Green2014.PDF

July 2014 | Volume 21 | Number 6 © RCN PUBLISHING / NURSE RESEARCHER34

Nurse Researcher

Introduction
THIS PAPER aims to help the researcher to
understand the nature of theoretical and conceptual
frameworks and how they can be used to help give
direction to a study, or be identified as an outcome.
The use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks is
part of research, but is relatively obscure among the
myriad of literature available. In published research
reports, there is often no explanation as to what
theoretical and conceptual frameworks are, and they
are mentioned in many popular research textbooks
at best minimally and often as terms in a glossary.
There appears to be no manual about how theoretical
and/or conceptual frameworks should be used.

This paper examines what the literature says
in relation to theoretical and/or conceptual
frameworks and considers how researchers seem
to be using them. It also shows how a conceptual
framework was used in case study research to
determine the professional jurisdictions of doctors
and nurses in the supply and prescription of
medicines, and ultimately to the development of
a conceptual model.

Definitions of frameworks
Fain (2004) defined theory as ‘an organised and
systematic set of interrelated statements (concepts)
that specify the nature of relationships between

Correspondence
Helen Elise Green
[email protected]

Helen Elise Green PhD is
director of student education
at the University of Leeds, UK

Peer review
This article has been subject
to double-blind review and
has been checked using
antiplagiarism software

Author guidelines
rcnpublishing.com/
r/nr-author-guidelines

Abstract
Aim To debate the definition and use of theoretical
and conceptual frameworks in qualitative research.

Background There is a paucity of literature to
help the novice researcher to understand what
theoretical and conceptual frameworks are and
how they should be used. This paper acknowledges
the interchangeable usage of these terms and
researchers’ confusion about the differences between
the two. It discusses how researchers have used
theoretical and conceptual frameworks and the
notion of conceptual models. Detail is given about
how one researcher incorporated a conceptual
framework throughout a research project, the
purpose for doing so and how this led to a resultant
conceptual model.

Review methods Concepts from Abbott (1988) and
Witz (1992) were used to provide a framework for
research involving two case study sites. The framework
was used to determine research questions and give
direction to interviews and discussions to focus
the research.

Discussion Some research methods do not overtly
use a theoretical framework or conceptual framework
in their design, but this is implicit and underpins the
method design, for example in grounded theory. Other
qualitative methods use one or the other to frame the
design of a research project or to explain the outcomes.
An example is given of how a conceptual framework
was used throughout a research project.

Conclusion Theoretical and conceptual frameworks
are terms that are regularly used in research but rarely
explained. Textbooks should discuss what they are
and how they can be used, so novice researchers
understand how they can help with research design.

Implications for practice/research Theoretical and
conceptual frameworks need to be more clearly
understood by researchers and correct terminology
used to ensure clarity for novice researchers.

Keywords Theoretical framework, conceptual
framework, case study, conceptual model, qualitative
research, research design, case study research.

Date of submission: May 22 2013. Date of acceptance: August 28 2013.

Cite this article as: Green H (2014) Use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in qualitative research.
Nurse Researcher. 21, 6, 34-38.

Use of theoretical and conceptual
frameworks in qualitative research

Downloaded from rcnpublishing.com by ${individualUser.displayName} on Jan 15, 2015. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

Copyright © 2015 RCN Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.

© RCN PUBLISHING / NURSE RESEARCHER July 2014 | Volume 21 | Number 6 35

Methodology

two or more variables, with the purpose of
understanding a problem or the nature of things’
and concepts as ‘symbolic statements describing
a phenomenon or a class of phenomena’.

It is a matter of interpretation as to when
concepts become organised and interrelated
enough to be deemed theories, which might explain
why the two terms are used interchangeably when
referring to frameworks. However, Parahoo (2006)
suggested that ‘theoretical framework’ should
be used when research is underpinned by one
theory and that a ‘conceptual framework’ draws
on concepts from various theories and findings
to guide research. This is a slightly different
interpretation to that of Fain (2004) because, instead
of suggesting that the concepts have been built
into a theory, it suggests that parts of multiple
theories have been taken.

Whether these distinctions matter is questionable.
Parahoo (2006) implied that it is fruitless to
consider whether a researcher has used the correct
terminology and it is far more important to consider
how theory has been used to underpin the study.

Authors use the terms ‘conceptual framework’
and ‘theoretical framework’ interchangeably
(Fain 2004, Parahoo 2006). Some authors only
refer to one. For example, Lacey (2010) referred
to conceptual frameworks, suggesting that they
identify researchers’ ‘world views’ of their research
topics and so delineate their assumptions and pre-
conceptions about the areas being studied. Fain
(2004) suggested that where a framework is based
on concepts, the framework should be called a
conceptual framework, and where it is based on
theories it should be called a theoretical framework.

Given that there is confusion between theoretical
and conceptual frameworks, it could be argued
that they are of questionable value. However,
frameworks have been described as the map for
a study, giving a rationale for the development
of research questions or hypotheses (Fulton and
Krainovich-Miller 2010). LoBiondo-Wood (2010)
similarly said that the framework is the design
and added that the research question, purpose,
literature review and theoretical framework should
all complement each other and help with the
operationalisation of the design.

It can be seen that the authors are saying that the
framework should be there to assist researchers in
ensuring that their research projects are coherent
and to focus their minds on what the research is
trying to achieve. Rathert et al (2012) illustrate
this confusion. In the title, the authors suggest
they have tested a theoretical framework but then
discuss a conceptual model. However, they use

the term ‘conceptual framework’ as a title for its
diagrammatic representation. There is no discussion
of what these terms mean.

Robson (2002) suggested that a conceptual
framework is often developed as a diagram, whereas
Parahoo (2006) refers to this as a conceptual model,
although again believes that researchers should not
get hung up on terminology.

It could be concluded that a diagrammatic
representation of a theoretical framework might
therefore be termed a theoretical model. It is,
however, less likely that one would diagrammatically
represent a single theory rather than concepts,
which either are being used to build up to a theory
or are taken from different theories.

While the confusion around the use of
conceptual and theoretical frameworks and models
may be understandable, a similar laissez-faire
approach to accuracy would not be considered
acceptable for other parts of research design.
More discussion in textbooks and journal articles
about how to use frameworks might allay
some of the confusion.

Using a framework
Some research approaches appear not to use a
conceptual or theoretical framework in their design.
‘Grounded theory’, for example, is an inductive
method in which theory generation comes from
the data. It was an approach that went against
the accepted wisdom of the 1960s that a study
should have a definite theory before it begins
(Robson 2002). It is an example of a methodological
approach that is based on a specific epistemology
or philosophy of knowledge (Avis 2003). Corbin
and Strauss (2008) discussed the epistemology of
grounded theory in some detail. However, as this
methodology has developed, the epistemology has
also developed (Hall et al 2013).

The development of theoretical or conceptual
frameworks can be undertaken as an outcome of
the research but it is unlikely that one will be stated
as part of the design. However, projects using
these methods do have a theoretical framework:
that of the philosophy or epistemology on which
the research approach is based. For example,
Curtis et al (2012) discussed how grounded theory
methodology is based on the epistemology of
symbolic interactionism and so they did not identify
a theoretical or conceptual model in the design
of their research. In their findings, they discussed
the concept that emerged from their research of
the dissonance for students of professional ideals
and the reality of practice. They then showed this
diagrammatically in a conceptual model.

Downloaded from rcnpublishing.com by ${individualUser.displayName} on Jan 15, 2015. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

Copyright © 2015 RCN Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.

July 2014 | Volume 21 | Number 6 © RCN PUBLISHING / NURSE RESEARCHER36

Nurse Researcher

There appear to be two main ways in which
researchers who use other qualitative methods use
theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

The first is in the design of the study where,
if it is explicit, the framework can often be found
as a section in the literature review (Fulton and
Krainovich-Miller 2010). However, many authors
(Polit and Tatano Beck 2004, Parahoo 2006, Fulton
and Krainovich-Miller 2010) have found that
researchers often do not make the theoretical or
conceptual frameworks of studies explicit in relation
to how these guided their studies. This does not
mean that they did not have such frameworks,
simply that they may be embedded in the literature
review (Fulton and Krainovich-Miller 2010).

Somekh and Lewin (2005) suggested that most
social science research starts with a theoretical
framework, goes on to analyse the data, before
developing new theories or variations of existing
theories as outcomes.

Robson (2002) suggested that most new
researchers find it useful to develop a conceptual
model – the diagrammatic form of a conceptual
framework – and refine it as data collection and
analysis takes place. LoBiondo-Wood (2010) felt
that the fit between the theoretical framework and
the other steps of the research after the design
strengthens the study and gives the researcher
confidence in the evidence provided by the findings.

Even where theoretical or conceptual frameworks
are mentioned in the title of an article, it is unusual
for there to be a discussion of what these are in
the article itself. However, Goddard et al (2013)
used a theoretical framework in the design of
their randomised controlled trial and Smith et al
(2012) identified a theoretical framework before
researching the knowledge base of screening tools.

The second way in which researchers use
theoretical and conceptual frameworks is in
developing a framework. Parahoo (2006) argued
that generating theory is the purpose of most
qualitative research. Polit and Tatano Beck (2004)
suggested that the role of conceptual and theoretical
frameworks is to make the research findings
meaningful and generalisable. They suggested that
the linking together of findings into a coherent
structure can make them more accessible and so
more useful to others.

Fletcher et al (2012) used grounded theory in
relation to the organisational factors that cause
sports performers stress. They then used their
findings to develop a conceptual framework.
Again, although ‘conceptual framework’
is in the title of their article, there is no
explanation of what such a framework is.

Fulton and Krainovich-Miller (2010)
acknowledged that many researchers do not bother
to use a theoretical framework and the Critical
Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) does not make
any mention of trying to identify a theoretical
or conceptual framework in a research article
(CASP 2010). This suggests that it does not see
the presence of one as crucial to the generation
of good qualitative research.

Nevertheless, it is not unusual for those
undertaking research as part of a programme of
learning to be asked to include such a framework
in their projects, usually at the proposal stage.
Because so little is written about frameworks, this
can confuse students trying to understand what
is being asked of them. Books written to support
students in achieving a PhD may not provide much
help, as some do not mention the use of theory in
study design (Phillips and Pugh 2005).

At this point in time, finding a theoretical or
conceptual framework can be seen as another
hurdle to overcome, rather than something to
assist researchers in keeping their projects focused
and on track.

Use of a framework in a PhD project
A PhD study by Green (2008) used a case study
approach to consider the professional jurisdictions
of nursing and medicine in relation to the supply
and prescription of medicines by nurses in the acute
hospital setting. The study was undertaken over a
period of time when the supply and prescription
of medicines by nurses was relatively new but the
regulations set by the Department of Health (DH)
were being relaxed (DH 2005).

The study aimed to examine the attitudes of
doctors and nurses in relation to their professional
boundaries in the light of the legalising of
prescribing for nurses. At this time, there was
some research evaluation of prescribing but this
tended to focus on the prescribing rather than what
professionals thought about the notion. Where
professional attitudes of doctors or nurses were
mentioned, it was as a secondary outcome, rather
than the main focus (Latter et al 2004, Bradley and
Nolan 2007, Courtenay 2007).

It terms of a framework to guide the study
and aid the way it was organised, the body of
work that has been undertaken in relation to
the Sociology of Professions appeared relevant
to the project. The theories of two sociologists
were used (Abbott 1988, Witz 1992). The focus
of the research was new work for the profession
of nursing and in an area that had been a monopoly
for doctors previously.

Downloaded from rcnpublishing.com by ${individualUser.displayName} on Jan 15, 2015. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

Copyright © 2015 RCN Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.

© RCN PUBLISHING / NURSE RESEARCHER July 2014 | Volume 21 | Number 6 37

Methodology

Abbott (1998) and Witz (1992) had both looked
at the movement of work from one profession to
another. However, concepts from their theories were
used, rather than the full theories. The research was
based on the following concepts (Abbott 1988):

■ Professional jurisdictions: the boundaries of work
‘owned’ by a profession.

■ Authority: the type of authority that a profession
has to undertake its work.

And from Witz (1992):
■ Exclusion: attempts to ensure that members of
a profession are prevented from undertaking
specific aspects of work.

■ Usurpation: attempts to include specific
aspects of work normally carried out by
another profession.

These concepts were used to frame the research
questions and were also used to develop a model
to try to explain the past and present situation in
relation to doctors, nurses and prescribing.

The research data were then collected through
observation, semi-structured interviews and
document analysis at two case study sites.
Categories and sub-categories were identified from
the data and described as part of the study.

The discussion could have centred on the
categories identified. However, it was at this point
the data were brought back to what the categories
had to say about the above concepts and how the
research questions centred on these concepts were

answered. There were new conceptual models
developed from the data that represented variation
between the two sites in terms of the concepts
identified at the beginning of the research.

An example of a conceptual model can be seen in
Figure 1. As this shows, the weight of intervention
by the management of the organisation to support
nurse prescribing seemed to have an effect on
its introduction to the organisation but the main
concepts are visible in the model.

A conceptual framework was present throughout
the research project and report. It helped frame
the research’s questions, design and outcomes. The
same data may have been collected if a different
theoretical or conceptual framework had been used
or if no framework had been there, but it is likely
that it would have been represented differently.
The use of a framework helped the researcher to
her thoughts and organise the way the data
would be represented.

The use of a conceptual framework had started
as an academic exercise to fulfil the demands of
an academic supervisor and the expectations of
a PhD project. It is probably only now, looking
back at the project, that the extent to which the
conceptual framework pervaded it is apparent.
The existence of the conceptual framework was
helpful in ensuring the research was given
and achieved completion in a way that could clearly
be communicated to its readers.

Figure 1 Workplace authority for the supply and prescription of medications by nurses

Supportive
doctors

The state
Supply and
prescription:
intellectual
jurisdiction

Exclusion

Usurpation

Organisation

Non-supportive
doctors

Nurses
Supportive

doctors

The state
Supply and
prescription:
intellectual
jurisdiction

Exclusion

Usurpation

Organisation

Non-supportive
doctors

Nurses

Downloaded from rcnpublishing.com by ${individualUser.displayName} on Jan 15, 2015. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

Copyright © 2015 RCN Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.

July 2014 | Volume 21 | Number 6 © RCN PUBLISHING / NURSE RESEARCHER38

Nurse Researcher

Conflict of interest
None declared

Online archive
For related information, visit
our online archive and search
using the keywords

Conclusion
As with many topics, in research there is a language
to be learned by those who are going to become
expert researchers. Much of this is explicit and
can be read about in research texts and published
papers. Although researchers can read extensively
about research methodologies and data collection
methods, this is not the case for theoretical and
conceptual frameworks. This may be because, to
seasoned researchers, it is so ingrained that it is
unworthy of comment, or perhaps it is because
these concepts are not overtly discussed and
many researchers are confused about the correct
terminology. Certainly, it might be expected that
where a term – such as conceptual or theoretical
framework – was included in a title of a published
research paper there would be an explanation of it
somewhere in the paper. However, this rarely occurs.

If the apparent mysticism of theoretical and
conceptual frameworks is to be debunked,

then they need to be included as significant
sections in publications. The focus of the
frameworks as an aid to researchers to help ensure
that they have framed their research coherently
throughout their design should be ensured. For
those who find diagrammatic representation
helpful, the use of models as a way of illustrating
the framework for others should be encouraged.

It would be good to see the nuances of
differences between concepts and theories discussed
more regularly so all researchers understand their
meaning or why variation in meaning is acceptable
when using different approaches. This occurs
with other parts of research and if we are to
assist future researchers, it needs to happen with
theoretical and conceptual models and frameworks.
Novice researchers need to know that frameworks
and models are there to help them and are not just
another hurdle to be overcome to in the battle to
achieve accreditation as a researcher.

References
Abbott A (1988) The System Of Professions:
An Essay On the Division Of Expert Labour.
Chicago University Press, Chicago IL.

Avis M (2003) Do we need methodological
theory to do qualitative research? Qualitative
Health Research. 13, 7, 995-1004.

Bradley E, Nolan P (2007) Impact of nurse
prescribing: a qualitative study. Journal of
Advanced Nursing. 59, 2, 120-128.

Corbin J, Strauss A (2008) Basics Of Qualitative
Research. Third edition. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks CA.

Courtenay M (2007) Nurse prescribing:
the benefits and the pitfalls. Journal of
Community Nursing. 21, 11, 502-506.

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2010) 10
Questions to Help You Make Sense of Qualitative
Research. CASP, Oxford.

Curtis K, Horton K, Smith P (2012) Student
nurse socialisation in compassionate practice.
Nurse Education Today. 32, 7, 790-795.

Department of Health (DH) (2005) Nursing
and Pharmacist Prescribing Powers Extended.
DH, London

Fain JA (2004) Reading Understanding and
Applying Nursing Research. Second edition.
FA Davis, Philadelphia PA.

Fletcher D, Hanton S, Mellalieu SD et al (2012)
A conceptual framework of organizational
stressors in sports performers. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports.
22, 4, 545-557.

Fulton S, Krainovich-Miller B (2010)
Gathering and appraising the literature.
In LoBiondo-Wood G, Haber J (Eds) Nursing
Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for
Evidence-Based Practice. Seventh edition. Mosby
Elsevier, St Louis MO.

Goddard E, Raenker S, Macdonald P et al
(2013) Carers’ assessment, skills and
information sharing: theoretical framework
and trial protocol for a randomised controlled
trial evaluating the efficacy of a complex
intervention for carers of inpatients with
anorexia nervosa. European Eating Dis s
Review. 21, 1, 60-71.

Green H (2008) The Professional Jurisdictions of
Nursing and Medicine In Relation to the Supply
and Prescription of Medicines by Nurses In the

Acute Hospital Setting. Unpublished PhD thesis.
Staffordshire University, Staffordshire.

Hall H, Griffiths D, McKenna L (2013) From
Darwin to constructivism: the evolution
of grounded theory. Nurse Researcher.
20, 3, 17-21.

Lacey A (2010) The research process.
In Gerrish K, Lacey A (Eds) The Research Process
In Nursing. Sixth edition. Wiley-Blackwell,
Chichester.

Latter S, Maben J, Myall M et al (2004)
An Evaluation of Extended Formulary
Independent Nurse Prescribing. University
of Southampton, Southampton.

LoBiondo-Wood G (2010) Understanding research
findings. In LoBiondo-Wood G, Haber J (Eds)
Nursing Research: Methods and Critical
Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice.
Seventh edition. Mosby Elsevier, St Louis MO.

Parahoo K (2006) Nursing Research:
Principles, Process and Issues. Second edition.
Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Phillips E, Pugh D (2005) How to Get a
PhD. Fourth edition. Open University Press,
Maidenhead.

Polit DF, Tatano Beck C (2004) Nursing
Research: Principles and Methods.
Seventh edition. Lippincott Williams and
Wilkins, Philadelphia PA.

Rathert C, Williams ES, Lawrence ER et al
(2012) Emotional exhaustion and workarounds
in acute care, cross sectional tests of a
theoretical framework. International Journal
of Nursing Studies. 49, 8, 969-977.

Robson (2002) Real World Research. Second
edition. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Smith SK, Barratt A, Trevena L et al (2012)
A theoretical framework for measuring
knowledge in screening decision aid
trials. Patient Education and Counseling.
89, 2, 330-336.

Somekh B, Lewin C (2005) Glossary.
In Somekh B, Lewin C (Eds) Research Methods In
the Social Sciences. Sage Publications, London.

Witz A (1992) Professions and Patriarchy.
Routledge, London.

Downloaded from rcnpublishing.com by ${individualUser.displayName} on Jan 15, 2015. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

Copyright © 2015 RCN Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.