Have you ever experienced that “aha!” moment, when a long-standing confusion suddenly resolves with crystal clarity? I had one during my PhD, although it wasn’t a groundbreaking discovery. It was the moment I finally grasped how to construct a PhD theory framework. It might sound simple, but it’s a common struggle for many, especially during PhD supervision sessions and masterclasses. The theory framework is essential, yet many find it challenging. The “eureka” moment came when someone explained it to me with a simple analogy: The PhD theory framework is like a toolbox.
In your literature review, you’ve identified a problem needing a solution. The theoretical framework – your “toolbox” – contains the theories, propositions, hypotheses (if applicable), and concepts – your “tools” – that you’ll use to address or understand this problem. Your task is to detail each “tool,” explaining its function, past applications, relationships to other tools, relevance to your aims, and potential limitations. Your methods chapter will then describe how you’ll put those “tools” to work.
Understanding the PhD Theory Framework
To appreciate the importance of a theoretical framework, consider your research without one. Imagine studying local government responses to climate change, seeking to understand why these responses vary (the subject of my own research).
Without a framework, the potential explanations are vast – psychology, power, gender, economics, and more. We often aim for an interpretation of the truth, especially in social sciences. Theory helps us focus on a specific subset of explanations, a particular viewpoint.
As an interpretivist, I see theory as a “lens” for understanding the world, shaping my “toolbox.” Even positivists select theoretical concepts and hypotheses, using them as testable propositions or measurement tools, rather than a lens.
Without a theoretical framework, we face an endless array of viewpoints, leading to chaotic data collection, analysis, and discussion. How can we present a coherent explanation without a focused approach?
The PhD theory framework naturally extends from the literature review, which highlights gaps and shortcomings in existing research. The framework details your perspective to address those gaps. In my research, the literature review focused on government responses to climate change, noting the lack of discussion on local government. The theoretical framework then adopted institutional theory to guide the research, highlighting its key concepts and ideas. Similarly, your research will require an informed decision about the specific theory to guide you.
The theoretical framework is a natural extension of the literature review. The purpose of the literature review, amongst other things, is to highlight gaps and shortcomings with the existing work in your field. The theoretical framework details the perspective you will take to address that gap and shortcoming.
The theoretical framework isn’t a repeat of the literature review. Instead, it’s a focused literature review on your chosen theory. You don’t need to cover every possible aspect of the theory; examiners are likely familiar with it. Instead, discuss how and why the theory has been adapted for your research context.
Structuring Your PhD Theory Framework
When writing your theory framework, demonstrate your understanding of the broader theoretical school and define key concepts in relation to both the existing literature and your research questions. Consider these ten elements, not necessarily in order:
-
Aims and Objectives: Have a strong grasp of your research aims and objectives. Briefly recap them to remind the reader and relate your theory to these goals.
-
Theory/Theories: Define and explain each theory you’re using, discussing leading proponents and applications to demonstrate your understanding.
-
Justification: Critically argue why you’re adopting this particular theory. Relate your choice to the literature review and your aims and objectives.
-
Theoretical Schools: Can the theory be divided into schools? State which school you align with and why.
-
Key Concepts: Which concepts will you use? Define them properly and relate them to your aims and objectives. Your epistemological and ontological perspective will influence this section, determining whether you use hypotheses. If so, state them clearly.
-
Concept-Objective Relationship: How do the concepts relate to your aims and objectives?
-
Ontological and Epistemological Perspective: Clearly state your ontological and epistemological perspective.
-
Novelty: Are you the first to use this theory in this way? Discuss the benefits and drawbacks of this approach.
-
Limitations: Can you identify any limitations in applying this theory? Does it overlook a specific dimension or is it difficult to operationalize?
-
Concept Relationships: How are your concepts related? Are you using them as hypotheses, a model, or something in between? Be explicit about their relationships and your intended use.
The goal of writing a theoretical framework is to explain why you’ve chosen particular theories, how they relate to the gap in the literature, and how they connect to your aims and objectives. Following these steps is a good way to achieve that goal. You are likely to be moulding and interpreting the theory to suit your purposes, which requires you to discuss your take on the theory. So, read the first hand literature; you want to get to the source of the theory and, where possible, avoid relying on other people’s literature reviews.
Try not to fill your theoretical framework discussion with quotes though (the same is true of your literature review). The examiners want to see that you have understood the theory, not that you are capable of regurgitating it.
A Note on Ontology and Epistemology
While often disliked, ontology and epistemology are crucial. Differences in ontological and epistemological positions affect how you approach theory. Realists (e.g., positivists) view theory as testable propositions with concepts as variables measured quantitatively. Idealists (e.g., interpretivists) see theory as a lens for understanding the world, with concepts focusing attention on specific aspects of reality. There are no hypotheses to prove, only interpretations. Your choice of interpretation depends on your “toolbox.”
In either case, theories are meant to be tested and challenged. They are fluid and change over time in light of new evidence and new empirical application. If you are explicitly testing new or old theory, this is obvious. But even if you are using theory to interpret the world, you will still have something to say about the relevance of particular theories and concepts. Whilst it might not seem like it, this is a test of the theory and does advance our knowledge.
Choosing Theories and Creating Your Framework
Unless you’re using an inductive approach (generating theory from data), you’ll likely begin fieldwork with a theoretical framework. Your choice of theory depends on your aims, objectives, and the availability of relevant “off-the-shelf” theories.
Researchers generally use three strategies:
-
Established Theories: Utilize widely accepted theories based on repeated observation and testing.
-
Novel Framework: Select concepts from multiple theories to create a unique framework for your context.
-
Interdisciplinary Perspective: Adopt an interdisciplinary approach, looking beyond dominant theories to incorporate theories from other disciplines.
In any case, consider the following when selecting a theory: Identify your ontological and epistemological beliefs. List several theories that align with your epistemological position and which can aid your understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. Engage in literature review around those theories, both to familiarise yourself with them but also to understand their relevance to your study. Ask yourself how each theory connects to your problem, aims & objectives. Select the theory or theories that provide more relevant tools for your thesis.
Multiple Theories: What to Do?
Combining concepts from multiple theoretical schools is legitimate, as I did in my PhD. However, consider these questions: Are the theories epistemologically compatible? Have you discussed each theory in sufficient detail, justifying its inclusion, relating it to the literature, and acknowledging its drawbacks? What benefits does focusing on more than one theory bring? Perhaps one theory has shortcomings that the other addresses? What downsides are there to employing more than one theory? Has anyone else used this combination of theories before you?
Conclusion
The theoretical framework is a tricky section to write, largely because the choice available to you is huge. The theoretical framework is a tricky section to write, largely because the choice available to you is huge. But keep that toolbox metaphor in mind. Each theory contains a number of tools. Your job in the theory framework is to take the tools you need for your project from the most relevant theory/theories and package them up into your own toolbox. When you’re done, you should see that the theory framework offers: Structure, by detailing the key concepts, tools and, where relevant, hypotheses A way to connect to other research A coherent, joined up set of ideas that structure the writing and help to create an argumentative streak that can run throughout your thesis An approach that can be reused in additional contexts once you’re done Along the way, you need to convince the reader that you’ve picked and applied the most appropriate tools possible, given your aims and objectives. The theoretical framework frames the research. If you build that frame right, your research will shine. If you don’t then you’ll struggle.
