accessing healthcare services from the CHPS facilities. About half of the respondents either walked (49.0%) or used public transport (51.4%) whereas 9.9% indicated that they used motorbikes or bicycles to the CHPS facility to access healthcare. Among those who used public transport to the CHPS facility, almost two- thirds (66.2%) indicated that they spent at least GHS 6.00 (a little over $1 at the time of the survey) on transportation to and from the health facility. Waiting time to access vehicle to the health facility for most of the respondents (84.6%) was up to an hour (see Table  3 ).

About 86% of the respondents had registered with the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), with only 58% having valid NHIS cards as at the time of the survey and 54% obtained their prescribed medications from the CHPS facility. Most respondents considered the staff at the CHPS facilities to be friendly (87.6%) and competent (76.7%). Altogether, over three-quarters (77.2%) of the respondents considered the staff attitude towards them in the facility to be good/very good (see Table  3 ).

Factors influencing use of CHPS facilities

Factors influencing the use of the CHPS facilities are shown in Table  4 . On univariable analysis, age group, marital status, time spent before getting access to a vehicle to the CHPS facility, waiting time at the CHPS facility, satisfaction with cost of services, knowledge of the CHPS concept and respondents’ perception of staff attitude were significantly associated with the use of the CHPS facilities. On multivariable analysis, the time spent before getting access to a vehicle to CHPS facility, waiting time at the CHPS facility and knowledge of the CHPS concept remained significantly associated with CHPS facility utilization. The odds of using a CHPS facility increased with duration of waiting for a vehicle to a facility. Waiting for 30–60 min and over one hour before getting a vehicle to a facility increased the odds of using a CHPS facility by more than two and half (AOR 2.76, 95% CI 1.08–7.07) and nearly 11 times (AOR 10.91, 95% CI 3.71–32.06) respectively compared to patients who waited for less than 30 min for a vehicle. The likelihood of using a CHPS facility decreased with waiting time at the facility. Patients who waited for less than 30 min were over five and a half times more likely (AOR 5.74, 95% CI 1.28–25.67) and those who waited for 30–60 min were more than two and a half times likely (AOR 2.60, 95% CI 0.57–11.78) to use CHPS facilities compared to their counterparts who waited for over an hour. Having knowledge of the CHPS concept increased the odds of using CHPS facility by more than six and a half times (AOR 6.57, 95% CI 1.57–27.43) compared to patients who had no knowledge of the concept.

This study assessed factors influencing the use of CHPS facilities in a predominantly rural district in Ghana. Majority of the respondents knew about the CHPS concept as well as the services being provided. Most respondents accessed health care from the CHPS facility in their community at least twice in the year. The waiting time for majority of the respondents was up to one hour and they rated the competence and performance of the healthcare providers very positively. Significant determinants of the utilization of CHPS facilities were time spent before getting a vehicle to the CHPS facility, waiting time at the CHPS facility and knowledge of the CHPS concept.

The finding that more than half (53.4%) of the respondents had visited the CHPS facilities to access healthcare during the past year highlights the significant utilization of CHPS facilities among the study population. This finding is consistent with those of previous studies conducted in Kintampo North Municipality of the Bono East Region and Komenda-Edina-Eguafo-Abrem Municipality of the Central Region of Ghana, where high proportions of community members utilized the services of CHPS services for healthcare services [ 19 , 23 ]. This high utilization rate underscores the importance and relevance of CHPS facilities in providing essential healthcare services to the community. Johnson et al. argued that access to a CHPS facility is associated with utilization of healthcare services within the facility, which increases significantly with proximity to the CHPS facility [ 10 ]. Similarly, we observed that most of the respondents accessed health care services from the CHPS facility at least twice a year, where over 47% cited proximity to the CHPS facility as one of the main considerations.

Contrary to our expectation, respondents who experienced longer waiting time before accessing transportation to the facility were more likely to utilize CHPS. This could possibly be due to limited alternative options or a perceived urgency in seeking healthcare for individuals who experienced longer waiting times before accessing transportation to the facility. Given the predominantly rural nature of the communities in the municipal, healthcare services in most of these communities are largely provided by CHPS facilities and a few or no hospitals [ 20 , 21 , 24 ]. This could mean that despite the longer waiting time for transportation, there might be limited alternative options. It is also conceivable that respondents waiting for over an hour before getting access to CHPS facilities do so on the premise of the perceived quality of services they anticipate to obtain, the extent to which their health needs are met at the facility and hence not deterred by the long waiting time for vehicle to the CHPS facility to seek healthcare services. This is supported by the findings of Assan et al. where users of CHPS facilities were highly satisfied with the services provided at the CHPS and the positive attitude of community health professionals [ 17 ]. The long waiting time for transportation to CHPS facilities also highlights some of the challenges of accessing health care in such rural communities. Transportation to healthcare facilities in rural areas are problematic and hinders access to care in most communities in Ghana [ 25 ]. Therefore, improving geographic access to CHPS facilities is essential to universal health coverage [ 26 ].

Our finding that shorter waiting times at the facility were associated with increased odds of using of CHPS facilities is consistent with those of previous studies which identified long waiting time as a significant challenge to seeking healthcare services[ 5 , 13 , 17 , 22 ]. Arguably, patients who spend less time at the CHPS facility may be more inclined to seek care, reflecting a positive patient experience and potentially higher levels of satisfaction with the healthcare services provided [ 5 , 13 , 17 , 22 ]. The implementation of COVID-19 preventive measures, such as physical distancing requirements, wearing of face masks, and hand hygiene practices, likely influenced transportation facilities’ utilization and waiting times at the CHPS facility. These measures may have led to changes in travel behavior, increased waiting times due to screening protocols or reduced facility capacity, and altered patient-provider interactions.

Respondents’ knowledge of the CHPS concept increased their likelihood of using CHPS, underscoring the importance of patient understanding of the CHPS concept. Individuals who are better informed of the CHPS concept may be more inclined to use CHPS facilities, recognizing the benefits of community-based healthcare delivery and the availability of essential health services [ 15 ]. The majority of our study respondents knew about the CHPS concept as well as the services being provided. Their commonest source of information was the community information centre. These information centres are major sources of information in rural communities and most inhabitants listen to them, explaining the high level of knowledge observed in the study setting. Interestingly, less than a fifth of the respondents got their information on CHPS through the community health workers, indicating that the Municipal Health Directorate needs to intensify campaign efforts provided by the community health workers. Johnson et al.[ 10 ] revealed that health education sessions within CHPS facilities should prioritize addressing prevailing health problems, preventive measures, and care practices.

Strengths and weakness of the study

This study contributes to the literature by exploring factors influencing access to a broad scope of health care services within the CHPS system in largely rural communities. We uniquely investigated access to a wider scope of healthcare services within rural communities where the CHPS concept is predominantly operational. Key strengths of our study include, being a population-based study involving geographically diverse communities where respondents were randomly selected, the findings are generally representative of the diverse ethnic groups in the municipal and similar communities. However, the study has some limitations. First, only persons who were at least 18 years old, had visited a facility within the six months preceding the study and were available at home during the period were recruited into the study. The experiences of the younger ones (< 18 years) and those who were not at home during the research could be different and would have been worthwhile. Second, soliciting the views of the health care providers and municipal health directorate staff would have been useful especially their challenges in implementing the policy.

Knowledge of the CHPS concept and the use of healthcare services at CHPS facilities were high in this predominantly rural population. Maintaining awareness campaign strategies on the CHPS concept such as use of the community information centres and intensifying community health worker campaign efforts would be worthwhile. Interventions aimed at reducing the waiting time at the CHPS facilities could significantly improve inhabitants’ use of healthcare services in these facilities.

Data availability

The data used for this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

Community-based Health Planning and Services

Committee on Human Research Publication and Ethics

Confidence Interval

Ghana Health Service

Ghana Statistical Service

Junior High School

National Health Insurance Scheme

Open Data Kit

Primary Health Care

Senior High School

World Health Organization

World Health Organization & Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research. Primary Health Care Systems (Primasys): Comprehensive case study from Pakistan. 2017. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341143 .

Ghana Health Service. The National Strategic Plan for Community-Based Health Planning and Services (CHPS), Accra G. 2005. https://www.moh.gov.gh/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CHPS-policy-final-working-draft-for-validation.pdf .

Adongo PB, Phillips JF, Aikins M, Arhin DA, Schmitt M, Nwameme AU, et al. Does the design and implementation of proven innovations for delivering basic primary health care services in rural communities fit the urban setting: the case of Ghana’s community-based Health Planning and Services (CHPS). Heal Res Policy Syst. 2014;12(1):1–10.

Google Scholar  

Awoonor-Williams JK. The Mobile Technology For Community Health (MOTECH) Initiative:An M-Health System Pilot In A Rural District Of Northern Ghana. Value Heal. 2013;16(3):A270–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.03.1393 .

Kyei-Nimakoh M, Carolan-Olah M, McCann TV. Access barriers to obstetric care at health facilities in sub-saharan Africa-a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):1–16.

Article   Google Scholar  

Phillips JF, Bawah AA, Bink FN. Accelerating reproductive and child health programme impact with community-based services: the Navrongo experiment in Ghana. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84(12):949–55.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Baatiema L, Skovdal M, Rifkin S, Campbell C. Assessing participation in a community-based health planning and services programme in Ghana. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1).

Binka FN, Nazzar A, Phillips JF. The Navrongo community health and family planning project. Stud Fam Plann. 1995;26(3):121–39.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Debpuur C, Phillips JF, Jackson EF, Nazzar A, Ngom P, Binka FN. The impct of the Navrongo Project on Contraceptive Knowledge and Use, Reproductive preferences, and fertility. Stud Fam Plann. 2002;33(2):141–64.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Johnson FA, Frempong-Ainguah F, Matthews Z, Harfoot AJP, Nyarko P, Baschieri A, et al. Evaluating the impact of the community-based health planning and services initiative on uptake of skilled birth care in Ghana. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3):1–18.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Adu J, Mulay S, Owusu MF. Reducing maternal and child mortality in rural Ghana. Pan Afr Med J. 2021;39.

Sakeah E, Bawah AA, Asuming PO, Debpuur C, Welaga P, Awine T, et al. Impact of community health interventions on maternal and child health indicators in the upper east region of Ghana. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23(1):1–15.

Uchendu OC, Ilesanmi OS, Olumide AE. Factors influencing the choice of health care providing facility among workers in a local government secretariat in South Western Nigeria. Ann Ibadan Postgrad Med. 2013;11(2):87–95. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25161426%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC4111062.

Bassoumah B, Adam AM, Adokiya MN. Challenges to the utilization of community-based Health Planning and Services: the views of stakeholders in Yendi Municipality, Ghana. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1–9.

Woods H, Haruna U, Konkor I, Luginaah I. The influence of the Community-based Health Planning and Services (CHPS) program on community health sustainability in the Upper West Region of Ghana. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2019;34(1):e802–16.

Kweku M, Amu H, Awolu A, Adjuik M, Ayanore MA, Manu E et al. Community-based health planning and services plus programme in Ghana: A qualitative study with stakeholders in two Systems Learning Districts on improving the implementation of primary health care. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226808 .

Assan A, Takian A, Aikins M, Akbarisari A. Universal health coverage necessitates a system approach: an analysis of community-based Health Planning and Services (CHPS) initiative in Ghana. Global Health. 2018;14(1):1–10.

Braimah JA. Community-based Health Planning and Services and Women ’ s Access to Health Care in the Upper West Region of Ghana. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(August). https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etdhttps://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/4722

Wiru K, Kumi-Kyereme A, Mahama EN, Amenga-Etego S, Owusu-Agyei S. Utilization of community-based health planning and services compounds in the Kintampo North Municipality: a cross-sectional descriptive correlational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):1–11.

Ghana Statistical Service. Ghana 2021 Population and Housing Census. Accra: Ghana Statistical Service; 2021.

Sefwi Wiawso Municipal Health Directorate. Municipal Annual Health Service Report. Sefwi Wiawso: Ghana Health Service; 2020.

Addi B, Doe B, Oduro-Ofori E. Towards quality primary health care: the dilemma of community-based Health Planning and Services (CHPS) in health service provision in Ghana. J Health Organ Manag. 2022;36(4):482–502.

Adjoa Wood E, Kwasi Esena R. Assessment of community utilization of CHPS services in Komenda-Edina-Eguafo-Abrem (KEEA) Municipality in the Central Region of Ghana. J Biol Agric Healthc. 2013;3(8):63–81. Available from: www.iiste.org.

Agbenyo F, Marshall Nunbogu A, Dongzagla A. Accessibility mapping of health facilities in rural Ghana. J Transp Heal. 2017;6(May):73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.04.010 .

Atuoye KN, Dixon J, Rishworth A, Galaa SZ, Boamah SA, Luginaah I. Can she make it? Transportation barriers to accessing maternal and child health care services in rural Ghana. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):1–10.

Wright KJ, Biney A, Kushitor M, Awoonor-Williams JK, Bawah AA, Phillips JF. Community perceptions of universal health coverage in eight districts of the Northern and Volta regions of Ghana. Glob Health Action. 2020;13(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2019.1705460 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Municipal Director of Health Services, Sefwi Wiawso and the chiefs and opinion leaders of the various communities where the study was conducted. We express our heartfelt gratitude to the respondents for sharing their experiences of the CHPS concept.

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Municipal Health Directorate-Ghana Health Service, Sefwi Wiawso, Western North, Ghana

Abraham D. Koyaara

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

Benjamin Noble Adjei

Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, School of Public Health, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

Eric Adjei Boadu & Edward T. Dassah

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

ADK and ETD conceived the study idea. BNA and ADK conducted the statistical analysis. ETD supervised the statistical analysis. ADK wrote the first draft of the manuscript. ETD and EAB reviewed the drafted manuscript. All authors scientifically reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abraham D. Koyaara .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology Committee on Human Research Publication and Ethics of the School of Medical Sciences, Kumasi (CHRPE/AP/300/20). All methods employed in the study were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Also, all respondents provided written informed consent before participation. Legally authorized representatives of illiterate respondents provided informed consent for the study.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Koyaara, A.D., Adjei, B.N., Boadu, E.A. et al. Community-Based Health Planning and Services (CHPS) concept and access to healthcare delivery in Sefwi Wiawso Municipal, Ghana. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 742 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11179-6

Download citation

Received : 14 April 2023

Accepted : 05 June 2024

Published : 17 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11179-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Community-based health planning and services (CHPS)
• Access to healthcare
• Healthcare delivery
• Sefwi Wiawso

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Search News and Events
• News overview
• Media relations

Strategic Design Capability in Companies - A framework for strengthening organizational effectiveness by means of strategic design capability

Jan-Erik Baars succesfully defended his thesis at the department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences on June 11th

Jan-Erik about his research: "My doctoral project defined the organizational capability companies require to utilize design optimally (which focuses on “form-giving”), thereby creating improved business outcomes. In previous studies, I examined the nature of design capability, and via a field study amongst companies in the German-speaking market, I defined a construct that defines the criteria to evaluate the level of capability present. The empirically derived framework can now support companies in understanding where to improve the implementation, planning, or directing of their design activities."

What was the most significant finding from your research, and what aspects turned out to be most important to you?

"The most significant is the finding that a firm's design capability is not solely dependent on the expertise of designers but on the managerial aspects that enable these aspects. This needs to be addressed. To improve design, it's crucial to improve management first.

What was your motivation to work on this research project?

"I have been in design for way over 30 years and finally wanted to understand what the underlying drivers for certain is. Now I know and can incorporate this understanding in my lecturing and consulting activities.

What was the greatest obstacle that you met on the PhD journey?

"Finding the time and focus to work on it.

What did you learn about yourself during your PhD research journey? Did you develop additional new skills over the course of the PhD research?

"I learned that even at 60, previous experiences and knowledge gained are just a backdrop for what you accomplish. I am humbled to go through this experience where you have to uncover new insights, learn new ways, and understand new knowledge. For instance, the effort to achieve construct validity via an empirical study was relatively new to me. I can’t say I mastered this, but it broadens my skill set."

What are your plans for after your PhD research?

"Have some vacation and then continue with what I do. I am at the end of my career, so I need to get going!

Title of PhD thesis:  Strategic Design Capability in Companies - A framework for strengthening organizational effectiveness by means of strategic design capability  Supervisors: Professor Sjoerd Romme , Dominik Georgi and Duygu Keskin

Media Contact:

A predictive framework for PEMFC dynamic load performance degradation based on feature parameter analysis

• Yu, Qinghua
• Luo, RunSen
• Chen, Sheng
• Yang, Jiebo

Accurate and swift estimation of the future performance degradation of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells (PEMFCs) is crucial for the health management of PEMFC. However, most existing studies primarily concentrate on uncovering the inherent patterns of performance degradation parameters, neglecting the fundamental relationships and pattern variations between performance degradation and other characteristic parameters (such as flow rate, temperature, and pressure). This paper seeks to address this research gap. To that end, we delve into feature parameters, extracting underlying patterns of feature evolution to construct a feature exploration-based framework for predicting PEMFC performance degradation. Initially, Time-Varying Filtered Empirical Mode Decomposition (TVF-EMD) is employed to decompose each feature variable, isolating the core information of the features. Furthermore, to reduce the computational burden caused by redundant features, Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) is used to perform dimensionality reduction on the decomposed feature subsequences, ensuring the efficiency and representativeness of the extracted features. Finally, to overcome the shortcomings of long short-term memory networks (LSTM) in terms of convergence and the effective use of time series information, we introduce an innovative Mogrifier LSTM (M-LSTM) model to enhance the accuracy of PEMFC performance degradation predictions. The experimental and validation results demonstrate that the extraction of feature parameters significantly enhances the predictive precision of the baseline model. Relative to the compared models, there was an improvement of at least 16.859% in Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), a minimum increase of 23.333% in Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and a boost of no less than 0.913% in the coefficient of determination (R 2 ). Simultaneously, the proposed predictive framework demonstrates good stability and accuracy in predicting PEMFC performance degradation.

• Proton exchange membrane fuel cell;
• Performance degradation trend;
• Deep learning;
• Feature engineering