study framework of research

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is a Theoretical Framework? How to Write It (with Examples) 

Theoretical framework 1,2 is the structure that supports and describes a theory. A theory is a set of interrelated concepts and definitions that present a systematic view of phenomena by describing the relationship among the variables for explaining these phenomena. A theory is developed after a long research process and explains the existence of a research problem in a study. A theoretical framework guides the research process like a roadmap for the research study and helps researchers clearly interpret their findings by providing a structure for organizing data and developing conclusions.   

A theoretical framework in research is an important part of a manuscript and should be presented in the first section. It shows an understanding of the theories and concepts relevant to the research and helps limit the scope of the research.  

Table of Contents

What is a theoretical framework ?  

A theoretical framework in research can be defined as a set of concepts, theories, ideas, and assumptions that help you understand a specific phenomenon or problem. It can be considered a blueprint that is borrowed by researchers to develop their own research inquiry. A theoretical framework in research helps researchers design and conduct their research and analyze and interpret their findings. It explains the relationship between variables, identifies gaps in existing knowledge, and guides the development of research questions, hypotheses, and methodologies to address that gap.  

Now that you know the answer to ‘ What is a theoretical framework? ’, check the following table that lists the different types of theoretical frameworks in research: 3

Developing a theoretical framework in research can help in the following situations: 4

• When conducting research on complex phenomena because a theoretical framework helps organize the research questions, hypotheses, and findings  
• When the research problem requires a deeper understanding of the underlying concepts  
• When conducting research that seeks to address a specific gap in knowledge  
• When conducting research that involves the analysis of existing theories  

Summarizing existing literature for theoretical frameworks is easy. Get our Research Ideation pack  

Importance of a theoretical framework  

The purpose of theoretical framework s is to support you in the following ways during the research process: 2  

• Provide a structure for the complete research process  
• Assist researchers in incorporating formal theories into their study as a guide  
• Provide a broad guideline to maintain the research focus  
• Guide the selection of research methods, data collection, and data analysis  
• Help understand the relationships between different concepts and develop hypotheses and research questions  
• Address gaps in existing literature  
• Analyze the data collected and draw meaningful conclusions and make the findings more generalizable  

Theoretical vs. Conceptual framework  

While a theoretical framework covers the theoretical aspect of your study, that is, the various theories that can guide your research, a conceptual framework defines the variables for your study and presents how they relate to each other. The conceptual framework is developed before collecting the data. However, both frameworks help in understanding the research problem and guide the development, collection, and analysis of the research.  

The following table lists some differences between conceptual and theoretical frameworks . 5

How to write a theoretical framework  

The following general steps can help those wondering how to write a theoretical framework: 2

• Identify and define the key concepts clearly and organize them into a suitable structure.  
• Use appropriate terminology and define all key terms to ensure consistency.  
• Identify the relationships between concepts and provide a logical and coherent structure.  
• Develop hypotheses that can be tested through data collection and analysis.  
• Keep it concise and focused with clear and specific aims.  

Write a theoretical framework 2x faster. Get our Manuscript Writing pack  

Examples of a theoretical framework  

Here are two examples of a theoretical framework. 6,7

Example 1 .   

An insurance company is facing a challenge cross-selling its products. The sales department indicates that most customers have just one policy, although the company offers over 10 unique policies. The company would want its customers to purchase more than one policy since most customers are purchasing policies from other companies.  

Objective : To sell more insurance products to existing customers.  

Problem : Many customers are purchasing additional policies from other companies.  

Research question : How can customer product awareness be improved to increase cross-selling of insurance products?  

Sub-questions: What is the relationship between product awareness and sales? Which factors determine product awareness?  

Since “product awareness” is the main focus in this study, the theoretical framework should analyze this concept and study previous literature on this subject and propose theories that discuss the relationship between product awareness and its improvement in sales of other products.  

Example 2 .

A company is facing a continued decline in its sales and profitability. The main reason for the decline in the profitability is poor services, which have resulted in a high level of dissatisfaction among customers and consequently a decline in customer loyalty. The management is planning to concentrate on clients’ satisfaction and customer loyalty.  

Objective: To provide better service to customers and increase customer loyalty and satisfaction.  

Problem: Continued decrease in sales and profitability.  

Research question: How can customer satisfaction help in increasing sales and profitability?  

Sub-questions: What is the relationship between customer loyalty and sales? Which factors influence the level of satisfaction gained by customers?  

Since customer satisfaction, loyalty, profitability, and sales are the important topics in this example, the theoretical framework should focus on these concepts.  

Benefits of a theoretical framework  

There are several benefits of a theoretical framework in research: 2  

• Provides a structured approach allowing researchers to organize their thoughts in a coherent way.  
• Helps to identify gaps in knowledge highlighting areas where further research is needed.  
• Increases research efficiency by providing a clear direction for research and focusing efforts on relevant data.  
• Improves the quality of research by providing a rigorous and systematic approach to research, which can increase the likelihood of producing valid and reliable results.  
• Provides a basis for comparison by providing a common language and conceptual framework for researchers to compare their findings with other research in the field, facilitating the exchange of ideas and the development of new knowledge.  

Frequently Asked Questions 

Q1. How do I develop a theoretical framework ? 7

A1. The following steps can be used for developing a theoretical framework :  

• Identify the research problem and research questions by clearly defining the problem that the research aims to address and identifying the specific questions that the research aims to answer.
• Review the existing literature to identify the key concepts that have been studied previously. These concepts should be clearly defined and organized into a structure.
• Develop propositions that describe the relationships between the concepts. These propositions should be based on the existing literature and should be testable.
• Develop hypotheses that can be tested through data collection and analysis.
• Test the theoretical framework through data collection and analysis to determine whether the framework is valid and reliable.

Q2. How do I know if I have developed a good theoretical framework or not? 8

A2. The following checklist could help you answer this question:  

• Is my theoretical framework clearly seen as emerging from my literature review?  
• Is it the result of my analysis of the main theories previously studied in my same research field?  
• Does it represent or is it relevant to the most current state of theoretical knowledge on my topic?  
• Does the theoretical framework in research present a logical, coherent, and analytical structure that will support my data analysis?  
• Do the different parts of the theory help analyze the relationships among the variables in my research?  
• Does the theoretical framework target how I will answer my research questions or test the hypotheses?  
• Have I documented every source I have used in developing this theoretical framework ?  
• Is my theoretical framework a model, a table, a figure, or a description?  
• Have I explained why this is the appropriate theoretical framework for my data analysis?  

Q3. Can I use multiple theoretical frameworks in a single study?  

A3. Using multiple theoretical frameworks in a single study is acceptable as long as each theory is clearly defined and related to the study. Each theory should also be discussed individually. This approach may, however, be tedious and effort intensive. Therefore, multiple theoretical frameworks should be used only if absolutely necessary for the study.  

Q4. Is it necessary to include a theoretical framework in every research study?  

A4. The theoretical framework connects researchers to existing knowledge. So, including a theoretical framework would help researchers get a clear idea about the research process and help structure their study effectively by clearly defining an objective, a research problem, and a research question.  

Q5. Can a theoretical framework be developed for qualitative research?  

A5. Yes, a theoretical framework can be developed for qualitative research. However, qualitative research methods may or may not involve a theory developed beforehand. In these studies, a theoretical framework can guide the study and help develop a theory during the data analysis phase. This resulting framework uses inductive reasoning. The outcome of this inductive approach can be referred to as an emergent theoretical framework . This method helps researchers develop a theory inductively, which explains a phenomenon without a guiding framework at the outset.  

Q6. What is the main difference between a literature review and a theoretical framework ?  

A6. A literature review explores already existing studies about a specific topic in order to highlight a gap, which becomes the focus of the current research study. A theoretical framework can be considered the next step in the process, in which the researcher plans a specific conceptual and analytical approach to address the identified gap in the research.  

Theoretical frameworks are thus important components of the research process and researchers should therefore devote ample amount of time to develop a solid theoretical framework so that it can effectively guide their research in a suitable direction. We hope this article has provided a good insight into the concept of theoretical frameworks in research and their benefits.  

References  

• Organizing academic research papers: Theoretical framework. Sacred Heart University library. Accessed August 4, 2023. https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803&p=185919#:~:text=The%20theoretical%20framework%20is%20the,research%20problem%20under%20study%20exists .  
• Salomao A. Understanding what is theoretical framework. Mind the Graph website. Accessed August 5, 2023. https://mindthegraph.com/blog/what-is-theoretical-framework/  
• Theoretical framework—Types, examples, and writing guide. Research Method website. Accessed August 6, 2023. https://researchmethod.net/theoretical-framework/  
• Grant C., Osanloo A. Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.” Administrative Issues Journal : Connecting Education, Practice, and Research; 4(2):12-26. 2014. Accessed August 7, 2023. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1058505.pdf  
• Difference between conceptual framework and theoretical framework. MIM Learnovate website. Accessed August 7, 2023. https://mimlearnovate.com/difference-between-conceptual-framework-and-theoretical-framework/  
• Example of a theoretical framework—Thesis & dissertation. BacherlorPrint website. Accessed August 6, 2023. https://www.bachelorprint.com/dissertation/example-of-a-theoretical-framework/  
• Sample theoretical framework in dissertation and thesis—Overview and example. Students assignment help website. Accessed August 6, 2023. https://www.studentsassignmenthelp.co.uk/blogs/sample-dissertation-theoretical-framework/#Example_of_the_theoretical_framework  
• Kivunja C. Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework: A systematic review of lessons from the field. Accessed August 8, 2023. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1198682.pdf  

Researcher.Life is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Researcher.Life All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 21+ years of experience in academia, Researcher.Life All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $17 a month !    

Related Posts

Single-Blind vs Double-Blind Peer Review

How to Read, Write, Promote Your Research Effectively: Timesaving Solution for Busy Researchers

• 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: Apr 24, 2024 10:51 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• 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

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide pp 51–75 Cite as

Building and Using Theoretical Frameworks

• James Hiebert 6 ,
• Jinfa Cai 7 ,
• Stephen Hwang 7 ,
• Anne K Morris 6 &
• Charles Hohensee 6  
• Open Access
• First Online: 03 December 2022

14k Accesses

1 Citations

Part of the book series: Research in Mathematics Education ((RME))

Theoretical frameworks can be confounding. They are supposed to be very important, but it is not always clear what they are or why you need them. Using ideas from Chaps. 1 and 2 , we describe them as local theories that are custom-designed for your study. Although they might use parts of larger well-known theories, they are created by individual researchers for particular studies. They are developed through the cyclic process of creating more precise and meaningful hypotheses. Building directly on constructs from the previous chapters, you can think of theoretical frameworks as equivalent to the most compelling, complete rationales you can develop for the predictions you make. Theoretical frameworks are important because they do lots of work for you. They incorporate the literature into your rationale, they explain why your study matters, they suggest how you can best test your predictions, and they help you interpret what you find. Your theoretical framework creates an essential coherence for your study and for the paper you are writing to report the study.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Part I. What Are Theoretical Frameworks?

As the name implies, a theoretical framework is a type of theory. We will define it as the custom-made theory that focuses specifically on the hypotheses you want to test and the research questions you want to answer. It is custom-made for your study because it explains why your predictions are plausible. It does no more and no less. Building directly on Chap. 2 , as you develop more complete rationales for your predictions, you are actually building a theory to support your predictions. Our goal in this chapter is for you to become comfortable with what theoretical frameworks are, with how they relate to the general concept of theory, with what role they play in scientific inquiry, and with why and how to create one for your study.

As you read this chapter, it will be helpful to remember that our definitions of terms in this book, such as theoretical framework, are based on our view of scientific inquiry as formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses. We define theoretical framework in ways that continue the coherent story we lay out across all phases of scientific inquiry and all the chapters this book. You are likely to find descriptions of theoretical frameworks in other sources that differ in some ways from our description. In addition, you are likely to see other terms that we would include as synonyms for theoretical framework, including conceptual framework. We suggest that when you encounter these special terms, make sure you understand how the authors are defining them.

Definitions of Theories

We begin by stepping back and considering how theoretical frameworks fit within the concept of theory, as usually defined. There are many definitions of theory; you can find a huge number simply by googling “theory.” Educational researchers and theorists often propose their own definitions but many of these are quite similar. Praetorius and Charalambous ( 2022 ) reviewed a number of definitions to set the stage for examining theories of teaching. Here are a few, beginning with a dictionary definition:

Lexico.com Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 2021 ): “A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.”

Biddle and Anderson ( 1986 ): “By scientific theory we mean the system of concepts and propositions that is used to represent, think about, and predict observable events. Within a mature science that theory is also explanatory and formalized. It does not represent ultimate ‘truth,’ however; indeed, it will be superseded by other theories presently. Instead, it represents the best explanation we have, at present, for those events we have so far observed” (p. 241).

Kerlinger ( 1964 ): “A theory is a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions and propositions which presents a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting phenomena” (p. 11).

Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan ( 2007 ): The authors say that theories allow researchers to understand and predict outcomes of interest, describe and explain a process or sequence of events, raise consciousness about a specific set of concepts as well as prevent scholars from “being dazzled by the complexity of the empirical world by providing a linguistic tool for organizing it” (p. 1281).

For our purposes, it is important to notice two things that most definitions of theories share: They are descriptions of a connected set of facts and concepts, and they are created to predict and/or explain observed events. You can connect these ideas to Chaps. 1 and 2 by noticing that the language for the descriptors of scientific inquiry we suggested in Chap. 1 are reflected in the definitions of theories. In particular, notice in the definitions two of the descriptors: “Observing something and trying to explain why it is the way it is” and “Updating everyone’s thinking in response to more and better information.” Notice also in the definitions the emphasis on the elements of a theory similar to the elements of a rationale described in Chap. 2 : definitions, variables, and mechanisms that explain relationships.

Exercise 3.1

Before you continue reading, in your own words, write down a definition for “theoretical framework.”

Theoretical Frameworks Are Local Theories

There are strong similarities between building theories and doing scientific inquiry (formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses). In both cases, the researcher (or theorist) develops explanations for phenomena of interest. Building theories involves describing the concepts and conjectures that predict and later explain the events, and specifying the predictions by identifying the variables that will be measured. Doing scientific inquiry involves many of the same activities: formulating predictions for answers to questions about the research problem and building rationales to explain why the predictions are appropriate and reasonable.

As you move through the cycles described in Chap. 2 —cycles of asking questions, making predictions, writing out the reasons for these predictions, imagining how you would test the predictions, reading more about what scholars know and have hypothesized, revising your predictions (and maybe your questions), and so on—your theoretical rationales will become both more complete and more precise. They will become more complete as you find new arguments and new data in the literature and through talking with others, and they will become sharper as you remove parts of the rationales that originally seemed relevant but now create mostly distractions and noise. They will become increasingly customized local theories that support your predictions.

In the end, your framework should be as clean and frugal as possible without missing arguments or data that are directly relevant. In the language of mathematics, you should use an idea if and only if it makes your framework stronger, more convincing. On the one hand, including more than you need becomes a distraction and can confuse both you, as you try to conceptualize and conduct your research, and others, as they read your reports of your research. On the other hand, including less than you need means your rationale is not yet as convincing as it could be.

The set of rationales, blended together, constitute a precisely targeted custom-made theory that supports your predictions. Custom designing your rationales for your specific predictions means you probably will be drawing ideas from lots of sources and combining them in new ways. You are likely to end up with a unique local theory, a theoretical framework that has not been proposed in exactly the same way before.

A common misconception among beginning researchers is that they should borrow a theoretical framework from somewhere else, especially from well-known scholars who have theories named after them or well-known general theories of learning or teaching. You are likely to use ideas from these theories (e.g., Vygotsky’s theory of learning, Maslow’s theory of motivation, constructivist theories of learning), but you will combine specific ideas from multiple sources to create your own framework. When someone asks, “What theoretical framework are you using?” you would not say, “A Vygotskian framework.” Rather, you would say something like, “I created my framework by combining ideas from different sources so it explains why I am making these predictions.”

You should think of your theoretical framework as a potential contribution to the field, all on its own. Although it is unique to your study, there are elements of your framework that other researchers could draw from to construct theoretical frameworks for their studies, just as you drew from others’ frameworks. In rare cases, other researchers could use your framework as is. This might happen if they want to replicate your study or extend it in very specific ways. Usually, however, researchers borrow parts of frameworks or modify them in ways that better fit their own studies. And, just as you are doing with your own theoretical framework, those researchers will need to justify why borrowing or modifying parts of your framework will help them explain the predictions they are making.

Considering your theoretical framework as a contribution to the field means you should treat it as a central part of scientific inquiry, not just as a required step that must be completed before moving to the next phase. To be useful, the theoretical framework should be constructed as a critical part of conceptualizing and carrying out the research (Cai et al., 2019c ). This also means you should write out your framework as you are developing it. This will be a key part of your evolving research paper. Because your framework will be adjusted multiple times, your written document will go through many drafts.

If you are a graduate student, do not think of the potential audience for your written framework as only your advisor and committee members. Rather, consider your audience to be the larger community of education researchers. You will need to be sure all the key terms are defined and each part of your argument is clear, even to those who are not familiar with your study. This is one place where writing out your framework can benefit your study—it is easy to assume key terms are clear, but then you find out they are not so clear, even to you, when trying to communicate them. Failing to notice this lack of clarity can create lots of problems down the road.

Exercise 3.2

Researchers have used a number of different metaphors to describe theoretical frameworks. Maxwell (2005) referred to a theoretical framework as a “coat closet” that provides “places to ‘hang’ data, showing their relationship to other data,” although he cautioned that “a theory that neatly organizes some data will leave other data disheveled and lying on the floor, with no place to put them” (p. 49). Lester (2005) referred to a framework as a “scaffold” (p. 458), and others have called it a “blueprint” (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). Eisenhart (1991) described the framework as a “skeletal structure of justification” (p. 209). Spangler and Williams (2019) drew an analogy to the role that a house frame provides in preventing the house from collapsing in on itself. What aspects of a theoretical framework does each of these metaphors capture? What aspects does each fail to capture? Which metaphor do you find best fits your definition of a theoretical framework? Why? Can you think of another metaphor to describe a theoretical framework?

Part II. Why Do You Need Theoretical Frameworks?

Theoretical frameworks do lots of work for you. They have four primary purposes. They ensure (1) you have sound reasons to expect your predictions will be accurate, (2) you will craft appropriate methods to test your predictions, (3) you can interpret appropriately what you find, and (4) your interpretations will contribute to the accumulation of a knowledge base that can improve education. How do they do this?

Supporting Your Predictions

In previous chapters and earlier in this chapter, we described how theoretical frameworks are built along with your predictions. In fact, the rationales you develop for convincing others (and yourself) that your predictions are accurate are used to refine your predictions, and vice versa. So, it is not surprising that your refined framework provides a rationale that is fully aligned with your predictions. In fact, you could think of your theoretical framework as your best explanation, at any given moment during scientific inquiry, for why you will find what you think you will find.

Throughout this book, we are using “explanation” in a broad sense. As we noted earlier, an explanation for why your predictions are accurate includes all the concepts and definitions about mechanisms (Kerlinger’s, 1964 definition of “theory”) that help you describe why you think the predictions you are making are the best predictions possible. The explanation also identifies and describes all the variables that make up your predictions, variables that will be measured to test your predictions.

Crafting Appropriate Methods

Critical decisions you make to test your hypotheses form the methods for your scientific inquiry. As we have noted, imagining how you will test your hypotheses helps you decide whether the empirical observations you make can be compared with your predictions or whether you need to revise the methods (or your predictions). Remember, the theoretical framework is the coherent argument built from the rationales you develop as part of each hypothesis you formulate. Because each rationale explains why you make that prediction, it contains helpful cues for which methods would provide the fairest and most complete test of that prediction. In fact, your theoretical framework provides a logic against which you can check every aspect of the methods you imagine using.

You might find it helpful to ask yourself two questions as you think about which methods are best aligned with your theoretical framework. One is, “After reading my theoretical framework, will anyone be surprised by the methods I use?” If so, you should look back at your framework and make sure the predictions are clear and the rationales include all the reasons for your predictions. Your framework should telegraph the methods that make the most sense. The other question is, “Are there some predictions for which I can’t imagine appropriate methods?” If so, we recommend you return to your hypotheses—to your predictions and rationales (theoretical framework)—to make sure the predictions are phrased as precisely as possible and your framework is fully developed. In most cases, this will help you imagine methods that could be used. If not, you might need to revise your hypotheses.

Exercise 3.3

Kerlinger ( 1964 ) stated, “A theory is a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions and propositions which presents a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting phenomena” (p. 11). What role do definitions play in a theoretical framework and how do they help in crafting appropriate methods?

Exercise 3.4

Sarah is in the beginning stages of developing a study. Her initial prediction is: There is a relationship between pedagogical content knowledge and ambitious teaching. She realizes that in order to craft appropriate measures, she needs to develop definitions of these constructs. Sarah’s original definitions are: Pedagogical content knowledge is knowledge about subject matter that is relevant to teaching. Ambitious teaching is teaching that is responsive to students’ thinking and develops a deep knowledge of content. Sarah recognizes that her prediction and her definitions are too broad and too general to work with. She wants to refine the definitions so they can guide the refinement of her prediction and the design of the study. Develop definitions of these two constructs that have clearer implications for the design and that would help Sarah to refine her prediction. (tip: Sarah may need to reduce the scope of her prediction by choosing to focus only on one aspect of pedagogical content knowledge and one aspect of ambitious teaching. Then, she can more precisely define those aspects.)

Guiding Interpretations of the Data

By providing rationales for your predictions, your theoretical framework explains why you think your predictions will be accurate. In education, researchers almost always find that if they make specific predictions (which they should), the predictions are not entirely accurate. This is a consequence of the fact that theoretical frameworks are never complete. Recall the definition of theories from Biddle and Anderson ( 1986 ): A theory “does not represent ultimate ‘truth,’ however; indeed, it will be superseded by other theories presently. Instead, it represents the best explanation we have, at present, for those events we have so far observed” (p. 241). If you have created your best developed and clearly stated theoretical framework that explains why you expected certain results, you can focus your interpretation on the ways in which your theoretical framework should be revised.

Focusing on realigning your theoretical framework with the data you collected produces the richest interpretation of your results. And it prevents you from making one of the most common errors of beginning researchers (and veteran researchers, as well): claiming that your results say more than they really do. Without this anchor to ground your interpretation of the data, it is easy to overgeneralize and make claims that go beyond the evidence.

In one of the definitions of theory presented earlier, Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan ( 2007 ) say that theories prevent scholars from “being dazzled by the complexity of the empirical world” (p. 1281). Theoretical frameworks keep researchers grounded by setting parameters within which the empirical world can be interpreted.

Exercise 3.5

Find two published articles that explicitly present theoretical frameworks (not all articles do). Where do you see evidence of the researchers using their theoretical frameworks to inform, shape, and connect other parts of their articles?

Showing the Contribution of Your Study

Theoretical frameworks contain the arguments that define the contribution of research studies. They do this in two ways, by showing how your study extends what is known and by setting the parameters for your contribution.

Showing How Your Study Extends What Is Known

Because your theoretical framework is built from what is already known or has been proposed, it situates your study in work that has occurred before. A clearly written framework shows readers how your study will take advantage of what is known to extend it further. It reveals what is new about what you are studying. The predictions that are generated from your framework are predictions that have never been made in quite the same way. They predict you will find something that has not been found previously in exactly this way. Your theoretical framework allows others to see the contributions that your study is likely to make even before the study has been conducted.

Setting the Parameters for Your Contribution

Earlier we noted that theoretical frameworks keep researchers grounded by setting parameters within which they should interpret their data. They do this by providing an initial explanation for why researchers expect to find particular results. The explanation is custom-built for each study. This means it uniquely explains the expected results. The results will almost surely turn out somewhat differently than predicted. Interpreting the data includes revising the initial explanation. So, you will end up with two versions of your theoretical framework, one that explains what you expected to find plus a second, updated framework that explains what you actually found.

The two frameworks—the initial version and the updated version—define the parameters of your study’s contribution. The difference between the two frameworks is what can be learned from your study. The first framework is a claim about what is known before you conduct your study about the phenomenon you are studying; the updated framework is a claim about how what is known has changed based on your results. It is the new aspects of the updated framework that capture the important contribution of your work.

Here is a brief example. Suppose you study the errors fourth graders make after receiving ordinary instruction on adding and subtracting decimal fractions. Based on empirical findings from past research, on theories of student learning, and on your own experience, you develop a rationale which predicts that a common error on “ragged” addition problems will be adding the wrong numerals. One of the reasons for this prediction is that students are likely to ignore the values of the digit positions and “line up” the numerals as they do with whole numbers. For instance, if they are asked to add 53.2 + .16, they are likely to answer either 5.48 or 54.8.

When you conduct your study, you present problems, handwritten, in both horizontal and vertical form. The horizontal form presents the numbers using the format shown above. The vertical form places one numeral over the other but not carefully aligned:

You find the predicted error occurs, but only for problems written in vertical form. To interpret these data, you look back at your theoretical framework and realize that students might ignore the value of the digits if the format reminded them of the way they lined up digits for whole number addition but might consider the value of the digits if they are forced to align the digits themselves, either by rewriting the problem or by just adding in their heads. A measure of what you (and others) learned from this study is the change in possible explanations (your theoretical frameworks). This does not mean your updated theoretical framework is “correct” or will make perfectly accurate predictions next time. But, it does mean that you are very likely moving toward more accurate predictions and toward a deeper understanding of how students think about adding decimal fractions.

Anchoring the Coherence of Your Study (and Your Evolving Research Paper)

Your theoretical framework serves as the anchor or center point around which all other aspects of your study should be aligned. This does not mean it is created first or that all other aspects are changed to align with the framework after it is created. The framework also changes as other aspects are considered. However, it is useful to always check alignment by beginning with the framework and asking whether other aspects are aligned and, if not, adjusting one or the other. This process of checking alignment is equally true when writing your evolving research paper as when planning and conducting your study.

Part III. How Do You Construct a Theoretical Framework for Your Study?

How do you start the process? Because constructing a theoretical framework is a natural extension of constructing rationales for your predictions, you already started as soon as you began formulating hypotheses: making predictions for what you will find and writing down reasons for why you are making these predictions. In Chap. 2 , we talked about beginning this process. In this section, we will explore how you can continue building out your rationales into a full-fledged theoretical framework.

Building a Theoretical Framework in Phases

Building your framework will occur in phases and proceed through cycles of clarifying your questions, making more precise and explicit your predictions, articulating reasons for making these predictions, and imagining ways of testing the predictions. The major source for ideas that will shape the framework is the research literature. That said, conversations with colleagues and other experts can help clarify your predictions and the rationales you develop to justify the predictions.

As you read relevant literature, you can ask: What have researchers found that help me predict what I will find? How have they explained their findings, and how might those explanations help me develop reasons for my predictions? Are there new ways to interpret past results so they better inform my predictions? Are there ways to look across previous results (and claims) and see new patterns that I can use to refine my predictions and enrich my rationales? How can theories that have credibility in the research community help me understand what I might find and help me explain why this is the case? As we have said, this process will go back and forth between clarifying your predictions, adjusting your rationales, reading, clarifying more, adjusting, reading, and so on.

One Researcher’s Experience Constructing a Theoretical Framework: The Continuing Case of Martha

In Chap. 2 , we followed Martha, a doctoral student in mathematics education, as she was working out the topic for her study, asking questions she wanted to answer, predicting the answers, and developing rationales for these predictions. Our story concluded with a research question, a sample set of predictions, and some reasons for Martha’s predictions. The question was: “Under what conditions do middle school teachers who lack conceptual knowledge of linear functions benefit from five 2-hour learning opportunity (LO) sessions that engage them in conceptual learning of linear functions as assessed by changes in their teaching toward a more conceptual emphasis of linear functions?” Her predictions focused on particular conditions that would affect the outcomes in particular ways. She was beginning to build rationales for these predictions by returning to the literature and identifying previous research and theory that were relevant. We continue the story here.

Imagine Martha continuing to read as she develops her theoretical framework—the rationales for her predictions. She tweaks some of her predictions based on what other researchers have already found. As she continues reading, she comes across some related literature on learning opportunities for teachers. A number of articles describe the potential of another form of LOs that might help teachers teach mathematics more conceptually—analyzing videos of mathematics lessons.

The data suggested that teachers can improve their teaching by analyzing videos of other teachers’ lessons as well as their own. However, the results were mixed so researchers did not seem to know exactly what makes the difference. Martha also read that teachers who already can analyze videos of lessons and spontaneously describe the mathematics that students are struggling with and offer useful suggestions for how to improve learning opportunities for students teach toward more conceptual learning goals, and their students learn more (Kersting et al., 2010 , 2012 ). These findings caught Martha’s attention because it is unusual to find correlates with conceptual teaching and better achievement. What is not known, realized Martha, is whether teachers who learn to analyze videos in this way, through specially designed LOs, would look like the teachers who already could analyze them. Would teachers who learned to analyze videos teach more conceptually?

It occurred to Martha she could bring these lines of research together by extending what is known along both lines. Recall our earlier suggestion of looking across the literature and noticing new patterns that can inform your work. Martha thought about studying how, exactly, these two skills are related: analyzing videos in particular ways and teaching conceptually. Would the relationships reported in the literature hold up for teachers who learn to describe the mathematics students are struggling with and make useful suggestions for improving students’ LOs?

Martha was now conflicted. She was well on her way to developing a testable hypothesis about the effects of learning about linear functions, but she was really intrigued by the work on analyzing videos of teaching. In addition, she saw several advantages of switching to this new topic:

The research question could be formulated quite easily. It would be something like: “What are the relationships between learning to analyze videos of mathematics teaching in particular ways (specified from prior research) and teaching for conceptual understanding?”

She could imagine predicting the answers to this question based directly on previous research. She would predict connections between particular kinds of analysis skills and levels of conceptual teaching of mathematics in ways that employed these skills.

The level of conceptual teaching, a challenging construct to define with her previous topic (the effects of professional development on the teaching of linear functions), was already defined in the work on analyzing videos of mathematics teaching, so that would solve a big problem. The definition foregrounded particular sets of behaviors and skills such as identifying key learning moments in a lesson and focusing on students’ thinking about the key mathematical idea during these moments. In other words, Martha saw ways to adapt a definition that had already been used and tested.

The issue of transfer—another challenging issue in her original hypothesis—was addressed more directly in this setting because the learning environment—analyzing videos of classroom teaching—is quite close to the classroom environment in which participants’ conceptual teaching would be observed.

Finally, the nature of learning opportunities, an aspect of her original idea she still needed to work through, had been explored in previous studies on this new topic, and connections were found between studying videos and changes in teaching.

Given all these advantages, Martha decided to change her topic and her research question. We applaud this decision for two major reasons. First, Martha’s interest grew as she explored this new topic. She became excited about conducting a study that might answer the research question she posed. It is always good to be passionate about what you study. Second, Martha was more likely to contribute important new insights if she could extend what is already known rather than explore a new area. Exploring something quite new requires lots of effort defining terms, creating measures, making new predictions, developing reasons for the predictions, and so on. Sometimes, exploring a new area has payoffs. But, as a beginning researcher, we suggest you take advantage of work that has already been done and extend it in creative ways.

Although Martha’s idea of extending previous work came with real advantages, she still faced a number of challenges. A first, major challenge was to decide whether she could build a rationale that would predict learning to analyze videos caused more conceptual teaching. Or, could she only build a rationale that would predict that there was a relationship between changes in analyzing videos and level of conceptual teaching? Perhaps a cause-effect relationship existed but in the opposite direction: If teachers learned to teach more conceptually, their analysis of teaching videos would improve. Although most of the literature described learning to analyze videos as the potential cause of teaching conceptually, Martha did not believe there was sufficient evidence to build a rationale for this prediction. Instead, she decided to first determine if a relationship existed and, if so, to understand the relationship. Then, if warranted, she could develop and test a hypothesis of causation in a future study. In fact, the direction of the causation might become clearer when she understood the relationship more clearly.

A second major challenge was whether to study the relationship as it existed or as one (or both) of the constructs was changing. Past research had explored the relationship as it existed, without inducing changes in either analyzing videos or teaching conceptually. So, Martha decided she could learn more about the relationship if one of the constructs was changing in a planned way. Because researchers had argued that teachers’ analysis of video could be changed with appropriate LOs, and because changing teachers’ teaching practices has resisted simple interventions, Martha decided to study the relationship as she facilitated changes in teachers’ analysis of videos. This would require gathering data on the relationship at more than one point in time.

Even after resolving these thorny issues, Martha faced many additional challenges. Should she predict a closer relationship between learning to analyze video and teaching for conceptual understanding before teachers began learning to analyze videos or after? Perhaps the relationship increases over time because conceptual teaching often changes slowly. Should she predict a closer relationship if the content of the videos teachers analyzed was the same as the content they would be teaching? Should she predict the relationship will be similar across pairs of similar topics? Should she predict that some analysis skills will show closer relationships to levels of conceptual teaching than others? These questions and others occurred to Martha as she was formulating her predictions, developing justifications for her predictions, and considering how she would test the predictions.

Based on her reading and discussions with colleagues, Martha phrased her initial predictions as follows:

There will be a significant positive correlation between teachers’ performance on analysis of videos and the extent to which they create conceptual learning opportunities for their students both before and after proposed learning experiences.

The relationship will be stronger:

Before the proposed opportunities to learn to analyze videos of teaching;

When the videos and the instruction are about similar mathematical topics; and,

When the videos analyzed display conceptual misunderstandings among students.

Of the video analysis skills that will be assessed, the two that will show the strongest relationship are spontaneously describing (1) the mathematics that students are struggling with and (2) useful suggestions for how to improve the conceptual learning opportunities for students.

Martha’s rationales for these predictions—her theoretical framework—evolved along with her predictions. We will not detail the framework here, but we will note that the rationale for the first prediction was based on findings from past research. In particular, the prediction is generated by reasoning that if there has been no special intervention, the tendency to analyze videos in particular ways and to teach conceptually develop together. This might explain Kersting’s findings described earlier. The second and third predictions were based on the literature on teachers’ learning, especially their learning from analyzing videos of teaching.

Before leaving Martha at this point in her journey, we want to make an important point about the change she made to her research topic. Changes like this occur quite often as researchers do the hard intellectual work of developing testable hypotheses that guide research studies. When this happens to you, it can feel like you have lost ground. You might feel like you wasted your time on the original topic. In Chap. 1 , we described inevitable “failure” when engaged in scientific inquiry. Failure is often associated with realizing the data you collected do not come close to supporting your predictions. But a common kind of failure occurs when researchers realize the direction they have been pursuing should change before they collect data. This happened in Martha’s case because she came across a topic that was more intriguing to her and because it helped solve some problems she was facing with the previous topic. This is an example of “failing productively” (see Chap. 1 ). Martha did not succeed in pursuing her original idea, but while she was recognizing the problems, she was also seeing new possibilities.

Constantly Improving Your Framework

We will use Martha’s experience to be more specific about the back-and-forth process in which you will engage as you flesh out your framework. We mentioned earlier your review of the literature as a major source of ideas and evidence that will affect your framework.

Reviewing Published Empirical Evidence

One of the best sources for helping you specify your predictions are studies that have been conducted on related topics. The closer to your topic, the more helpful will be the evidence for anticipating what you will find. Many beginning researchers worry they will locate a study just like the one they are planning. This (almost) never happens. Your study will be different in some ways, and a study that is very similar to yours can be extraordinarily helpful in specifying your predictions. Be excited instead of terrified when you come across a study with a title similar to yours.

Try to locate all the published research that has been conducted on your topic. What does “on your topic” mean? How widely should you cast your net? There are no rules here; you will need to use your professional judgment. However, here is a general guide: If the study does not help you clarify your predictions, change your confidence in them, or strengthen your rationale, then it falls outside your net.

In addition to helping specify your predictions, prior research studies can be a goldmine for developing and strengthening your theoretical framework. How did researchers justify their predictions or explain why they found what they did? How can you use these ideas to support (or change) your own predictions?

By reading research on similar topics, you might also imagine ways of testing your predictions. Maybe you learn of ways you could design your study, measures you could use to collect data, or strategies you could use to analyze your data. As you find helpful ideas, you will want to keep track of where you found these ideas so you can cite the appropriate sources as you write drafts of your evolving research paper.

Examining Theories

You will read a wide range of theories that provide insights into why things might work like they do. When the phenomena addressed by the theory are similar to those you will study, the associated theories can help you think through your own predictions and why you are making them. Returning to Martha’s situation, she could benefit from reading theories on adult learning, especially teacher learning, on transferring knowledge from one setting to another, on professional development for teachers, on the role of videos in learning, on the knowledge needed to teach conceptually, and so on.

Focusing on Variables and Mechanisms

As you review the literature and search for evidence and ideas that could strengthen your predictions and rationales, it is useful to keep your eyes on two components: the variables you will attend to and the mechanisms that might explain the relationships between the variables. Predictions could be considered statements about expected behaviors of the variables. The theoretical framework could be thought of as a description of all the variables that will be deliberately attended to plus the mechanisms conjectured to account for these relationships.

In Martha’s case, the most obvious variables are the responses teachers give to questions about their analysis of the videos and the features observed in their teaching practices. The mechanism of primary interest is the (mental and social) process that transforms the skills, knowledge, and attention involved in analyzing videos into particular kinds of teaching practices—or vice versa. The definition of conceptual teaching she adopted from previous studies gave her a clue about the mechanisms—about how and why learning to analyze videos might affect classroom teaching. The definition included attending to key learning moments in a lesson and tracking students’ thinking during these moments. Martha predicted that if teachers learned to attend to these aspects of teaching when viewing videos, they might attend to them when planning and implementing their own teaching.

As Martha reviewed the literature, she identified a number of variables that might affect the likelihood and extent of this translation. Here are some examples: how well teachers understand the mathematics in the videos and the mathematics they will teach; the nature of the videos themselves; the number of opportunities teachers have to analyze videos and the ways in which these opportunities are structured; teachers’ analysis of videos and their teaching practices before the learning opportunities begin; and how much time they have to apply what they learn to their own teaching.

Martha identified these additional variables because she learned they might have a direct influence on the mechanisms that could explain the relationship between analyzing videos and teaching. Some variables might support these mechanisms, and some might interfere. Martha’s task at this point in her work is to identify and describe all the variables that could play a meaningful role in the outcome of her study. This means to identify each variable for which it is possible to establish a clear and direct connection between the variable and the relationship she planned to investigate. Using the outcome of this task, Martha then needs to update her description of the mechanisms that could account for the relationships she expects to see and review her predictions and theoretical framework with these variables and mechanisms in mind.

Exercise 3.6

Review the predictions that Martha made and identify the variables that play a role in these predictions. Even though you might not be immersed in this literature, think about the alignment between the variables included in the predictions and those that could impact the relationships in which Martha is interested. Are there other missing variables that should be included in her predictions?

How Do You Know When You Have Finished Building Your Theoretical Framework?

The question of when your theoretical framework is finished could be answered in several ways. First, it is never really finished. As you continue to write your evolving research paper, you will continue strengthening your framework. You might even refine the framework as you write the final draft of your paper, after you have collected and analyzed your data. Furthermore, if you do follow-up studies, you will continue to build your framework.

A second answer is that you should invest the time and effort to build a theoretical framework that is as finished as possible at each point in the research process. As you write each draft of your evolving research paper, you should feel as if you have the strongest, most robust rationale you can have for your current predictions. In other words, you should feel that with each succeeding draft you have finished building your framework, even though you are quite sure you have not.

A third answer addresses a common, related question: “How do I know when I have included enough ideas and borrowed from enough sources? Would including another idea or citing another source be useful?” The answer is that you should include only those ideas that contribute to building a stronger framework. When you wonder whether you should include another idea or reference, ask yourself whether doing so would make your framework stronger in all the ways we described earlier.

Exercise 3.7

In 2–3 pages (single spaced), write out the plan for your study. The plan should include your research questions, your predictions of the answers, your rationale for the predictions (i.e., your theoretical framework), and your imagined plan for testing the predictions. Be as explicit and precise as you can. Be sure you have identified the critical variables and described the mechanism(s) that could explain the phenomena, the relationships, and/or the changes you predict. Look back to see if the logic connecting the parts is obvious. Ask yourself whether the tests you plan are what anyone familiar with your framework would expect (i.e., there should be no surprises).

Part IV. Refining a Theoretical Framework: A Scholarly Dialogue

As we noted above, conversations with colleagues and other experts can help you refine your theoretical framework by clarifying your predictions and digging into the details of the rationales you develop to justify those predictions. This is as true for experienced researchers as it is for beginning researchers. The dialogue below is an example of how two colleagues, Adrian (A) and Corin (C), work together to gradually formulate a testable hypothesis. Some of their conversation will look familiar as they refine their prediction through multiple steps of discussion:

Narrowing the focus of their prediction.

Making their prediction more testable.

Being more specific about what they want to study.

Engaging their prediction in cycles of refinements.

Determining the appropriate level/grainsize of their prediction (zoom in, zoom out).

Adding more predictions.

Thinking about underlying mechanisms (i.e., what explains the relationships between their variables).

Putting their predictions on a continuum (going from black and white to grey).

In addition, they construct their theoretical framework to match their hypotheses through multiple steps:

Defining and rationalizing their variables.

Re-evaluating their initial rationales in response to changes in their initial predictions.

Asking themselves “why” questions about predictions and rationales.

Finding empirical evidence and theory that better supports their evolving predictions.

Keeping in mind what they are going to be measuring.

Making sure their rationales support each link in their chain of reasoning.

Identifying underlying mechanisms.

Making sure that statements are included in their rationale if and only if they directly support their predictions and are essential to the argument.

They begin with the following hypothesis:

Prediction: Students will exhibit more persistence in mathematical course taking in high school if they work in groups.

Brief Description of Rationale: When people work in groups, they feel more competent and learn better (Cohen & Lotan, 2014 ; Jansen, 2012). When people feel more competent, they persist in additional mathematical course taking (Bandura & Schunk, 1981 ; Dweck, 1986 ).

So, do we think this hypothesis is testable?

Well actually, who these students are is probably something we need to be more specific about.

Good point, and also, since Algebra 2 is the bridge to additional course taking (i.e., the first course students don’t have to take), perhaps we should target Algebra 2. How about if we change our prediction to the following: Algebra 2 students will exhibit more mathematical persistence in mathematical course taking in high school if they work in groups in Algebra 2.

Okay, but another problem is that it would take a long time to collect data that would inform a prediction about the courses students take, and over that amount of time I’m not sure we could even tell if groupwork was responsible. What if we limited our prediction to: Algebra 2 students will exhibit more mathematical persistence in Algebra 2 if they work in groups.

Good idea! But when we talk about persistence, do we mean students don’t quit, or that they don’t drop the course, or productively struggle during class, or turn in their homework, or is it something else we mean? To me, what would be testable about mathematical persistence would be persistence at the problem level, such as when students get stuck on a problem, but they don’t give up.

I agree. So, let’s predict the following: Algebra 2 students will exhibit more mathematical persistence in Algebra 2 when they get stuck on problems if they work in groups. That’s something I think we could test.

Yes, but I think we need to be even more specific about what we mean by mathematical persistence when students get stuck on problems.

Hmm, what if we focused specifically on mathematical persistence that involves staying engaged in trying to solve a problem for the duration of a problem-solving session or until the problem gets solved? But that also makes me wonder if we want to be focusing on persistence at the individual level or at the group level?

Umm, I think we should focus on persistence at the individual level, because that’s more consistent with our original interest in persistence in course taking, which is about individual students, not about groups.

Okay, that makes sense. So then how about this for a prediction: If Algebra 2 students work in groups, they will be more likely to stay engaged in trying to solve problems for the duration of a problem-solving session or until they solve the problem.

To this point in the dialogue, Adrian and Corin are developing a theoretical framework by sharpening what they mean by their prediction and making sure their prediction is testable. In the next part, they return to their original idea to make sure they have not strayed too far by making their prediction more precise. The dialogue illustrates how making predictions should support the goal of understanding the relationship between variables and the mechanisms for change.

Yes, I’m liking the way this prediction is evolving. However, I also feel like our prediction is now so focused that we’ve lost a bit of our initial idea of competence and learning, which is what we were initially interested in. Could we do something to bring those ideas back? Perhaps we could create more predictions to get at more of those ideas?

Great idea! Okay, so to help us see what we are missing now, let’s look back at the initial links in our chain of reasoning. We initially said that Working in Groups leads to Feeling Competent & Learning Better leads to Persistence in Math Course Taking. But our chain of reasoning has changed. I think it’s more like this: Working in Groups on Problems leads to Staying Engaged in Problem Solving leads to Greater Sense of Competence and Learning Better leads to More Persistence in Course Taking.

Okay, so if that’s the case, it looks like our new prediction just tests the first link in this chain, the link between Working in Groups on Problems and Staying Engaged in Problem Solving. It looks like there are three other potential predictions we could make; we could make a prediction about the relationship between Staying Engaged in Problem Solving and having a Greater Sense of Competence, between Staying Engaged in Problem Solving and Learning Better, and between having a Greater Sense of Competence/Learning Better and More Persistence in Course Taking.

Clearly that’s too many predictions for us to tackle in one study and actually I am aware of several studies that already address the third prediction. So, we can use those studies as part of our rationale and don’t need to study that link.

I agree. Let’s just add one prediction, one about the link between Staying Engaged and Sense of Competence. In our initial prediction, we just had a vague connection between Working in Groups and Sense of Competence. But in our new prediction, we were more specific that working in groups helps students stay engaged until the end of a problem-solving session. So, I guess we could say for a second prediction then that When Algebra 2 students stay engaged in problem solving until the end of a problem-solving session, they develop a greater sense of competence.

Okay so we will have two predictions to examine with our study: Prediction 1 is: If Algebra 2 students work in groups, they will be more likely to stay engaged in trying to solve problems for the duration of a problem-solving session or until they solve the problem. This prediction deals with the first link in our chain of reasoning. And then Prediction 2 is: If Algebra 2 students try to solve problems for the duration of a problem-solving session or until they solve the problem, they will be more likely to develop a sense of competence. Oh, as soon as I finished stating that prediction, the thought just came to me, “sense of competence about what?”

How about if we focused on sense of competence in being able to solve similar problems in the future? Actually, maybe that’s too limited. Maybe we should expand our prediction a bit more so we include a sense of competence that’s at least somewhat closer to more course taking? Something like sense of competence that involves feeling capable of understanding future Algebra 2 concepts. That’s at least bigger than sense of competence at solving similar problems. If students feel they’re capable of understanding future Algebra 2 concepts, then they will probably be more likely to persist in course taking too.

Okay, that makes sense. So, then our Prediction 2 could be: If Algebra 2 students try to solve problems for the duration of a problem-solving session or until they solve the problem, they will be more likely to feel they will be capable of understanding future Algebra 2 concepts.

Oh, I just had an additional idea! What if we changed the two predictions one more time to allow for more or less of the variables? For example, Prediction 1 could be: The more Algebra 2 students work in groups, the more likely they will stay engaged in trying to solve problems for the duration of a problem-solving session or until they solve the problem.

Yes, great. So, that would mean Prediction 2 could be: The more Algebra 2 students try to solve problems for the duration of a problem-solving session or until they solve the problem, the more likely they will feel they are capable of understanding future Algebra 2 concepts.

So, I think we’re happy with our predictions for now, but I think we need to work on our rationales for those predictions because they no longer apply very well.

Okay, to recap, our original chain of reasoning was Working in Groups leads to Feeling Competent & Learning Better leads to Persistence in Math Course Taking. Our initial rationales were the following: For the link between working in groups and feeling competent, we based that link on Cohen and Lotan’s ( 2014 ) book on Designing Groupwork, in which they explain why and how all students can feel competent through their engagement in groupwork. We also based this link on that 2012 Jansen study that found that groupwork helped students enact their competence in math. Then, for the link between competence and persistence, we based that link on the Bandura and Schunk ( 1981 ) study and on the work by Carol Dweck ( 1986 ) that show that children who feel more competent in arithmetic, tend to persist more.

Corin and Adrian have looked back at their initial research idea. In doing so, they illustrated how developing a theoretical framework involves developing and refining a chain of reasoning. They continue by working on developing rationales for their predictions.

Okay, so let’s think if any of our previous rationales still work. How about Elizabeth Cohen’s work? I still think her work applies because it shows that groupwork can affect engagement. But now that I think about it, another part of her work indicates that groupwork needs particular norms in order to be effective. So maybe we should tighten up our predictions to focus just on groupwork that has particular norms?

But, on the other hand, what about Jo Boaler’s ( 1998 ) “Open and Closed Mathematics” article? In that study, students at the Phoenix Park School did not have much structure, and in spite of that, groupwork worked quite well for those students, better than individual work did for students at the Amber Hill School who had highly structured instruction.

That’s a good point. So maybe we should leave our predictions about groupwork as is (i.e., not focus on particular norms). Also, the ideas in the Boaler article would be good to add to our theoretical framework because it deals with secondary students, which aligns better with the ages of the Algebra 2 students we are planning on studying.

Okay, so we’re adding the ideas in the Boaler article. I also think we need to find literature that specifies the kind of engagement we want to focus on. Looking at the engagement literature would sharpen our thinking about the engagement we are most interested in. We should consider Brigid Barron’s ( 2003 ) study, “When Smart Groups Fail.” In her study, students produced better products if they engaged with each other and with the content. But that makes me think that we are mostly just focused on the latter, namely on how individuals engage with the content.

I agree we’re focused on individuals’ engagement with the content. Come to think of it, the fact that we’re focused on how individuals engage with content rather than how groups engage further justifies why we’re not looking at groupwork norms. But let me ask a question we need to answer. Why are we focusing on how individuals engage with content? It’s not just a preference. It’s because we think individual engagement with content is related to feeling capable. So, our decision to focus on individual engagement aligns with our predictions. And even though we’re not including Barron’s work in our framework, considering her work helped sharpen our thinking about what we’re focusing on.

You know, we are kind of in a weird space because we’re focusing on individual engagement with content at the same time as we are predicting that groupwork leads to more engagement. In other words, we are and aren’t taking a social perspective. But what this reminds me of is how, from the perspective of the theory of constructivism, even though individuals have to make sense of things for themselves, social interactions are what drives sense making. In fact, here’s a quote from von Glasersfeld ( 1995 ): “Piaget has stressed many times that the most frequent cause of accommodation is the interaction” (p. 66). So, I think we can use constructivism as a theoretical justification for predicting that the social activity of groupwork is what is related to individual engagement with content.

Interesting! Yes, makes sense. When you were describing that, I had another insight from constructivism. You know how when someone experiences a perturbation, it also creates a need in them to resolve the perturbation, right? So maybe perturbations are the mechanism explaining why groupwork leads to more individual engagement with content. Groupwork potentially generates perturbations, meaning the person engages more to try to resolve those perturbations.

Okay, now that we have brought in the idea of perturbations as potentially being the mechanism that drives how working in groups leads to staying more engaged, perhaps we need to reconsider what we will be measuring in our study. Will it be perturbations, or will it be staying engaged that we should be measuring?

I think what we are saying is that the need to resolve perturbations is part of the underlying mechanism, but measuring the need to resolve perturbations would be difficult if not impossible. So, instead, I think we should focus on measuring the variable staying engaged , a variable we can measure. And then if we find that more working in groups leads to more staying engaged, that also gives us more evidence that our theoretical framework with perturbations as a mechanism is viable. In other words, mechanisms are part of our framework and by testing our prediction, we are testing our theoretical framework (i.e., our rationales) too.

This final part of the dialogue illustrates that the rationale for a study continues to develop as the predictions continue to be refined and testability continues to be considered. In other words, the development of the predictions and rationale (i.e., the theoretical framework) should be iterative and ongoing.

Through their discussion, Adrian and Corin have refined both their predictions and their rationales. In the process, the key ideas they have drawn on contributed to their rationales and thus to constructing their theoretical framework.

Part V. Distinctions Between Rationales, Theoretical Frameworks, and Literature Reviews

We have introduced a number of terms that play critical roles in the scientific inquiry process. Because they refer to related and sometimes overlapping ideas, keeping straight their meanings and uses can be challenging. It might be helpful to revisit each of them briefly to describe how they are similar to, and different from, each other.

To distinguish between rationales, theoretical frameworks, and literature reviews, it is useful to consider the roles they play as you plan and conduct a study compared to the roles they play when you write the report of your study.

Thinking Through a Study

The chronology of the thinking process often moves through many cycles of identifying a research problem or asking a question, and then reading the literature to learn more about the problem, and then refining and narrowing the scope of a question that would add to or extend what is known, and then predicting (guessing) an answer to the question and asking yourself why you predicted this answer and writing a first draft of your rationale, and then reading the literature to improve your rationale, and then realizing you can refine the question further along with specifying a clearer and more targeted prediction, and then reading the literature to further improve your rationale, and then realizing you can refine the question further along with a clearer and more targeted prediction, and so on.

The primary activity that generates more specific and clearer hypotheses is searching and reviewing literature . You can return to the literature as often as you need to build your rationales . As your rationales develop, they morph into your theoretical framework . The theoretical framework is a coherent argument that threads together the individual rationales and explains why your predictions are the best predictions the field can make at this time.

If you have one research question and one prediction you will have one rationale. In this case, your rationale is essentially the same as your theoretical framework. If you have more than one research question, you will have multiple predictions and multiple rationales. As you develop rationales for each prediction, you might find lots of overlap. Maybe the literatures you read to refine each prediction and develop each rationale overlap, and maybe the arguments you piece together include many of the same elements. Your theoretical framework emerges from weaving the rationales together into one coherent argument. Although this process is more complicated than the thinking process for one prediction, it is more common. If you find few connections among the rationales for each prediction, we recommend stepping back and asking whether you are conducting more than one study. It might make more sense to sort the questions into two or more studies because the rationales for the predicted answers are drawing from different literatures.

Writing the Evolving Research Paper

We recommend that you write drafts of the research report as you think through your study and make decisions about how to proceed. Although your thinking will be fluid and evolving, we recommend that you follow the conventions of academic writing as you write drafts. For example, we recommend that you structure the paper using the five typical major sections of a journal article: introduction, theoretical framework, methods, results, and discussion. Each of these sections will go through multiple drafts as you plan your study, collect the data, analyze the data, and interpret the results.

In the introduction, you will present the research problem you are studying. This includes describing the problem, explaining why it is significant, defining the special terms you use, and often presenting the research questions you will address along with the answers you predict. Sometimes the questions and predictions are part of the next section—the theoretical framework.

In the theoretical framework, you will present your best arguments for expecting the predicted answers to the research questions. You will not trace the many cycles in which you engaged to get to the best versions of your arguments but rather present the latest and best version. The report of a study does not describe the chronology of the back-and-forth messiness always involved in thinking through all aspects of the study. What you learned from reviewing the literature will be an integral part of your arguments. In other words, the review of research will be included in the presentation of your theoretical framework rather than in a separate section.

The literature you choose to include to present your theoretical framework is not all the literature you reviewed for conducting your study. Rather, the literature cited in your paper should be the literature that contributed to building your theoretical framework, and only that literature. In other words, the theoretical framework places the boundaries on what you should review in the paper.

Beginning researchers are often tempted to review much of what they read. Researchers put lots of time into reading, and leaving lots of it out when writing the paper can make all that reading feel like a waste of time. It is not a waste of time; it is always part of the research process. But, reviewing more than you need in the paper becomes a distraction and diverts the reader from the main points.

What should you do if the editor of the journal requires, or recommends, a section titled “review of research”? We recommend you create a somewhat more elaborated review for this section and then show exactly how you used the literature to build your rationale in the theoretical framework section.

Reviewers notice when the theoretical framework and the literature reviewed do not provide sufficient justification for the research questions (or the hypotheses). We found that about 13% of JRME reviews noted an especially important gap—the research questions in a paper were not sufficiently motivated. We expect the same would be true for other research journals. Reviewers also note when manuscripts either do not have an explicit theoretical framework or when they seem to be juggling more than one theoretical framework.

Part VI. Moving to Methods

A significant benefit of building rich and precise theoretical frameworks is the guidance they provide for selecting and creating the methods you will use to test your hypotheses. The next phase in the process of scientific inquiry is crafting your methods: choosing your research design, selecting your sample, developing your measures, deciding on your data analysis strategies, and so on. In Chap. 4 , we discuss how you can do this in ways that keep your story coherent.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 , 586–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586

Article   Google Scholar  

Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12 (3), 307–359. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1

Biddle, B. J., & Anderson, D. S. (1986). Theory, methods, knowledge, and research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching: A project of the American Educational Research Association . Macmillan.

Google Scholar  

Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29 , 41–62.

Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., Kramer, S. L., & Hiebert, J. (2019c). Theoretical framing as justifying. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50 (3), 218–224. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.3.0218

Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (2014). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogenous classroom (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.

Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the academy of management journal. The Academy of Management Journal, 50 (6), 1281–1303.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41 , 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040

Kerlinger, F. N. (1964). Foundations of behavioral research: Educational and psychological inquiry . Holt, Rinehardt, & Winston.

Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K., Sotelo, F., & Stigler, J. W. (2010). Teacher’s analysis of classroom video predicts student learning of mathematics: Further explorations of a novel measure of teacher knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education , 61(1–2), 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347875 , 172.

Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Thompson, B., Santagata, R., & Stigler, J. (2012). Developing measures of usable knowledge: Teachers’ analyses of mathematics classroom videos predict teaching quality and student learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49 (3), 568–590. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212437853

Oxford University Press. (2021). Theory. In Lexico.com dictionary . Lexico.com . https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/theory

Praetorius, A.-K., & Charalambous, C. (2022). Moving the field forward with respect to theorizing teaching: An introduction. In A.-K. Praetorius & C. Charalmabous (Eds.), Expert perspectives on theorizing teaching: Current status, problematic issues, and aspirations . Springer.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning . Falmer Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

James Hiebert, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee

Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), 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 license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license 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.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Hiebert, J., Cai, J., Hwang, S., Morris, A.K., Hohensee, C. (2023). Building and Using Theoretical Frameworks. In: Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_3

Published : 03 December 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-19077-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-19078-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Library databases
• Library website

Theories and Frameworks: Introduction

Theoretical & conceptual frameworks.

The terms theoretical framework and conceptual framework are often used interchangeably to mean the same thing. Although they are both used to understand a research problem and guide the development, collection, and analysis of research, it's important to understand the difference between the two. When working on coursework or dissertation research, make sure to clarify what is being asked and any specific course or program requirements. 

Theoretical framework 

A theoretical framework is a single formal theory. When a study is designed around a theoretical framework, the theory is the primary means in which the research problem is understood and investigated. Although theoretical frameworks tend to be used in quantitative studies, you will also see this approach in qualitative research.  

Conceptual framework

A conceptual framework includes one or more formal theories (in part or whole) as well as other concepts and empirical findings from the literature. It is used to show relationships among these ideas and how they relate to the research study. Conceptual frameworks are commonly seen in qualitative research in the social and behavioral sciences, for example, because often one theory cannot fully address the phenomena being studied.

Investigate theory

Identifying and learning about theories requires a different search strategy than other types of research. Even though the steps are different, you will still use many of the same skills and tools you’ve used for other library research.

• psychology:  human development, cognition, personality, motivation
• sociology:  social change, race, class, gender
• business:  leadership, management
• health:  patient care, well-being, environment
• course textbooks
• encyclopedias and handbooks
• credible websites

Theory in doctoral research

Identifying a theory that aligns with your dissertation or doctoral study takes time. It’s never too early to start exploratory research. The process of identifying an appropriate theory can seem daunting, so try breaking down the process into smaller steps.

• your theory courses
• completed dissertations and doctoral studies
• the scholarly literature on your topic
• Keep a list of theories and take notes on how and why they were used.
• Identify and learn more about relevant theories.
• Locate influential and seminal works  related to those theories.
• Next Page: Discover Theories
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

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

Centers and Offices

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

Student Resources

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

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

Research Writing and Analysis

• NVivo Group and Study Sessions
• SPSS This link opens in a new window
• Statistical Analysis Group sessions
• Using Qualtrics
• Dissertation and Data Analysis Group Sessions
• Defense Schedule - Commons Calendar This link opens in a new window
• Research Process Flow Chart
• Research Alignment Chapter 1 This link opens in a new window
• Step 1: Seek Out Evidence
• Step 2: Explain
• Step 3: The Big Picture
• Step 4: Own It
• Step 5: Illustrate
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review This link opens in a new window
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• How to Synthesize and Analyze
• Synthesis and Analysis Practice
• Synthesis and Analysis Group Sessions
• Problem Statement
• Purpose Statement
• Conceptual Framework
• Theoretical Framework
• Quantitative Research Questions
• Qualitative Research Questions
• Trustworthiness of Qualitative Data
• Analysis and Coding Example- Qualitative Data
• Thematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Design
• Dissertation to Journal Article This link opens in a new window
• International Journal of Online Graduate Education (IJOGE) This link opens in a new window
• Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning (JRIT&L) This link opens in a new window

Designing the Theoretical Framework

What is it.

• A foundational review of existing theories. 
• Serves as a roadmap or blueprint for developing arguments and supporting research.
• Overview of the theory that the research is based on.
• Can be made up of theories, principles, and concepts.

What does it do?

• Explains the why and how of a particular phenomenon within a particular body of literature.
• Connects the research subject with the theory.
• Specifies the study’s scope; makes it more valuable and generalizable.
• Guides further actions like framing the research questions, developing the literature review, and data collection and analyses.

What should be in it?

• Theory or theories that the researcher considers relevant for their research, principles, and concepts.

Theoretical Framework Guide

• Theoretical Framework Guide Use this guide to determine the guiding framework for your theoretical dissertation research.

Making a Theoretical Framework

How to make a theoretical framework.

• Specify research objectives.
• Note the prominent variables under the study.
• Explore and review the literature through keywords identified as prominent variables.
• Note the theories that contain these variables or the keywords.
• Review all selected theories again in the light of the study’s objectives, and the key variables identified.
• Search for alternative theoretical propositions in the literature that may challenge the ones already selected.
• Ensure that the framework aligns with the study’s objectives, problem statement, the main research question, methodology, data analysis, and the expected conclusion.
• Decide on the final framework and begin developing.

Example Framework

• Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation This link offers an example theoretical framework.

Additional Framework Resources

Some additional helpful resources in constructing a theoretical framework for study:.

• https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/theoretical-framework/
• https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/theoretical-framework-example/
• https://www.projectguru.in/how-to-write-the-theoretical-framework-of-research/

Theoretical Framework Research

The term conceptual framework and theoretical framework are often and erroneously used interchangeably (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). A theoretical framework provides the theoretical assumptions for the larger context of a study, and is the foundation or ‘lens’ by which a study is developed. This framework helps to ground the research focus understudy within theoretical underpinnings and to frame the inquiry for data analysis and interpretation.  The application of theory in traditional theoretical research is to understand, explain, and predict phenomena (Swanson, 2013).

Casanave, C.P.,& Li,Y.(2015). Novices’ struggles with conceptual and theoretical framing in writing  dissertations and papers for publication. Publications,3 (2),104-119.doi:10.3390/publications3020104

Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, Selecting, and Integrating a Theoretical Framework in Dissertation Research: Creating the Blueprint for Your “House. ” Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 12–26

Swanson, R. (2013). Theory building in applied disciplines . San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

• << Previous: Conceptual Framework
• Next: Quantitative Research Questions >>
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 11:06 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchtools

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
• J Patient Cent Res Rev
• v.11(1); Spring 2024
• PMC11000705

Research Frameworks: Critical Components for Reporting Qualitative Health Care Research

Qualitative health care research can provide insights into health care practices that quantitative studies cannot. However, the potential of qualitative research to improve health care is undermined by reporting that does not explain or justify the research questions and design. The vital role of research frameworks for designing and conducting quality research is widely accepted, but despite many articles and books on the topic, confusion persists about what constitutes an adequate underpinning framework, what to call it, and how to use one. This editorial clarifies some of the terminology and reinforces why research frameworks are essential for good-quality reporting of all research, especially qualitative research.

Qualitative research provides valuable insights into health care interactions and decision-making processes – for example, why and how a clinician may ignore prevailing evidence and continue making clinical decisions the way they always have. 1 The perception of qualitative health care research has improved since a 2016 article by Greenhalgh et al. highlighted the higher contributions and citation rates of qualitative research than those of contemporaneous quantitative research. 2 The Greenhalgh et al. article was subsequently supported by an open letter from 76 senior academics spanning 11 countries to the editors of the British Medical Journal . 3 Despite greater recognition and acceptance, qualitative research continues to have an “uneasy relationship with theory,” 4 which contributes to poor reporting.

As an editor for the Journal of Patient-Centered Research and Reviews , as well as Human Resources for Health , I have seen several exemplary qualitative articles with clear and coherent reporting. On the other hand, I have often been concerned by a lack of rigorous reporting, which may reflect and reinforce the outdated perception of qualitative research as the “soft option.” 5 Qualitative research is more than conducting a few semi-structured interviews, transcribing the audio recordings verbatim, coding the transcripts, and developing and reporting themes, including a few quotes. Qualitative research that benefits health care is time-consuming and labor-intensive, requires robust design, and is rooted in theory, along with comprehensive reporting. 6

What Is “Theory”?

So fundamental is theory to qualitative research that I initially toyed with titling this editorial, “ Theory: the missing link in qualitative health care research articles ,” before deeming that focus too broad. As far back as 1967, Merton 6 warned that “the word theory threatens to become meaningless.” While it cannot be overstated that “atheoretical” studies lack the underlying logic that justifies researchers’ design choices, the word theory is so overused that it is difficult to understand what constitutes an adequate theoretical foundation and what to call it.

Theory, as used in the term theoretical foundation , refers to the existing body of knowledge. 7 , 8 The existing body of knowledge consists of more than formal theories , with their explanatory and predictive characteristics, so theory implies more than just theories . Box 1 9 – 12 defines the “building blocks of formal theories.” 9 Theorizing or theory-building starts with concepts at the most concrete, experiential level, becoming progressively more abstract until a higher-level theory is developed that explains the relationships between the building blocks. 9 Grand theories are broad, representing the most abstract level of theorizing. Middle-range and explanatory theories are progressively less abstract, more specific to particular phenomena or cases (middle-range) or variables (explanatory), and testable.

The Building Blocks of Formal Theories 9

The importance of research frameworks.

Researchers may draw on several elements to frame their research. Generally, a framework is regarded as “a set of ideas that you use when you are forming your decisions and judgements” 13 or “a system of rules, ideas, or beliefs that is used to plan or decide something.” 14 Research frameworks may consist of a single formal theory or part thereof, any combination of several theories or relevant constructs from different theories, models (as simplified representations of formal theories), concepts from the literature and researchers’ experiences.

Although Merriam 15 was of the view that every study has a framework, whether explicit or not, there are advantages to using an explicit framework. Research frameworks map “the territory being investigated,” 8 thus helping researchers to be explicit about what informed their research design, from developing research questions and choosing appropriate methods to data analysis and interpretation. Using a framework makes research findings more meaningful 12 and promotes generalizability by situating the study and interpreting data in more general terms than the study itself. 16

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

The variation in how the terms theoretical and conceptual frameworks are used may be confusing. Some researchers refer to only theoretical frameworks 17 , 18 or conceptual frameworks, 19 – 21 while others use the terms interchangeably. 7 Other researchers distinguish between the two. For example, Miles, Huberman & Saldana 8 see theoretical frameworks as based on formal theories and conceptual frameworks derived inductively from locally relevant concepts and variables, although they may include theoretical aspects. Conversely, some researchers believe that theoretical frameworks include formal theories and concepts. 18 Others argue that any differences between the two types of frameworks are semantic and, instead, emphasize using a research framework to provide coherence across the research questions, methods and interpretation of the results, irrespective of what that framework is called.

Like Ravitch and Riggan, 22 I regard conceptual frameworks (CFs) as the broader term. Including researchers’ perspectives and experiences in CFs provides valuable sources of originality. Novel perspectives guard against research repeating what has already been stated. 23 The term theoretical framework (TF) may be appropriate where formal published and identifiable theories or parts of such theories are used. 24 However, existing formal theories alone may not provide the current state of relevant concepts essential to understanding the motivation for and logic underlying a study. Some researchers may argue that relevant concepts may be covered in the literature review, but what is the point of literature reviews and prior findings unless authors connect them to the research questions and design? Indeed, Sutton & Straw 25 exclude literature reviews and lists of prior findings as an adequate foundation for a study, along with individual lists of variables or constructs (even when the constructs are defined), predictions or hypotheses, and diagrams that do not propose relationships. One or more of these aspects could be used in a research framework (eg, in a TF), and the literature review could (and should) focus on the theories or parts of theories (constructs), offer some critique of the theory and point out how they intend to use the theory. This would be more meaningful than merely describing the theory as the “background” to the study, without explicitly stating why and how it is being used. Similarly, a CF may include a discussion of the theories being used (basically, a TF) and a literature review of the current understanding of any relevant concepts that are not regarded as formal theory.

It may be helpful for authors to specify whether they are using a theoretical or a conceptual framework, but more importantly, authors should make explicit how they constructed and used their research framework. Some studies start with research frameworks of one type and end up with another type, 8 , 22 underscoring the need for authors to clarify the type of framework used and how it informed their research. Accepting the sheer complexity surrounding research frameworks and lamenting the difficulty of reducing the confusion around these terms, Box 2 26 – 31 and Box 3 offer examples highlighting the fundamental elements of theoretical and conceptual frameworks while acknowledging that they share a common purpose.

Examples of How Theoretical Frameworks May Be Used

Examples of how conceptual frameworks may be used, misconceptions about qualitative research.

Qualitative research’s “uneasy relationship with theory” 4 may be due to several misconceptions. One possible misconception is that qualitative research aims to build theory and thus does not need theoretical grounding. The reality is that all qualitative research methods, not just Grounded Theory studies focused on theory building, may lead to theory construction. 16 Similarly, all types of qualitative research, including Grounded Theory studies, should be guided by research frameworks. 16

Not using a research framework may also be due to misconceptions that qualitative research aims to understand people’s perspectives and experiences without examining them from a particular theoretical perspective or that theoretical foundations may influence researchers’ interpretations of participants’ meanings. In fact, in the same way that participants’ meanings vary, qualitative researchers’ interpretations (as opposed to descriptions) of participants’ meaning-making will differ. 32 , 33 Research frameworks thus provide a frame of reference for “making sense of the data.” 34

Studies informed by well-defined research frameworks can make a world of difference in alleviating misconceptions. Good qualitative reporting requires research frameworks that make explicit the combination of relevant theories, theoretical constructs and concepts that will permeate every aspect of the research. Irrespective of the term used, research frameworks are critical components of reporting not only qualitative but also all types of research.

Acknowledgments

In memory of Martie Sanders: supervisor, mentor, and colleague. My deepest gratitude for your unfailing support and guidance. I feel your loss.

Conflicts of Interest: None.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 22 April 2024

The design and evaluation of gamified online role-play as a telehealth training strategy in dental education: an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study

• Chayanid Teerawongpairoj 1 ,
• Chanita Tantipoj 1 &
• Kawin Sipiyaruk 2  

Scientific Reports volume  14 , Article number:  9216 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

40 Accesses

Metrics details

• Health care
• Health services
• Public health

To evaluate user perceptions and educational impact of gamified online role-play in teledentistry as well as to construct a conceptual framework highlighting how to design this interactive learning strategy, this research employed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. Participants were requested to complete self-perceived assessments toward confidence and awareness in teledentistry before and after participating in a gamified online role-play. They were also asked to complete a satisfaction questionnaire and participate in an in-depth interview to investigate their learning experience. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, paired sample t-test, one-way analysis of variance, and framework analysis. There were 18 participants who completed self-perceived assessments and satisfaction questionnaire, in which 12 of them participated in a semi-structured interview. There were statistically significant increases in self-perceived confidence and awareness after participating in the gamified online role-play ( P  < 0.001). In addition, the participants were likely to be satisfied with this learning strategy, where usefulness was perceived as the most positive aspect with a score of 4.44 out of 5, followed by ease of use (4.40) and enjoyment (4.03). The conceptual framework constructed from the qualitative findings has revealed five key elements in designing a gamified online role-play, including learner profile, learning settings, pedagogical components, interactive functions, and educational impact. The gamified online role-play has demonstrated its potential in improving self-perceived confidence and awareness in teledentistry. The conceptual framework developed in this research could be considered to design and implement a gamified online role-play in dental education. This research provides valuable evidence on the educational impact of gamified online role-play in teledentistry and how it could be designed and implemented in dental education. This information would be supportive for dental instructors or educators who are considering to implement teledentistry training in their practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

Games in dental education: playing to learn or learning to play?

A bibliometric analysis of the use of the Gamification Octalysis Framework in training: evidence from Web of Science

Helping general dental practitioners use the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need: an assessment of available educational apps

Introduction.

Telehealth has gained significant attention from various organization due to its potential to improve healthcare quality and accessibility 1 . It can be supportive in several aspects in healthcare, including medical and nursing services, to enhance continuous monitoring and follow-up 2 . Its adoption has increased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic, aiming to provide convenient healthcare services 3 . Even though the COVID-19 outbreak has passed, many patients still perceive telehealth as an effective tool in reducing a number of visits and enhancing access to health care services 4 , 5 . This supports the use of telehealth in the post-COVID-19 era.

Teledentistry, a form of telehealth specific to dentistry, has been employed to improve access to dental services 6 . This system offers benefits ranging from online history taking, oral diagnosis, treatment monitoring, and interdisciplinary communication among dental professionals, enabling comprehensive and holistic treatment planning for patients 7 . Teledentistry can also reduce travel time and costs associated with dental appointments 8 , 9 , 10 . There is evidence that teledentistry serves as a valuable tool to enhance access to dental care for patients 11 . Additionally, in the context of long-term management in patients, telehealth has contributed to patient-centered care, by enhancing their surrounding environments 12 . Therefore, teledentistry should be emphasized as one of digital dentistry to enhance treatment quality.

Albeit the benefits of teledentistry, available evidence demonstrates challenges and concerns in the implementation of telehealth. Lack of awareness and knowledge in the use of telehealth can hinder the adoption of telehealth 13 . Legal issues and privacy concerns also emerge as significant challenges in telehealth use 14 . Moreover, online communication skills and technology literacy, including competency in using technological tools and applications, have been frequently reported as challenges in teledentistry 15 , 16 . Concerns regarding limitations stemming from the lack of physical examination are also significant 17 . These challenges and complexities may impact the accuracy of diagnosis and the security and confidentiality of patient information. Therefore, telehealth training for dental professionals emerges as essential prerequisites to effectively navigate the use of teledentistry, fostering confidence and competence in remote oral healthcare delivery.

The feasibility and practicality of telehealth in dental education present ongoing challenges and concerns. Given the limitations of teledentistry compared to face-to-face appointments, areas of training should encompass the telehealth system, online communication, technical issues, confidentiality concerns, and legal compliance 18 . However, there is currently no educational strategy that effectively demonstrates the importance and application of teledentistry 19 . A role-play can be considered as a teaching strategy where learners play a role that closely resembles real-life scenarios. A well-organized storytelling allows learner to manage problematic situations, leading to the development of problem-solving skill 20 , 21 . When compared to traditional lecture-based learning, learners can also enhance their communication skills through conversations with simulated patients 22 , 23 . In addition, they could express their thoughts and emotions during a role-play through experiential learning 20 , 24 , 25 . Role-play through video teleconference would be considered as a distance learning tool for training dental professionals to effectively use teledentistry.

While there have been studies supporting online role-play as an effective learning tool due to its impact of flexibility, engagement, and anonymity 26 , 27 , no evidence has been yet reported whether or not this learning strategy could have potential for training teledentistry. Given the complicated issues in telehealth, role-play for training teledentistry should incorporate different learning aspects compared to face-to-face communication with patients. In addition, game components have proved to be supportive in dental education 28 , 29 . Consequently, this research aimed to evaluate user perceptions and educational impact of gamified online role-play to enhance learner competence and awareness in using teledentistry as well as to construct a conceptual framework highlighting how to design and implement this interactive learning strategy. This research would introduce and promote the design and implementation of gamified online role-play as a learning tool for training teledentistry. To achieve the aim, specific objectives were established as follows:

1. To design a gamified online role-play for teledentistry training.

2. To investigate learner perceptions regarding their confidence and awareness in the use of teledentistry after completing the gamified online role-play.

3. To explore user satisfactions toward the use of gamified online role-play.

4. To develop a conceptual framework for designing and implementing a gamified online role-play for teledentistry training.

Materials and methods

Research design.

This research employed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, where a quantitative phase was firstly performed followed by a qualitative phase 30 , 31 . The quantitative phase was conducted based on pre-experimental research using one-group pretest–posttest design. Participants were requested to complete self-perceived assessments toward confidence and awareness in the use of teledentistry before and after participating in a gamified online role-play. They were also asked to complete a satisfaction questionnaire in using a gamified online role-play for training teledentistry. The qualitative phase was afterwards conducted to explore in-depth information through semi-structured interviews, in order to enhance an understanding of the quantitative phase, and to develop a conceptual framework for designing and implementing an online role-play for training teledentistry.

A gamified online role-play for training teledentistry

A gamified online role-play was designed and developed by the author team. To ensure its educational impact was significant, the expected learning outcomes were formulated based on insights gathered from a survey with experienced instructors from the Department of Advanced General Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University. These learning outcomes covered areas of online communication skill, technical issues, technology literacy of patients, limitations of physical examination, and privacy concerns of personal information. Learning scenario and instructional content were subsequently designed to support learners in achieving the expected learning outcomes, with their alignments validated by three experts in dental education. A professional actress underwent training to role-play a patient with a dental problem, requesting a virtual consultation or teledentistry. Before conducting data collection, the simulated patient was required to undergo a training and adjusting process with a pilot group under supervision of two experts in advanced general dentistry and dental education who had experience with teledentistry to ensure realism and completeness of learning content.

According to the role-play scenario, an actress was assigned to portray a 34-year-old female with chief complaints of pain around both ears, accompanied by difficulties in chewing food due to tooth loss. She was instructed to express her anxiety and nervousness about addressing these issues. Additionally, it was specified that she could not take a day off from work during this period. Despite this constraint, she required a dental consultation to receive advice for initial self-care, as her symptoms significantly impacted her daily life. Furthermore, she was designated to encounter difficulties with the technological use of the teledentistry platform.

The game components were implemented into the online role-play to enhance motivation and engagement. As challenge and randomness appear to be game elements 32 , 33 , five challenge cards were designed and embedded into the online role-play, where a participant was asked to randomly select one of them before interacting with the simulated patient. The challenging situations were potential technical concerns which could occur frequently during video conferencing, including network problems (e.g., internet disconnection and poor connection) and audiovisual quality issues. The participants were blinded to the selected card, while it was revealed to only the simulated patient. The challenging conditions were mimicked by the organizers and simulated patient, allowing learners to deal with difficulties. Therefore, both challenges and randomness were implemented into this learning intervention not only to create learning situations but also to enhance engagement.

A feedback system was carefully considered and implemented into the gamified online role-play. Immediate feedback appears to be a key feature of interactive learning environments 29 . Formative feedback was instantly delivered to learners through verbal and non-verbal communication, including words (content), tone of voice, facial expressions, and gestures of the simulated patient. This type of feedback allowed participants to reflect on whether or not their inputs were appropriate, enabling them to learn from their mistakes, or so-called the role of failure 34 . Summative feedback was also provided at the end of the role-play through a reflection from a simulated patient and suggestions from an instructor.

Learners were able to interact with the simulated patient using an online meeting room by Cisco WebEx. According to the research setting (Fig.  1 ), a learner was asked to participate in the role-play activity using a computer laptop in a soundproof room, while a simulated patient was arranged in a prepared location showing her residential environment. The researcher and instructor also joined the online meeting room and observed the interaction between the simulated patient and learners during the role-play activity whether or not all necessary information was accurately obtained. The role-play activity took around 30 minutes.

A diagram demonstrating the setting of gamified online role-play.

Research participants

Quantitative phase.

The participants in this research were postgraduate students from the Residency Training Program in Advanced General Dentistry at Mahidol University Faculty of Dentistry in academic year 2022, using a volunteer sampling. This program was selected because its objective was to develop graduates capable of integrating competencies from various dental disciplines to provide comprehensive dental care for both normal patients and those with special needs. Therefore, teledentistry should be a supportive component of their service. The recruitment procedure involved posting a recruiting text in the group chat of the residents. Those interested in participating in the research were informed to directly contact us to request more information, and they were subsequently allowed to decide whether they would like to participate. This approach ensured that participation was voluntary. Although there could be a non-response bias within this non-probability sampling technique 35 , it was considered as appropriate for this study, as participants were willing to have contribution in the learning activity, and therefore accurate and reliable research findings with no dropout could be achieved 36 .

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to determine the eligibility of prospective participants for this research. This study included postgraduate students from Years 1 to 3 in the Residency Training Program in Advanced General Dentistry at Mahidol University Faculty of Dentistry, enrolled during the academic year 2022. They were also required to at least complete the first semester to be eligible for this research to ensure familiarity with comprehensive dental care. However, they were excluded if they had previous involvement in the pilot testing of the gamified online role-play or if they were not fluent in the Thai language. The sample size was determined using a formula for two dependent samples (comparing means) 37 . To detect a difference in self-perceived confidence and awareness between pre- and post-assessments at a power of 90% and a level of statistical significance of 1%, five participants were required. With an assumed dropout rate of 20%, the number of residents per year (Year 1–3) was set to be 6. Therefore, 18 residents were required for this research.

Qualitative phase

The participants from the quantitative phase were selected for semi-structured interviews using a purposive sampling. This sampling method involved the selection of information-rich participants based on specific criteria deemed relevant to the research objective and to ensure a diverse representation of perspectives and experiences within the sample group 38 . In this research, the information considered for the purposive sampling included demographic data (e.g., sex and year of study), along with self-perceived assessment scores. By incorporating perceptions from a variety of participants, a broad spectrum of insights from different experiences in comprehensive dental practice and diverse improvement levels in self-perceived confidence and awareness could inform the design and implementation of the training program effectively. The sample size for this phase was determined based on data saturation, wherein interviews continued until no new information or emerging themes were retrieved. This method ensured thorough exploration of the research topic and maximized the richness of the qualitative data obtained.

Outcome assessments

To evaluate the gamified online role-play, a triangular design approach was employed, enabling the researchers to compare the research outcomes from different assessment methods. In this research, self-perceived assessments (confidence and awareness) in teledentistry, satisfactions toward gamified online role-play, and learner experience were assessed to assure the quality and feasibility of the gamified online role-play.

Self-perceived confidence and awareness toward teledentistry

All participants were requested to rate their perceptions of teledentistry before and after participating in the gamified online role-play (Supplementary material 1 ). The self-perceived assessment was developed based on previous literature 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 . The assessment scores would inform whether or not the participants could improve their self-perceived confidence and awareness through a learning activity. The assessment consisted of two parts, which were (1) self-perceived confidence and (2) self-perceived awareness. Each part contained six items, which were similar between the pre- and post-assessments. All items were designed using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 being ‘strongly agree’.

Satisfactions toward the gamified online role-play

All participants were asked to complete the satisfaction questionnaire after participating in the gamified online role-play, to investigate whether or not they felt satisfied with their learning (Supplementary material 2 ). The questionnaire was developed based on previous literature regarding gamification and role-play 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 . Most of the items were designed using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 being ‘very dissatisfied’ and 5 being ‘very satisfied’. They were grouped into three aspects, which were (1) Perceived usefulness, (2) Perceived ease of use, and (3) Perceived enjoyment.

Learner experiences within the gamified online role-play

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the purposively selected participants to gather in-depth information regarding their learning experiences within the gamified online role-play. This technique allowed researchers to ask additional interesting topics raised from the responses of participants. A topic guide for interviews were constructed based on the findings of previous literature 45 , 46 , 47 . The interview was conducted in a private room by a researcher who was trained in conducting qualitative research including interviews. The interview sessions took approximately 45–60 minutes, where all responses from participants were recorded using a digital audio recorder with their permission. The recorded audios were transcribed using a verbatim technique by a transcription service under a confidential agreement.

Validity and reliability of data collection tools

To enhance the quality of self-perceived assessment and satisfaction questionnaire, they were piloted and revised to assure their validity and reliability. According to the content validity, three experts in advanced general dentistry were asked to evaluate the questionnaire, where problematic items were iteratively revised until they achieved the index of item-objective congruence (IOC) higher than 0.5. To perform a test–retest reliability, the validated versions of both self-perceived assessment and satisfaction questionnaire were afterwards piloted in residents from other programs, and the data were analyzed using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), where the values of all items were 0.7 or greater. The data from the first pilot completion of both data collection tools were analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha to ensure the internal consistency of all constructs. The problematic items were deleted to achieve the coefficient alpha of 0.7 or greater for all constructs, which was considered as acceptable internal consistency.

Data analysis

The quantitative data retrieved from self-perceived assessment and satisfaction questionnaire were analyzed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (SPSS, version 29, IBM Corp.). Descriptive statistics were performed to present an overview of the data. The scores from pre- and post-assessments were analyzed using a paired sample t-test to evaluate whether or not the participants would better self-perceive their confidence and awareness in teledentistry after participating in the gamified online role-play. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare whether or not there were statistically significant differences in self-perceived assessment and satisfaction scores among the three academic years.

The qualitative data retrieved from semi-structured interviews were analyzed using a framework analysis, where its procedure involved transcription, familiarization with the interview data, coding, developing an analytical framework, indexing, charting, and data interpreting qualitative findings 48 . In this research, the initial codes had been pre-defined from previous literature and subsequently adjusted following the analysis of each transcript to develop an analytical framework (themes and subthemes), requiring several iterations until no additional codes emerged. Subsequently, the established categories and codes were applied consistently across all transcripts (indexing). The data from each transcript were then charted to develop a matrix, facilitating the management and summarization of qualitative findings. This method enabled the researchers to compare and contrast differences within the data and to identify connections between categories, thereby exploring their relationships and informing data interpretation.

The procedure of framework analysis necessitated a transparent process for data management and interpretation of emerging themes to ensure the robustness of research 49 . The transparency of this analytic approach enabled two researchers (C.Te. and K.S.) to independently analyze the qualitative data, and the emerging themes afterwards were discussed to obtain consensus among the researchers. This technique can be considered as a triangular approach to assure the intercoder reliability and internal validity of this research. The transparent process also allowed an external expert in dental education to verify the accuracy of the analysis. All emerging themes and the decision on data saturation were based on a discussion of all researchers until an agreement was made. NVivo (version 14, QSR International) was used to performed the qualitative data analysis. Subsequently, a conceptual framework was constructed to demonstrate emerging themes and subthemes together with their relationships.

Ethical consideration

The ethical approval for the study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Faculty of Dentistry and Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University on 29 th September 2022, the ethical approval number: MU-DT/PY-IRB 2022/049.2909. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. Although the data were not anonymous in nature as they contained identifiable data, they were coded prior to the analysis to assure confidentiality of participants.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

There were 18 residents from Year 1 to 3 of the Residency Training Program in Advanced General Dentistry who participated in this research (six from each year). Of these, there were 14 females and 4 males. There was no participant dropout, as all of them completed all required tasks, including the pre- and post-perceived assessments, gamified online role-play, and satisfaction questionnaire. According to the purposive sampling, the participants from the quantitative phase were selected for semi-structured interviews by considering sex, year of study, and self-perceived assessment scores. Twelve students (ten females and two males) participated in semi-structured interviews, where their characteristics are presented in Table 1 .

Internal consistency of all constructs

The data collected from the research participants, in addition to the pilot samples, were analyzed with Cronbach’s alpha to confirm the internal consistency. The coefficient alpha of all constructs demonstrated high internal consistency, as demonstrated in Table 2 .

Self-perceived assessments toward confidence and awareness of teledentistry

There were statistically significant increases in the assessment scores of self-perceived confidence and awareness after participating in the gamified online role-play ( P  < 0.001). According to Table 3 , there was an increase in self-perceived confidence from 3.38 (SD = 0.68) for the pre-assessment to 4.22 (SD = 0.59) for the post-assessment ( P  < 0.001). The findings of self-perceived awareness also showed score improvement from 4.16 (SD = 0.48) to 4.55 (SD = 0.38) after interacting with the simulated patient ( P  < 0.001).

According to Fig.  2 , participants demonstrated a higher level of self-perceived assessments for both self-confidence and awareness in all aspects after participating in the gamified online role-play for teledentistry training.

Self-perceived assessments toward confidence and awareness of teledentistry.

When comparing the self-perceived assessment scores toward confidence and awareness in the use of teledentistry among the three years of study (Year 1–3), there were no statistically significant differences in the pre-assessment, post-assessment score, and score difference (Table 4 ).

Satisfactions toward the use of gamified online role-play

According to Fig.  3 , participants exhibited high levels of satisfaction with the use of gamified online role-play across all three aspects. The aspect of usefulness received the highest satisfaction rating with a score of 4.44 (SD = 0.23) out of 5, followed by ease of use and enjoyment, scoring 4.40 (SD = 0.23) and 4.03 (SD = 0.21), respectively. Particularly, participants expressed the highest satisfaction levels regarding the usefulness of gamified online role-play for identifying their role (Mean = 4.72, SD = 0.46) and developing problem-solving skills associated with teledentistry (Mean = 4.61, SD = 0.50). Additionally, they reported satisfaction with the learning sequence presented in the gamified online role-play (Mean = 4.61, SD = 0.50). However, participants did not strongly perceive that the format of the gamified online role-play could engage them with the learning task for an extended period (Mean = 3.72, SD = 0.83).

Satisfactions toward the use of gamified online role-play.

When comparing the satisfaction levels perceived by participants from different academic years (Table 5 ), no statistically significant differences were observed among the three groups for all three aspects ( P  > 0.05).

Following the framework analysis of qualitative data, there were five emerging themes, including: (1) learner profile, (2) learning settings of the gamified online role-play, (3) pedagogical components, (4) interactive functions, and (5) educational impact.

Theme 1: Learner profile

Learner experience and preferences appeared to have impact on how the participants perceived the use of gamified online role-play for teledentistry training. When learners preferred role-play or realized benefits of teledentistry, they were likely to support this learning intervention. In addition, they could have seen an overall picture of the assigned tasks before participating in this research.

“I had experience with a role-play activity when I was dental undergraduates, and I like this kind of learning where someone role-plays a patient with specific personalities in various contexts. This could be a reason why I felt interested to participate in this task (the gamified online role-play). I also believed that it would be supportive for my clinical practice.” Participant 12, Year 1, Female “Actually, I' have seen in several videos (about teledentistry), where dentists were teaching patients to perform self-examinations, such as checking their own mouth and taking pictures for consultations. Therefore, I could have thought about what I would experience during the activity (within the gamified online role-play).” Participant 8, Year 2, Female

Theme 2: Learning settings of the gamified online role-play

Subtheme 2.1: location.

Participants had agreed that the location for conducting a gamified online role-play should be in a private room without any disturbances, enabling learners to focus on the simulated patient. This could allow them to effectively communicate and understand of the needs of patient, leading to a better grasp of lesson content. In addition, the environments of both learners and simulated patient should be authentic to the learning quality.

“The room should be a private space without any disturbances. This will make us feel confident and engage in conversations with the simulated patient.” Participant 10, Year 1, Female “… simulating a realistic environment can engage me to interact with the simulated patient more effectively ...” Participant 8, Year 2, Female

Subtheme 2.2: Time allocated for the gamified online role-play

The time allocated for the gamified online role-play in this research was considered as appropriate, as participants believed that a 30-minutes period should be suitable to take information and afterwards give some advice to their patient. In addition, a 10-minutes discussion on how they interact with the patient could be supportive for participants to enhance their competencies in the use of teledentistry.

“… it would probably take about 20 minutes because we would need to gather a lot of information … it might need some time to request and gather various information … maybe another 10-15 minutes to provide some advice.” Participant 7, Year 1, Female “I think during the class … we could allocate around 30 minutes for role-play, … we may have discussion of learner performance for 10-15 minutes ... I think it should not be longer than 45 minutes in total.” Participant 6, Year 2, Female

Subtheme 2.3: Learning consequence within a postgraduate curriculum

Most participants suggested that the gamified online role-play in teledentistry should be arranged in the first year of their postgraduate program. This could maximize the effectiveness of online role-play, as they would be able to implement teledentistry for their clinical practice since the beginning of their training. However, some participants suggested that this learning approach could be rearranged in either second or third year of the program. As they already had experience in clinical practice, the gamified online role-play would reinforce their competence in teledentistry.

"Actually, it would be great if this session could be scheduled in the first year … I would feel more comfortable when dealing with my patients through an online platform." Participant 11, Year 2, Male "I believe this approach should be implemented in the first year because it allows students to be trained in teledentistry before being exposed to real patients. However, if this approach is implemented in either the second or third year when they have already had experience in patient care, they would be able to better learn from conversations with simulated patients." Participant 4, Year 3, Male

Theme 3: Pedagogical components

Subtheme 3.1: learning content.

Learning content appeared to be an important component of pedagogical aspect, as it would inform what participants should learn from the gamified online role-play. Based on the interview data, participants reported they could learn how to use a video teleconference platform for teledentistry. The conditions of simulated patient embedded in an online role-play also allowed them to realize the advantages of teledentistry. In addition, dental problems assigned to the simulated patient could reveal the limitations of teledentistry for participants.

“The learning tasks (within the gamified online role-play) let me know how to manage patients through the teleconference.” Participant 5, Year 2, Female “… there seemed to be limitations (of teledentistry) … there could be a risk of misdiagnosis … the poor quality of video may lead to diagnostic errors … it is difficult for patients to capture their oral lesions.” Participant 3, Year 2, Female

Subtheme 3.2: Feedback

During the use of online role-play, the simulated patient can provide formative feedback to participants through facial expressions and tones of voice, enabling participants to observe and learn to adjust their inquiries more accurately. In addition, at the completion of the gamified online role-play, summative feedback provided by instructors could summarize the performance of participants leading to further improvements in the implementation of teledentistry.

“I knew (whether or not I interacted correctly) from the gestures and emotions of the simulated patient between the conversation. I could have learnt from feedback provided during the role-play, especially from the facial expressions of the patient.” Participant 11, Year 2, Male “The feedback provided at the end let me know how well I performed within the learning tasks.” Participant 2, Year 1, Female

Theme 4: Interactive functions

Subtheme 4.1: the authenticity of the simulated patient.

Most participants believed that a simulated patient with high acting performance could enhance the flow of role-play, allowing learners to experience real consequences. The appropriate level of authenticity could engage learners with the learning activity, as they would have less awareness of time passing in the state of flow. Therefore, they could learn better from the gamified online role-play.

"It was so realistic. ... This allowed me to talk with the simulated patient naturally ... At first, when we were talking, I was not sure how I should perform … but afterwards I no longer had any doubts and felt like I wanted to explain things to her even more." Participant 3, Year 2, Female "At first, I believed that if there was a factor that could influence learning, it would probably be a simulated patient. I was impressed by how this simulated patient could perform very well. It made the conversation flow smoothly and gradually." Participant 9, Year 3, Female

Subtheme 4.2: Entertaining features

Participants were likely to be satisfied with the entertaining features embedded in the gamified online role-play. They felt excited when they were being exposed to the unrevealed challenge which they had randomly selected. In addition, participants suggested to have more learning scenarios or simulated patients where they could randomly select to enhance randomness and excitement.

“It was a playful experience while communicating with the simulated patient. There are elements of surprise from the challenge cards that make the conversation more engaging, and I did not feel bored during the role-play.” Participant 4, Year 3, Male “I like the challenge card we randomly selected, as we had no idea what we would encounter … more scenarios like eight choices and we can randomly choose to be more excited. I think we do not need additional challenge cards, as some of them have already been embedded in patient conditions.” Participant 5, Year 2, Female

Subtheme 4.3: Level of difficulty

Participants suggested the gamified online role-play to have various levels of difficulty, so learners could have a chance to select a suitable level for their competence. The difficulties could be represented through patient conditions (e.g., systemic diseases or socioeconomic status), personal health literacy, and emotional tendencies. They also recommended to design the gamified online role-play to have different levels where learners could select an option that is suitable for them.

“The patient had hidden their information, and I needed to bring them out from the conversation.” Participant 12, Year 1, Female “Patients' emotions could be more sensitive to increase level of challenges. This can provide us with more opportunities to enhance our management skills in handling patient emotions.” Participant 11, Year 2, Male “… we can gradually increase the difficult level, similar to playing a game. These challenges could be related to the simulated patient, such as limited knowledge or difficulties in communication, which is likely to occur in our profession.” Participant 6, Year 2, Female

Theme 5: Educational impact

Subtheme 5.1: self-perceived confidence in teledentistry, communication skills.

Participants were likely to perceive that they could learn from the gamified online role-play and felt more confident in the use of teledentistry. This educational impact was mostly achieved from the online conversation within the role-play activity, where the participants could improve their communication skills through a video teleconference platform.

“I feel like the online role-play was a unique form of learning. I believe that I gained confidence from the online communication the simulated patient. I could develop skills to communicate effectively with real patients.” Participant 11, Year 2, Male “I believe it support us to train communication skills ... It allowed us to practice both listening and speaking skills more comprehensively.” Participant 4, Year 3, Male

Critical thinking and problem-solving skills

In addition to communication skills, participants reported that challenges embedded in the role-play allowed them to enhance critical thinking and problem-solving skills, which were a set of skills required to deal with potential problems in the use of teledentistry.

"It was a way of training before experiencing real situations … It allowed us to think critically whether or not what we performed with the simulated patients was appropriate." Participant 7, Year 1, Female “It allowed us to learn how to effectively solve the arranged problems in simulated situation. We needed to solve problems in order to gather required information from the patient and think about how to deliver dental advice through teledentistry.” Participant 11, Year 2, Male

Subtheme 5.2: Self perceived awareness in teledentistry

Participants believed that they could realize the necessity of teledentistry from the gamified online role-play. The storytelling or patient conditions allowed learners to understand how teledentistry could have both physical and psychological support for dental patients.

“From the activity, I would consider teledentistry as a convenient tool for communicating with patients, especially if a patient cannot go to a dental office”. Participant 5, Year 2, Female “I learned about the benefits of teledentistry, particularly in terms of follow-up. The video conference platform could support information sharing, such as drawing images or presenting treatment plans, to patients.” Participant 8, Year 2, Female

A conceptual framework of learning experience within a gamified online role-play

Based on the qualitative findings, a conceptual framework was developed in which a gamified online role-play was conceptualized as a learning strategy in supporting learners to be able to implement teledentistry in their clinical practice (Fig.  4 ).

The conceptual framework of key elements in designing a gamified online role-play.

The conceptual framework has revealed key elements to be considered in designing a gamified online role-play. Learner profile, learning settings, pedagogical components, and interactive functions are considered as influential factors toward user experience within the gamified online role-play. The well-designed learning activity will support learners to achieve expected learning outcomes, considered as educational impact of the gamified online role-play. The contributions of these five key elements to the design of gamified online role-play were interpreted, as follows:

Learner profile: This element tailors the design of gamified online role-plays for teledentistry training involves considering the background knowledge, skills, and experiences of target learners to ensure relevance and engagement.

Learning settings: The element focuses the planning for gamified online role-plays in teledentistry training involves selecting appropriate contexts, such as location and timing, to enhance accessibility and achieve learning outcomes effectively.

Pedagogical components: This element emphasizes the alignment between learning components and learning outcomes within gamified online role-plays, to ensure that the content together with effective feedback design can support learners in improving their competencies from their mistakes.

Interactive functions: This element highlights interactivity features integrated into gamified online role-plays, such as the authenticity and entertaining components to enhance immersion and engagement, together with game difficulty for optimal flow. All these features should engage learners with the learning activities until the achievement of learner outcomes.

Educational impact: This element represents the expected learning outcomes, which will inform the design of learning content and activities within gamified online role-plays. In addition, this element could be considered to evaluate the efficacy of gamified online role-plays, reflecting how well learning designs align with the learning outcomes.

A gamified online role-play can be considered as a learning strategy for teledentistry according to its educational impact. This pedagogical approach could mimic real-life practice, where dental learners could gain experience in the use of teledentistry in simulated situations before interacting with actual patients. Role-play could provide learners opportunities to develop their required competencies, especially communication and real-time decision-making skills, in a predictable and safe learning environment 20 , 23 , 46 . Potential obstacles could also be arranged for learners to deal with, leading to the enhancement of problem-solving skill 50 . In addition, the recognition of teledentistry benefits can enhance awareness and encourage its adoption and implementation, which could be explained by the technology acceptance model 51 . Therefore, a gamified online role-play with a robust design and implementation appeared to have potential in enhancing self-perceived confidence and awareness in the use of teledentistry.

The pedagogical components comprised learning content, which was complemented by assessment and feedback. Learners could develop their competence with engagement through the learning content, gamified by storytelling of the online role-play 52 , 53 . Immediate feedback provided through facial expression and voice tone of simulated patients allowed participants to learn from their failure, considered as a key feature of game-based learning 29 , 45 . The discussion of summative feedback provided from an instructor at the end of role-play activity could support a debriefing process enabling participants to reflect their learning experience, considered as important of simulation-based game 54 . These key considerations should be initially considered in the design of gamified online role-play.

The interactive functions can be considered as another key component for designing and evaluating the gamified online role-play 45 . Several participants enjoyed with a learning process within the gamified online role-play and suggested it to have more learning scenarios. In other words, this tool could engage learners with an instructional process, leading to the achievement of learning outcomes 29 , 45 . As challenge and randomness appear to be game elements 32 , 33 , this learning intervention assigned a set of cards with obstacle tasks for learners to randomly pick up before interacting with simulated patients, which was perceived by participants as a feature to make the role-play more challenging and engaging. This is consistent with previous research, where challenging content for simulated patients could make learners more engaged with a learning process 55 . However, the balance between task challenges and learner competencies is certainly required for the design of learning activities 56 , 57 . The authenticity of simulated patient and immediate feedback could also affect the game flow, leading to the enhancement of learner engagement 45 . These elements could engage participants with a learning process, leading to the enhancement of educational impact.

The educational settings for implementing gamified online role-play into dental curriculum should be another concern. This aspect has been recognized as significant in existing evidence 45 . As this research found no significant differences in all aspects among the three groups of learners, this learning intervention demonstrated the potential for its implementation at any time of postgraduate dental curriculum. This argument can be supported by previous evidence where a role-play could be adaptable for learning at any time, as it requires a short learning period but provides learners with valuable experience prior to being exposed in real-life scenarios 58 . This strategy also provides opportunities for learners who have any question or concern to seek advice or guidance from their instructors 59 . Although the gamified online role-play can be arranged in the program at any time, the first academic year should be considered, as dental learners would be confidence in implementing teledentistry for their clinical practice.

While a gamified online role-play demonstrated its strengths as an interactive learning strategy specifically for teledentistry, there are a couple of potential drawbacks that need to be addressed. The requirement for synchronous participation could limit the flexibility of access time for learners (synchronous interactivity limitation). With only one learner able to engage with a simulated patient at a time (limited participants), more simulated patients would be required if there are a number of learners, otherwise they would need to wait for their turn. Time and resources are significantly required for preparing simulated patients 60 . Despite the use of trained and calibrated professional actors/actresses, inauthenticity may be perceived during role-plays, requiring a significant amount of effort to achieve both interactional and clinical authenticities 46 . Future research could investigate asynchronous learning approaches utilizing non-player character (NPC) controlled by an artificial intelligence system as a simulated patient. This setup would enable multiple learners to have the flexibility to engage with the material at their own pace and at times convenient to them 29 . While there are potential concerns about using gamified online role-plays, this interactive learning intervention offers opportunities for dental professionals to enhance their teledentistry competency in a safe and engaging environment.

Albeit the robust design and data collection tools to assure reliability and validity as well as transparency of this study, a few limitations were raised leading to a potential of further research. While this research recruited only postgraduate students to evaluate the feasibility of gamified online role-play in teledentistry training, further research should include not only experienced dental practitioners but also undergraduate students to confirm its potential use in participants with different learner profiles. More learning scenarios in other dental specialties should also be included to validate its effectiveness, as different specialties could have different limitations and variations. Additional learning scenarios from various dental disciplines should be considered to validate the effectiveness of gamified online role-plays, as different specialties may present unique limitations and variations. A randomized controlled trial with robust design should be required to compare the effectiveness of gamified online role-play with different approaches in training the use of teledentistry.

Conclusions

This research supports the design and implementation of a gamified online role-play in dental education, as dental learners could develop self-perceived confidence and awareness with satisfaction. A well-designed gamified online role-play is necessary to support learners to achieve expected learning outcomes, and the conceptual framework developed in this research can serve as a guidance to design and implement this interactive learning strategy in dental education. However, further research with robust design should be required to validate and ensure the educational impact of gamified online role-play in dental education. Additionally, efforts should be made to develop gamified online role-play in asynchronous learning approaches to enhance the flexibility of learning activities.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, up-on reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

Van Dyk, L. A review of telehealth service implementation frameworks. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 11 (2), 1279–1298 (2014).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bartz, C. C. Nursing care in telemedicine and telehealth across the world. Soins. 61 (810), 57–59 (2016).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lin, G.S.S., Koh, S.H., Ter, K.Z., Lim, C.W., Sultana, S., Tan, W.W. Awareness, knowledge, attitude, and practice of teledentistry among dental practitioners during COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicina (Kaunas). 58 (1), 130 (2022).

Wolf, T.G., Schulze, R.K.W., Ramos-Gomez, F., Campus, G. Effectiveness of telemedicine and teledentistry after the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 19 (21), 13857 (2022).

Gajarawala, S. N. & Pelkowski, J. N. Telehealth benefits and barriers. J. Nurse Pract. 17 (2), 218–221 (2021).

Jampani, N. D., Nutalapati, R., Dontula, B. S. & Boyapati, R. Applications of teledentistry: A literature review and update. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 1 (2), 37–44 (2011).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Khan, S. A. & Omar, H. Teledentistry in practice: literature review. Telemed. J. E. Health. 19 (7), 565–567 (2013).

Baheti, M. J. B. S., Toshniwal, N. G. & Misal, A. Teledentistry: A need of the era. Int. J. Dent. Med. Res. 1 (2), 80–91 (2014).

Google Scholar  

Datta, N., Derenne, J., Sanders, M. & Lock, J. D. Telehealth transition in a comprehensive care unit for eating disorders: Challenges and long-term benefits. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 53 (11), 1774–1779 (2020).

Bursell, S. E., Brazionis, L. & Jenkins, A. Telemedicine and ocular health in diabetes mellitus. Clin. Exp. Optom. 95 (3), 311–327 (2012).

da Costa, C. B., Peralta, F. D. S. & Ferreira de Mello, A. L. S. How has teledentistry been applied in public dental health services? An integrative review. Telemed. J. E. Health. 26 (7), 945–954 (2020).

Heckemann, B., Wolf, A., Ali, L., Sonntag, S. M. & Ekman, I. Discovering untapped relationship potential with patients in telehealth: A qualitative interview study. BMJ Open. 6 (3), e009750 (2016).

Pérez-Noboa, B., Soledispa-Carrasco, A., Padilla, V. S. & Velasquez, W. Teleconsultation apps in the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Guayaquil City, Ecuador. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 49 (1), 27–37 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Wamsley, C. E., Kramer, A., Kenkel, J. M. & Amirlak, B. Trends and challenges of telehealth in an academic institution: The unforeseen benefits of the COVID-19 global pandemic. Aesthetic Surg. J. 41 (1), 109–118 (2020).

Jonasdottir, S. K., Thordardottir, I. & Jonsdottir, T. Health professionals’ perspective towards challenges and opportunities of telehealth service provision: A scoping review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 167 , 104862 (2022).

Tan, S. H. X., Lee, C. K. J., Yong, C. W. & Ding, Y. Y. Scoping review: Facilitators and barriers in the adoption of teledentistry among older adults. Gerodontology. 38 (4), 351–365 (2021).

Minervini, G. et al. Teledentistry in the management of patients with dental and temporomandibular disorders. BioMed. Res. Int. 2022 , 7091153 (2022).

Edirippulige, S. & Armfield, N. Education and training to support the use of clinical telehealth: A review of the literature. J. Telemed. Telecare. 23 (2), 273–282 (2017).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mariño, R. & Ghanim, A. Teledentistry: A systematic review of the literature. J. Telemed. Telecare. 19 (4), 179–183 (2013).

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Armitage-Chan, E. & Whiting, M. Teaching professionalism: Using role-play simulations to generate professionalism learning outcomes. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 43 (4), 359–363 (2016).

Spyropoulos, F., Trichakis, I. & Vozinaki, A.-E. A narrative-driven role-playing game for raising flood awareness. Sustainability. 14 (1), 554 (2022).

Jiang, W. K. et al. Role-play in endodontic teaching: A case study. Chin. J. Dent. Res. 23 (4), 281–288 (2020).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Vizeshfar, F., Zare, M. & Keshtkaran, Z. Role-play versus lecture methods in community health volunteers. Nurse Educ. Today. 79 , 175–179 (2019).

Nestel, D. & Tierney, T. Role-play for medical students learning about communication: Guidelines for maximising benefits. BMC Med. Educ. 7 , 3 (2007).

Gelis, A. et al. Peer role-play for training communication skills in medical students: A systematic review. Simulat. Health. 15 (2), 106–111 (2020).

Cornelius, S., Gordon, C. & Harris, M. Role engagement and anonymity in synchronous online role play. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 12 (5), 57–73 (2011).

Bell, M. Online role-play: Anonymity, engagement and risk. Educ. Med. Int. 38 (4), 251–260 (2001).

Sipiyaruk, K., Gallagher, J. E., Hatzipanagos, S. & Reynolds, P. A. A rapid review of serious games: From healthcare education to dental education. Eur. J. Dent. Educ. 22 (4), 243–257 (2018).

Sipiyaruk, K., Hatzipanagos, S., Reynolds, P. A. & Gallagher, J. E. Serious games and the COVID-19 pandemic in dental education: An integrative review of the literature. Computers. 10 (4), 42 (2021).

Morse, J.M., Niehaus, L. Mixed Method Design: Principles and Procedures. (2016).

Creswell, J. W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches 3rd edn. (SAGE Publications, 2009).

Cheng, V. W. S., Davenport, T., Johnson, D., Vella, K. & Hickie, I. B. Gamification in apps and technologies for improving mental health and well-being: Systematic review. JMIR Ment. Health. 6 (6), e13717 (2019).

Gallego-Durán, F. J. et al. A guide for game-design-based gamification. Informatics. 6 (4), 49 (2019).

Gee, J. P. Learning and games. In The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning (ed. Salen, K.) 21–40 (MIT Press, 2008).

Cheung, K. L., ten Klooster, P. M., Smit, C., de Vries, H. & Pieterse, M. E. The impact of non-response bias due to sampling in public health studies: A comparison of voluntary versus mandatory recruitment in a Dutch national survey on adolescent health. BMC Public Health. 17 (1), 276 (2017).

Murairwa, S. Voluntary sampling design. Int. J. Adv. Res. Manag. Social Sci. 4 (2), 185–200 (2015).

Chow, S.-C., Shao, J., Wang, H. & Lokhnygina, Y. Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research (CRC Press, 2017).

Book   Google Scholar  

Palinkas, L. A. et al. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration Policy Mental Health Mental Health Services Res. 42 (5), 533–544 (2015).

McIlvried, D. E., Prucka, S. K., Herbst, M., Barger, C. & Robin, N. H. The use of role-play to enhance medical student understanding of genetic counseling. Genet. Med. 10 (10), 739–744 (2008).

Schlegel, C., Woermann, U., Shaha, M., Rethans, J.-J. & van der Vleuten, C. Effects of communication training on real practice performance: A role-play module versus a standardized patient module. J. Nursing Educ. 51 (1), 16–22 (2012).

Manzoor, I. M. F. & Hashmi, N. R. Medical students’ perspective about role-plays as a teaching strategy in community medicine. J. Coll. Physicians Surg. Pak. 22 (4), 222–225 (2012).

Cornes, S., Gelfand, J. M. & Calton, B. Foundational telemedicine workshop for first-year medical students developed during a pandemic. MedEdPORTAL. 17 , 11171 (2021).

King, J., Hill, K. & Gleason, A. All the world’sa stage: Evaluating psychiatry role-play based learning for medical students. Austral. Psychiatry. 23 (1), 76–79 (2015).

Arayapisit, T. et al. An educational board game for learning orofacial spaces: An experimental study comparing collaborative and competitive approaches. Anatomical Sci. Educ. 16 (4), 666–676 (2023).

Sipiyaruk, K., Hatzipanagos, S., Vichayanrat, T., Reynolds, P.A., Gallagher, J.E. Evaluating a dental public health game across two learning contexts. Educ. Sci. 12 (8), 517 (2022).

Pilnick, A. et al. Using conversation analysis to inform role play and simulated interaction in communications skills training for healthcare professionals: Identifying avenues for further development through a scoping review. BMC Med. Educ. 18 (1), 267 (2018).

Lane, C. & Rollnick, S. The use of simulated patients and role-play in communication skills training: A review of the literature to August 2005. Patient Educ. Counseling. 67 (1), 13–20 (2007).

Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S. & Redwood, S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 13 (1), 117 (2013).

Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M. & Ormston, R. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers (Sage, 2014).

Chen, J. C. & Martin, A. R. Role-play simulations as a transformative methodology in environmental education. J. Transform. Educ. 13 (1), 85–102 (2015).

Davis, F. D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Manag. Inform. Syst. Quart. 13 (3), 319–340 (1989).

Novak, E., Johnson, T. E., Tenenbaum, G. & Shute, V. J. Effects of an instructional gaming characteristic on learning effectiveness, efficiency, and engagement: Using a storyline for teaching basic statistical skills. Interact. Learn. Environ. 24 (3), 523–538 (2016).

Marchiori, E. J. et al. A narrative metaphor to facilitate educational game authoring. Comput. Educ. 58 (1), 590–599 (2012).

Luctkar-Flude, M. et al. Effectiveness of debriefing methods for virtual simulation: A systematic review. Clin. Simulat. Nursing. 57 , 18–30 (2021).

Joyner, B. & Young, L. Teaching medical students using role play: Twelve tips for successful role plays. Med. Teach. 28 (3), 225–229 (2006).

Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Performance (HarperCollins Publishers, 1990).

Buajeeb, W., Chokpipatkun, J., Achalanan, N., Kriwattanawong, N. & Sipiyaruk, K. The development of an online serious game for oral diagnosis and treatment planning: Evaluation of knowledge acquisition and retention. BMC Med. Educ. 23 (1), 830 (2023).

Littlefield, J. H., Hahn, H. B. & Meyer, A. S. Evaluation of a role-play learning exercise in an ambulatory clinic setting. Adv. Health. Sci. Educ. Theory Pract. 4 (2), 167–173 (1999).

Alkin, M. C. & Christie, C. A. The use of role-play in teaching evaluation. Am. J. Evaluat. 23 (2), 209–218 (2002).

Lovell, K. L., Mavis, B. E., Turner, J. L., Ogle, K. S. & Griffith, M. Medical students as standardized patients in a second-year performance-based assessment experience. Med. Educ. Online. 3 (1), 4301 (1998).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express our sincere gratitude to participants for their contributions in this research. We would also like to thank the experts who provided their helpful suggestions in the validation process of the data collection tools.

This research project was funded by the Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University. The APC was funded by Mahidol University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Advanced General Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

Chayanid Teerawongpairoj & Chanita Tantipoj

Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

Kawin Sipiyaruk

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, C.Te., C.Ta., and K.S.; methodology, C.Te., C.Ta., and K.S.; validation, C.Te., C.Ta., and K.S.; investigation, C.Te. and K.S.; formal analysis, C.Te., C.Ta., and K.S.; resources, C.Te., C.Ta., and K.S.; data curation, C.Ta. and K.S.; writing-original draft preparation, C.Te., C.Ta., and K.S.; writing-review and editing, C.Te., C.Ta., and K.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kawin Sipiyaruk .

Ethics declarations

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.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information 1., supplementary information 2., 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

Cite this article.

Teerawongpairoj, C., Tantipoj, C. & Sipiyaruk, K. The design and evaluation of gamified online role-play as a telehealth training strategy in dental education: an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study. Sci Rep 14 , 9216 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-58425-9

Download citation

Received : 30 September 2023

Accepted : 28 March 2024

Published : 22 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-58425-9

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

• Dental education
• Distance learning
• Game-based learning
• Gamification

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY article

This article is part of the research topic.

Using Case Study and Narrative Pedagogy to Guide Students Through the Process of Science

Molecular Storytelling: A Conceptual Framework for Teaching and Learning with Molecular Case Studies Provisionally Accepted

• 1 School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington Bothell, United States
• 2 Institute for Quantitative Biomedicine, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, United States
• 3 Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics Protein Data Bank, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Molecular case studies (MCSs) provide educational opportunities to explore biomolecular structure and function using data from public bioinformatics resources. The conceptual basis for the design of MCSs has yet to be fully discussed in the literature, so we present molecular storytelling as a conceptual framework for teaching with case studies. Whether the case study aims to understand the biology of a specific disease and design its treatments or track the evolution of a biosynthetic pathway, vast amounts of structural and functional data, freely available in public bioinformatics resources, can facilitate rich explorations in atomic detail. To help biology and chemistry educators use these resources for instruction, a community of scholars collaborated to create the Molecular CaseNet. This community uses storytelling to explore biomolecular structure and function while teaching biology and chemistry. In this article, we define the structure of an MCS and present an example. Then, we articulate the evolution of a conceptual framework for developing and using MCSs. Finally, we related our framework to the development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPCK) for educators in the Molecular CaseNet. The report conceptualizes an interdisciplinary framework for teaching about the molecular world and informs lesson design and education research.

Keywords: Molecular education, Case studies, Technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPCK), Molecular structure and function, molecular visualization, Bioinformatics education, conceptual modeling

Received: 31 Jan 2024; Accepted: 23 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Trujillo and Dutta. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Prof. Caleb M. Trujillo, University of Washington Bothell, School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, Bothell, United States

People also looked at

Innovative growers: A view from the top

In this current era of competing priorities and endless disruption and uncertainty, we know that innovation remains a must-have , not just a nice-to-have, when capital is readily available. 1 Matt Banholzer, Michael Birshan, Rebecca Doherty, and Laura LaBerge, “ Innovation: Your solution for weathering uncertainty ,” McKinsey, January 10, 2023. We also know that making a conscious choice to grow  and supporting that choice with the right mindsets, development pathways, and capabilities can yield superior shareholder returns. 2 “ Choosing to grow: The leader’s blueprint ,” McKinsey, July 7, 2022. But what is the role of innovation in growth and vice versa?

Where do innovative growers come from?

To find out, we identified and analyzed about 650 of the largest public companies that achieved profitable growth relative to their industry between 2016 and 2021 while also excelling in the essential capabilities associated with innovation . 3 Our assessment is based on McKinsey’s proprietary database of about 12,000 companies and their relative mastery of capabilities along four innovation categories: aspire/choose, discover/evolve, accelerate/scale, and extend/mobilize. Using machine learning, natural-language processing, and sentiment analysis of employee reviews, we created a score that served as a reliable proxy for innovation capabilities across these categories. We then reviewed companies that grew faster than their industry while delivering positive economic profit between 2016 and 2021. Some of these companies outgrew their peers, others were more innovative than competitors, but 53 companies managed to do both. The 50-plus “innovative growers,” as we call them, are a diverse group, spread across four continents and ten industries. They include renowned brands with a trillion-dollar market capitalization as well as smaller companies that are just starting to make a name for themselves, some as young as three years old (see sidebar, “Where do innovative growers come from?”).

For all their diversity, these companies consistently excel in both growth and innovation—and they share a number of best practices that other companies can learn from.

Do innovative growers perform better than others?

In a word, yes.

Most of our innovative growers achieved total shareholder returns (TSR) above their industry median between 2012 and 2022 (Exhibit 1). The median excess annual shareholder return among these 50-plus companies was 11 points higher than that for Global 2000 companies. What’s more, two-thirds of the innovative growers were in the top quintile of the economic-profit power curve , which represents the distribution of economic profit among Global 2000 companies. 4 Chris Bradley, Martin Hirt, and Sven Smit, “ Strategy to beat the odds ,” McKinsey Quarterly , February 13, 2018. Their presence on the high end of the curve is not surprising: McKinsey research on the power curve points to the importance of making big innovative moves to beat the market, including programmatic M&A , dynamic reallocation of resources, and differentiating product and process improvements. In fact, the research suggests making no moves is a dangerous strategy—one that brings stagnation and underperformance.

What sets innovative growers apart?

The numbers speak for themselves, but when we examined how innovative growers were achieving such a high level of performance, we observed that all demonstrate a mastery of the eight essentials of innovation , which our past research  shows are correlated with strong financial performance.

Specifically, they build innovation into their overall strategy aspirations. They activate critical growth pathways within their core businesses and enter only those adjacent markets where they have the strongest competitive advantage . They pursue excellence in execution and invest in key innovation capabilities. And they use M&A, particularly programmatic M&A, to extend their innovation reach.

Aspire: Link innovation to growth aspirations

According to our research, innovative growers unfailingly put innovation at the center of strategic and financial discussions, thereby signaling its importance to the growth and health of the organization. For instance, our review of the innovative growers’ earnings calls reveals that they talk about innovation twice as much as their peers 5 We analyzed a lexicon of innovation keywords across earnings calls across our sample set and determined the relative frequency of usage and discussion of innovation topics versus the overall management discussion. and, in those conversations, emphasize innovation as a means to create profitable and sustainable growth . This is consistent with our previous research on “ courageous growers ” and the importance of cultivating an innovation mindset among employees. 6 “ Courageous growth: Six strategies for continuous growth outperformance ,” McKinsey, October 23, 2023. Innovative growers communicate to employees achievable aspirations and clear targets to reduce fears of failure, criticism, and negative career impact  that often hold back innovation. Innovative growers share frequent progress updates and success stories to inspire and motivate teams and investors. What’s more, innovative growers frequently voice their commitment to investing more resources in talent and digital capabilities, and they are almost three times more likely than their fast-growing but not innovative peers to frame their efforts as a “transformation.”

Would you like to learn more about McKinsey’s Strategy & Corporate Finance Practice ?

High digital aspirations. Digital transformation was the impetus for innovation at one leading retailer among our innovative growers: the company sought to increase its online sales by introducing new features such as faster mobile checkout and an app with augmented reality built into it so customers could visualize how the retailer’s products might look in their homes. The CEO and other C-suite executives reinforced the importance of “transformation through innovation” in town hall meetings with employees, during earnings calls, in public interviews, and in press releases. The leaders’ words and investments sent a clear message to customers, employees, and other stakeholders about the importance of innovation in the retailer’s ability to transform and grow. And the efforts paid off: over time, as the new features were launched, the company’s online sales grew 80 percent, with digital sales accounting for 60 percent of overall revenue.

Activate: Pursue multiple pathways to growth

Our research shows that innovative growers deliver market-leading revenue growth in both their core businesses and when entering adjacent customer segments, industries, or geographies. In their core businesses, for instance, innovative growers tend to generate twice as much excess growth, even relative to other companies that outperform on growth. And when diversifying into adjacent segments, innovative growers achieve at least double the revenue growth compared with other firms (Exhibit 2).

They do this by entering adjacent business areas  where they can connect to one or more clear opportunities to create value, such as customer-driven growth, capability-driven growth, value chain–driven growth, or business model innovation in areas such as digital and sustainability. For instance, a recent McKinsey analysis  shows that chemical players with low-carbon product portfolios or high exposure to end markets supporting sustainability grew their shareholder returns at more than double the rate of sustainability laggards between 2016 and 2021. 7 “ The triple play: Growth, profit, and sustainability ,” McKinsey, August 9, 2023.

In fact, our data indicate that innovative growers combine two or more of the previously mentioned value propositions in more than 70 percent of the adjacencies they enter (compared with less than 25 percent among peers). They seem to prioritize growth in those adjacencies where there is some similarity among portfolios and an obvious “right to win.” And make no mistake, portfolio similarity matters: consider General Mills’ purchase of Pillsbury, a company that shared many of the same competencies and assets. This move allowed General Mills to reduce its purchasing, manufacturing, and distribution costs and raise its operating profit by about 70 percent. 8 Chris Bradley, Rebecca Doherty, Nicholas Northcote, and Tido Röder, “ The ten rules of growth ,” McKinsey, August 12, 2022.

Additionally, innovative growers are using advanced analytics and other digital tools to identify hidden growth opportunities, and then they are going through a rigorous process of selecting the just-right operating model and governance structure for the new business and appointing senior leaders with the competencies most needed in the new business. 9 Chris Bradley, Rebecca Doherty, Anna Koivuniemi, and Nicholas Northcote, “ Igniting your next growth business ,” McKinsey, July 23, 2021.

Game, set, and match. A leading technology company with deep expertise in hardware design, artificial intelligence, and cloud computing acquired a gaming company with the goal of using its own capabilities to improve the gaming company’s offerings. The pathway to growth here was relatively clear and unencumbered; although they were in slightly different segments of the technology market, the companies boasted similar product portfolios, and once the technical capabilities were integrated, the joint venture was able to go to market with several special releases of legacy games and one-off “special event” gaming offerings, all of which were well received.

Execute: Invest productively in all innovation capabilities

Our research shows that innovative growers invest productively in a range of critical innovation capabilities—including R&D, resourcing, and operational agility—leading to strong business outcomes. In fact, they delivered more than five points of additional excess gross margin versus other Global 2000 firms, which is a key indicator of product differentiation . 10 “ Strategy to beat the odds ,” February 2018.

R&D. Innovative growers tend to deliver more tangible outcomes from their R&D investments than their peers. In our research, they generated, on average, 100-plus more patents than their peers but also delivered more strong patents—or patents with broad applicability and lots of citations to other patents. In fact, over the past two decades, innovative growers were awarded three times as many strong patents compared with industry peers (Exhibit 3). And the presence of strong patents often indicates higher value creation potential.

Resourcing and operations. Innovative growers are also more likely than peers to have adopted agile operating models and implemented rigorous and dynamic resource allocation processes. They also tend to invest more in digital and analytics and other new technologies compared with peers: our research shows innovative growers have 30 percent more digital and analytics personnel on staff compared with industry peers. And in McKinsey’s recent digital strategy survey of more than 1,000 companies, there was a clear link between organizations with strong innovation cultures and operating models and their ability to increase value through new technologies, including generative AI. 11 Matt Banholzer, Ben Fletcher, Laura LaBerge, and Jon McClain, “ Companies with innovative cultures have a big edge with generative AI ,” McKinsey, August 31, 2023. Even in the current uncertain business climate, almost 90 percent of the survey respondents said they are still looking for new growth. Over the past two years, they have been allocating resources to a range of growth pathways—expanding the core, innovating in adjacent areas, or igniting breakout businesses (Exhibit 4). 12 “ Companies with innovative cultures have a big edge with generative AI ,” August 31, 2023.

Smart resourcing, smart growth. Combining strong innovation capabilities with appropriate levels of resourcing can result in significant value creation opportunities. Senior management at one medical-technology company wanted to build a new line of surgical robotics offerings and, to that end, increased the amount of resources allocated to the company’s R&D function. Over time, that R&D team generated a flood of new patents, averaging about 750 more patents than its medtech peers and delivering one and a half times the total shareholder return. Similarly, a global technology company invested upward of $3 billion to adapt its existing hardware products to support applications in the fast-growing AI and data-processing spaces, more than tripling its annual capital expenditure between 2017 and 2022. This bold move has resulted in 20 percent annual revenue growth at the company over the past five years.

Extend: Cultivate a strong M&A capability

In our experience, innovative growers also distinguish themselves through their dealmaking—and specifically, in their ability to cultivate a strong M&A capability (alongside strong capabilities in R&D, finance, operations). To be clear, there are many “nondigital” technologies (new molecules, for instance). However, looking at digital M&A provides one illustrative lens. For instance, our research shows that innovative growers complete three times more digital M&A deals 13 Digital M&A deals are those that target assets or capabilities in the digital, analytics, or technology spaces. compared with peers, demonstrating a desire to acquire promising technical capabilities and intellectual property (IP) and a willingness to embrace new technologies and methods to stay ahead of the competition. 14 “ Are you chasing the right digital assets? ,” McKinsey, December 22, 2021. Additionally, innovative growers routinely define their growth and M&A objectives up front , and leaders come to a shared understanding of the types of deals they want to target, which allows innovative growers to act with speed and purpose when M&A opportunities come up. What’s more, innovative growers are 50 percent more likely than peers to follow a programmatic approach to M&A, 15 A programmatic approach to M&A involves creating value by choreographing a series of deals (two or more) around a specific business case or M&A theme rather than pursuing singular “big bang” transactions. which McKinsey has repeatedly reaffirmed is far more likely than other M&A approaches to lead to stronger performance and less risk. 16 “ How one approach to M&A is more likely to create value than all others ,” McKinsey Quarterly , October 13, 2021.

Forging an ecosystem through programmatic M&A. One technology company pursued a series of midsize acquisitions to bolster its product offerings and exploit cross-product synergies to create an ecosystem for “home security” products. Over a two-year period, the company acquired a wireless security camera player, a home security company, and a DIY home security system provider. These acquisitions came with associated patents, such as the smart doorbell, and allowed the company to expand its reach and to innovate new products (combining the acquired IP with the company’s own hardware and software products).

Innovative growers are delivering profitable growth relative to their industry while also excelling in the essential capabilities associated with innovation. Our research reveals the degree to which their focus on both is helping these organizations create lasting value. It also suggests that other companies, too, can join this small but diverse set of outperformers by putting innovation at the center of all decision making and supporting it with the right mindsets, pursuing multiple pathways to growth and innovation, and establishing the right capabilities across R&D, digital, analytics, and M&A.

The path may be steep, and the transformation will likely take time and dedicated management attention, but the companies that seek to emulate the innovative growers may eventually achieve a profitable balance between today’s growth objectives and tomorrow’s innovation potential.

Matt Banholzer is a partner in McKinsey’s Chicago office, Rebecca Doherty is a partner in the Bay Area office, Alex Morris is a partner in the Toronto office, and Scott Schwaitzberg is an associate partner in the New York office.

The authors wish to thank Guillermo Domínguez, Gopal Galgali, Brooke Harvey, Tim Koller, Laura LaBerge, Karin Löffler, Karthik Ramesh, Werner Rehm, Tido Röder, Erik Roth, Eshita Sangal, and Jill Zucker for their contributions to this article.

This article was edited by Roberta Fusaro, an editorial director in the Waltham, Massachusetts, office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Choosing to grow: The leader’s blueprint

The triple play: Growth, profit, and sustainability

Companies with innovative cultures have a big edge with generative AI

How parasites shape complex food webs

A new study published today in Proceedings of the Royal Society B sheds light on how parasites influence the intricate relationships between predator and prey populations. Researchers from the Faculty of Science and Engineering at Queen Mary University of London have developed a novel analysis to explore how factors like parasite virulence and infection probability affect the coexistence of species in a complex predator-prey-parasite system.

"Food webs are intricate networks where species interact with each other," says Dr Weini Huang Reader in Mathematical Biology. "Parasites, a massive but often overlooked component of these webs, can significantly impact their stability by affecting both predator and prey populations."

The research team is a new interdisciplinary collaboration between the group of Professor Christophe Eizaguirre, Professor of Evolutionary and Conservation Genetics in the school of Biological and Behavioural Sciences and Dr Weini Huang, Reader in Mathematical Biology in the School of Mathematical Sciences. Together with two earlier career researchers, Ana C. Hijar Islas and Amy Milne, they thoughtfully investigated this complex system through mathematical analysis and stochastic simulations, which considers microscopic events like reproduction, death, competition, infection, and predation at the individual level.

The study revealed that stochasticity, random fluctuations in population sizes, plays a significant role in determining whether species coexist or go extinct, particularly at the boundary between these states.

Dr Weini Huang and Amy Milne played a crucial role in developing the model's mathematical framework. Dr Huang explains: "We found that the relative abundance of infected and uninfected individuals can be reversed between the prey and predator populations. This counterintuitive finding suggests that the interplay of direct and indirect parasite effects plays a significant role in shaping infection prevalence throughout the food web."

Professor Eizaguirre emphasises the importance of this research: "Understanding how parasites influence food web dynamics is crucial for predicting the impact of environmental changes on ecosystem health but also risks of spread of invasive diseases. Our findings provide a valuable framework for exploring risks of certain parasites to become invasive as they are move with their hosts"

"Our findings provide a valuable foundation for understanding how these systems evolve over time," concludes Dr Weini Huang. The team have developed a further study built upon this framework by incorporating the evolution of key parameters, such as reproduction costs and infection probability, under the combined influence of ecological and evolutionary pressures."

This research has the potential to inform conservation efforts by providing a deeper understanding of how parasites can influence the resilience of ecosystems. By incorporating parasite dynamics into ecological models, conservation biologists can develop more effective strategies to protect vulnerable species and maintain healthy ecosystems.

• Ecology Research
• Pests and Parasites
• Wild Animals
• Exotic Species
• Environmental Awareness
• Ecological niche
• Evolution of the eye

Story Source:

Materials provided by Queen Mary University of London . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Ana C. Hijar Islas, Amy Milne, Christophe Eizaguirre, Weini Huang. Parasite-mediated predation determines infection in a complex predator–prey–parasite system . Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 2024; 291 (2021) DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2023.2468

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Humans and Earth's Deep Subsurface Fluid Flow
• Holographic Displays: An Immersive Future
• Harvesting Energy Where River Meets Sea
• Making Diamonds at Ambient Pressure
• Eruption of Mega-Magnetic Star
• Clean Fuel Generation With Simple Twist
• Bioluminescence in Animals 540 Million Years Ago
• Fossil Frogs Share Their Skincare Secrets
• Fussy Eater? Most Parents Play Short Order Cook
• Precise Time Measurement: Superradiant Atoms

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

Stanford University

The Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center is part of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies

Deciphering the Nature of the Sino-Russian Military Alignment

In recent years, China and Russia have strengthened their bilateral ties. But what characterizes the Sino-Russian alignment and its effects? Under what circumstances are the two nations inclined to provide military support to each other, and in what manner? A new paper by FSI Center Fellow Oriana Skylar Mastro delves into these questions, shedding light on how military cooperation between Beijing and Moscow could potentially reshape the global security landscape.

Published in the journal Security Studies, the paper, Sino-Russian Military Alignment and Its Implications for Global Security , underscores the multifaceted nature of the Sino-Russian military alignment, emphasizing mutual support, economic benefits, and potential collaboration in conflicts involving other nations. "Understanding the depth and breadth of the military alignment between China and Russia is crucial for assessing their combined capabilities and potential impact on global security dynamics," Mastro writes.

Mastro, a political scientist and expert on Chinese military and Indo-Pacific security, introduces a novel framework for assessing military alignment between great powers, capturing different degrees of alignment from low to moderate to high. Using metrics relevant to warfighting, she considers four categories of activity: provision of weapons and equipment, defense industrial base collaboration, coordinating mechanisms, and operational preparations. By evaluating the depth of alignment based on activities in each category, Mastro gauges countries' ability to support each other during wartime, focusing on the Sino-Russian military relationship as a case study.

Her findings indicate that most Sino-Russian activities have become more frequent, expansive, and deeper. Moreover, the alignment is focused on facilitating China’s challenge to U.S. hegemony in Asia, even though recent activities suggest a movement toward directly supporting China in wartime.

Related Research

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive updates on our scholars’ research >

A New Framework for Understanding the Sino-Russian Relationship

Mastro’s research is based on information gathered from open-source reporting on China and Russia’s relevant military activities, specifically government documents, reports, and media coverage in English, Chinese, and Russian from 2005 through 2022. Her analysis encompasses two types of alignment behavior: (1) how countries help build each other’s independent ability to fight and (2) how they might strengthen the ability to fight together. It also considers three alignment indicators in the Sino-Russian case: (1) whether the two countries engaged in alignment activity in the past twelve years; (2) whether the activity occurred occasionally or routinely; and (3) whether both countries engaged equally.

The research unveils the increasing frequency and depth of interactions between China and Russia, particularly related to joint military exercises. Mastro’s framework shows that “moderate” or “high” alignment activities — such as joint development, invitations to military exercises at home, and cooperation agreements on logistics — have all occurred only within the past five years. The two countries have conducted six joint military operations in or over the East China Sea since 2019. The sixth joint operation, an air patrol, took place in June 2023, amidst tensions over Taiwan and the war in Ukraine.

In addition to increased joint operations, the two countries actively bolster each other's military capabilities: from joint development projects to logistic support agreements, agreements for satellite cooperation, and ground-monitoring stations, the Sino-Russian military activities alignment is deepening. Still, the coordination and readiness of the two countries for joint operations are focused mainly on support roles such as intelligence and space access rather than direct combat preparations.

Mastro finds that the Sino-Russian alignment is geared towards enhancing China's ability to counter the United States in Asia, rather than preparing for joint operations against the United States and its allies. “Additionally, there are almost no indications that the two countries would consider joining military capabilities to achieve goals outside their regions,” she writes. In terms of direct combat support, her findings show that both China and Russia have not explicitly voiced support for each other's territorial ambitions. Instead, both parties appear to establish favorable circumstances for Russia to boost China's independent military capacities during peaceful times and provide a strategic support base during conflicts. By offering support functions, Russia can aid China in achieving success while retaining a degree of plausible deniability.

Mastro’s framework also reveals the asymmetric nature of the Sino-Russian relationship, with Russia seemingly more willing to support China's objectives than vice versa. She notes that “China’s lackluster response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is consistent with this finding.” Russian policymakers seem to recognize the net value and opportunity provided by their “pivot to the east,” even if it is asymmetric. While China gains more by becoming the regional hegemon in Asia, “the outcome puts Russia in a better position overall strategically, but also economically and politically.” Essentially, Moscow stands to gain more relative power against the United States through its partnership with Beijing than it sacrifices by empowering China. The bilateral alignment serves Russia's broader strategic aim of undermining U.S. dominance, thus advancing its security interests and regional goals.

Implications for U.S. Defense Planning

Mastro deduces that China and Russia are not preparing to fight a high-intensity conflict against the United States together, but may provide indirect support — equipment, war materiel, and intelligence. She cautions that “in the case of great power alignment, even such indirect support can have a significant impact on the balance of power.”

First, the Sino-Russian alignment allows both countries to focus on countering the United States and its allies, with reduced military forces needed on the Russia-China border due to non-aggression pacts and confidence-building measures.

Second, even without direct support for Chinese military operations, Russia's role in training and equipping China's military poses challenges for the United States. This assistance strenghtens Beijing's capacity to counter U.S. strengths in air and maritime warfare. Opportunities also remain for Russia to enhance China's capabilities, particularly in areas like air defenses and submarine technologies. Past joint exercises have provided valuable training for China, particularly in maneuver and network-centric warfare.

Furthermore, mutual support between China and Russia could weaken U.S. deterrence efforts in peacetime and wartime. China's continued purchase of Russian oil and gas has helped Russia offset some of the losses from Western sanctions in response to its invasion of Ukraine, bolstering its ability to sustain the war. As the two countries have created mutually supporting defense industrial bases, Russia is becoming even better suited to serve as a strategic rear, an extension of China’s production capability. Russia also has the potential to diminish China's dependence on maritime routes, which are susceptible to U.S. attacks, for oil access by ramping up its provision of oil and gas through overland routes to China.

While the Sino-Russian alignment is limited to facilitating China’s challenge to U.S. hegemony in Asia, still, if China goes to war over Taiwan, Russia is likely to offer support in the form of equipment, intelligence, and critical war supplies. Russia may also establish restricted zones near the conflict area under the pretext of homeland defense, hindering U.S. efforts to achieve air and naval dominance. These actions, categorized as "alliance gray zone" activities, allow each country to exploit the relationship to its operational advantage without direct combat involvement. Such tactics would make it challenging for the United States and its allies to compel China and manage escalation.

Finally, the history of Sino-Russian joint air patrols suggests that the greatest area of cooperation between them will be in a conflict involving Japan. In such a scenario, Russia could establish defensive air patrols in Northeast Asia, ostensibly for homeland defense purposes, effectively denying U.S. access to the region. This strategy would create safe zones for Chinese offensive operations, deplete Japanese resources, and challenge U.S. air and naval superiority. As Japan reinforces its defense capabilities and aligns more closely with the U.S. on regional issues like Taiwan, China may counter by increasingly turning to military collaboration with Russia.

These potential impacts on the balance of power in Asia underscore the need for the United States to monitor and adapt to the evolving dynamics of the Sino-Russian military alignment.​​

The United States Should Seek Engagement Without Provocation of China

The next tripartite pact, aparc unveils new taiwan program: spearheading interdisciplinary research and partnerships to propel taiwan's next stage of development.